To be shocked that the same would happen here only exposes your own ignorance of how the world works.
I am not shocked about it. I'm just pointing out that it's fucking retarded.
The real question to be asked is why this judge (and the one from the oil moratorium) did not recuse himself from this case.
Why the fuck would he? It would actually lead credence to the notion that a gay judge would be ineligible to rule on minority issues regarding gays and this is simply not the case. I'll refer you to loltsundere's post above as to why this is the case. Whether he's gay or not is completely irrelevant as his decision is well founded elaborately explained in his ruling. Being gay is no reason for a judicial disqualification.
Would an African-American judge need to recuse him/herself if called on to be a judge in a case concerning an African-American?
Would a judge who is an anime fan need to recuse himself if he was to judge a copyright case concerning anime distributors?
Would a judge who smoked marijuana in college need to recuse herself from all marijuana cases?
Does the "Clinton judge" that Steve is so worried about need to be recused from everything because of the appointment by the feckless, evil, and mendacious Bill Clinton? Would a Bush or Reagan appointee ever need to recuse themselves from anything Steve, or do they all comply with your standards of upright moral rectitude and purity of doctrine?
Does a christian judge need to recuse herself from all religion cases? How about an atheist judge? A buddhist judge?
If a judge loves dogs, does that mean he can't hear a case in which neighbors complain about dogs barking at night?
If a judge has money, does that mean that they can't rule on money damages? Must judges take a vow of poverty?
How about politics? Must judges have no political affiliation whatsoever? Can judges be allowed to vote in elections?
What if a former prosecutor ran for election to be a judge or was appointed as a judge? Must he now recuse himself from all criminal cases? How about a former public defender?
If Spiderman became a judge, would he have to recuse himself from all cases involving supervillains? (Actually, of the Marvel superheroes, She-Hulk is the most likely candidate to become a judge, seeing as she is a practicing attorney.)
These questions can go on and on. What is the actual rule for recusal? Hint: In sixteen years of practice, I've only seen a judge recuse humself once, and that was in a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder due to making specific threats and planning with another defendant to murder this particular judge.
I'm pretty sure our judges have to be robots... because the judge clearly has an interest in Humanity and should recuse himself from anything that deals with Humans.....
Oh sweet zombie jesus. I am discussing this in another forum I regularly visit and someone actually brought out the tirade of "multiple people, horse, oak tree, 13-year-old-girl, you can get married to all of them thanks to this ruling." The idiots, they're out there...
That seems only to reinforce that the bigots consider homosexuals to be sub-human.
Seeing as how we're frequently compared to dogs, turtles, foliage, bundles of sticks, etc., I'd say that was already really clear.
This is why over time I've just gradually stopped reading posts from people like that. Once it's on the internet, people will say whatever the hell they want, and they cannot be reasoned with by any fathomable measure. All it does in the end is make me feel absolutely furious at the world and less optimistic about our future. My old office used to use AOL (I know, right?) and man, fuck those comments. Scrolling down past news on AOL to the comments was so horribly depressing and outraging, I had to restrain myself from just losing it all over them and making our work account look like it belonged to a nutcase. I'm better off ignoring them.
And I mean this specifically pertaining to ranting bitchcakes on the internet, not real world stuff.
I was referring to the general sentiment expressed in 'after the fact' opinion pieces. These articles are written to imply that the judge should not have even heard the case because they are 'obviously biased' toward the outcome reached (an implied but not stated question of recusal). i.e "The real question to be asked [by the writer of the article] is why this judge did not recuse himself from this case."
They might as well ask the question because they are answering (or at least giving their opinion on) the question in the body of the article.
This is totally fantastic. Especially because it's from Texas. Especially especially because Fort Worth has an openly gay councilman willing to do this.
Still no mention of a federal court doing what congress couldn't do on Don't Ask Don't Tell? Like the article says though, the Obama administration is expected to appeal. Hm. ):<
Comments
@ California: It's about bloody time.
@ New York: I am lookin' at you Home-State.
Shocker: Judge Who Blocked Drilling Moratorium Has Massive Holdings in Energy Companies
Clinton Judge Rules against Arizona Immigration Law
To be shocked that the same would happen here only exposes your own ignorance of how the world works.
The real question to be asked is why this judge (and the one from the oil moratorium) did not recuse himself from this case.
Are you sure you understand what recusal means?
Would a judge who is an anime fan need to recuse himself if he was to judge a copyright case concerning anime distributors?
Would a judge who smoked marijuana in college need to recuse herself from all marijuana cases?
Does the "Clinton judge" that Steve is so worried about need to be recused from everything because of the appointment by the feckless, evil, and mendacious Bill Clinton? Would a Bush or Reagan appointee ever need to recuse themselves from anything Steve, or do they all comply with your standards of upright moral rectitude and purity of doctrine?
Does a christian judge need to recuse herself from all religion cases? How about an atheist judge? A buddhist judge?
If a judge loves dogs, does that mean he can't hear a case in which neighbors complain about dogs barking at night?
If a judge has money, does that mean that they can't rule on money damages? Must judges take a vow of poverty?
How about politics? Must judges have no political affiliation whatsoever? Can judges be allowed to vote in elections?
What if a former prosecutor ran for election to be a judge or was appointed as a judge? Must he now recuse himself from all criminal cases? How about a former public defender?
If Spiderman became a judge, would he have to recuse himself from all cases involving supervillains? (Actually, of the Marvel superheroes, She-Hulk is the most likely candidate to become a judge, seeing as she is a practicing attorney.)
These questions can go on and on. What is the actual rule for recusal? Hint: In sixteen years of practice, I've only seen a judge recuse humself once, and that was in a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder due to making specific threats and planning with another defendant to murder this particular judge.
(I think we've made our point)
This is why over time I've just gradually stopped reading posts from people like that. Once it's on the internet, people will say whatever the hell they want, and they cannot be reasoned with by any fathomable measure. All it does in the end is make me feel absolutely furious at the world and less optimistic about our future. My old office used to use AOL (I know, right?) and man, fuck those comments. Scrolling down past news on AOL to the comments was so horribly depressing and outraging, I had to restrain myself from just losing it all over them and making our work account look like it belonged to a nutcase. I'm better off ignoring them.
And I mean this specifically pertaining to ranting bitchcakes on the internet, not real world stuff.
They might as well ask the question because they are answering (or at least giving their opinion on) the question in the body of the article.
So if someone does some bestiality in Texas, it's AOK? WTF!