Should Judge Walked Recuse himself, since he is Gay?
Recently, it's come out that Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge on the Perry Vs. Schwarzenegger case is indeed, himself, Gay. Should he recuse himself from the case with this revelation, and do you believe it will have an impact on his ruling?
Yes, conflict of interest
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No, there is no basis for it
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
0
points
2
points
I knew nothing about the case until I typed it in on Google. He is the judge presiding over a case dealing with gay marriage - is this not so? The gender is irrelevent when dealing with abortion - there are pro-choice females and pro-life males; the gender is irrelevent, the only matter is whether or not they will allow their bias to stand in the way of a proper ruling. However, as with homosexuals, religious judges should not be presiding over religious trials - but neither should atheists. I have stated my belief that only an agnostic can really see both sides of the picture because they have little, if any, form of an agenda. However, in response to the topic, a homosexual should not preside over a trial involving rights of homosexuals because he is likely to allow his sexual orientation to influence his verdict. Side: Yes, conflict of interest
|
We do not ask non-white judges to recuse themselves from affirmative action or other discrimination cases. Unalterable characteristics are not reason to force someone to get rid of a case, and do not effect someones ability to exercise justice. He did not seek out the case, it was assigned to him at random. If someone disagrees with his ruling, however it goes, they can argue against his jurisprudence which will have zip to do with his sexuality. Side: No, there is no basis for it
3
points
The case has to do with gay marriage. If you assume that a gay judge cannot be impartial, then you also have to assume that a straight judge would also be impartial. That would leave no one to rule over the case, except..., maybe..., a bi-sexual judge..., but that's just silly ;) Side: No, there is no basis for it
1
point
|
