Blogs For Victory

If you’re going to be a fanatic, I guess you might as well go all the way:

…He doesn’t even want his ruling — which ignores Supreme Court precedent and imposes gay marriage against the expressed wishes of the electorate — appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Walker feels that only the state politicians who were against Proposition 8 have standing to appeal, while the over 7 million California voters who supported Proposition 8 shouldn’t be able to even present their position to a higher court. It’s outrageous. The people are supposed to be sovereign, not the politicians. This stay order will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and if necessary to Justice Anthony Kennedy, and I think it is a tactical mistake on Judge Walker’s part to display his injudicious zeal — once again — before Kennedy’s eyes.

It seems that Walker prefers to be the hero of the gay rights movement to being a judge – it is the only way to read this: he wants gay marriage and is determined to impose it on his own hook. He doesn’t care about the risk of over-turn on appeal – he’s got his fame among his ideological friends, and that is what he values more than anything else.

While the 9th circuit will probably flub its task – staying Walker’s ruling is the only rational course of action – it does seem that the Supreme Court, even if it wants to impose gay marriage, will not be pleased at the way Walker is going about his business.

UPDATE: How Glenn Beck gets it wrong on gay marriage.

UPDATE II: From Time, of all places – Walker might have sabotaged his own agenda:

And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet’s nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. “If the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, then it’s entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial,” Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. “This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial.”

Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn’t have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene — but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices…

It was flat out wrong for CA AG Brown to not go in to the case – for that, alone, he should have been removed from office in California (if you’re AG, you defend the laws – even if you don’t like them. Period.). Walker wanted a “legal” ruling so he allowed standing to a group of people, and then said they didn’t have standing because he knows darned well his ruling will be over turned on appeal…but if they don’t have standing now, then they didn’t have standing then. Can’t have it both ways, “judge”.

This just points out even more strongly the nature of this trial and ruling – what was wanted was a certain ruling, and Walker was determined to get it. Impeachment is a necessity – simply to defend the judicial system of the United States.