Monday, January 04, 2010

Prop 8 Judge's Unscrupulous, Suspicious Actions

Has the militant, revolutionary homosexual-"marriage" lobby gotten to Judge Vaughn Walker, who's presiding over the Proposition 8 case?

Or is the Judge already on their side?  Was he appointed to the bench due to Hard-Leftist worldview and activist orientation?

Eyebrow-raising story here.  More corruption on the bench.  Obviously the judge is a Radical Left-Wing Extremist.

(Emphasis mine)
Walker’s New Year’s Eve surprise is a critical step in his evident ongoing effort to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Proposition 8’s sponsors. Specifically, Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial. Televised coverage would generate much greater publicity for ringmaster Walker’s circus. And, whether Walker desires the effect or is somehow blind to it, televised coverage would surely also heighten the prospect that witnesses and attorneys supporting Proposition 8 would face harassment, intimidation, and abuse.


Counsel for Proposition 8’s sponsors learned of the purported amendment only after they had submitted a letter to Walker on December 28 that reiterated their objections to televising the courtroom proceedings and explained that televised proceedings would violate the court’s rules. In a follow-up letter on December 29, they explained that the purported amendment was unlawful.

Evidently realizing that his December 22 action was in fact unlawful, Walker directed that the December 31 notice inviting public comment be issued. But it’s clearly because of the purpose of the proposed revision — to enable televised coverage of the Proposition 8 case — that the period for public comments, which typically would run for 30 days or more, is so ridiculously short: It ends the Friday before the trial begins, so Walker will have time to rubber-stamp the revised rule. Walker might be able to claim that he will have technically complied with the governing federal statute, but his notice, issued on New Year’s Eve and affording only five business days for comment, could hardly be better calculated to evade the purpose of the statute.

These are kangaroo-court procedures. As counsel for the Proposition 8 sponsors spell out in their letters opposing televised proceedings, the fair-trial concerns that animate the Judicial Conference’s opposition to televised proceedings apply with special force in this case. Given all the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters that has already occurred, “it is not surprising,” as counsel’s December 28 letter puts it, that “potential witnesses have already expressed to [counsel] their great distress at the prospect of having their testimony televised” and that “some potential witnesses have indicated that they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse.” The likelihood of intensified harassment of counsel is also obvious.

Clearly, the judge's objective here is to intimidate.  This is wrong, unlawful and unconstitutional.
Of course, however, I fully expect the Left to jump automatically to the judge's defence, claiming that "there's nothing wrong with putting it on TV", conveniently ignoring the obviousness that there would be negative consequences stemming from televising a case of such an explosive nature.  We already know that opponents of Prop. 8 have indicated they're prepared to resort to violence to get what they want, and some already have.  And such violence would be motivated by hatred- religious and racial, for example.  Some of the extremists who oppose Prop. 8 have physically attacked Christians and have uttered hateful racial epithets at blacks.  Of course, the Big Old Media ignored it all, refusing to report such newsworthy incidents, thus protecting the extremists from fair consequences.  Why should these ultra-special, ultra-protected, ultra-exempt extremists be protected from appropriate consequences for such behavior as this?

See how far the Hard Left is willing to go to get what it wants?

See that the Hard Left doesn't want to follow the rules that're supposed to apply to everyone equally?  See how they believe that they're exempt, that they're specially permitted to do whatever they want to get what they want?


Audrey II said...

I'm not sure at what point equal rights and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation became the sole property of "the hard left", but if conservatives want to foster that kind of circular-firing-squad-esque spin, the political left will likely be more than glad to find agreement with libertarian leaning voters at the poll booths.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Good spin, Aud. Framing it as nothing more than "equal rights" and "non-discrimination". You've been trained well, apparently. Very "After-the-Ball" of you.

Unfortunately, such communications tactics don't work when Joe Public reads the whole thing, ie, my post and the link; not just your spin. That's the beauty of the New Age of Information- the Hard Left no longer controls the dissemination of information/disinformation.

You guys on the Hard Left have no idea how hard you're going to be falling in the near future, now that more and more folks everyday are getting clued into what's really going on.

Your folks used to win by virtually exclusively controlling the propaganda levers all over the place and misleading the population as to what's what. The inconvenient truth is that you no longer enjoy such monopolistic control; therefore as more and more folks discover the New News Media, the Social Media and such, things are going to change, and are going to be more and more equitable than before in terms of all stakeholders having a voice and having access to more competitively scrupulous and comprehensive sources of news and info from which to derive their knowledge and understanding of the world around them.

You folks are going to find it increasingly difficult to control the Peoples' perceptions, beliefs and actions because of this.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Seems to me also that you're a subscriber to the philosophy of the ends justifying the means.

With the means being whatever works, whether legal/illegal, ethical/unethical, moral/immoral, honest/dishonest, etc., etc...

Audrey II said...

Yes, I'm clearly someone that subscribes to Machiavellian ethics because I pointed out the probable consequences of the above-employed rhetoric. Brilliant deductive reasoning!

Canadian Sentinel said...

Nope, that's not why. You got it wrong.

You're Machiavellian because you're a Leftist who sides with those Machiavellian Leftists spotlighted by my post. In other words, you agree with them. This necessarily includes agreement with their means, as you clearly don't have a problem with them.

No problem with the judge's apparently poor acumen. No problem with the anti-Prop-8 side's cheating ways. Surely, if you had a problem therewith, then you wouldn't have attempted that lame, transparent, disingenuously diversionary spin (about the issue being about nothing but "equality" and "non-discrimination").

Audrey II said...

"You're Machiavellian because you're a Leftist who sides with those Machiavellian Leftists spotlighted by my post."

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure if that's much of an improvement in the deductive reasoning department, though.

"In other words, you agree with them"

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear in my comment above that my criticism was directed at your commentary. ¬A != B, but best of luck with the attempt to ascribe attributes to a vacuum!

Canadian Sentinel said...

Plenty of big words, no substance whatsoever.

Just allegations bearing verbal-diarrhea bling.

Yep. Leftist. You sure are, buddy.

Audrey II said...

What "allegations" are you talking about? That same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue? That rhetoric such as what originally posted regarding "The Hard Left" is likely to alienate libertarian-leaning voters?

Merely labeling something as having "no substance" or "bearing verbal-diarrhea bling" doesn't interact with what's being said in the slightest. Am I to understand that the above means you have no intention of doing so?

Canadian Sentinel said...