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.
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?