Motion Asking Judge Reinhardt to Recuse Himself from the Prop. 8 Case
(Eugene Volokh)
Orin blogged yesterday about the suggestion that Judge Reinhardt recuse himself from the Prop. 8 case, so I thought it would be helpful to post the motion that was just filed with such a request. Here’s the Statement from the start of the motion (with most citations omitted), which summarizes the argument, though please read the whole thing if you’re interested in the issue:
On November 28, 2010, this Court identified Circuit Judges Reinhardt, Hawkins, and N.R. Smith as the members of the panel assigned to this case. Judge Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, the long-time Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California (hereinafter, “ACLU/SC”). As Executive Director, Ms. Ripston is “responsible for all phases of the organization’s programs, including litigation, lobbying and education.” Under Ms. Ripston’s leadership, “ACLU/SC has taken a lead role” in what it calls “the fight to end marriage discrimination” in California. ACLU/SC 2007–2008 Annual Report 24, at http://www.aclu-sc.org/downloads/9/204927.pdf. ACLU/SC represented several same-sex couples and organizations in In re Marriage Cases, in which the California Supreme Court held that California’s pre-Proposition 8 statutory definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the State Constitution.
Following that decision, ACLU/SC put Proposition 8 “at the forefront of [its] civil-rights agenda, sparing no effort to defeat Prop. 8 [and] challenge its passage.” ACLU/SC 2008–2009 Annual Report 8, at http://www.aclusc.org/documents/view/223. After Proposition 8’s passage ACLU/SC represented petitioners before the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, the unsuccessful state-law challenge to the validity of Proposition 8. The same day the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Strauss, Ms. Ripston issued a public statement on behalf of ACLU/SC, vowing that “[a] renewed effort to overturn Proposition 8 begins today.” Ms. Ripston later signed a letter on behalf of ACLU/SC explaining that as part of that effort, “LGBT people and our closest allies are first going to have to talk to close friends and family about … why this fight [for same-sex marriage] matters. Even if those people are already on our side, we need to talk to them to convince them to join the fight.”
ACLU/SC has taken an active role in this litigation. It appears that Plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged in “confidential discussions” with Ms. Ripston and ACLU/SC’s legal director before filing this lawsuit. See Chuleenan Svetvilas, Challenging Prop 8: The Hidden Story, CALIFORNIA LAWYER, Jan. 2010, at http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=906575&evid=1. And ACLU/SC has been actively involved in this very case. Indeed, it represented, as counsel in the court below, parties seeking to intervene as plaintiffs, see Our Family Coalition et al. Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiffs, Doc. No. 79 at 2 (July 8, 2009), and amici urging the court to decide the case in favor of Plaintiffs and to rule that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. See Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union et al., Doc. No. 62 at 2 (June 25, 2009); Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union et al., Doc. No. 552 at 2 (Feb. 3, 2010). [footnote 3]
[Footnote 3:] Indeed, in the accompanying motions for leave to file these amicus briefs, the statement of amici interest specifically lists ACLU/SC as an affiliate of an amicus curiae. See Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union et al., Doc. No. 61 at 3 (June 25, 2009) (identifying “the ACLU Foundation of Southern California” as one of “the three California affiliates of the ACLU”); Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union et al., Doc. No. 551 at 3 (Feb. 3, 2010) (same).
When the district court issued the ruling under review in this Court, the ACLU issued a public statement praising the decision and emphasizing that the ACLU, along with two other groups, had “filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case supporting the argument that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.” The press release quoted Ms. Ripston as “rejoic[ing]” in the decision striking down Proposition 8, asserting that it “affirms that in America we don’t treat people differently based on their sexual orientation.” Ms. Ripston’s statement was reported in the national media. At the same time, Ms. Ripston stated that the district court’s ruling was not the end of the matter, emphasizing that “it’s a long road ahead until final victory.” Specifically, as one of her colleagues put it in the same public statement, “[i]n order to give this case the best possible chance of success as it moves through the appeals courts, we need to show that America is ready for same-sex couples to marry by continuing to seek marriage and other relationship protections in states across the country” (emphasis added).
Naturally, if there’s a response filed (or some rebuttal published by someone who is not a party), I’d be delighted to link to it as well. I don’t have a fixed view on what the right result is, since I’m not an expert on this aspect of judicial recusal law, but I thought it was worth linking to the legal argument.
GOP Judges Write Senators Asking Them To Stop Obstructing President Obama’s Judges
Earlier this week, seven Republican-appointed federal judges co-signed a letter warning of the consequences of the GOP’s systematic obstruction of President Obama’s judges. The letter from the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, which includes Republican appointees Alex Kozinski, Ralph Beistline, Vaughn Walker, Irma Gonzales, Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, Richard Frank Cebull, Lonny Ray Suko, explains:
In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission. While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges. Our need in that regard has been amply documented (See attached March 2009 Judicial Conference Recommendations for Additional Judgeships). Courts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant.
While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly assisted if our judicial vacancies-some of which have been open for several years and declared “judicial emergencies”-were to be filled promptly. We respectfully request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without delay.
Although the letter is written in the respectful tone that judges generally adopt when speaking to their colleagues, this kind of advocacy by judges is exceptionally rare. Indeed, judges so rarely speak out about the judicial confirmation process that when conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke out against GOP obstructionism of President Clinton’s nominees in 1997, the event stunned senators into action. Judicial confirmations increased from only 36 in 1997 to 65 in 1998. GOP obstructionism has now gotten so serious that only 41 judges have been confirmed during Obama’s entire presidency.
An op-ed co-authored by retired GOP Judge Timothy Lewis provides a grim accessment of what will happen if Republicans continue their “delay for delay’s sake” tactics: “They are creating an unprecedented shortfall of judicial confirmations and, ultimately, a shortage of judges available to hear cases. For many Americans, this means justice is likely to be unnecessarily delayed — and often denied.”
GOP Judges Write Senators Asking Them To Stop Obstructing President Obama’s Judges
Earlier this week, seven Republican-appointed federal judges co-signed a letter warning of the consequences of the GOP’s systematic obstruction of President Obama’s judges. The letter from the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, which includes Republican appointees Alex Kozinski, Ralph Beistline, Vaughn Walker, Irma Gonzales, Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, Richard Frank Cebull, Lonny Ray Suko, explains that:
In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission. While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges. Our need in that regard has been amply documented (See attached March 2009 Judicial Conference Recommendations for Additional Judgeships). Courts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant.
While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly assisted if our judicial vacancies-some of which have been open for several years and declared “judicial emergencies”-were to be filled promptly. We respectfully request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without delay.
Although the letter is written in the respectful tone that judges generally adopt when speaking to their colleagues, this kind of advocacy by judges is exceptionally rare. Indeed, judges so rarely speak out about the judicial confirmation process that when conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke out against GOP obstructionism of President Clinton’s nominees in 1997, the event stunned senators into action. Judicial confirmations increased from only 36 in 1997 to 65 in 1998. GOP obstructionism has now gotten so serious that only 41 judges have been confirmed during Obama’s entire presidency.
An op-ed co-authored by retired GOP Judge Timothy Lewis provides a grim accessment of what will happen if Republicans continue their “delay for delay’s sake” tactics: “They are creating an unprecedented shortfall of judicial confirmations and, ultimately, a shortage of judges available to hear cases. For many Americans, this means justice is likely to be unnecessarily delayed — and often denied.”
Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.
AKSen: NRSC asking for contributions to fund recount effort on behalf of Miller
After sitting on their hands for a few days, Roll Call is reporting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is asking its supporters for contributions to fund the legal efforts of Joe Miller-the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Alaska.
Sore loser Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski staged a write-in campaign that may see her return to the US Senate.
It’s comforting to see that the NRSC remembers who the GOP nominee in Alaska is.
Technorati tags: 
Democrats politics news Republican Senate lisa murkowski alaska tea party joe miller
The Question Everyone is Asking: Who gets the first subpoena?
Let the subpoenas fly.
American Thinker Blog
But wearing buttons asking for Voter ID is not OK in Minnesota
Tea Party folks in Minnesota want to wear buttons daring the elections personnel to ID them. No go:
Plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge rests on the prohibition of wearing Tea Partyparaphernalia and the “Please I.D. Me” buttons at or about the polling place. Plaintiffs argue thatthe prohibition is not viewpoint neutral because their organizations are being singled out by stateauthorities. Such a finding would require evidence that they are being targeted in ways thatothers are not. The record is, however, devoid of such evidence beyond mere speculation on thispoint. Moreover, prohibiting the buttons and apparel is reasonably related to the state’slegitimate interests. The record suggests that the buttons are designed to affect the actual votingprocess at the polls by intimating that voters are required to show identification before voting.This intimation could confuse voters and election officials and cause voters to refrain fromvoting because of increased delays or the misapprehension that identification is required. The buttons are also associated with a political movement to require voters to produce identification.
Nice try, though, eh?
Virginia Thomas Leaves Anita Hill a Voicemail Asking for An Apology — Hill Says No
A few days ago, Brandeis University professor Anita Hill received a message on her voice mail at work.
Political Punch
Network pulls ad asking Latinos not to vote
(CNN) – The Spanish language television network Univision is pulling television and radio ads from the group Latinos for Reform, which urge people not to vote.
In the ads, which were set to begin airing on Univision on Thursday, a Spanish speaking narrator cites the Obama administration’s lack of action on immigration reform and tells viewers “This November we need to send a message to all politicians. If they didn’t keep their promise on immigration reform, then they can’t count on our vote.”
“Don’t vote this November,” the narrator says as a bell tolls. “This is the only way to send them a clear message, you can no longer take us for granted. Don’t vote.”
Robert Deposada, chairman of the activist group Latinos for Reform and a conservative political analyst for Univision, told CNN that a sales representative called him Wednesday and said that the “concept of the message was not in line with their views.”
“Univision will not be running any spots from Latinos for Reform related to voting.” Univision spokeswoman Monica Talan confirmed in an email to CNN.
“It is also important to clarify that while Mr. Robert de Posada has on occasion provided political commentary on Univision, representing one of various points of views, he is not in any way affiliated with Univision. Univision prides itself on promoting civic engagement and our extensive national campaigns encourage Hispanics to vote.”
Deposada said he believes Univision execs “didn’t want to set Harry Reid off,” and that he has now cancelled his appearances on the network.
According to Deposada, a radio version of the ad ran about five times on Tuesday but the television version never aired.
The ad, which was also posted online, features the iconic ‘Change’ poster of Barack Obama from the 2008 presidential election and pictures of members of the Democratic leadership including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer (California), Rep. Maxine Waters (California) and Rep. Charles Rangel (New York).
Deposada said he is now reassessing the group’s strategy, but insists he has not given up in pushing the message of the ad he produced, which is that President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress did not keep their promises to the Hispanic community.
He calls it a campaign to “highlight the empty promises,” especially on illegal immigration.
About 6.5 million Hispanic voters will likely cast their ballots this year, according to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials nearly 1 million more than in the last midterm elections in 2006.
-CNN’s Evan Glass and Lesa Jansen contributed to this report.
Quote of the Day: When a Candidate’s Security Handcuffs a Tough Question Asking Reporter
Our political and media-related Quote of the Day comes via a Huffington Post interview with Tom Hopfinger, who talks about his being handcuffed by Tea Party movement hero and GOP candidate Joe Miller’s security forces after he would not stop asking unwelcome questions at an event on public property:
“Getting handcuffed by somebody you don’t know at a public school, no one had said it was a private event or cast it that way, I mean intimidated, yeah [I was]. But I guess I was more pissed off. Miller, I felt, was going to answer my question on the reprimand part,” said Hopfinger.
“I think, just like in other parts of the country, the media is finding itself having a hard time doing its job in this political cycle because, whenever we ask questions, there are certain candidates out there who decry ‘lamestream media’ or whatever. Mr. Miller has had plenty of time to answer questions. He has been given plenty of opportunities. He somehow believes he shouldn’t be questioned about his background and yet he wants a job in six years, to a post where there are only 100 in the entire country, and we are not supposed to ask questions about anything of his past. There is a little bit of shoot the messenger. It is happening up here, and other parts of the country. There are certain candidates who just want to turn this around and act like it’s the media causing the problem. That has always been there, that element. It is just more ramped up this political cycle.”
What’s sad is in blog posts and comments on some blogs you can see some Republicans automatically defending Miller. No, this is NOT about being “liberal” or “conservative.” It is not about being Republican, independent of Democrat.
It’s about the fact that when a report maybe a pain in the A a)a candidate’s security members handcuff him b)it comes in the context of some candidates only willing to be questioned by unabashed partisan promoter Sean Hannity where they can do de facto fundraising commercials or ask people to go to their website and get softball questions, c)candidates virtually fleeing reporters, d)politicians who don’t like reporters suggesting they are somehow impotent.
We don’t handcuff reporters who are pesky and ask tough questions. You can blow them off, ignore them or give them a non answer.
I suspect most Alaskans won’t be pleased with this episode and, at the least, Miller has not helped his campaign and will lose some voters.
Paul blasts Conway for ad in debate, asking “Have you no shame?”
Apparently not.
Rand Paul hit Jack Conway during yesterday’s Senate debate in Kentucky for a wildly misleading ad about a college prank from almost thirty years ago. In this clip, Paul explains that he has been a committed pro-life Christian, and that Conway had crossed a line by attacking his religious commitment in a campaign ad. Paul […]
Report: Romney boosted book sales by asking institutions to buy copies in lieu of speech fees
Math.
Two ways to look at this. One: Smart businessman makes smart business decision. Two: Mitt’s a phony. I wonder which read most of our commenters will prefer. I’m throwing this fastball right down the middle for you, Palin fans. Swing away. Romney’s book tour ran from early March to late May of this year, and […]
India: Muslims thrash reporter for asking an inconvenient question
Reporters like Michael Kruse, Manya Brachear and Kenneth P. Vogel might take careful note about how their masters will ultimately treat them. “Video: Bukhari thrashes scribe over Ayodhya query,” from PTI, October 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Shahi Imam of the Delhi Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, on Thursday lost his cool when a journalist questioned him regarding the Ayodhya verdict during a press conference, following which he was thrashed by supporters of the cleric.
Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, a reporter with a local Urdu daily, raised a question relating to the ownership of the disputed site before the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.
Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath’s name in land records of 1528 before the Babri mosque was constructed.
Initially, Bukhari skirted the question but when the journalist insisted, he was threatened.
“Get him out of this conference, Bukhari shouted while accusing the journalist of working against the interests of the Muslims,” he said.
Bukhari’s supporters then thrashed the journalist in full public glare.
People like him will ‘not be tolerated by Muslims at any cost,’ the Shahi Imam said before leaving the press conference….
O’Donnell So Fervently Pro-Truth That She Wouldn’t Lie To Nazis Asking If She Were Hiding Jews In Her Home
Long before Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell rocked the Delaware GOP by upending establishment favorite Mike Castle, she founded a group named the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT). SALT focuses on promoting Christian morality among Generation X and places particular emphasis on always telling the truth. In 1998, while O’Donnell was a guest on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, she elaborated on this point, arguing that “telling the truth is always the right thing to do, I believe, and that’s what always gets you out of a situation.”
Comedian Eddie Izzard pressed her on just how far she would take her anti-lying beliefs. Izzard asked O’Donnell whether or not she would lie to Nazis who showed up at her door during WWII and demanded to know if she were hiding any Jewish people in her house. O’Donnell refused to even entertain the notion of concealing the truth from Nazis in that scenario because “you never have to practice deception”:
O’DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you’re exaggerating or lying to, because it’s not respecting reality.
MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.
IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, ‘do you have any Jewish people in your house?’ and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.
O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!
MAHER: God is not there. Hitler’s there and you’re there.
O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.
In addition to the fact that O’Donnell’s unwillingness to lie about the Jews’ whereabouts would have almost certainly resulted in their capture and imprisonment, an important question must be asked: Does O’Donnell believe that those brave Gentile families who hid Jews from the Nazis weren’t righteous because they practiced deception?
At the end of the show, O’Donnell also proclaimed that “we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we’re having weekly shootings practically.” Watch here:
35% of Porkulus Has NOT Been Spent Yet-But POTUS Asking For More
When I was growing up, my Mom always told me that I should finish what was on my plate before I asked for more, perhaps President Obama should follow my Mother’s advice. When the stimulus bill was passed nineteen months ago, we were told that the nearly billion dollars of new federal spending would be invested in “shovel ready projects,” much of it on infrastructure. That, as Congressman Wilson might say, is a lie.
While the American economy continues to sink into the toilet 19 months after the passage of the porkulus bill, 35% of the money from the legislation has not been spent.
Using the data from ProPublica, the chart below shows that almost $ 280 of the $ 790 billion original fiscal stimulus program is still in the system either unspent or in progress’ total 35% of the total
This $ 278 billion will likely be delivered by the end of 2010, and it’s a huge sum for just four months. Obviously the Democrats were so sure that the first 65% would work, they gambled on the remaining dollars hitting around election day. Oops that didn’t work .
Now the President wants to spend even more on infrastructure. Over the weekend he announced
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
Democrats asking voters to forget their record
I doubt this will work any better than trying to run away from an unpopular president or criticize their own party leader.
American Thinker Blog
