The Corner

Critics’ Pervasive Distortion of Recusal Issue in Prop 8 Case

Last summer, federal district Vaughn Walker’s extraordinary course of misdeeds in the case attacking marriage in California culminated in his wild — and, as one same-sex marriage advocate put it, “radical” — ruling striking down Proposition 8. That ruling ignored binding Supreme Court  and Ninth Circuit precedent, concocted absurd   findings factual, and grossly misstated the state of the record on key points.

Last month, Walker, now retired from the bench, disclosed for the first time that he is in a ten-year-long same-sex relationship. That disclosure triggered a motion by Prop 8 proponents to vacate Walker’s anti-Prop 8 judgment on the ground that he had improperly failed to recuse himself from the case. As I discuss more fully in these  two recent Bench Memos posts, the essential argument made by Prop 8 proponents is not merely that Walker stood to benefit from his ruling, but that he was deciding whether to confer on himself a valuable legal right that a reasonable person would believe he had a strong and particular interest in exercising. Nearly all critics of the motion have persisted in misrepresenting its core argument.

The distortions continue. Today’s Washington Post carries a front-page story on the motion. That article falsely states at the outset that the motion argues merely that Walker “could benefit personally from his decision if he wanted to marry his partner” and then presents various legal ethicists who attack that straw man. Similarly, this house editorial  in today’s New York Times does not present the actual argument for recusal and instead attacks the “open-ended logic” of an argument that Prop 8 proponents don’t make.

When critics of a position can’t even accurately present it, it’s a good sign that they have no sound argument against it.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More