The Cato Institute's David Boaz blogs that Judge Vaughn Walker, who just struck down the California ban on same-sex marriage, is no "San Francisco liberal" (as some marriage equality opponents are claiming). In fact, "progressives" and gay activists fought his appointment. As Boaz writes:
Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III. ... Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan's term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December. ...
[C]oalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.
In other words, this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It's a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.
It almost makes you doubt whether progressives really are smarter and more insightful than the rest of us.
More. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal predicts that Justice Kennedy, based on the consistency of his pro-gay equality rulings, will vote to uphold Judge Walker's decision:
Yet while Kennedy cannot be pigeonholed in terms of "ideology," on this specific topic, he has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals. He not only voted with the majority but wrote the majority opinions in two crucial cases: Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). ... Those who see Justice Kennedy's position in Perry as difficult to predict in effect entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do" with his decisions on the court.
Kennedy, too, was a Reagan appointee opposed by liberal advocacy groups.
Furthermore. Jon Rowe has a different prediction.
It will be interesting to see if Perry meets up with July's federal district court ruling in Boston that found parts of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.
20 Comments for “Judge Walker: A Reagan Appointee, Opposed by Progressives and Gays”
posted by jpeckjr on
You know, that last sentence was completely unnecessary. Conservatives and reactionaries have opposed judicial nominees for unfounded reasons too. No one of any ideological bent is so smart or insightful as to predict with 100% precision what will happen in the future. Not even you, you arrogant horse turd.
posted by Jimmy on
So, we can dispense with this BS about activist judges.
posted by another steve on
You know, that last sentence was completely unnecessary…
Miller makes a valid point. HRC opposes federal judicial nominees consistently because of issues that have nothing to do with gay rights. Walker is a libertarian-minded constitionalist. He opposes big government that extends beyond the constitution, and so HRC opposed him. HRC also opposed (this time successfully) George W. Bush’s nomination of Judge Charles W. Pickering of Mississippi to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pickering was supported by Log Cabin because of his pro-gay ruling in the Camp Sister Spirit case, but HRC opposed him. This stuff is relevant.
posted by Bobby on
“It almost makes you doubt whether progressives really are smarter and more insightful than the rest of us.”
—They just think they are. Have you seen Bill Maher saying that the average American is stupid and you need to force change on them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4datkjjee88
And don’t get me started on congressman Pete Stark, that man is the reason why we should have term limits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBP2sbhjCA
posted by BobN on
A fine article (for a change) from Mr. Miller.
Now go put it in front of an audience that needs to hear it. Surely you know someone with some influence somewhere who could get you into, say, The Washington Times.
posted by p² on
Stephen, you might need a couple days at the beach. That final sentence was uncharacteristically petty.
What I think IS true is that people are willing to play politics until they are told their job is no longer dependent on it, then they feel free to think for themselves and change their minds. That’s why no president will ever be able to feel 100% confident about a judicial appointment.
posted by jimmy on
“That’s why no president will ever be able to feel 100% confident about a judicial appointment.”
That is also why an independent judiciary is so vital. Sandra day O’Connor was absolutely correct about getting rid of election for judges.
posted by Jorge on
Now go put it in front of an audience that needs to hear it. Surely you know someone with some influence somewhere who could get you into, say, The Washington Times.
It’s called the Tea Party movement.
posted by Debrah on
It’s important that such decisions be made through the Democratic process and not by judicial decree based on made-up constitutional law.
Eugene Volokh weighs in.
The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage and Constitutional Amendments
“……I recognize of course that Judge Walker is a Republican appointee; but I take it that it is generally conservatives who oppose his decisions and liberals who support it, and that the voters would recognize that despite the political affiliation of this one judge.”
In other news…….
19 Cross-Dressers flogged under Sharia Law
posted by Carl on
So…
20 years ago, progressives and gays opposed this appointment and said little about it since.
Here and now, conservatives were outraged when they heard he was taking the case, and went out of their way to out him to the public and repeatedly insist that a gay judge is in no way capable of being fair-minded on this issue (never mind that a lesbian supreme court justice in Massachusetts ruled against legalizing gay marriage).
And progressives and gays are the ones who need to be chided?
As always, conservatives get a free pass.
posted by Bobby on
“As always, conservatives get a free pass.”
—No, conservatives get a chance on Fox, everywhere else get villified. Here’s an example from a comment on advocate.com
“I can’t imagine a more gay-friendly school that NYU. As a student there, I know that if you’re a homophobe or at all conservative, ESPECIALLY if you attend Tisch, you’re pushed to the bottom and thought of as scum.”
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/04/UCLA,_Princeton_Top_Friendliest_Colleges_List/
Of course, “homophobe” nowadays doesn’t mean gay basher but anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage. I guess that makes Elton John a homophobe.
posted by Jimmy on
“No, conservatives get a chance on Fox, everywhere else get villified.”
Poor things.
posted by Lymis on
“It almost makes you doubt whether progressives really are smarter and more insightful than the rest of us.”
Since the objections to him at the time were based entirely on his actual judicial record at the time, and your snark is based entirely on his subsequent actions, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that progressives aren’t able to foresee the future.
Unless you are somehow trying to make the case either that prior judicial history is no indicator of future rulings, or that a majority of judicial candidates opposed by progressive groups go on to be progressive heroes.
posted by Carl on
“—No, conservatives get a chance on Fox, everywhere else get villified. ”
I wouldn’t say they are vilified here. Their behavior regarding this judge went unmentioned.
posted by BobN on
Eugene Volokh weighs in.
Yes, EV and the other Conspirators, like good like “conservatives”, are spending thread after thread discussing political triangulation and tactics instead of addressing the legal issues in the decision. Pretty odd behavior on their part, as they almost always focus on the meat and potatoes. But what could one expect from one of the country’s foremost “conservative” legal blogs… they’re too timid to say they agree with Walker (or don’t).
posted by JP on
“judicial decree based on made-up constitutional law”-Debrah
Hey Deb, go to school.
posted by Debrah on
“Hey Deb, go to school.”
*********************************************
Thanks, I’ve already done all that.
It might interest you to know that my statement which you quoted is shared by none other than nationally-known journalist and Harvard Law School alumnus Stuart Taylor, Jr.
I’ll leave it to others to decide if he might also need to “go to school”.
posted by Debrah on
By the way, along with this article is a video of Jonathan Rauch’s FIRE keynote speech recently.
This particular video is a clearer version than the earlier one.
posted by Debrah on
More on the Wikileaks saga and Assange
Ugh! His mop has gone totally gray. Serves him right.
“If the ultimate goal of Wikileaks’ foray into American foreign policy really is to get the American people on their side, it would benefit them to at least try to be cordial with the media through which the American people interpret them.”
posted by Tim on
Why do homosexuals expect to be treated like humans? I know dogs who approach each others butts, and they are not eligible to be put on my family health insurance plan.