Just proves again (from the bashing from the right wing nuts) that anyone who is not White, Straight or Male has to "explain" or prove that they will overcome their "inherent bias' in not being Straight, White and Male. Straight White Males (and Christian too) are not asked to prove that they won't favor their own demographic in their rulings, but everyone else is (Can you imagine if a Muslim was nominated for the Supreme Court???). When Sotomayor was being confirmed she had to prove she wasn't biased toward hispanics because of her heritage, while Sam Alito was praised for his Italian heritage during his confirmation.
As we all know Straight White Males have never had any biases in the history of America.
It just shows how this country still believes that straight white and male is the "normal" state of things and anything else MUST be explained.
Why wouldn't a straight judge be biased toward his own sexuality? A question that would NEVER even be asked, but for a gay judge...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gay judge has proven record of impartiality
ON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER
February 09, 2010
Vaughn Walker almost lost his chance to reach the federal bench because of claims that he was anti-gay and hostile to civil rights. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. His first appointment, from President Ronald Reagan in 1987, stalled out in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
His nomination was renewed by President George H.W. Bush in early 1989.
Back then, Walker struggled to assure skeptical liberals that, as a judge, he could rule with impartiality even though he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in its successful effort to prevent an athletic competition in San Francisco from being called the Gay Olympic Games. He was harshly criticized for putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS. Walker insisted that he was not anti-gay and was only doing his best to serve his client.
Walker also was under fire for his membership in San Francisco's all-male Olympic Club. He resigned during the nomination process, which helped cement his confirmation.
Those who understood the distinct roles of lawyer-advocate and judge recognized that a person of ethics and fidelity to the law could separate his or her personal views and experiences from professional duty.
Today, at age 65, Judge Walker is presiding over the challenge to Proposition 8, which may well determine how quickly gays and lesbians achieve full marriage equality in this country. We now know what Walker never bothered to reveal when he was being castigated as anti-gay: He is gay, which changes neither his legal history nor his fitness for this assignment.
A judge's sexual orientation does not inherently shade his ability to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution with clear-eyed wisdom. Assuming this case advances on appeal, no matter how Walker rules, there almost certainly will be jurists who will need to set aside their religion's teachings - and, quite likely, the impact of their ruling on close friends or even a family member - as they do their utmost to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.
Walker did not think his private life was relevant to his ability to preside with fairness in the Prop. 8 trial. There is nothing in his long and laudable career to suggest otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment