June 14, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Judges have a duty not only to apply the law without bias, but also to do so in a way that avoids even the mere appearance of impropriety.  This idea is a cornerstone of the judiciary.  Thus, the Supreme Court has long been clear that “no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.”  Against the backdrop of these bedrock principles, it is clear that the ruling of Judge Walker must be vacated.

Over eight months after declaring unconstitutional the democratic decision of over 7 million Californians to reaffirm traditional marriage, Judge Walker publicly revealed that he has been in a committed same-sex relationship for over 10 years. 

Instead of revealing these facts to the parties and their counsel, Judge Walker kept them to himself, even though the subject matter of the case presented an issue in which Judge Walker and his partner had a direct interest. 

Judge Walker’s course of conduct in this case heightens the appearance of partiality.  Indeed, on two separate occasions, for example, his orders in this case have already been reversed, including a dramatic intervention by the United States Supreme Court to stop his effort to televise the trial.

While parties have the option to request that a judge recuse himself, they can only do that when they possess the information necessary to make such a request.  When judges rule on cases in which they possess a direct and substantial personal interest, there can be no justice.  And when judges fail to disclose all relevant facts concerning their potential personal interest in the outcome of a case and permit the appearance of partiality, the entirety of our judicial process is undermined.

Judge Walker’s decision must be vacated and reconsidered by a neutral judge who has no direct and substantial personal interest in the outcome and whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned, as required by federal law. Only then can the court ensure that this case will be decided in accordance with the high standards that apply to the judicial process.

Austin R. Nimocks is Senior Legal Counsel for Alliance Defense Fund.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.