Interesting to note that one of the judges, Judge Reinhardt's wife is the head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, and had offered legal advice to the plaintiffs in this case. Normally, a judge would excuse himself from cases such as this, but not in this case. Talk about lack of impartiality!!

Several legal scholars have divided opinions on this subject of recusal.

See Web Link

Does one recuse oneself because one's spouse has a particular opinion on an issue? Judge Reinhardt has declared that he can be impartial. Is the issue then one of impropriety or a duty to sit and adjudicate?

Interesting that Reinhardt says "I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so." He said a memo explaining his decision more fully is forthcoming. How long has he known he would be on this case? How much time does he need to script his impartially?
This is like the fox saying "I'll watch your hens for you"! Impartial, highly doubtful!

I know a man who honestly wants to marry one of his goats... the furry white and brown one. Doesn't he have the right to do so and be as miserable as the majority of the other married people in the U.S.?? Why should the misery of marriage be inflicted upon only us hetrosexuals? I mean won't the attorneys still prosper from divorce whether it is homo or hetro (or other)? Money is money and that is all this is about.

Judge N. Randy Smith is a conservative who went to BYU. Should he excuse himself since his religious beliefs state that he show discrimination against other fellow Americans? Impartial? Highly doubtful!

I watched with interest but I didn't understand much of the 1st hour. The second hour made more sense.

The attorney representing the proponents of Prop. 8 was bright and slick. I still don't understand why so many Americans are against LGBT citizens getting married? Stumps me?

I have a hunch that this case will go to the US Supreme Court. I think that the attorneys against Prop. 8 won their case today.8

incidentally dave, take an aspirin and go to sleep...you'll feel better in the morning...are you and your husband getting along these days?

tee hee hee, tee hee hee...

@Really - I would say yes, if he went to BYU and a Mormon then there is definitely a high probability of impartiality in this case, just as Reinhardt has extreme prejudice.

This case needs to be looked at in the context of the law and the Constitution (not that much really applies to the Constitution these days).

And really, should it be this hard to decide a case? let's jsut be done with it either way and move on.

Me Too wrote: "This case needs to be looked at in the context of the law and the Constitution (not that much really applies to the Constitution these days)."

On the contrary, if the justices rule that the Prop 8 supports do not have standing to bring the case to court, it will be precisely because the law makes it clear what constitutes the parties to an action.

Because Prop 8 was law, only the governor and the state's attorney general have the legal standing to defend the law, and they have both declined. If they find the supports have no standing, the justices will have no option but to let the repeal stand, and the rule of law triumphs.

Is this stuff that happens in courts cool or what? This is not a perfect country but it is a great country. VIVA AMERICA! VIVA!

Bottom-line, denying humans the right to a union is unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. Marriage is non-governmental concern. Prop 8 is a violation of the rights of humans.

Any any nut-bag that brings up goats, dogs, cats, human minors as a potential partner is, is, is.. a nut-bag.

Cheers...

dublinmike, you can engage in whatever union you and your life partner agree on, just don't call it marriage. Nice attempt at redefining what is morally reprehensible and your Freudian reference to nut bags. Good luck with your civil union with the species of your choice.