Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!

Smearing the Judge

In the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, political commentators on both sides of the issue of same-sex marriage have not been shy to express their opinions about the ruling.  One common refrain from the supporters of Proposition 8 has been that Judge Walker is (reportedly) gay, and was therefore biased in deciding this case.  This allegation has not just come from cable news pundits on evening talk shows, but also from Professor Gerald Bradley of Notre Dame Law School.  Professor Bradley argued that suggestions that Judge Walker may be in a same-sex relationship raise “an important and serious question about his fitness to preside over the case.”

When commentators such as Professor Bradley use reports about Judge Walker’s sexual orientation to question his objectivity, their own lack of objectivity is clear.  These arguments are intellectually disingenuous at best, and patently discriminatory at worst.

Foremost, Judge Walker did not choose this case; it was randomly assigned to him.  He faced the difficult task of ruling on a case that concerns a subject on which society is deeply divided.  Regardless of his decision, he faced the prospect of ridicule and criticism from one side or the other.

Many of the attacks on Judge Walker have not been based in sound legal reasoning, but thinly-veiled discrimination.  It seems doubtful that commentators like Professor Bradley would argue that we should engage in a dialogue questioning the objectivity of African-American, female, Catholic, or Jewish judges and their ability to be impartial on a number of matters.  Would they suggest that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas might not be fit to sit on a panel reviewing a case about affirmative action, where he might have a “personal interest” vis-à-vis his grandchildren?  Would Thurgood Marshall’s objectivity have been questioned if he had started his time on the Court two months earlier when the Court was deciding Loving v. Virginia (the case that struck down laws making interracial marriages illegal)?  Should married judges be subject to inquisition when sitting on a case about the scope of the marital privilege, or liability arising out of adultery?

Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 argued vehemently that opposite-sex marriages are harmed in a very real way by allowing same-sex marriages, that the institution of marriage is thereby destroyed and devalued.  A married heterosexual judge might want to protect his or her own marriage from such “deinstitutionalization,” and one could therefore suggest that he or she would have a personal interest in the outcome of cases like Perry.  It seems doubtful, though, that these commentators would question the objectivity of such heterosexual married judges.  If this understanding of recent commentators’ positions is mistaken, we should expect to read their articles questioning the impartiality of married members of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should they hear the Perry case on appeal in the coming months.

Some commentators have tried to cloak their discriminatory perspective by bringing up the question of Judge Walker’s sexual orientation, then swiftly proclaiming that they are not saying he was biased because of it.  What, then, was the point of bringing up his sexual orientation at all?  Such rhetorical maneuvers appear designed to encourage inferences that prey on people’s prejudices, and these prejudices have no place in debate about the merits or correctness of Judge Walker’s ruling.

Of course, to some extent we should be concerned with the potential political and personal influences on every judge in every case.  As the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made clear, issues related to the merits of diverse judicial perspectives, and the tension between bias and perspective in the judiciary and elsewhere, may warrant discussion and debate.  But to question Judge Walker’s “fitness to preside” solely because of his possible sexual orientation implies that gay and lesbian judges are somehow less capable of ruling objectively than are other judges.  Singling out a possibly gay judge as more deserving of scrutiny is the very definition of discrimination.

We should expect more from those who call themselves scholars and have assumed the role of educating students and the broader public about the law.  Regardless of how we each may feel about the issue of same-sex marriage, there is no legitimate reason to imply that gay and lesbian judges, because they are gay or lesbian, are somehow less able to be objective than anyone else in ruling on cases that implicate issues that may relate to their lives.  Tolerance and respect for members of our federal judiciary are traits we all should share.

To be sure, not all members of the anti-gay marriage position have attacked Judge Walker because of his alleged sexual orientation.  Professor Robert George, founder of the American Principles Project and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, questioned whether Judge Walker followed the law, but at no point did he attribute any alleged error to bias stemming from Judge Walker’s sexual orientation.  Professor George’s criticism would have applied equally to any member of the judiciary who ruled as Judge Walker did.  Professor’s George’s ability to critique Judge Walker without focusing on his sexual orientation underscores the discriminatory basis of arguments like the one made by Professor Bradley.

Everyone has a right to his or her opinion.  However, hiding discrimination behind intellectual arguments about “bias” and “personal interests” encourages weak thinking.  It does not teach us to properly question the objectivity of judges, but rather encourages us to rely on our own lack of objectivity when crafting legal arguments.  Regardless of our personal views and jurisprudential leanings, we should all be able to agree that the national dialogue on these issues deserves more.

SCOTT GRZENCZYK is a law student at the University of California – Davis School of Law.





More articles by:
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
Ralph Nader
Unmasking Phony Values Campaigns by the Corporatists
Victor Grossman
A Big Rally and a Bavarian Vote
James Bovard
Groped at the Airport: Congress Must End TSA’s Sexual Assaults on Women
Jeff Roby
Florida After Hurricane Michael: the Sad State of the Unheeded Planner
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Bradley Kaye
The Policy of Policing
Wim Laven
The Catholic Church Fails Sexual Abuse Victims
Kevin Cashman
One Year After Hurricane Maria: Employment in Puerto Rico is Down by 26,000
Dr. Hakim Young
Nonviolent Afghans Bring a Breath of Fresh Air
Karl Grossman
Irving Like vs. Big Nuke
Dan Corjescu
The New Politics of Climate Change
John Carter
The Plight of the Pyrenees: the Abandoned Guard Dogs of the West
Ted Rall
Brett Kavanaugh and the Politics of Emotion-Shaming
Graham Peebles
Sharing is Key to a New Economic and Democratic Order
Ed Rampell
The Advocates
Louis Proyect
The Education Business
David Yearsley
Shock-and-Awe Inside Oracle Arena