*So if — a gay judge should recuse himself because he has a reason for the case going one way

*Then — a straight judge should recuse himself for having a reason for the case going the other way way

*But if a straight judge shouldn’t be recused — then that means they don’t have a reason for the case going the other way??

so….um….win?

“This article perpetuates the notion that straight white people are neutral and dispassionate, whereas everyone else is biased in favor of their own kind.”

A nice and succinct way of illustrating the absurdity of any argument against his impartiality.

Boise and Olson are brilliant attorneys, and I have to assume that if they believed this to be a problem, they’d have asked Judge Walker to recuse himself (meaning they’d have asked him to take himself off the case).

Judges are expected to recuse themselves when the circumstances are such that they can’t render an unbiased decision or when their impartiality might be questioned. When they have a personal or financial interest in the case, they’re expected to not participate in decisions.

But this only happens infrequently — judges are generally presumed to be neutral, and the circumstances have to be pretty significant to warrant recusal. (For example/perspective, consider that last year only 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled that a Judge needed to recuse himself in a case where one of the parties had contributed $3 million to his election campaign).

For a relevant comparison to prior case law, I’d direct you here: http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/02/judge-walkers-nonsecret-is-out.html.

The author quotes from a relevant (though not controlling) case from the Civil Rights Era, where attorneys sought to have a judge disqualified from the case, because she “strongly identified with those who suffered discrimination in employment because of sex or race” (read: she was African-American and female).

As the judge pointed out: “If background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex…” Accordingly, she did not recuse herself and as far as I can tell, the decision stands.

In comparison — this case affects the definition of marriage. That affects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. If one person were forced to recuse himself based on sexual orientation, it would seem that no one would be qualified to hear the case because everyone has a sexual orientation.