Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[cinyc]

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge couldn't rule fairly in a case involving the legality of a gay partnership referendum is not the same as saying gay people can't be judges.   One is a statement that a judge with a (perceived) conflict of interest shouldn't hear a particular case.  Another is a blanket statement that simply wasn't made here.  Judges recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  She probably shouldn't here, but who knows what will happen?

[cinyc]

cinyc,

She's an activist judge in that...she's not closeted about her homosexuality?  And she once called herself a "dyke" to the Seattle Weekly, the only gay-related thing in her career that I've been informed of.  Does doing that qualify someone as an activist?

I don't know what evidence those who initially made the statement have or don't have about the judge's level of activism.  If all that they have is that she's openly homosexual and called herself a dyke to some newspaper, that's woefully insufficient grounds for recusal.  But if she's truly a gay activist who has been personally involved in the fight over the referendum, it might be.   That's why I said "Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge..." not this judge is (or isn't) a homosexual activist judge.

My main point is that the people who made the statement didn't say gay people can't be judges ever, as Holmes claimed, just that she may not be fit to hear this particular case.  The latter is unlikely from the evidence we have, but possible based on evidence we don't have which may or may not exist.

[cinyc]

By claiming that a gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that gay judges aren't capable of being impartial. And if you're saying a judge isn't capable of being impartial then you're also essentially saying they aren't capable of being a judge.

If the R-71 folks truly did feel that a gay judge was capable of making a ruling then they'd have no problems with this judge as there'd be no reason to think she couldn't be impartial on the issue other then the fact that she's gay.

No - by claiming that an ACTIVIST gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that ACTIVIST gay judges aren't capable of being impartial on CASES INVOLVING GAY ISSUES, not all cases generally.  And if you're saying an ACTIVIST judge isn't capable of being impartial on ISSUES ON WHICH THEY ARE ACTIVISTS, then you're essentially saying the judge is BIASED WHEN JUDGING A PARTICULAR CASE, not incapable of being a judge generally.

IF the proponents have actual evidence of the judge's activism (and, as I said twice before, it doesn't sound like they do), what they are asking is no different than if a school funding referendum were on the ballot and the judge vociferously protested or signed a petition against it.   Should he or she recuse himself?  Of course.  Does that mean he or she is unfit to judge in all cases?  Of course not.

The fact is that parties ask judges to recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  That their impartiality in a particular case is questioned doesn't make them unfit to judge generally.

[cinyc]

They endorsed Reichert for both his re-elects. They are supposed to be the conservative paper in the Seattle area, the liberal paper was the Post-Intelligencer.

To what extent is that true?  Didn't the Seattle PI fire practically everyone and cease printing a physical newspaper?   Did the Seattle Times pick up some of the old PI editorial folks?

[cinyc]

Very strange: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2013254048_wheresrossihewontsay.html

Not really.  A lot of candidates aren't making their appearances as well known as they used to in order to avoid the opposition from filming and exploiting miscues.