UPDATED! Prop 8 Backers are trying to Oust Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt

In a desperate, desperate attempt to win, haters are trying to get Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt removed from the case. Why?  Because they think he too liberal to be fair.

Backers of California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage formallly asked one of the three Ninth Circuit judges scheduled to hear the constitutional challenge to the ban to take himself off the case, arguing that his wife has been actively involved as a foe of the measure.  

In a motion for disqualification, the supporters of the ban called for recusal of Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt.


Judge Reinhardt’s spouse is Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberies Union’s Southern California affiliate.  “Under Ms. Ripston’s leadership,” the motion said, her organization has taken a lead role “in what it calls ‘the fight to end marriage discrimination’ in California.”  The chapter also has “taken an acive role in this litigation,” it added.

Relying on the federal recusal law, the Proposition 8 backers said that a judge must “disqualilfy himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”  It argued:” The facts of this case would plainly lead a reasonable person to conclude that Judge Reinhardt’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”   Even if the ACLU/SC is not a direct party in the case, it added, the lawyers for the challengers to Proposition 8 consulted with her before filing the lawsuit. amd the affiliate has been involved in other ways.

It noted that Judge Reinhardt had previously taken himself out of cases in which ACLU/SC was involved.  It is up to the judge individually to decide whether to disqualify himself from the Proposition 8 case.

Here's their silly motion
Prop. 8 Recusal Motion 9th CA
source

UPDATE

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt said HELL NAW!

“Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED. [7564262]”

So run and tell that!

source