The New York Times yesterday published an editorial stating that The Hon. Vaughn Walker should not have recused himself from consideration of California’s Proposition 8.

Judge Walker is the U.S. District Court Judge who ruled that California’s Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, not to be confused with California’s constitution.

The New York Times argues that gay marriage opponents who moved to have Judge Walker recused do so based on his “personal characteristics.” The “personal characteristics” the NYT identifies are Judge Walker’s undisclosed 10 year homosexual relationship with another man. And if this were an accurate statement of the opponents’ arguments, then ‘Puter might agree. A homosexual judge can certainly rule on a matter involving another homosexual.

But that’s not what opponents are arguing. Opponents argue that Judge Walker, in ruling that gay marriage is constitutionally protected, conferred on himself “a valuable legal right that a reasonable person would believe he had a strong and particular interest in exercising.” That is, it is more likely than not that the judge had a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation on which he was ruling. Like most gays, it is reasonable to assume that the judge would like to marry his long time partner, and that marriage confers valuable benefits, such as automatic inheritance and tax breaks.

An examination of the merits of gay marriage, or even the legal arguments in Judge Walker’s ruling is unnecessary. Judge Walker has violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct, binding on federal judges. Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3(C)(1)(a) reads:

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: (1) the judge has a personal prejudice or bias concerning a party …

A gay judge who claims it is unreasonable to question his impartiality based on bias when he rules to grant an heretofore non-existent constitutional guarantee of the rights of gays to marry is a fool or a liar. ‘Puter can think of no circumstances in which a gay judge sitting on this issue would not violate this canon, unless the only judges available to rule on such matter were all gay. But that’s not the case here.

Additionally, Code of Conduct fo United States Judges Canon 3(C)(1)(c) reads:

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: … (3) the judge knows that the judge … has a financial interest in the subject matter of the controversy … or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.

Judge Walker had both a financial interest (tax benefits) as well as another interest (creating a right of his partner and him to marry) in the subject matter of the controversy. Not only is it reasonable to question Judge Walker’s impartiality on the issue, it would be patently unreasonable not to find that he could not be partial on an issue that so directly affected him.

Judge Walker ignored his obvious bias in order to confer on himself and those similarly situated valuable right to which they were not previously entitled. In doing so, he plainly violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct, and he should be referred for appropriate disciplinary action.

The New York Times continues to commit journalistic malpractice, even as its readers vote with their feet. The editorial board misrepresented the facts surrounding Judge Walker’s unethical behavior. Not only that, the editorial board framed the issue as one of “personal characteristics,” equating homosexuality with race and gender, thereby impliedly accusing Proposition 8 supporters of bigotry.

As the Left is so fond of saying, you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. Both Judge Walker and the New York Times would do well to remember.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.