posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:26 PM
Having followed this with interest, the first time this was mentioned on ATS, the question remained as to who all had read the judges ruling and
opinion in the matter of this case. Not many people had, or cared to, rather looking at the fact that the judge had over turned a law that was the
will of the people. But sometimes governing the people wisely means that you have to go against them to uphold the very principles that govern the
entire land. He had to weigh the arguments and the evidence of the case, along with giving justifications for his decision. All while keeping his
own personal life separate from the trial for which he did. Ultimately those who were charged with defending and fighting for this law dropped the
ball, the majority of their witnesses and experts failed to show up in court.
Put yourself in that judges shoes, keep in mind you have to be fair, partial and blind to everything, including the will of the people and judge the
case on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented. What would you think if one side did not present any evidence or witnesses to support its
claim? Even the Judge was disturbed and thought that it was odd that the witnesses presented to support this law did not show up in court and that
the evidence was weak at best. He stated such in his opinion to explain his decision. Questions were asked, but no answers, so he could only rule as
any would in favor of those who wanted this law removed. But he put a hold on the law itself, to give the other side time to regroup and fight it out
at a higher court, even ignoring all pressure to remove that hold. Funny how that was failed to be mentioned, and if he was to benefit from this law,
would he not have foregone putting the hold on the removal of the law, to allow for such to happen? No, he looked to the wise choice of conferring to
a higher court to make the final decision. And in this case, another court has confirmed with his original decision and findings in his opinion and
thus his ruling will stand.
Now some would say the judge should remove himself from this case cause he is gay, but would that be like telling a Judge of Hispanic descent to
remove himself for any immigration case, a female judge to remove herself for sexual harassment cases, and so on. It is not right as long as the
judge gives rulings based on the evidence and merits of the arguments, and with the precedent of prior rulings, then it is a fair and balanced
Many people fail to understand how the court system works, as many judges will go off of similar cases where the issues are either the same or have
been ruled on by a higher court to determine what the verdict is. They use precedence to justify their ruling, and then have to record it down for
all to read. In short the Justice branch of the federal government can not just do what the other branches do, they have to record and justify the
way they rule. No other branch is required to do such.