Bryan Fischer
Ninth Circuit, without realizing it, says Prop. 8 folks have standing
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Bryan Fischer
August 17, 2010

One of the more bizarre parts of Judge Vaughn Walker's tyrannical ruling, in which he declared the constitution unconstitutional and disenfranchised seven million voters in one breathtaking display of arrogance, is that he tried to deny standing to the supporters of Prop. 8 to pursue an appeal of his ruling.

He tried to argue that only the governor and the attorney general of California have the legal standing to pursue an appeal, and since they're not playing ball, he wants to declare the game over, just in time to be the hero of the piece.

Judge Walker's farcical attempt to deny standing to natural marriage defenders immediately after his ruling for same-sex marriage smacks of an umpire who calls the game just as soon as the home team gets ahead. That makes for horrendous officiating and even worse judicial practice.

Judge Walker appears oblivious to the blatant self-contradiction in his ruling. If Prop. 8 proponents do not have standing, what in the world was he doing allowing them to argue in his courtroom on behalf of natural marriage for two weeks?

Oh, that's right, it gave him the chance to be the center of the universe for one brief shining moment. For him to have denied standing would have deprived him of his fifteen minutes, and he wasn't about to put up with that. He granted standing just long enough to get his picture in every newspaper in the country and become the darling of the effeminate left. He even tried to become a daytime TV star until the Supreme Court smacked him down. And then, when his fifteen minutes were up, he tried to tell everybody to go home.

An umpire who pulled a stunt like that would have called his last game at that instant. But because Congress has not yet recognized that judicial tyranny and utter disregard for the Constitution is an impeachable offense, Judge Walker will be allowed to go his merry way, determining the outcome of game after game based on his own preferences rather than antiquated notions such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the consent of the governed.

It is inexcusable for the governor and attorney general to shirk their sworn duty by refusing to defend Prop. 8, for they took a solemn oath in the presence of God to defend the constitutions of both the United States and the state of California.

But what is a little matter like honor, integrity, and keeping your word among political liberals? Such things are mere trifles and annoyances when they interfere with your agenda to remake our culture according to the values of secular fundamentalism, which apparently do not include such things as decency and promise-keeping.

To allow Judge Walker's phantasmical ruling to stand would mean that a state governor and its attorney general could nullify any duly enacted initiative or constitutional amendment simply by not showing up to defend it against a legal challenge. What California's two top state officials have done is make a mockery of our democratic form of government.

The Ninth Circuit has scheduled a court date for the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling, but curiously have directed the proponents of Prop. 8 to come before it and address the issue of standing.

What the Ninth Circuit has done, in all its infinite judicial wisdom, and without apparently even realizing it, is to settle this question before it's even argued in court. For if the proponents have standing to argue standing, then they have standing. If they have no standing, they shouldn't have been scheduled even to make arguments for standing.

The mere fact that the Ninth Circuit is inviting them into court to make the case for standing means, if logic and consistency mean anything, that the court has already decided this question in the affirmative.

We'll see if they're rational enough to figure out what they've done here. Being as how they're liberals, all bets are off on that one. They can hardly now rule against the standing of Prop. 8 proponents, because a higher court will say, well, if they had no legal right to be there, why did you even let them in your court in the first place?

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

© Bryan Fischer

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)