Former Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, wrote a great op ed last week about Judge Walker’s Prop. 8 decision. It was so good, it’s worth a mention a week later.
Meese makes several succinct points about all that Judge Walker ignored in his written decision.
By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision.
Sound judicial opinions consider the facts and evidence on both sides of an argument, apply them fairly to the dispute at hand and determine which legal cases are on point. Yet Walker’s opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist.
Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker’s opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact.
Having ignored everything courts typically rely on in making sound judgments, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 was enacted “without reason” and demonstrates “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples [and are] . . . not as good as opposite-sex couples.”
The main point?
The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker’s decision delivered.
Amen and amen.