Reagan appointed judge shoots down prop 8

Even a conservative could that it was unconstitutional.

Not that it really matters, but some articles say the judge was appointed by Reagan, others say by Bush #1.

And some say the judge is gay. Should he have excused himself from the case?

SS109 wrote: And some say the judge is gay. Should he have excused himself from the case?

No more so than if the judge was married.

archer wrote:

SS109 wrote: And some say the judge is gay. Should he have excused himself from the case?

No more so than if the judge was married.

Exactly right, what does that matter, If the judge was straight would that make a difference?

Considering this case could give a small minority more rights, (10% or less) and the judge is in that minority, It would only be proper to step aside.
Should a Catholic judge be allowed to determine if the local Catholic Church be allowed to break a state amendment?

SS109 wrote: Considering this case could give a small minority more rights, (10% or less) and the judge is in that minority, It would only be proper to step aside.
Should a Catholic judge be allowed to determine if the local Catholic Church be allowed to break a state amendment?

not "more" rights, equal rights. When did equal rights for all citizens become a bad thing?

when did an unconstitutional state amendment get to trump the constitution itself? We may have individual states, but they are still bound by the US Constitution. Do you think it would be OK for Utah to pass an amendment that prohibits women from voting?

Then why not a straight judge decide the case? Do you have a problem with that? JMHO

outdoor338 wrote: Then why not a straight judge decide the case? Do you have a problem with that? JMHO

I have a problem with putting ridiculous rules on judges. Black ,gay, female, male ,white, where does it end. Just follow the law. You would have no problem with a white male judge deciding a case concerning a woman or black, examine your prejudice. Nutty!

JMC wrote: Even a conservative could that it was unconstitutional.

Regardless of whether it was Reagan or Bush 41, the fact remains that both of them had, as in the present day, a Congress controlled by Democrats who had the ultimate say on whether or not a judicial nominee was confirmed. That was before the time period when the Democrats felt that a president's nominees should be confirmed because elections have consequences.