It doesn’t look good for the Prop. 8 federal court appeal in San Francisco on Dec. 6. The “randomly chosen” three-judge panel of the infamously liberal Ninth Circuit was announced Monday. The judges were originally put on the bench by Presidents Carter, Clinton, and G.W. Bush. Here’s the low-down from SCOTUSblog:
The Ninth Circuit Court on Monday released the names of the three Circuit judges who will hear next Monday the constitutional case over California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The senior judge on the panel will be Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, a former Los Angeles lawyer who is known widely as perhaps the most liberal judge on the federal courts. Another judge with a reputation mainly as a liberal, Michael Daly Hawkins, is on the panel; he is a former Arizona lawyer and prosecutor. The third member of the panel will be N. Randy Smith, a former Idaho lawyer and state judge.
Let me tell you about Stephen Reinhardt, the ultimate judicial activist: In 2009, he wrote an opinion calling the federal Defense of Marriage Act “unconstitutional”– despite the U.S. Constitution being silent on marriage and homosexuality. In 2007, Reinhardt ruled that partial-birth abortions are a constitutional guarantee. And in 2005, in a sex survey dispute, he ruled parents of elementary-age children in public schools give up any moral objections to their child’s education:
In the last two decades, Reinhardt has repeatedly ruled against the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, in 1996, he authored an opinion claiming that physician-assisted suicide was somehow “constitutional.” Reinhardt was nominated in 1980 by Jimmy Carter. He is married to Ramona Ripston, former executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
As for the second judge, who is described as “liberal on social questions,” Michael Daly Hawkins, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, gave a wide-ranging interview in 2003, in which he came across as a mushy moderate: “I think of myself as being entirely moderate in all things, but others might say otherwise,” he said. “My judicial philosophy is really pretty simple: people involved in the legal process should be treated fairly and judges should decide cases on the merits.” Note he said nothing about sticking with the written words of the U.S. Constitution!
The third judge on the Dec. 6 panel is a likely constitutionalist. Idaho-based Judge Norman Randy Smith is one of the court’s newest members and a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush. Smith was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from the Mormon-based Brigham Young University, as well as from the university’s law school.
So, if you ask me, I expect a 2-1 loss, with Prop. 8 ruled dead on a technicality. Remember that, in August, homosexual U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker refused to recognize any “standing” for the Prop. 8 proponents. The judge found it convenient to say so, because in an unprecedented action, both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown were derelict of duty, refusing to uphold the law (Prop. 8). If the Ninth Circuit panel agrees with this nonsense, it would be more than unconstitutional blindness — it would be malice against our Republic. It takes tremendous effort to ignore the California Constitution and the record of the November 2008 vote of the people. Both said and still say, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The only practical hope I have is that Reinhardt is the most overturned judge in the United States. The fact that he’s on this panel could paint a big bulls-eye on him for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, while being pro-homosexuality is also mostly pro-law-and-order. If the Ninth Circuit refuses to recognize “standing” for the Prop. 8 proponents, Kennedy and the four other mostly constitutional judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) on the high court could.
SaveCalifornia.com is helping to stand up for marriage as the foundation of family and a essential role model for the next generation. In September, SaveCalifornia.com filed a well-done brief in the Prop. 8 appeal under our official name, Campaign for Children and Families. Expertly researched and written by our friends at Liberty Counsel, our brief argues that homosexuality cannot be considered for increased protection, like race, because it is (1) difficult to define, (2) impossible to classify, (3) is not immutable, (4) is subject to change, and (5) does not meet the legal criteria for increased constitutional protection. Our brief reminds the judges that the bulk of social science research overwhelmingly confirms that children do best with dual gender parents – a dad and a mom. We also demonstrate that gender definitely matters to the well-being of children. Finally, we explain that homosexuality presents serious physical, emotional, mental, and other health-related risks.
On Monday, Dec. 6, you can watch the two-hour hearing on C-SPAN, beginning at 10 a.m. PST.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
10th Amendment of the United States Constitution
“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”
Matthew 19:4-6 NLT