Source: https://www.emptywheel.net/2010/12/02/prop-8-judge-tell-h8ters-to-get-lost-denies-motion-to-disqualify/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:59:40+00:00

Document:
The D-I argument is, of course, ginned up baloney. Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, was never an attorney of record in the case, has no pecuniary interest in the outcome, and the ACLU is not part of the appeal. But H8ters are gonna hate, and that is what these folks do best.
Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED.
Well, that will take care of that. That is what the entire raison de etre of the D-I is though, if you are not like them and believe as they do, you are not equal, not worthy and biased; be it being gay, atheistic/agnostic or liberal you are just simply not fit. Judge Reinhardt told them where to go with that rubbish. It is interesting to note that although there are some very substantial questions that could be asked about the staunch conservative judge appointed to the Perry panel, N. Randy Smith, the appellees have not thrown up unsupported and scurrilous motions to disqualify Smith because, without substantial factual support to do so it would be wrong. That is the qualitative difference in the attorneys and people on the two respective sides.
Now here is where it gets interesting and we move away from silly hate and back to the merits of the appeal. When you hear stories about how the Supreme Court frowns on the liberal Ninth Circuit and takes glee in reversing decisions from the 9th, Steve Reinhardt is the poster child for that meme. An appeal to the Supremes on a decision authored by Reinhardt is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, you are going to get their attention.
In both the Ninth Circuit and, if the case goes further, in the Supreme Court, it is now apparent that the resolution of the issue of standing to appeal will turn on how those courts interpret the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Arizona for Official English v. Arizona, casting doubt on whether initiative sponsors may appeal to defend a ballot measure when state officials refuse to do so, and the Court’s 1985 ruling in Karcher v. May, suggesting that state legislators may sometimes do so when other state officials refuse, provided state law allows for that. The proponents of the ban on gay marriage, in direct conflict with Judge Walker’s interpretation of California law, argue that state law does give them the right to be in court. California law, they said, makes their case different from the Arizona English initiative case.
And here is where the fun really starts. As I previously indicated, on the merits, you would expect a 2-1 decision upholding Walkers decision in favor og marriage equality and striking down the appeal of the Prop 8Haters. But, before you get to the merits, there is the problem of the standing issue and, as Denniston pointed out, the critical case for that determination will be the Supreme Court decision Arizona for Official English v. Arizona. Know who wrote the circuit court opinion in Arizona for Official English v. Arizona that the Supreme Court slapped down and reversed? Yep, Steve Reinhardt.
So, we have a Circuit Court judge predisposed to find standing in such cases, a Supreme Court predisposed to not care much for said judge’s opinion and a case that may, or may not, be able to be distinguished. Whatever the ruling is in the 9th, the opinion will almost certainly be written by either Reinhardt or Mike Hawkins. Reinhardt has the seniority over Hawkins and the lifetime of work on social justice opinions, if he wants to author the opinion, I think Hawkins will defer to him. The question is, might they decide to have Hawkins author the opinion to pull back on the red flag in front of the SCOTUS bull?
Get your popcorn, and remember that Emptywheel will be covering the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Monday morning December 6th at 10:00 am PST/FDL time and the proceedings will be carried live by CSPAN and other networks.
With tongue-in-cheek, may I suggest that your analysis is a bit too pre-Roberts/Alito. Precedence is dead, dude. Arizona was sooooo last week.
Mirko left the sword and scale in.
I think the 9th WILL grant standing, if only because I think they really want to be heard on the issue.
The Supremes are a different story. The conservatives aren’t going to want this case for fear of a 5-4 ruling against consevative religious views. They can probably convince at least one other justice to deny standing.
If the supremes deny standing after the 9th has allowed it, does that void whatever ruling the 9th makes?
Yes, it almost certainly would; the question would be whether the Supremes just bounce the 9th standing or go back and order that the D-I’s never even had standing in the trial court, although that would probably leave Walker’s judgment intact as to the state of California only.
Denying standing all the way back to Walker might be the best thing for te h8ers. While Walkers ruling would still stand, it would only apply in Calif. And when one of these does run all the way to the Supremes, the D-I’s won’t have to defend that pile of horses**t that was placed in front of Walker, since the denial of standing would mean the plantiffs were ‘unopposed’ and all the horses**t would be struck.
Wahoo! Edit seems to be back!!!
Wonderful to see that “our” guys are getting into the act of the supremely arrogant ruling classes: question me? I don’t THINK so!
Teddy, you would absolutely love Steve Reinhardt, he is a character and a good one too.
Awesome picture, thanks for the link to the galleries….

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.