Bob Egelko’s Hit Piece on the Motion to Vacate Walker’s Ruling and His Questionable Journalistic Ethics
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
As you saw earlier today, the Proponents of Proposition 8 filed their reply brief on the subject of whether Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 should be vacated because Judge Walker had a duty to recuse himself. And in response to that reply brief, Bob Egelko published what can best be described as a press release for the Anti-Proposition 8 forces. The bias really is that thick.
Now first readers will recall Mr. Egelko as the reporter (training in the law) whose bias I previously exposed in this post. That post concerned an article that Egelko wrote about Judge Walker finally admitting publicly he was gay, and my email exchange with him. To sum up that long post, I pressed him on the nature of the judge’s relationship, including whether he planned to marry his partner. He wrote at the time:
He spoke some about his partner, but I think it’s a private matter that’s pretty much his business, not ours.
Thus he knew more than he was saying and was refusing to tell because he personally believed it was irrelevant (he states that belief in another part of my post). Now presumably one of the facts he chose to suppress was that Judge Walker had been with his partner for over ten years—more than 8 years when the suit began—which was revealed by Rueters and literally became the basis of the motion to vacate we are discussing now. So he was left in the ethically uncomfortable position of reporting that based on information he thought was too irrelevant to report, the Proponents of Proposition 8 were moving to vacate the ruling. And in that report he compounds his error by allowing others to make specious arguments without contradiction. For instance at one point in the article he includes this passage:
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked, “What’s next? Are they going to say all female judges should recuse themselves from gender discrimination cases?”
This gave readers the impression that their challenge was solely based on his sexuality, when a single quote from their motion would have dispelled that claim: “[i]t is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case.” I don’t mind Egelko quoting the City Attorney’s misleading swipe at them. I think Mr. Herrera’s bull___ gives us a potentially useful insight into his character. But to leave it uncontradicted is inexcusable. If you quote someone who is lying or misrepresenting the position of another, you have a journalistic duty to correct that falsehood.
Indeed, even when discussing the Proponents’ filings on the subject of the Judge’s unlawful airing of trial footage, he writes:
They argued that Walker had defied a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and violated his own court’s regulations by showing a three-minute excerpt of the trial during a speech in February, shortly before he retired from the bench.
But oddly, Egelko doesn’t mention the allegation that this conduct defied the judge’s own order.
(It’s worth noting, by the way, that Judge Walker is to appear on the issue of the video on the same day the motion to vacate will be considered, and it seems reasonably likely that he might be involved in that hearing, too, if only to be asked questions such as “do you plan to marry your partner?”)
But nothing beats today’s piece, an article that is actually a thin-disguised editorial entitled Did CA same-sex marriage foes undermine own case?
And basically the thesis of the “article” was that the proponents were admitting that a heterosexual judge did not have a “direct and substantial interest” in the outcome of the case, thus opponents of Proposition 8 argue, it cannot be said that heterosexual marriage will be sufficiently harmed by gay marriage to survive Constitutional scrutiny. But bluntly, any second year law student knows that argument is bunk, for they know that in the case law, equal protection analysis is broken down into three tiers: 1) rational basis, 2) intermediate scrutiny and 3) strict scrutiny. The correct standard of scrutiny is rational basis review, which requires nothing more than “a rational means to serve a legitimate end.” The word substantial doesn’t appear until you reach intermediate scrutiny, which applies to gender based classification and classifications based on legitimacy (thus applicable to our President). That standard is that the classification must “serve important governmental objectives and are substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” But that level of scrutiny is not properly applied to classifications based on sexual orientation. And this is basic stuff, learned literally in the first semester of law school. So if Egelko, himself a lawyer, merely recited a little basic law, that would have shown that the Proponents were threading a needle, but nonetheless they were not actually contradicting themselves.
And here’s the really funny part. Later he quotes and paraphrases “ethics expert” Stephen Gillers of New York University as saying:
Even so, Gillers said, an unreported long-term, same-sex relationship should not be grounds for disqualifying a judge. Since Walker could have married his partner in California before Prop. 8 passed, and could marry him today in a number of states, Gillers said, “his decision has no consequence to him.”
Now first, Gillers’ actual views are a little harsher. His blog gives a much more nuanced view that concedes much of the Proponents’ argument for recusal.
And Ed Whelan is correct to note that given that Proposition 8 would have the effect of preventing California from recognizing any out-of-state gay marriage thus creating an interest.
But the most amazing part of that passage is that if Gillers was correct, then the plaintiffs in the case had no standing. So in an entire editorial article telling us how the Proponents had supposedly undermined their case, Egelko himself manages to undermine the Anti-Proposition 8 forces’ case!
Of course that is assuming that Gillers is correct and frankly his argument is ridiculous. Of course the plaintiffs had a sufficient interest to justify standing. If they want to get married they have to leave the state to do it. But for the same reason, Judge Walker clearly had an interest in the outcome of the case.
But hey, Bob Egelko, since you like to consult with “ethics experts,” why don’t you find an expert in journalistic ethics and ask that about your performance here? I bet that person would have an interesting opinion on the subject.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
it’s exactly this sort of dishonest reporting what has trickered a majority of Americans into approving of gay marriage I think
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/25/2011 @ 3:53 pmhappyfeet,
I think your point that Americans have moved more towards supporting gay marriage is a great reason to be angry with Walker’s abuse of the law.
Why should political progress be tainted with wannabee philosopher kings abusing their authority?
Leave political questions to democratic answers. Just ask the people to vote on Prop 8 again. Isn’t that more appropriate?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 3:59 pmmostly I just thought the comments needed a jumpstart
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/25/2011 @ 4:04 pmbut yes voting is fun – you get a sticker!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/25/2011 @ 4:05 pmhappy @3
and i frankly appreciate the fact that you are first on almost every comment thread.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 4:16 pmyou are most welcome
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/25/2011 @ 4:18 pm“but yes voting is fun – you get a sticker!
Comment by happyfeet —”
Yeah, those are cool. I got a Ya Vote’ one last round, which was novel.
But seriously, if what you want is a win on civil rights and respect, you can’t get that from a judge.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 4:52 pmGreetings:
Some call Mr. Egelko’s employer the San Francisco Commicle.
Can you name two reasons why ???
And furthermore, no matter how bad a reporter Mr. Egelko is, he’s a bit brighter than the paper’s editor who managed to get his leg chewed on by a co-located Komodo Dragon.
11B40 (95dd1e) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:36 pmHey Arron why dont you write something about the Republican loss in NY defeated by voters who rejected your party’s attempt to kill health care for seniors (Medicare) while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few?
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:41 pmPaul Ryan is the gift that keeps on giving!
VEV, why is it that you can’t write an honest sentence once in your life? Why don’t you tell us about that?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:44 pmZOMFG Vev is off his meds again. Maybe he has the same orderly as nishi/wheelerz. This has been like a kwazy reunion in the comment threads the last few days.
JD (306f5d) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:45 pmVev, a ‘Ryan will kill medicare’ candidate got 48% of the vote, the rest of it split Tea Party and Republican. It’s pretty clear NY needs run off elections, as the democrats there pull a lot of stunts like that.
Why do you need to tell Aaron what to write about? Start your own blog. That election doesn’t tell us much about anything.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:47 pmWhat a laugh. You guys need a constitutional amendment to prevent your wives from leaving you and marring another woman!! ha ha ha!!
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:53 pmVEV
hey remember how when we lost that race in NY state and that stopped the democrats from being massacred in 2010?
yeah, me neither.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:54 pmVEV
seriously, you won in new york.
are you impressed when a democrat loses in rural texas?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:54 pmNow give me one thing. ,..,did I or did I not tell your the Ryan budget would be a great gift to Democrats? Come on now..give the devil his due..
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:56 pmOk lets get serious..you guys really do want to kill Medicare, dont you?
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:57 pmYou sound like Jared Loughner. You are so unhinged and random.
This is a thread on gay marriage and legal fine points, and you’re screaming about an election in New York and our wives.
Seriously… what’s next? Lizard people? Chemtrails?
We won a most of the last 250 congressional elections. Like 80%. You just one a single one with a fake Tea partiers splitting the vote. The democrat was unable to win a majority, so that’s a major point. This is a weak victory for you to pronounce the Ryan budget DOA. BTW, Obama’s budget got 40 fewer Senate votes than Ryan’s did today.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 5:59 pm“Ok lets get serious..you guys really do want to kill Medicare, dont you?
Comment by VietnamEraVet ”
Again, this is totally off topic. What’s wrong with you? Do you want to talk about the Iraq war, too?
How about Iran Contra?
The only plan to kill Medicare is the Pelosi plan to ignore the fiscal problems that doom it. The only plan with real support to save Medicare is Ryan’s plan to make it sustainable with a few changes in how it will work for people 55 and younger.
You’re right, there are two extremes. Democrats want to kill medicare for short term politican gains against fixing it. Some on the right want to outright eliminate entitlements like that altogether. And in the middle is Ryan, with the moderate plan to save Medicare by keeping it within our means. We’re out of money, after all.
And if this was a thread about Medicare, you’d be talking about Gay Marriage, right?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:02 pmit’s exactly this sort of dishonest reporting what has trickered a majority of Americans into approving of gay marriage I think
Amazing that it always loses in referendums even in blue states. Like Prop 8. It’s enough to make you suspect those polls.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:07 pmHere is the proud record of conservatives
Opposed child labor laws, minimum wage laws, unionization, social security, medicare, integration, civil rights for blacks and women, clean air and water..etc..
But proudly Conservatives never gave us a balanced budget, sent out bravest and most dedicated off to a war for false reasons ( WMDs) all the while talking about “supporting the troops”, and now want to kill medicare and replace it with a voucher system..(tell me what 68 year old with diabetes will be able to find insurance under this plan??)
The worst part of this nefarious policy is there attempts to spread it with hate and bigotry.,,claiming Obama hates whites, and is a closet Muslim that has put death panels in the health care bill and is secretly raising a private army and is a Marxist, socialist, communist and Nazi!!
And you seriously dont think racist bigotry is a part of all this crap?
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:16 pmI have been married longer than most ”” 43 years and I dont feel threatened by gay marriage..
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:18 pmAh yes, racism. What’s next? UFOs? Speed limits? Gun rights?
You are too stupid to discuss the thread topic, but you really really want to troll, so you gotta act like this, I guess.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:19 pmOkay. So if a group of rhinos is called a “crash,” and a group of crows is called a “thief”…you know, a “crash of rhinos” and a “thief of crows”…what do you call a group of trolls?
A distraction of trolls? A hypocrisy of trolls? An irritation of trolls?
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:19 pmI wanted to talk about the Ryan plan but you guys seem to be rather quiet on that matter.. I wonder why….ha ha!!
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:20 pmI have never heard anyone suggest they were worried that their own marriage would fail if gay marriage was legalized. This is probably the most pathetic straw man argument I’ve ever heard.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:20 pmOh, and remember: this fellow above with his medication impaired litany of terrible things the right has done included “opposition of civil rights” which we aaaallll know is a lie. And I think paxil-boy does too.
He is just trying to…well, you know.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:20 pm?
The topic is Walker’s appearance of partiality in a gay marriage case. You wonder why we aren’t talking about Paul Ryan’s budget? That’s strange. We can’t talk about it every day.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:21 pmActually, Dustin, we shouldn’t discuss what this fellow wishes. Instead, we should discuss something more pertinent: the correct dosage of medication for narcissistic personality disorder.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:22 pmYes, that was a naked attempt to draw a reaction. Democrats know they are the KKK party. Byrd was respected in the democrat party until his death.
The real party of civil rights is the Republican party, but we don’t have to just blindly assert so. When the government’s wish to test civil rights limits, like freedom of assembly and speech in corps, right to own a gun, right to speak without the White House demanding a list of your speech before you get a contract… the democrat party is still terrible on civil rights.
They come around when it’s politically easy. When everyone grants a civil right, the democrats pretend they always were for it, and those evil Republicans never were. Pathetic.
In this case, the civil right is the people’s right to handle political questions democratically. Once again, democrats like Judge Walker are opposed to real civil rights.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:24 pmHochul, campaigned against the 500 billion dollar Medicare cut, yet support the bill in general, that
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:24 pmincludes the IPAB, the ‘death panels’ that only put
a needle in granny, no need to throw her off the bluff. Of course, she lied as Owen did in NY 23rd, and Murphy did in NY 20th.
I honesty looked for a thread about the Ryan plan to destroy medicare, while claiming to save it.. ( like destroying a village in order to save it!) while giving tax breaks to the unfortunate millionaires who are victims of class warfare.. but somehow that topic was forgotten so I figured I would mention it here..
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:26 pmOver and out.. at least I served in the military and defended my country which is more than most of you can say . And my father was a combat wounded vet of ww2.,
enough I am out of here!!
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:35 pmI served in the military, too, VEV, but I don’t use that to justify my views on Medicare or my partisan viewpoint because that would just plain be tacky.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:36 pmLet see, Watson, the racebaiter behind the Frank case, George, the Klan’s other Senator, Bilbo, Vardaman, Fulbright, Hollings (who first lifted
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:38 pmthe Stars and Bars over Columbia, in the modern era, Byrd, Byrnes, who might have ended up as President if Truman had been forced to step down Gore Sr, that’s just a few, that come to mind,
I forgot Al Gore Sr! Huge Klansman.
Really, the KKK was a democrat thing. I see VeV can’t take it, but he can dish it out and then call me dirty names.
I’ll just keep hitting him with the facts. I knew he wouldn’t be able to take it.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:41 pm____________________________________________
I dont feel threatened by gay marriage..
And, at the same time, guys should certainly sympathize with the idea of multi-partner marriages. In fact, polygamy is considered a traditional and even conservative custom in parts of Mormonism and the Middle East.
Liberal women in particular, certainly if their hearts are all aflutter for the sight of dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks, should realize that when a major facet of culture (at least in the Western World) is dumbed down, everything else from that moment onward becomes either more plausible or less implausible.
Arnold Schwarzenegger should have told Maria, “hey, honey, it’s my nature — it’s male nature in general — to get it on the side and even possibly end up being someone’s daddy all over again!”
Mark (411533) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:42 pmWell he was what King despised even more ‘the Southern Moderate’ who went along with the system,
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:43 pmas did Fulbright, Clinton and McDougal’s mentor, venerated by the left, but who ended up an apologists for petty regimes like the emirates.
The dam of douchenozzlery has been dyked.
Seek help, VeV.
JD (3ad5b9) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:44 pmI honesty looked for a thread about the Ryan plan to destroy medicare, while claiming to save it.. ( like destroying a village in order to save it!) while giving tax breaks to the unfortunate millionaires who are victims of class warfare.. but somehow that topic was forgotten so I figured I would mention it here..
You do know that the authenticity of that quote attributed to Peter Arnett is questionable? How do we know you really are a Viet Vet? The way you try to make sure everybody knows that raises doubts. As for the Ryan plan, you’re just parroting the standard Democrat line, so there’s nothing to discuss.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:50 pmDishonest, threadjacking and a troll. The trifecta.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2011 @ 6:52 pmOkay Vev
Welcome to moderation. You have been such a poisonous jerk in this thread with your insults you will be in moderation. that means nothing you say will appear until i approve of the comment.
If you don’t like it, take it up with Patrick. and I suggest you be nice in your appeal.
Otherwise, that’s how its going to be.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 7:24 pmThe dam of douchenozzlery has been dyked. I like how that rolls off the tongue. VeV spit out every thinkregress moveon mediamatterz BS meme since 2001. Impressive.
JD (318f81) — 5/25/2011 @ 7:35 pmeveryone who goes on medicare ends up dead
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 7:36 pmAll of the rich Democrats that don’t need or want Medicare will also end up dead.
Leonardo DaFinchi (f4f0c5) — 5/25/2011 @ 7:42 pmTornados suck.
JD (318f81) — 5/25/2011 @ 7:53 pmSuck big time. Barcky levels of suck. Gusts over 80 mph.
JD (318f81) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:17 pmTaking the little angels to the basement for a sleep-over. Hasta la tarde, mis amigos.
JD (318f81) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:19 pmbuenos suerte senor jd
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:21 pmStay safe, JD.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:23 pmReally, where are you at?
Slick Willie Clinton (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:36 pmSeriously, stay safe JD.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:36 pmReally? Now I’m jealous. I’ve voted in two countries, and never once got a sticker. 🙁
Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:36 pmNo, actually, I don’t know. The correct term of venery for crows is “murder”, not “thief”. And I believe rhinos come in herds, not “crashes”.
Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:58 pmFair enough. I was just working from memory. Still, what would you call a group of trolls?
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:59 pmAnd will the left help out the people struck by tornadoes with their wealth no the Michael Moores of the world are greedy.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:59 pmHuffpo?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:02 pmStorms cleared. For now. Safe and sound. Goodnight all.
JD (318f81) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:04 pmA tribe of trolls? A tribulation of trolls? A tollbooth of trolls? An ugliness of trolls? A slowness of trolls? A trampling of trolls?
BTW, most terms of venery that came down to us were just made up for fun centuries ago, but had the luck to catch on and make it into the dictionaries, so they’re now valid English. Terms we make up today may end up sharing that luck, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:58 pmA bridgefull of trolls?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/26/2011 @ 12:05 amA trestle of trolls?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/26/2011 @ 12:11 amA plague of trolls.
ropelight (eea158) — 5/26/2011 @ 4:41 amI don’t care about gay marriage – let them get married and be miserable like the rest of us.
However, following tortured legal reasoning to get what you want? Be careful what you wish for… [ someday. Someday enlightened correct-thinking persons can join together to advance the important work of improving our society for the good of all. The masses will not fully appreciate all that the “select” do for them – so it will be necessary to ignore their bleats regarding special priviliges enjoyed by the select. The select can refer to themselves as something benign….we’ll call them the Party. True Justice is only for party members, comrade. It is all very scientific…..]
Californio (7420bd) — 5/26/2011 @ 8:37 am“seriously, you won in new york.
are you impressed when a democrat loses in rural texas?”
How long was that NY seat republican?
jvc (57dea8) — 5/26/2011 @ 10:40 am#24 Simon, I thought it was a “murder” of crows. Anyway, I vote for “a singularity of trolls” or perhaps, “a hilarity of trolls”
felipe (2ec14c) — 5/26/2011 @ 3:16 pmOoh! I like Ropelight’s “a plague of trolls”!
felipe (2ec14c) — 5/26/2011 @ 3:19 pm