California Judge says….MARRIED PERSONS are NOT fit to be jurist and can’t sit in the jury box

On 8/6/2010 1:46 PM, Scott Campbell wrote:
> D. Stussy wrote:
>> “Scott Campbell” wrote in message
>> news:3vcle3.umj.17.1 @&*$?%news.alt.net…
>>> D. Stussy wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The point that the GAY JUDGE missed is that since he’s part of the
>>>> affected class of people subject to the ruling and by not recusing
>>>> himself, he gave the losing side instant grounds for appeal
>>>> regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the case.
>>>
>>> Bzzzt….
>>>
>>> Wrong, Slingblade.
>>>
>>> It can’t be used as grounds for appeal since it wasn’t brought up
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>> Try again.
>>
>> Bias by the judge, whether actual or perceived, isn’t an issue that
>> need be raised at the court of first impression to be appealable.
>
> But a recusal argument (which you put forth) most certainly is.
>
> And a motion to recuse was NOT filed by the supporters of Prop 8.
> The appeals court will only examine the arguments of the case. Had
> the supporters of Prop 8 filed such a motion and had it denied, then
> yes, they could use that in an appeal. Since they didn’t, they won’t
> be allowed to argue this in appeal.
>
> Try again.
>
>

NEW EVIDENCE…. in the case. The same as Jury tampering or bribing a
Judge would be NEW evidence, no one knew the judge was Gay so it was up
to the Judge to be honest. You Leftist howl if Haliburton is on trial
and you find later that the judge has stock in Haliburton.