Screw democracy....it doesn't exist if the people use democracy in a way not approved of by the "best people."

We live in an aristocracy of the boni.

The power and authority of citizens to determine their own laws by legal process doesn't exist. If the boni decide that the people's choice is "unfashionable," then the people are overruled.

From Legal Insurrection:

Understand this was a result of California officials refusing to defend the law on appeal. Regardless of the merits underlying the suit, the Court just validated the ability of public officials to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction by virtue of the officials failure to fulfill their public duties.

What makes it even more confusing is that if the proponents of Prop 8 had no standing to defend the law on appeal, why would they have standing even in the District Court. If not standing, then there was not an actual case and controversy, and Judge Walker had no authority to rule. Here’s ScotusBlog’s explanation:

Out of all the federal judges who could have heard the Prop 8 case...

...how did it end up being tried by probably the one judge who had - at the very least - the appearance of a personal stake in the case?

According to the Associated Press:

Rumors swirled that the federal judge who had struck down California's same-sex "marriage" ban last summer was homosexual, but the lawyers charged with defending the measure remained silent on the subject. Their preferred strategy for getting the ruling overturned on appeal was to focus on the law, not a judge's personal life, they said.


Lawyers for the ban's backers argue that the judge's relationship status, not his sexual orientation, gave him too much in common with the couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban in his court. The judge should have recused himself or at least revealed the relationship to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest, the lawyers say.


"If at any time while this case was pending before him, Chief Judge walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding," wrote attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot.

Eight months later, Proposition 8's proponents and their attorneys have taken a new position. They filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's historic ruling, a move they said was prompted by the now-retired jurist's recent disclosure that he is in a long-term relationship with another man.

And:

Speculation about Walker's sexual orientation circulated during the 13-day trial that preceded his decision and after he handed down his ruling. Lawyers for Protect Marriage, the coalition that sponsored Proposition 8, however, had purposely refrained from raising his sexual orientation as a legal issue until Monday.


But they decided it gave them grounds for getting Walker's decision struck down after the judge disclosed his 10-year relationship this month to a group of courthouse reporters, said Protect Marriage general counsel Andy Pugno. "We deeply regret the necessity of this motion. But if the courts are to require others to follow the law, the courts themselves must do so as well," Pugno added.

Indiana University Law School professor Charles Geyh, an expert on judicial ethics, said that without more evidence that Walker stood to personally benefit if same-sex marriages were legal in California, he found it difficult to imagine that the particulars of the judge's same-sex relationship provided marriage traditionalists with an avenue for reversing his ruling. "It really implies it would be fine if he were essentially surfing at bars and had a new partner every night because he wouldn't want to be married," he said. "I don't see that as advancing their cause."

And, of course, we can trust legal experts, because it's not like pressure isn't being placed on the legal community to get into lock step with homosexual marriage:

The law firm hired by Republicans in the House of Representatives to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act withdrew Monday amid pressure from gay-rights groups. The decision prompted the resignation of a prominent partner, who said he intended to take the case with him to another law office.


Gay rights groups criticized the 126-year-old, Atlanta-based law firm, King & Spalding, saying that its agreement to defend the law, which prohibits federal recognition of gay marriages, would hurt its ability to recruit and retain lawyers. The firm's chairman, Robert Hays, said Monday that the firm would no longer defend the law.

So much for the sacred legal duty to defend the unpopular.
Homosexual marriage is going to have the same corrosive effects on legal principles that abortion-rights have had.

The Impartial Judiciary.

Apparently, Prop 8 judge, Vaughan Walker, recorded trial testimony, ostensibly solely for the purpose of assisting him in preparing his findings of fact.  Walker had attempted to make the Prop 8 case a "show trial" and had to be shut down by the Supreme Court in his efforts to broadcast the trial. 

One of the concerns that proponents of Prop 8 had was suffering retribution from homosexual activists and their allies if their testimony was broadcast.  Walker assured witnesses that the videos of their testimony would never be disclosed outside of the courthouse.

Well, surprise! Walker lied.

He used the tape of one expert's testimony as part of a speech broadcast on C-SPAN.

A motion has been filed to get the tapes back.