Tag Archives: State: California

Catholic News Agency (CNA): n a June 13 press conference, Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Austin R. Nimocks said that Walker failed to disclose he had been in a committed same-sex relationship for over 10 years. Nimocks claimed that Walker and his partner had a “direct interest” in the case. “Judge Walker’s course of conduct in this case heightens the appearance of partiality. Indeed, on two separate occasions, for example, his orders in this case have already been reversed, including a dramatic intervention by the United States Supreme Court to stop his effort to televise the trial,” Nimocks said.

Meredith Carroll at the Strollerderby Blog (Babble.com): Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else,” David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written statement to Fox News. Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization, initiated the lawsuit for the two women involved. “It is cowardly to shut down everyone’s participation in this program simply out of animosity toward Christian speech. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a program for anyone to express a personal message. The school could simply have allowed the Bible verses, but instead, it chose to punish everyone.”

OneNewsNow.com: A pro-family leader in California says it’s alarming that the teachers union in his state is paying for a sexual indoctrination course for elementary students.

Religion Clause: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) announced yesterday that he plans to introduce a bill into Congress that would prevent San Francisco and other cities from banning male circumcision of minors

FoxNews.com: “Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else,” David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written statement. Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization, initiated the lawsuit for Hart and Caronna. “It is cowardly to shut down everyone’s participation in this program simply out of animosity toward Christian speech,” Cortman said. “There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a program for anyone to express a personal message. The school could simply have allowed the Bible verses, but instead, it chose to punish everyone.”

ProtectMarriage.com legal team will appeal latest decision in California Marriage Amendment lawsuit

“A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year’s ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the same-sex marriage ban had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.”

Why should we trash Walker’s Prop 8 ruling? Court rules spell it out | LifeSiteNews.com: Judges have a duty not only to apply the law without bias, but also to do so in a way that avoids even the mere appearance of impropriety. This idea is a cornerstone of the judiciary. Thus, the Supreme Court has long been clear that “no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” Against the backdrop of these bedrock principles, it is clear that the ruling of Judge Walker must be vacated.

Christian Post: “In this case, Judge Walker’s actions have violated timeless rules for judges. His decision not to recuse himself from this case is in conflict with what federal law demands of a judge who has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.

The New American: David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the conservative legal advocacy group that represented the women in court, declared that “Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses, just like everyone else. It is cowardly to shut down everyone’s participation in this program simply to keep out Christian speech.”

California Catholic Daily – “Political allies of the abortion industry”: “Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of the abortion industry,” said ADF attorney Matt Bowman in a prepared statement. “As the district court ruled, the government cannot create special speech rules for people who want to talk about pregnancy choices. And it also cannot target pro-life centers for special sign requirements and fines while leaving speech by abortion clinics unregulated.” “The city (Baltimore) places no sign requirements on Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities regarding services they do not offer,” noted an ADF news release.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said he would issue a decision within 24 hours after a hearing Monday. . .

NYTimes.com: “I’m not aware of a single donor who would support a ballot measure campaign,” said Chad Griffin, the co-founder and board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “A ballot would be unwise, foolish and, in fact, dangerous.”

Sacramento Bee: Ultimately the bankruptcy court, while declining to address the constitutional issue, ruled that the joint bankruptcy could go forward because the couple are legally married. The federal government has yet to appeal but is likely to do so, Feist said.

Boies, Olson Video: “The freedom to marry is a constitutional right as recognized in Loving v. Virginia.”: “The freedom to marry is a constitutional right as recognized in Loving v. Virginia,” Boies says in the video. “All committed and loving Americans should be able to marry the person they love without government interference.”

Charisma: “Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else,” said David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization of attorneys who filed a lawsuit against the school district on the women’s behalf.

Christian Post: “There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a program for anyone to express a personal message,” ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman stated. “Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else.”

Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks will hold a press conference Monday, following a hearing that concerns motions filed by the legal team defending California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The primary motion asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to vacate then-District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that threw out the amendment.

Judge David Rubin, a former veteran prosecutor and current four-year member of the San Diego County Superior Court bench, was elected the California Judges Association’s 80th president today.

OneNewsNow.com: David Cortman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says Christians are not to be treated differently from anyone else. “Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses, just like everyone else,” says the attorney. “It is cowardly to shut down everyone’s participation in this program simply to keep out Christian speech.”

WorldNetDaily: “Rather than allow the verses on a few pavers along walkways at Palm Desert High School, the Desert Sands Unified School District censored everyone participating in the program and refunded their money,” ADF announced . . . “Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. “It is cowardly to shut down everyone’s participation in this program simply out of animosity toward Christian speech. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a program for anyone to express a personal message. The school could simply have allowed the Bible verses, but instead, it chose to punish everyone.” . . .

School district responds to ADF lawsuit, cancels entire memorial brick paver program to make sure a few Bible verses aren’t used

A Milpitas man who used a computer to paste photos of his 13-year-old daughter’s head onto bodies of women in graphic poses shouldn’t have been convicted of possessing child pornography because the pictures didn’t show minors engaging in sex acts, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The Desert Sun: A request to dismiss the suit, filed by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna, will be filed today, said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers. . . . The district “basically took what I would consider to be the cowardly way out and they shut down the forum completely,” said Cortman. “Rather than allow a few Bible verses, they completely censored everyone’s speech.”

LifeNews.com: Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund says Judge Garbis’ ruling was a correct one. “The judge ruled that the law’s attempt to burden speech unconstitutionally discriminated against noncommercial, unlicensed speech on the explicit basis that it came from a perspective disfavoring abortion,” he said, calling it a “monumental decision protecting free speech and women’s health.”

LifeNews.com: nowing the battle is forthcoming, the California Pro-Life Council is alerting its members to support amendments to the budget that it says are targeted at the state’s financing of the abortion industry.

Engage Family Blog: And now we learn that San Fran is on the cusp of making it the first city to require pregnancy care centers (PCC’s) – those organizations who help women choose life for their children, teach them how to care for their children, provide them with free clothing for their children – post signs across their advertisements and in their waiting rooms that tell everyone what most already know: that they do not abort their clientele.

LA Times: The rainbow theme was fitting: On Friday, officials launched the city’s first Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Heritage Month.

San Francisco Chroncle: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a California law granting college tuition discounts to high school graduates in the state, regardless of immigration status – a law that saves illegal immigrants, among others, nearly $23,000 a year at UC campuses.

On Tuesday, a coalition of plaintiffs filed a motion asking a federal court to declare unconstitutional several state laws governing the ballot initiative process in the city of Chula Vista. First, they challenged the Natural Person Requirement, which requires that those who propose ballot initiatives must be “natural persons.”

Brad A. Greenberg: The Circumcision Wars – WSJ.com: But the practice has its critics. Judaism’s small but vocal anti-circumcision movement insists that pain and bodily modification aren’t necessary for forming a child’s covenant with God. Outside of Judaism, the anti-circumcision movement began as a loose union of “intactivists” in 1960s and ’70s San Francisco. It has since coalesced into groups like the National Organization for the Restoration of Men—and they are now looking for some legislative leverage.

Pacific Justice Institute: A Ventura County woman has filed suit against retail giant Macy’s, alleging that she was fired on account of her religious commitment to observing Sunday as the Sabbath, and refraining from work on that day.

Religion Clause: Yesterday, the Freedom from Religion Foundation announced that it has written the California Attorney General asking that the state investigate filing a civil fraud action against Rev. Harold Camping and his radio stations over their predictions of the Rapture. (Full text of letter.)

MyDesert.com: Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronnaon, declined to comment until the settlement was finalized.

San Francisco Chronicle: . . . If Prop. 8 was meant to preserve opposite-sex marriages, they argue, then any judge, gay or straight, would have the similar conflict of interest.

Religion Clause Blog: The Los Angeles Jewish Journal reported last week that on May 19, two proponents filed a Notice of Intent To Circulate Petition (full text) with the Santa Monica (CA) City Clerk’s Office . . .

Christianity Today : Legal scholars say a recent Supreme Court decision upholding Arizona’s tax credits for scholarship donations could contain the seeds of defeat for a pending California challenge to the housing allowance enjoyed by pastors.

Religion Clause Blog: The posts look at three related issues: free exercise issues (under state and federal law), parental rights issues, and the so-called “hybrid rights” doctrine (free exercise claims reinforced by a parental rights claim). Here are links to some of the more thoughtful analyses . . .

Debra J. Saunders at Rasmussen Reports: The U.S. Supreme Court effectively ordered California on Monday to release 33,000 inmates over two years from an in-state prison population that numbers about 143,000.

Wall Street Journal (via Google): Yesterday the Supreme Court ordered California to release 46,000 convicted criminals—people who society has decided, through a fair and impartial judicial system, are dangerous or deserve to be punished. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a powerful dissent, calls it “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history.” In Brown v. Plata, a 5-4 Court majority . . . | How Appealing links to more reports

Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy: In the earlier post, I discussed whether the proposed San Francisco ban on circumcising boys would violate parental rights, even when the parents don’t raise a religious objection to the ban. (As I mentioned in the post, likely about 95% of male circumcisions in the U.S. are not done by Jews or Muslims, the two groups that generally circumcise for religious reasons.) But what about parents who do raise such a religious objection? Would they be entitled to an exemption from the ban, even if courts say the ban can be constitutionally applied — notwithstanding parents’ constitutional rights to direct the medical care of their children — in the absence of a religious objection?

Recent polls showing majority support for same sex marriage could have an effect on judges as the legal fight against Proposition 8 moves through the courts, experts and advocates say . . . “There are no polls or any of today’s trends or fads that would distract the Alliance Defense Fund from the need to protect children. We continue to protect marriage, no matter what the polls say,” said Sara Tappen, litigation counsel for the Christian legal advocacy group.

Pacific Justice Institute: On May 23-24 Redwood Heights Elementary School will be teaching children in grades kindergarten through fifth that there are more than two genders. The two days calendared for this are entitled “Gender Spectrum Diversity Training.” In documents released by the school, students will be taught that “gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one’s physical anatomy.”

NY Times: But a special election in the Los Angeles County district on Tuesday produced an unexpected result: a runoff between a Democrat and a Republican.

SCOTUS Blog: The same-sex couples who succeeded in their constitutional challenge to California’s ban on gay marriage urged a federal judge to release publicly the full videotape of the trial in the case, arguing that it would show how fair the trial judge was.

LA Times: “A hasty legal maneuver by top Los Angeles school officials will not fend off a legal challenge of their decision to turn over low-performing Clay Middle School to a charter-school organization, The Times has learned.”

ADF attorney Jordan Lorence at the Speak Up Movement Church Blog: ast week I participated in a discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School in California on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and its collision with the First Amendment rights of those who define marriage as one man and one woman only . . . What I did not expect at Stanford was a debate on the relevancy of the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia . . . Because so many find the argument persuasive, let me state here what I said to the law students at Stanford . . .

The Senate’s vote was 56-42, as a handful of Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats supporting [Edward] Chen.

Christian Post: A Christian weatherman in Bakersfield, Calif., says he was recently fired from his job days after he objected to an ABC-affiliate airing a story on successful local strip clubs.

State agencies would be prohibited from contracting with businesses that do not provide equal benefits to their employees’ same-sex spouses or domestic partners, under a bill narrowly approved by the state Senate.

Virtue Online: The California Supreme Court today held that St. James Anglican Church can defend its property rights against the claims of the Episcopal Church with evidence in a court of law. The Court confirmed that its 2009 Episcopal Church Cases decision did not end the property dispute in the Episcopal Church’s favor as it had claimed. “Further proceedings are still necessary to finally decide the dispute,” said the Court. (links to op.)

NCPA Policy Digest: Last month, California’s new governor Jerry Brown signed his first major piece of legislation: a bill that requires the state’s utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Before signing the bill, Brown claimed that the measure “is about California leading the country.” But the governor’s political rhetoric ignores the higher costs that the mandate will place on California’s residents and entrepreneurs, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

AP: “The Medical Board of California has heard final arguments about whether “Octomom” Nadya Suleman’s fertility doctor should have his license revoked for allegedly providing substandard care to her and two other patients.”

Religion Clause Blog: The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, California (Docket No. 10-1034, cert. den. 5/2/2011). (Order List.)

The Ninth Circuit Court declined on Wednesday to rule on public access to the videotape recording of the federal trial on the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, deciding that the issue should go first to a federal District judge in San Francisco.

Mercury News (AP): “A federal judge has set a June 13 hearing to consider arguments over whether last year’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 should be set aside because of allegations that the trial judge may have been biased.”

Baptist Press: Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, Cooper and Kirk, and the Law Office of Andrew Pugno are representing ProtectMarriage.com.

Christian Examiner: The Alliance Defense Fund, which has several attorneys working on the case, said Walker’s actions created an unfair playing field on several key points and should have “disqualified himself because an objective observer might reasonably have questioned his impartiality due to his 10-year-long same-sex relationship, his failure to disclose that relationship at the outset of the case, his failure to disclose whether he has any interest in marrying his same-sex partner, and his unprecedented and irregular actions throughout the lawsuit.”

Reuters Legal: For the proponents of the ban: Charles Cooper, David Thompson, Howard Nielson, Nicole Moss and Peter Patterson of Cooper and Kirk; Andrew Pugno of the Law Offices of Andrew P. Pugno; Brian Raum and James Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund.

California Catholic Daily:
The ProtectMarriage.com legal team, including Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, explain . . . “The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and one of more than 2,000 attorneys in the ADF alliance. “Judge Walker’s 10-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires. He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case. These circumstances demand setting aside his decision.”

San Francisco Chronicle: Will a circumcision ban in San Francisco make, um, the final cut and appear before voters this November?

Pacific Justice Institute: Attorneys for Pacific Justice Institute, who represented plaintiff and youth pastor Matthew Snatchko, noted, however, that the settlement is consistent with a California Court of Appeal decision last August that criticized the mall’s rules that attempted to limit consensual conversations between mall patrons. The court held in favor of Snatchko.

Christian Newswire: “Whether this was an intentional violation of our clients’ constitutional liberty or whether this was an act of ignorance on the part of the CHP, this lawsuit is important in order to preserve the liberty to read the …

AP on One News Now: “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.

The ProtectMarriage.com legal team, which is defending the California marriage amendment in federal court, filed a motion Monday to throw out the district court decision that struck down the amendment. The motion argues that now-retired Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker violated federal law by not recusing himself from the Perry v. Brown case.

AP: Lawyer Andy Pugno tells The Associated Press on Monday that backers of the voter-approved measure believe that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case because his impartiality could “reasonably” be questioned.

The Daily Caller: “As a principal of a high school, I have to take the paternal side as well, I have to make sure he’s going to be okay,” Heilmann told Fox, adding he was worried the student would be subjected to bullying.

One News Now: After CRA president Celeste Greig and other board members were accused by Republicans of changing the election rules prior to the CRA convention, clashes highlighted the event as some delegates who arrived were not permitted inside. The event got heated as banned delegates tried to crash the meeting, and police were even called out to the scene . . . A lawsuit was filed by members of the Riverside CRA . . .

AP: The legislation now under consideration in California would add lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to the lengthy list of social and ethnic groups that schools must include in social studies lessons.

Wall Street Journal: There haven’t been any major earthquakes or wildfires in California recently, but teachers apparently think that the potential budget cuts to education merit a “State of Emergency Week.” The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, is planning a week of activities in May. The goal is to pressure Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and the state legislature to raise taxes rather than cut education spending.

SCOTUS Blog: The judge who presided over the Proposition 8 trial on same-sex marriage in California is accused of defying a Supreme Court order against any public broadcast of videotapes of that trial. UPDATE: The judge responded on Thursday, without mentioning the charge of defying the Court.

The ProtectMarriage.com legal team filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Wednesday in Perry v. Brown requesting an order “that former district judge Vaughn Walker cease further disclosures of the video recordings of the trial proceedings in this case” and that all copies be returned to the court.

Religion Clause Blog: The agreement in Westphal v. Wagner, (CD CA, March 31, 2011), calls for an end to prayers at scholarship ceremonies and Chancellor’s Opening Session at the community colleges involved. However commencement ceremonies will continue to feature either a non-sectarian prayer or moment of silence . . .

Charles M. Cannizzaro, Comment, Marriage in California: Is the Federal Lawsuit Against the Constitutionality of Proposition 8 About Applying the Fourteenth Amendment or Preserving Federalism?, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 161 (2010).

AP: The federal judge who struck down California’s gay marriage ban has confirmed that he’s gay. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker retired in February, several months after his landmark decision that’s being challenged in an appeals court.