The Fix Was In

Saturday, March 23, AD 2013



Patterico at Patterico’s Pontifications has received copies of e-mails between retired Fededal District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker and one of Ted Olson’s legal partners, demonstrating the depth of collusion between the judge who ruled that Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment in California approved by the voters banning gay marriage was unconstitional, and Ted Olson who led the legal team seeking to overturn Proposition 8:


Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who struck down Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, sought Ted Olson’s opinion regarding whether Walker should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on the gay marriage cases. Olson was one of the lawyers who successfully persuaded Judge Walker to strike down Proposition 8 after a trial held in 2010.

In December 2012 emails obtained exclusively by, Judge Walker, who retired in February 2011, asked Olson’s law partner to “ask Ted if he thinks my attending the argument would be an unwanted distraction.”

Above: Retired federal judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, seeks Ted Olson’s opinion as to whether he should attend next week’s Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage.

When Olson’s law partner responded that Olson thought Walker’s attendance would be a “potential distraction,” Walker agreed not to go, saying he understood Olson’s reaction and was not surprised by it. Walker described himself as “only moderately disappointed not to see the argument,” and added: “Ted’s argument will be spectacular, I’m sure.”

Continue reading...

18 Responses to The Fix Was In

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MORNING EDITION | God & Caesar
  • It’s this sort of thing that makes me question whether we continue to have a legitimate federal, and in some cases state government. We have widespread election fraud by the party in power and a disregard for the constitution that established our nation. We have different standards for how the law treats people dependent upon whether you agree with or dissent from the Democratic Party platform. The Democratic Party uses the taxpayers money (and heavily borrowed funds) to pay for the indoctrination of our children with their immoral principles. They have created a debt bomb that will end in either heavy taxation, or the devaluation of our currency. Either method results in the destruction of wealth and will prevent individuals and groups from gathering the financial means for opposing the party in power. Collusion by the judiciary is simply the party in power maintaining its power and crushing its opposition. Its further evidence that the law is of no consequence and our government is likely illegitimate at this point.

  • The United States of America is not a representative republic. It is a corrupt oligarchy. FDR showed the way for the Democrat Party to obtain and hold power. with a few exceptions, they have been doing what FDR did ever since.

    The Constitution means nothing. A federal judge has no business overthrowing a stat constitution amendment such as Prop 8, but he did it anyway. Vote fraud occurs on a massive scale in Philadelphia every four years, but the media won’t investigate it, the Democrat Party benefits from it and the GOP is too full of wimps to try to stop it.

  • The way the Prop 8 case was litigated (to the bench, not to a jury), with the government throwing the case, and a gay judge (who publicly announces his homosexual lifestyle AFTER he rules on the case, not before), trampling over every procedural and evidentiary rule, is literally sickening. This judge seemed to have been hand-picked. By his own admission, he delayed his retirement so he could be the assigned judge. He engaged in all sorts of dishonest and scheming ploys to get cameras to record his trial, breaking rules along the way, and then violated an appellate court’s ruling respecting the videotaping of that trial. Vaughn Walker disrespected the democratic vote of Californians on Prop 8, wrote a grotesquely dishonest opinion based on phony expert evidence (from obviously and equally biased homosexual expert witnesses to boot), and then fled into retirement, coming out of the closet after the case was over. He has since become a public champion of his own decision to jam gay marriage down the throats of the citizenry. This case and this judge stank to high heaven, and if Justice Kennedy (or CJ Roberts) affirm this corrupt judgment, they will not be on the “right side of history” but kill the legitimacy of the Court.

  • Your honor ????????

  • Higher education and ratings are often overrated!

  • When the honor has no honor how should one address him? Your Disgraced!? Your Unworthiness? Your Lair?
    Where’s the silver-lining in this field of nightmares?

  • [When the honor has no honor how should one address him?]

    How about “Your DisHonour”?

  • How about “Your Disgrace”?

  • I think Penguin Fan is right. We have lost our representative republic. I don’t know if oligarchy defines the situation, but I feel a definate erosion has occurred.

  • Why postpone the inevitable, Donald? Your fighting an uphill battle and there is another army waiting at the top. Sorry if I sound a tad bit defeatist.

  • Because this is my country Jon and I love her, as I do Democracy. Additionally, considering that the Republicans control some 30 states you are being defeatist, an attitude that is always a waste of time.

  • But we weren’t given a democracy. It was a representative republic as someone said earlier. A democracy would probably have been very short lived and would have ushered in something worse.

  • Please do not play word games Jon. No one expects direct rule a la Athens. What was established by the Founding Fathers has become known as Democracy. One of the many crimes of the Birchers is to cause that type of hair splitting debate to go on endlessly on conservative sites and I have small patience for it.

  • THe John Birch Society, you mean? Yes, many books have been written in the past few decades pointing out the great difference between a democracy and a republic. It was that kind of literature that caught myt attention to the subject.

  • Shawn-
    Your Dishonour.
    Right. Supreme Court later today. Prop 8, DOMA.
    Lets see if there’s “nobility” worthy of honour.
    Seems honor is a cheap cigar in the rainbow west.

Not So Fast…

Monday, August 16, AD 2010

A Panel of the 9th Circuit has surprisingly issued a wise decision, deciding to allow Proposition 8 to remain in place while the 9th Circuit considers its constitutionality.

This was undoubtedly the right decision. It makes no sense to force a state to marry people while knowing that a later decision could invalidate all those marriages.

One hopes that this is the beginning of a trend in reversing Judge Walker, whose rulings in this case can best be described as what happens when judicial activism meets the dictatorship of relativism.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Not So Fast…

  • Judge Walker’s performance in this case would warrant impeachment if we were living in a just world. His bias in this case has been clear from the beginning and totally shameless.

  • Was this actually surprising? Wasn’t everyone expecting a stay? I was half expecting Judge Walker to stay his own decision.

  • I was half expecting Judge Walker to stay his own decision.


  • I was, but I was hoping Walker would be impartial enough to grant the stay himself. I hadn’t been paying attention to the trial, but I think Don is right: this is a really poor performance by a judge, and I sincerely hope Christians who handle abortion trials learn from Walker’s example of how not to behave.

  • Isn’t it awesome how the people of the state can decide the matter, but its really up to a judge or a panel of judges to decide what’s good for them.

  • I’m really curious about how the law schools will spin this. There was so much effort spent “debunking the myth” that Left-leaning judges are “activist.” Some decisions though have got to be hard to re-cast. This is probably one of them.

  • I’m really curious about how the law schools will spin this. There was so much effort spent “debunking the myth” that Left-leaning judges are “activist.”

    Actually, that’s not been my experience. The current spin (and I got it today in the opening class for Con Law II, which is about the Bill of Rights) is that all judges today are activist, not just liberals. Basically, when Scalia (their favorite target) or any conservative attacks activism, they’re being hypocrites and point to the gun rights decisions, among others.

  • when Scalia (their favorite target) or any conservative attacks activism, they’re being hypocrites and point to the gun rights decisions, among others.

    Judge A thinks the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, in a brief article which concerns that subject and the utility of the militia, refers to a personal right. Judge B fancies the phrase, “deny any person the equal protection of the laws” in an omnibus amendment granting freed slaves citizenship and cleaning up some other business from the civil war, requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes no matter what the various elected officials and general referenda say. Both are equally ‘activist’ to your classmates in Con Law II. Emphasis on ‘con’.

  • Good Morning Mr. Denton,

    1st – I hope your law school years are good and fruitful. Good luck and God bless.

    2nd – The narratives keep ranging back to what the Constitution IS – the whole Originalist vs. Living Constitutionalist debate. Since you are in law school, I’ll remind you that the Constitution is whatever your prof says it is. Work with their narrative and your grades will reflect your wisdom. (That is something I often found hard to do and my grades reflected that pig-headedness.)

  • In my experience, liberals embrace judicial activism. I think that’s a much more intellectually honest position than claiming that originalists are equally activist.

  • In my experience, liberals embrace judicial activism. I think that’s a much more intellectually honest position

    The notion that the phrases “The Judicial power shall extend to all cases under this Constitution” and “deny any person the equal protection of the laws” give you a roving mandate to arbitrarily annul any social policy you care to can be called many things. “Intellectually honest” is not one of them.

  • RR,

    How about a gravatar pic for your handle?