Partisan Gonsel

Can you imagine if prayer in public schools was judicially reinstated this way?:

Unbelievable:  Judge Walker has denied the motion of Prop 8 proponents for a stay of his wild ruling against Prop 8 (with the exception of a stay for a limited time—until 5 p.m. on August 18—to enable proponents to seek Ninth Circuit review of the denial).  In other words, he’s trying to implement same-sex marriage immediately—not only in the face of the more than seven million California citizens who voted for Prop 8 but also in an obvious effort to undermine the availability of appellate review as a meaningful corrective.

In context, this, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a "facial".  Walker's original ruling is itself one of the most breathtakingly brazen extralegal usurpations a federal judge at any level has ever undertaken, a flagrant throwing out of the law and substitution of his own hardcore support of sodomarriage with both middle fingers extended to full mast at those fourteen million Californians who had the wacky thought that they could decide such social and moral issues for themselves in one of those anachronistic plebecites they used to call - wait, it'll come to me - ah, yes: ELECTIONS.  Guess Judge Walker thought the wrong side won, huh?

And now he isn't even willing to allow the appeals process to play itself out, even with the Ninth Circus and Justice Kennedy ready, willing, and able to uphold him with their homophilic rubber stamps.  Not just eigenartigeverbindung uber alles, but eigenartigeverbindung im Augenblick!!!!!

And yet one wonders of Judge Walker is himself so sure of whether his imposition would survive an appeal, "judging" by the way he's throwing obstacles in its way in a manner that might be described as frantic:

The heart of Walker’s rationale is that Prop 8 proponents may not even have standing to appeal.  But if they don’t have standing to appeal, how did they have a right to intervene as defendants to present the defense of Prop 8?  Why didn’t Walker simply enter a stipulated judgment (or more properly...dismiss plaintiffs’ case) when the state defendants abandoned their duty to defend Prop 8?  The obvious reason is that state law recognizes that a proposition’s proponents have authority to defend the proposition, lest government officials subvert the ultimate power that the proposition process places in the people.  That authority necessarily must confer standing to appeal an adverse decision.

They don't stack decks this egregiously in the most mob-run Vegas gambling emporiums.  "Heads I win/tails you lose" doesn't even describe it.  Not content to screw over the results of a lawful ballot initiative, Judge Walker is attempting to "rule" on the identity of the party he just screwed over.  He wants to disqualify Prop 8's defenders precisely because they will appeal his tyrannical misrule to the gates of hell if necessary, while he knows damn good and well that Governor Girlyman and A-G Moonbeam have already derelicted their legal duty to [heh] carry out da will of da peepul of Gollyfornia.

Ed Whelan seems to think that the form of Judge Walker's outrageous judicial abuses will overwhelm the substance of what he has attempted to do, resulting in a rafter-rattling reversal from Olympus.  Which brings us back to the question of what is motivating his frenetic shortcut-taking if, as Eeyore seems to like to argue, tribadist matrimony is "inevitable"?  Perhaps the very passage of Prop 8 in the "blueist" of states in the most left-favorable political circumstances imaginable?