The Fix Was In



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.”

Judge Walker, a homosexual, was nakedly partisan throughout the proceedings at the trial level.  Go here and here to see some examples.  This case is now before the United States Supreme Court.  The bias of Judge Walker was too much even for the Leftist Ninth Circuit.  They upheld his ruling but on grounds that had nothing to do with his decision.  The type of judicial bias displayed by Judge Walker is one reason so many people in society are developing a contempt for courts that attempt to “resolve” divisive social issues.  I have been a member of the bar for more than three decades, and I fully share that contempt.  Judge Scalia noted this bias accurately in regard to abortion:

None of these remarkable conclusions should come as a surprise. What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the “ad hoc nullification machine” that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today’s decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts, I dissent

The law only works as a means of ordering societies if those living under it believe that it will be applied neutrally and fairly.  Social conservatives have been given endless evidence over the past half century to believe that when it comes to their concerns judge made law as applied to them is neither neutral nor fair.


More to explorer


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: