A litigant who files an appeal, known as an “appellant,” must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were “clearly erroneous.”

Appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a “brief.” In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that its decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the “appellee,” tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any error made by the trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.

I believe a judge who has stock in a company can make a fair judgment regarding that company. But I think if he makes the judgment in favor of the company he owns shares in there will be a perception of bias.

I don’t myself like the idea of “perception of bias” … I would rather the rules say that the court is to be without bias. As one can have a bias without others having a perception of it.

I believe every person is both able to be fair and unfair.

The rules for appeal are interesting and one may say strange when looking in from the outside. Normally no new evidence is used in an appeal – the process is concerned about the proceedings and if the court reached a judgment that was fair based on what the attorneys presented.; and the point of bias has not been raised in the court record. I say this because the recusal process has been place in the code of California 170.x. It requires that the trial stop until the matter is decided – this clearly has not happened as of today. An appeal on this issue if not raised in court would be the attorneys were incompetent – that is not going to happen.

Seems the prop 8 side would rather use points of law brought forth in the court record for the appeal – although they have objected to issues regarding expert witnesses. Each of these objections can be used for an appeal. They have witnesses that did not testify because they were intimidated and others who were not allowed to testify …

I would suspect that they have people sitting at a table looking at what details about the trial would be most suitable for an appeal. And they have better material than a claim of bias against the judge – which may be a difficult one to bring before the 9th circuit.

On an appeal by the plaintiffs, I don’t know any details of them not getting what they want from the court which they can claim as legally required. I am not suggesting that this will be the last case – but if they had a fair trial and lost they have no grounds to appeal.

This means if the Catholic Church ends up before the court and the judge is Catholic he should recuse himself – not because he is unjust but because the public must trust the system.

This means if Sarah Palin comes before a judge, and the judge donated to her campaign must recuse himself. Not because he can not make a fair decision but for the benefit that all will see that the trial was without bias.

The reality is Judge Walker is not in the position to dictate to California what marriage will be. Common law judgments already exist in the 9th circuit and Supreme Court that support the right of the people to amend the constitution of their state to define marriage. Both courts have already been involved in this case in the overturning of Walker’s ruling to parade the prop 8 supporters on youtube.

Prop 8 was created with the understanding that such an amendment would be valid in federal courts – it was framed within existing rulings of the courts – because it was realized that Prop 22 could be overturned. Prop 8 was conceived before Prop 22 was overturned – maybe if prop 22 was not overturned it would not have been passed.

Like it or not people will view a judgment by Walker to overthrow prop 8 as biased and the judicial system does not wish to be seen as biased.

You may say that people should not see it that way, I understand the feeling. People make judgments that they should not. Many people feel that Bible is against gay people – that is their judgment and no I do not like it. But with a sober mind and without blinders, awake to the truth – what is, is what is. Do you suppose that Mormon’s if asked about a Walker judgment against Prop 8 are going to say and believe it was without bias? Given the facts and his actions through the case.

So the honorable thing for Judge Walker to do is to recuse himself – not to make a judgment based on common law for the legality of prop 8 or a judgment based on ???? against the established system of law which calls into question the fairness of the system to millions of Americans and the system as a whole outside of California.