Abnormal Interests

The Cal Law's profile, written in 2002, offers the following insights:

Former-federal-prosecutor-turned-defense-attorney Jerrold Ladar said Kramer makes every effort to settle a case. "He's also a trustworthy judge with great credibility with both district attorneys and defense attorneys," Ladar said. His advice to lawyers appearing before Kramer is: "Be candid with him. Don't play any games. When someone does that, he says, 'I've done that, so don't try to hose me.'"

. . .

Perhaps an insight into the judge is a print hanging in his chambers by the contemporary painter Kostabi called "Talk to the Devil." It depicts a blue figure looking at his shadow on a redbrick wall. The shadow is that of the devil.

"There's a potential for the devil in all of us," the judge said with a devilish grin.

This doesn't sound like a person that would shoot from the hip.

Did Judge Kramer make his decision based on local, San Francisco, political grounds as claimed by some who disapprove of the ruling? Did he overturn the will of the people?

We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people. (Mercury News article)

There is always some political pressure on any elected official. It would be absurd to deny it. However, Kramer was appointed in 1996 to fill an empty seat, he was elected unopposed on March 2, 2004 and at least one time prior to that. This means he is not up for re-election until 2008. That's a life time in political terms. California Superior Court judges serve six year terms and must the face election.

Also, remember how happy the supporters of Prob. 22 were when Judge Kramer allowed The Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and another "Pro-family" group to join the case.

If your interested in how to become a Superior Court Judge in California (or how to get rid of one), The American Judiciary Society has the lowdown.

Did Judge Kramer "approve gay marriage?" No, not by my reading. Did he overturn the will of the electorate? No, not by my reading. He said, in effect, that two laws, both approved at different times by the voters, were in conflict and one, the State Constitution, trumped the other, Proposition 22. Nothing more complicated or conspiratorial or evil than that. And when two laws are in conflict, rectifying the problem, when the people or the legislature can't or won't, is what we pay judges for. As I said, I don't know that this is the correct legal answer. I do think it is the correct moral answer. But that does not matter any more than it should matter that those now crying about the ruling have dogma based ideas of what is correct when it comes to marriage. When something is in the courts, it is a legal matter not a moral matter. Sure, sometimes judges get confused and sometimes public morals are indeed correct parts of legal considerations. Pornography is an example where public values become part of legal considerations, at least in some states.

It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.