Connect with us

Request for the NY Commission on Judicial Conduct to Investigate Judge Wiggins for Bias in his Decision on the Challenge to the Marriage Equality Act – Part II



This is Part II. Read Part III, or go back and read Part I.


Before explicating additional details indicative of bias in this part of Judge Wiggins’s Decision, a consideration of Plaintiffs’ choice of venue is in order. The Plaintiffs had options of where to file their lawsuit; they chose rural Livingston County because, for one, the Plaintiff Reverend Jason J. McGuire resides there. However, Reverend McGuire’s organization New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which is among his fellow, listed Plaintiffs, is, according to its website, located in Spencerport in Monroe County, the County Seat of which is the City of Rochester. Whereas Monroe County has in Rochester a metropolitan center, rural Livingston County has no cosmopolitan center. All things considered, in rural Livingston County it is easier than it would be in Monroe County for political gay bashers to dominate the political landscape. As Plaintiff Reverend McGuire resides and votes in Livingston County, and as he is a political lobbyist and public figure notorious for his ignorance-fueled, bullying non-acceptance of gay human beings, Judge Wiggins perhaps is aware of Plaintiff McGuire’s theocratic, anti-gay and anti-gay-rights motivations and of his political influence in Livingston County, which as of the 2010 census had a total county population of 65,393. It strains credulity to think that an Acting Supreme Court Judge in this rural county of only 65,393 people would be unaware of the theocratic political gay basher Reverend McGuire and of McGuire’s political influence in the county.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct should note that 1) Plaintiff McGuire — at least partially on his alleged basis that acceptance of homosexuality comes “from Satan” — very aggressively promotes “pray away the gay” therapeutic charlatanism, specifically disapproved of by major professional medical and psychological associations and 2) Plaintiff McGuire issues shockingly-worded political threats against those that do anything specifically to advance gay people’s civil and human rights. Consider a letter that the Plaintiffs Reverend McGuire and Reverend Motley sent June 14, 2011 on NYCF letterhead to Senate Majority Leader Dean K. Skelos. In that letter, McGuire and Motley remind Republican Skelos how infuriated they remain because, in 2002, a Republican-controlled Senate “frustrated” political gay bashers by passing the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. They subsequently remind Skelos that in New York, extreme anti-gay right wingers have successfully mounted challenges to relatively moderate Republicans, as happened in 2008 when Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino was nominated for Governor over Republican Rick Lazio. Then, Reverends McGuire and Motley tell Senate Majority Leader Skelos “In 2012, should same-sex “marriage” pass,the pound of flesh will come from the Republican Majority.” Given that Reverends McGuire and Motley are inclined to issuing such violently-worded threats about same sex marriage on New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms letterhead, perhaps Acting Supreme Court Judge Wiggins feared that if he dismissed this case outright, he would never be nominated to the Supreme Court of Livingston County. How hard is it to suppose that Judge Wiggins might have perceived that he had more to lose by dismissing this case outright than by deciding it wrongly and including bias and political propaganda in his Decision?

The Commission on Judicial Conduct must not ignore that in their violently-phrased threat to Skelos, Plaintiffs McGuire and Motley put the word marriage in quotes – as follows — same-sex “marriage” – they wrote, in reference to marriages of same sex couples – because, they refuse to acknowledge as valid the fact that same sex married couples are married, even though those same sex couples are indeed legally married. And, the Commission must not ignore that behavior, because it is characteristic of political gay bashers in Livingston County, (and elsewhere), to whom ***Acting*** Supreme Court Judge Wiggins — (who might want to get nominated to a full term on the Livingston County Supreme Court bench) — perhaps directed certain portions of his Decision, which undeniably contains biased political propaganda.

Returning now to that portion of Judge Wiggins’s Decision dealing with the Plaintiffs’ legally baseless allegation apropos of Cuomo’s message of necessity;

As previously stated, instead of providing legal analysis as to why he concluded that Cuomo acted lawfully, Judge Wiggins chastises the Governor for his use of the message of necessity. To help further to demonstrate that Judge Wiggins wrote bias into his Decision, I shall first clarify what the law says about messages of necessity. Article III, Section 14 of The New York State Constitution describes the legal conditions under which a Governor may submit a message of necessity:

§14. No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon

In his message of necessity, Governor Cuomo wrote “The continued delay of the passage of this bill would deny over 50,000 same-sex couples in New York critical protections currently afforded to different-sex couples including hospital visitations, inheritance and pension benefits.”

In his Decision, Judge Wiggins, with bias, disparages Cuomo’s opinion in the message of necessity at length, asserting, for instance, that “Logically and clearly,” it was “disingenuous.” That is to say, Judge Wiggins improperly editorialized against Governor Cuomo’s opinion which held that the end of anti-gay discrimination should occur as promptly as possible. The Commission on Judicial Conduct must now consider, that previously it has happened, that the surviving member of a loving same-sex couple together for decades has been refused his partner’s body by a hospital because he did not — under the discriminatory law as it was written at the time — have legal standing to have the body as part of proper funeral arrangements.

While Cuomo, as per the statute, certified facts which in his opinion necessitated an immediate vote on the Marriage Equality Law, Judge Wiggins in his Decision allowed that Cuomo lawfully handled the message of necessity, but that he, Wiggins, personally very strongly and emotionally disapproves of the facts Cuomo presented, and personally very strongly and emotionally disapproves of Cuomo’s opinion that those facts necessitated an immediate vote on the Marriage Equality Act. Very significantly, where, in his Decision, Judge Wiggins cites the law pertaining to messages of necessity, he misquotes it.  There now follows an example of Judge Wiggins’s misquoting of the law. 

Here is what the law actually says: The law states that all proposed legislation must be on Legislators’ desks for three days prior to any vote, “unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinionnecessitate an immediate vote thereon.”

In misquoting the law, instead of the above, Judge Wiggins wrote “unless the Governor certifies facts which necessitate an immediate vote thereon.” That is, Judge Wiggins omitted the phrase of the law“in his or her opinion,” such that to eventual readers of his Decision, naïve of the precise wording of the statute, it could well appear that the facts necessitating an immediate vote on the proposed legislation must somehow documentably be proven to necessitate an immediate vote, instead of being ipso facto valid for a message of necessity because 1) in the Governor’s opinion, those facts necessitate an immediate vote and 2) the law says that for a message of necessity, the Governor certifies the facts which “in his or her opinion” necessitate an immediate vote.

There now follows how, in his Decision, Judge Wiggins elaborated his personal and emotional opinion that Governor Cuomo should not have used a message of necessity, even though Governor Cuomo acted entirely lawfully in doing so. The bolding is mine:

“The review of such concept altering legislation for three days after generations of existing definitions would not so damage same sex couples as to necessitate an avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review and discussion prior to any vote.”

Whereas Governor Cuomo would want to spare a gay person that had just lost their beloved life’s companion the waking nightmare of being refused their life’s companion’s body by a hospital, Judge Wiggins evidently thinks it is just tough luck for gay human beings in such a circumstance. Whereas somebody might have referred to the proposed Marriage Equality Law as, for example, “discrimination-eliminating legislation,” Judge Wiggins called it “concept altering legislation.”In that same spot, a judge concerned with conveying professional impartiality and with not exhibiting bias might simply have referred to “this legislation.”

As regards Judge Wiggins’s reference to “generations of existing definitions,” (of marriage), one could ask whether Judge Wiggins has with that phrase used the Plaintiffs’ lingo.  Equality proponents do not often, if indeed ever, say that their goal is “to change the definition of marriage,” but enemies of equality continually refer to “the definition of marriage.” Whereas Plaintiffs in their Complaint use phrases such as “the definition of marriage,” such phrases about “the definition of marriage” do not appear in Schneiderman’s Response document. By way of additional example, few if indeed any of the groups that favored passage of the Marriage Equality Law celebrated by announcing “We have redefined marriage.” And, by way of contrast,  after passage of the Marriage Equality Law, Plaintiff NYCF published to its website an article titled “New York Falls Off Moral Precipice” in which it stated that four Republican Senators voted “to redefine marriage and the family.”

In his Decision, regarding the message of necessity, Judge Wiggins additionally writes (bolding mine):

“This Court is reluctantly obliged to rule that the message of necessity submitted by the Governor was accepted by vote of the Senate, and is NOT within this Court’s province to nullify.”

That sentence does not constitute a legal analysis. That phrase manifestly is directed at the Plaintiffs and their eventual supporters, and not, for example, at Cuomo or Schneiderman. Judge Wiggins himself capitalized the word “not” in the phrase “is NOT within this Court’s province to nullify;” and, it is self-evident that the capitalized “NOT” is directed not at Attorney General Schneiderman or Governor Cuomo but rather at those that want the Marriage Equality Law declared null and void. The sentence in question appears to express Judge Wiggins’s strong personal wish that he could rule in favor of the Plaintiffs on this allegation about the message of necessity, though the law does not permit him to. That Judge Wiggins thusly appears to express a personal wish to side with the Plaintiffs, though the law would not allow any judge to do so in this question of the message of necessity, and that he appears to express a personal wish to side with the Plaintiffs in language manifestly directed at the Plaintiffs, is consistent with the hypothesis that the bias Judge Wiggins exhibits in this Decision could be calculated to increase his personal professional fortunes in Livingston County.

Judge Wiggins further writes:

“although the disregard for the statute seems evident, the Court feels constrained to not rule on the Governor’s certification of necessities.”

There, Judge Wiggins is promulgating the documentable legal untruth, the lie, that Governor Cuomo disregarded the statute. Furthermore, it is senseless, absurd and unprofessional for Judge Wiggins to write that “the Court feels constrained not to rule on the Governor’s certification of necessities,” because Judge Wiggins has no authority to rule on it, and because, ruling on the Governor’s certification of necessities was not even put before Judge Wiggins. What got put before him, rather, were the Plaintiffs’ meritless allegations regarding the message of necessity, and Schneiderman’s Motion to Dismiss. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare that the Governor “improperly” issued a message of necessity. But the Governor acted lawfully, so Judge Wiggins had to dismiss that allegation. Instead of analyzing why the Plaintiffs’ allegations were without merit, Judge Wiggins shoehorned into the middle of what is supposed to be a legal document a biased op-ed against Governor Cuomo’s desire to eliminate anti-gay discrimination as promptly as possible.

In view of Judge Wiggins’s emotionally editorializing in place of professional legal analysis, it is galling that previously in the Decision, he wrote “The Respondent has raised multiple issues in its motion to dismiss. Some of these issues are easily decided and others require further analysis.” I want the Commission on Judicial Conduct to consider whether Judge Wiggins was being duplicitous when he wrote that.  Any judge who — given to rule on these Plaintiffs’ bogus allegations regarding Cuomo’s message of necessity — could not “easily decide” the matter, would have to be considered incompetent. And, even though Judge Wiggins wrote that some issues raised by the Respondent “require further analysis,” Judge Wiggins, writing about whether the charge involving the message of necessity should be dismissed, in a very roundabout way admitted that it should be dismissed, while openly and emotionally wishing to side with the Plaintiffs on it and chastising the Defendants. Is that not a very definition of bias?

Judge Wiggins wrapped up his non-judicial, biased political propaganda regarding the message of necessity by writing this:

“It is ironic that much of the State’s brief spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process.”

Again there, Judge Wiggins appears to be writing in a particular, non-judicial way for a particular readership opposed to marriage equality for same sex couples. The State’s brief does not “spew sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches.” The Plaintiffs’ asked the Court to declare that the Governor improperly issued a message of necessity. They did so, in the course of asking the Court to declare the Marriage Equality Law null and void and also to declare annulled all same sex marriages entered into under it. The Defendants responded with a legally sound and well-detailed defense.  That was the Defendants’ duty, as it was Judge Wiggins’s duty to write his Decision without bias and without political propaganda. There are reasons that, in the face of the Plaintiffs’ demand that the Marriage Equality Law — and same sex marriages entered into under it — be declared null and void — Judge Wiggins should have faced the task of composing his Decision with a heightened resolve to remain professional, judicial, and unbiased.



This is Part II. Read Part III, or go back and read Part I.

New York City-​based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-​interest by-​line has appeared on Advocate​.com, PoliticusUSA​.com, The New York Blade, Queerty​.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Republicans Kill Bill to Protect IVF After Claiming They Fully Support It



After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled two weeks ago that frozen embryos are “children,” causing several medical facilities to pause their in-vitro fertilization services, Republicans rushed to get ahead of the growing national outrage.

Many Republicans insisted that although they oppose abortion and support the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, they did not think it would have effects this far-reaching. And they insisted, repeatedly, on-camera, they absolutely support in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

“Once you pass a law or accept the view that life begins at conception, IVF & some forms of birth control are at risk, along with abortion. It was never ‘just’ about abortion & women pay the price for all of it,” wrote professor of law and MSNBC legal contributor Joyce Vance on February 23. Three days later she added, “It’s pretty simple. If life begins at conception, IVF is off the table. If you make an exception for IVF then we’re just having a conversation about who you’re willing to make exceptions for.”

Republicans insisted they were willing to make an exception for IVF.

RELATED: Nikki Haley: Frozen Embryos Are ‘Babies’

For years, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who has given birth to two children with the help of IVF, has tried to pass legislation to protect IVF.

Republicans each time have killed the bills.

Her latest attempt was Wednesday.

U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) on Wednesday spoke against the bill.

Sen. Duckworth stamped out Hyde-Smith’s claims, saying, “She said at one point the bill would allow for chimeras — human-animal hybrids — it does nothing of the sort. All the bill says if you want to seek reproductive technology you can …”

Sen. Hyde-Smith then killed the bill by formally objecting to Duckworth’s bill on Wednesday, which the Illinois Democrat tried to pass via unanimous consent.

It was the second time in two years Sen. Hyde-Smith has killed that bill.

They’re hanging this on Hyde-Smith. But the entire senate gop has now united to block a federal law to keep ivf legal,” observed Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall. “They’re all coming out saying that frozen embryos are equal to living children.”

READ MORE: Democrats Discredit GOP Claims on IVF as Republicans Try to Regain Ground After Fallout

Also on Wednesday, the lone House Republican supporting legislation to protect IVF withdrew her sponsorship of that bill.

The Biden campaign on Thursday blasted Republicans for claiming to support IVF then killing the bill that would have protected it.

Watch the videos above or at this link.


Continue Reading


‘Injustice’: Experts Condemn Supreme Court’s ‘Fundamentally Corrupt’ Trump Decision



Legal and political experts were stunned by the Supreme Court announcing Wednesday it will take up Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, despite there being no contradiction in the lower courts. Compounding experts’ surprise and concern over granting certiorari was the length of time it took to announce the decision, and that they will not hear arguments until April 22.

“The Supreme Court heard and decided Bush v. Gore in THREE DAYS. THAT was expediting a case of national importance,” noted Tristan Snell, the former New York State prosecutor who led the successful investigation and $25 million prosecution of Donald Trump’s Trump University. “The Supreme Court apparently now thinks expediting means THREE MONTHS. Clearest evidence yet that SCOTUS is corrupt and broken.”

Professor of law and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, the former FBI General Counsel who served at DOJ for decades, asked: “Why on god’s green earth did the S Ct [Supreme Court] not take the case earlier when the Special Counsel sought review directly from the District Court? They have really played into Trump’s hands.”

He adds: “The Supreme Court is going straight for the capillaries: an issue the DC criminal case does not raise, namely the outer bounds of a presidential immunity doctrine.”

READ MORE: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Weissman Thursday morning noted that the Supreme Court’s actions essentially make Trump “de facto immune.”

Foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and author David Rothkopf replied, “I think you have answered your own question. The only reason to handle this the way they did is to, at best, play Trump’s delay game and, at worst, set the stage for one of the most indefensible, corrupt decisions (or outcomes) in US history.”

“Those who did not understand the urgency of stopping the threat posed by Trump, MAGA and the dark money right, those who did not actively hold them accountable with every available institutional tool, may have been the undoing of American democracy…no matter their intentions,” he noted.

“Let’s not beat around the bush, decision by the Supreme Court to hear the Trump immunity case is outrageous and, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt,” Rothkopf also wrote. “The Appeals Court decision was bullet proof and there is no case Trump has any sort of immunity. The decision not to hear it until late April makes further significant trial delays likely. They are deliberately delaying the trial without any reasonable legal reason to do so. This is a political decision and, in my estimation, an ugly one.”

“If a special counsel had been appointed early in 2021,” Rothkopf also wrote, “if Trump obstruction of justice had be prosecuted, if Trump had not been granted special treatment on his theft of classified documents, if the classified documents case had been brought in DC as it should have been, Trump might very well be in jail now.”

READ MORE: Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony

He also pointed to this monologue from MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, calling it “correct.”

University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University Laurence Tribe blasted “the SCOTUS decision to slow-walk Trump’s outrageous immunity claim — the claim everyone knows would be rejected 9-0 by any self-respecting court.”

Noting the Supreme Court could have taken up the case back in December, Tribe told CNN, “There’s nothing new under the sun” in this case. “It doesn’t make any sense to stretch this out this way.”

“We can be sure that they want to use this case to settle a whole broad range of issues, contrary to their supposed practice of deciding no more than you must decide. In fact, the Chief Justice once famously said, if we don’t have to decide something, that means we have to avoid deciding it. He’s obviously violated that mandate here and the struggle within the court results in injustice for the nation.”

Tribe also slammed the Court for choosing to announce it will decide “the broadest possible question.” He suggests they could stretch it out even more, by taking the case, hearing it, then sending it back to the lower courts again.

Daily Beast columnist and “recovering attorney” Wajahat Ali observed: “A thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court with right-wing justices bought out by conservative billionaires and beholden to Christian nationalism should not be expected to side with justice, the rule of law, or democracy. Elections matter.”

CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic on Wednesday said, The fact that they delayed this order … suggests that they certainly did not embrace the urgency that Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to impose upon them, way back in December.”

“Former President Trump’s effort to run the clock has a partner in the Supreme Court at this point,” she notes.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘How Extremism Is Normalized’: Schlapp Furious as Critics Slam CPAC Over Report of Nazis

Continue Reading


Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony



House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer announced he will hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden after the president’s son testified behind closed doors for most of Wednesday.

“I think this was a great deposition for us, it proved several bits of our evidence, that we’ve been conducting throughout this investigation, but there are also some contradictory statements that I think need further review,” Comer told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

“So this impeachment inquiry will now go to the next phase, which will be a public hearing. And that’s something that I think everyone in the media has been asking a lot of questions about. Something that I know that Mr. Biden and his attorney both demanded, just as I said, when we said we were going to do the deposition first, we will have a public hearing next.”

It’s unclear what other witnesses Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan will present.

Comer claimed that parts of Hunter Biden’s testimony contradicted some of their previous witness’ testimony, although he refused to elaborate.

READ MORE: Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Hunter Biden stated in the opening remarks he released publicly Wednesday morning that Chairman Comer and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan had built their “entire partisan house of cards on lies told by the likes of Gal Luft, Tony Bobulinski, Alexander Smirnov, and Jason Galanis.”

“Luft, who is a fugitive, has been indicted for his lies and other crimes; Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies; Bobulinski, who has been exposed for the many false statements he has made, and Galanis, who is serving 14 years in prison for fraud.”

Politico described Hunter Biden’s opening statement as “blistering.”

“I am here today,” the President’s son began, “to provide the Committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never.”

Watch Comer below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.