The ultimate outcome of the California case cannot be predicted, but appeals court judges and the justices at the highest court in the land could find themselves boxed in by the careful logic and structure of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinion, legal experts said. The reason, he said, is that while appeals courts often overturn lower-court judges on their findings of law -- such as the proper level of scrutiny to apply to Proposition 8 -- findings of fact are traditionally given greater deference. "This opinion shows why district courts matter, even though the Supreme Court has the last word." They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." * "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). By structuring an opinion that allows the Court to use the lower level of scrutiny, Judge Walker "is speaking to Justice Kennedy," he said. "The Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things," he said.
– Judge Vaughn Walker’s masterfully written ruling striking down Proposition 8 “was written for a court of one,” namely Anthony Kennedy, writes Dahlia Lithwick of Slate. Walker quotes extensively from Kennedy’s own findings (see Quotes, left), and his “findings of fact” section “knits together the trial evidence … to the nerves at the very base of Justice Kennedy’s brain.” These findings are so rigorous that “it’s hard to read Judge Walker’s opinion without sensing that what really won out was science, methodology, and hard work.” That’s important, because appellate courts often ignore findings of law, but give deference to findings of fact. Walker's findings are so well reasoned that they’ll make it much harder for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, one law professor tells the New York Times, adding, “This opinion shows why district courts matter.” But another law professor doubts it. “We’ve seen time and time again that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants,” he said.