- U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
The Supreme Court ruled on the side of the defenders of Proposition 8 that proceedings today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could not be broadcast. The ruling was a stay until Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled last week that the trial could be streamed on YouTube at the end of the day. Defendants in the case argued that they would suffer irreparable harm from broadcast.
The only dissent was from Justice Stephen Breyer, who is from San Francisco. He said that he did not think the court’s standard for granting a stay had been met or that, from the papers filed, they would suffer ‘irreparable harm.’
This is the second time the Supreme Court intervened on the side of opposite sex “marriage” proponents. In October, they ruled that the 138,000 names of persons who signed petitions to overturn Washington state’s law equal benefits law could not be released. Washington law says that the names of people signing petitions are public record. Washington voters upheld the equality law in November.
These rulings may give an indication of how the Supreme court would rule if the Prop 8 case reaches them. But aren’t court proceedings open to the public and shouldn’t the public have access to those trials when there is wide interest in them? Isn’t the Supreme Court just allowing the bigots to wear their KKK hoods to court?
I totally agree that this should be shown to the public but there have been incidents of harassment from our own community involving people who supported Prop 8 and other anti-gay initiatives. These incidents are probably what led to the court’s decision today. So thank the loons who had to retaliate for today’s decision.
The legacy of the Bush years, a court packed with conservative ideologues.
The ruling was a stay through Wednesday. We still might get to see the proceedings. But the real problem is it looks like an 8-1 decision against us if it goes to the Supreme Court. Not even Ginsberg sided with Breyer.
And Tisha, you’re right. No one’s life should be threatened over this. I got a couple of threatening emails recently from cowards who were angry about what I’ve written on the blog. But killing, wounding or maiming for marriage is just plain dumb at best, stupid, illegal and wrong.
I wouldn’t read too much into the 8 to 1 against televising the trial.
First is the safety issue. I think they are being cautious until they get to weigh the security risks of televising it.
Second, it’s a pilot program for the federal courts. They may be thinking they need to stick to a smaller, lesser known case for the pilot, rather than starting with an ultra high profile case like this one.
Third, the SCOTUS (even the liberals) have been against televising its cases or any federal cases for many years. If they allow it for this case, they have to allow it when it makes it to SCOTUS, which none of them except for Breyer seem to want.
In Bush v Gore, audio only was provided and some made mistakes that embarressed the court. For example, one addressed a Justice who had died years ago and obviously wans’t present (physically at least). A very uncomfortable moment in the court room.
There is also the principle that in matters like this (temporary stays) they defer to the Associate Justice appointed to serve as Circuit Justice for that Circuit. The Circuit Justice for the 9th Circuit is Justice Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee. So the others could have deferred to him, and voted for the stay until a full hearing could happen.
On the bright side:
Consider who is taking the case: the lawyers from both sides of Bush v Gore. These guys aren’t going to take a case to SCOTUS unless they are pretty sure they will win.
This is just the first federal trial. After this trail, it will go to the federal appeals court. After that it will go to the SCOTUS.
The timing is to our advantage. Chances are that new Associate Justices appointed by Obama will be on the SCOTUS prior before this case gets there, increasing the chances of it passing.
The bright spot is that if it succeeds, the best possible outcome is that it will strike down all discrimination against LGBT people, not just marriage. That alone is worth the case.
If we lose, objectively not a big deal. Some organizations like HRC, Democrats, etc say a loss will hurt us for years to come. BS! The real reason is that it would hurt them if we win. It would cost these organizations donations and fund raising, and it would take away the ability of the Democrats to use scare tactics against LGBT people to get them to vote Democratic.
Mark: Agreed. I would like to see the proceedings, flaws and flubs and all, because I think it would be fascinating. Hopefully you’re right about deferring to Kennedy, but he’s still a moderate. And while I agree that total equality (legally) would turn every LGBT organization on its head, there would still be a need for those that adapted to the new world. Victory Fund would still help LGBT candidates get elected, for example. Others would work to turn legal equality into actual equality. But, you’re right, if we lose, we actually lose nothing since status quo would remain … for us to continue chipping away … one town and city and state at a time.
Here is a website that has a reporter in the actual court room in San Francisco that is typing the trial word for word. Amost as good as watching the video to read word for word opening argument, witness questions and answers, objections, etc. Start from bottom of page and read articles up. Interesting is that the first thing was the judge reading the stay from the SCOTUS and commenting somewhat negatively on it:
https://firedoglake.com/prop8trial/
This website just posted an article a few minutes ago with a quote from Justice Kennedy when he testified before Congress about cameras in courtrooom. I think this quote make it clear we probably won’t see any in the 9th Circuit unless a miracle happens. I don’t think the other justices will over rule Kennedy in his “home turf” (professional courtesy):
>>>But I don’t think it’s in the best interest of our institution…Our dynamic works. The discussions that the justices have with the attorneys during oral arguments is a splendid dynamic. If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please don’t introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court. Our court works…We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. WE are judged over a much longer term. We’re not judged by what we say. But, all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one and I don’t think we should take that chance.
The irony is the Supreme Court’s temporary decision to prevent video broadcasts recognize protection for the defendants who are the same individuals who don’t believe gay or lesbians need laws protecting them from opposing, retaliatory reactions.
It’s also ironic that the defendants in this case keep trying to block as evidence ads against Prop 8 that they and their allies paid for! Just the fact that they are trying to block their own ads will lead the judge to believe their defense is very weak.
Their only defense seems to be that members of the religious right will have their children exposed to same gender marriages. The judge doesn’t seem very receptive to this argument, but since it seems to be their only argument, they just keep repeating it.
They are also getting a lot of evidence for gay marriage in the record. This is very important, as evidence usually cannot be introduced at the appelate level. So, the more pro gay marriage evidence they can get in at this trial the better.
The defense seems to be passing a lot of witnesses with little or no cross examination. This is very good for us.
Lawrence v Texas keeps getting referenced. I think back to all the gay establishment types and LGBT media who were saying that we couldn’t win Lawrence and that it would hurt us. How wrong they all were. Not only did we win, but it’s now serving to boost this trail in the form of case law being referenced.