Supreme Court blocks broadcast of trial on Calif. ban of gay marriage

[kpete]

Source: USA Today

Supreme Court blocks broadcast of trial on Calif. ban of gay marriage


USA TODAY's Joan Biskupic reports that the Supreme Court has blocked the planned broadcast of the federal trial on California's ban of gay marriage .

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/supreme-court-blocks-broadcast-of-trial-on-calif-ban-of-gay-marriage-/1

[midnight]

1. K&R.

[hlthe2b]

2. Assholes...

I guess we Americans can't "handle the truth..." :eyes:

[kristopher]

85. Didn' they just say they were going to take a couple of days to consider the issue?

I just heard on MSNBC that this is only a delay in rendering their decision. The ruling will be in a couple of days.

[hlthe2b]

88. I hope so.... you info sounds more current

[slackmaster]

3. Oh well, it's not as if broadcasting the trial would have any impact on its outcome

:shrug:

[Newsjock]

4. This just strengthens my resolve

To wish economic ruin upon anyone who supports Prop. 8. Goddamn hypocritical coward bigots.

[marmar]

5. The Felonious Five believes all that transparent democracy crap is overrated.....

[WriteDown]

12. Try felonious 8....

"Only Justice Stephen Breyer publicly dissented. "I agree with the Court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time limited. However, I would undertake that consideration without a temporary stay in place.""

[No Elephants]

17. Key word being "publicly."

[WriteDown]

19. If you didn't dissent publicly then you are as much at fault. nt

[No Elephants]

29. Not really. If a decision has a majority, with or without your dissent,

there are various good reasons why a Justice may decide to STFU.

[liberation]

31. I wouldn't label "lack of courage" as being a "good reason"

But for tastes there are colors I guess...

[No Elephants]

34. No one said the "good reasons" would include lack of courage.

[WriteDown]

36. Hard to know who the felonious are then...

You have to just make an educated guess that they are the ones not voicing their dissention.

[No Elephants]

89. Meh. I think Sotomayor is the only possible crossover, depending upon how Catholic

she is and what her view about separation of church and state are. But, I think it likelier that it was Stevens.

[CreekDog]

41. So people who hid jews from the Nazis silently are just as complicit

just following your logic. i mean if your logic is sound then... :shrug:

and yeah, I brought up Hitler.

so what.

[WriteDown]

47. Nice Godwin...

I'll give you that. :)

[joeglow3]

83. Really???

Refusing to stand up for a minority in the USA in 2010 is the equivalent to not doing the same when facing death for you and your family in Nazi Germany is the same thing???

[CreekDog]

87. No, it's not the same, but:

making the argument that supporting something is the same as opposing it but not doing so publicly is so flawed an approach that it falls flat on its face when applied to other situations.

[joeglow3]

97. It does not fall flat on its face

If one of my kids is hanging around with a couple friends and they throw out racial slurs, I expect my son to speak up. I won't tell him that since people facing death 60 years ago did not speak out, it is okay in all situations.

[CreekDog]

98. But it's not the *same* as uttering those slurs

that's my point.

[CreekDog]

101. You are accusing Supreme Court justices of not standing up for a minority?

because they didn't publicly say they wanted a trial to be televised?

perhaps you forgot that their decision is about taping/showing the proceedings because you seem to think them not *publicly* supporting taping/showing *court case* is opposing civil rights.

are you crazy?

let me know when arguing with you makes me opposed to civil rights too. :eyes:

[joeglow3]

103. Ummm, go back and read

I never gave my opinion on this. I was responding to reasoning used by the poster above (you know, the same thing you are doing here).

[CreekDog]

104. I didn't realize someone else made this argument to me, sorry

:D

[Downwinder]

6. Justice in action. n/t

[gilpo]

10. Don't you mean "Justice inaction"?

[Democat]

7. Why does no one call for impeachment of Roberts?

Imagine if a liberal supreme court justice was the chief justice and the court kept jumping in to help the Democratic Party. In every case recently, Roberts seem to have only one goal - help the Republican Party. He is not a justice working for the American people, he is a politician working for his party.

The left needs to launch a re-branding campaign of Roberts and the entire Supreme Court.

Take a look at how the right wing tries to re-brand the 9th Circuit. The left could use that model to go after the Republicans on the Supreme Court. TV advertising, talking heads, Obama, everyone would have to speak out and brand them as Republican activists. If no one goes after them, their activism will become only worse.

[Doctor_J]

9. We can't "brand" anything - we have no media representation

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

18. Maybe they like Roberts where he is.

We keep thinking Republican vs. Democrat. Maybe we should start thinking Corporatists v. America.

[slackmaster]

21. You can't throw out an SC justice just because you don't like him, like we in CA do to our governors

You have to have credible evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors.

[No Elephants]

23. You mean someone has to give Roberts a bj?

[slackmaster]

24. That would only be illegal if he paid for it, or it was from an underage person

:hi:

[No Elephants]

26. Tell that to the folks who impeached Clinton.

[slackmaster]

27. I believe the charge was perjury, or lying to Congress while under oath

The blow jobs were not the issue.

[No Elephants]

30. Oh, please. Nothing was the issue. They were hell bent on impeaching him from the jump.

They spent 70 million investigating Whitewater and everything else under the sun. And, in the end, they had to depend on Linda Tripp illegally recording her calls to Lewinski.


Besides, perjury about a bj is hardly a high crime or misdemeanor that warrants impeachment of a President. It's almost never prosecuted, even when the perjury is about something that matters to society. And he should never have been asked that question on national TV in the first place.

Oh, well, at least two women got exteme makeovers on the RNC's dimes.

[DWilliamsamh]

66. You are correct that they were determined to impeach...

But he WASN'T impeached for "getting a blow job," which is not illegal. He was impeached for lying under oath - which IS illegal. He he NOT lied under oath - no impeachment.

[No Elephants]

90. Believe it or not, I know a blow job is not illegal --and I am biting my tongue not to say anything

else about that--and I also know exactly why Clinton was impeached, both the real reason (Republicans) and the reason given the public (perjury). And I was not really going to make anyone give Roberts a bj, either.

[DWilliamsamh]

99. Well if you "know the difference" then don't write differently. (N/T)

[liberation]

32. huh? The blow jobs were THE issue, since that is what they used for the charges of perjury...

[No Elephants]

33. Get real. It was pure political shat. No issue whatever.

You show as responding to slackmaster, but your words seem to address my statement.

[slackmaster]

35. There was never any question that he received BJs

That's not illegal.

[DWilliamsamh]

67. You need to look up Perjury...

The definition of perjury is most DEFINITELY not: getting a blow job.

[TheEuclideanOne]

74. In short....somebody has to put their money where their mouth is.

I couldn't resist :)

I am here every friday night.... please tip your wait staff.

[No Elephants]

94. Thank God! You're the first person who got I was not being literal.

Try the veal.

[Doctor_J]

8. So they're not just corporatists

the recent campaign finance decision might have led people to believe that this SCOTUS is just pro-corporate and anti-American. This one indicates that the court is hyper-partisan and reactionary conservative as well.

[Democat]

11. I'm sure Obama and other Democratic politicians will speak out!

No, they won't. We've learned that lesson over the years. Don't expect outrage from Democrats. They will just keep smiling and "move on".

[Downwinder]

13. Average citizens. See someone getting mugged on the street, and just move on. n/t

[No Elephants]

25. Speaking out would do absolutely nothing to impact the SCOTUS. Now, Republicans do speak

out anyway, when they don't like decisons. But, you're correct, Democrats tend not to.

I am not sure which is the smarter/wiser way, though.

[No Elephants]

20. No surprise. Roberts worked for Reagan and was appointed by Dummya.

And he is a traditional Catholic, like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and (maybe) Sotomayor.

Besides, it's nice to be one of the most powerful people in America for life. You don't forget who did that for you.

[AlbertCat]

86. the court is hyper-partisan and reactionary conservative as well.

Good thing prop 8 isn't abut atheists getting married! No one would care then!

[newtothegame]

14. Good thing President Obama took a STRONG, VOCAL STANCE on this...n/t

[Fearless]

15. YEAH!

:eyes: :banghead:

[closeupready]

16. He's a fierce advocate for the GLBT community.

Or so I've heard. :sarcasm:

[David Zephyr]

64. His Justice Department fiercly argures against us in federal courts.

Our "advocate".

[closeupready]

69. So there. Why do you guys keep bitchin? You gots your 'fierce', You gots your 'advocate".

He never campaigned on being a fierce advocate for OUR RIGHTS, now did he? You misunderstood. He's playing chess here. Your pony's over there. Get lost. :sarcasm:

[winninghand]

84. He is running for re-election in 2012.

Or so I've heard.

[No Elephants]

22. It would not have mattered what Obama did.

I am as frustrated as anyone over Obama's inaction and pretense on DOMA and DADT, but nothing Obama could have done would have changed this outcome.

[tranche]

38. I was waiting for someone to tie Obama to this.

[newtothegame]

43. Your wish is my command dear sir.

Hugs and kisses,
newtothegame

[CreekDog]

42. What other trials has Obama said should be broadcast publicly?

or does he just have it out for the gay community on this one by being silent?

[Democat]

51. How about Obama using this to take a swipe at Roberts

You've got a Supreme Court justice who is nothing more than a republican politician. You'd think Obama would take a few chances and put him in his place.

[No Elephants]

91. Heck, he didn' t even put Roberts in his place when Roberts messed up the oath of office,

being too arrogant to read it, as every other Justice does, of even have a copy with him. Obama just tried to cue Roberts discreetly, but then they both got all bungled up and he had to re-take the oath a day or so later. God only knows the legal status of the Executive Orders he signed on Inauguration Day. Let's just hope no one challenges them. But, I digress.

Point is, Obama will not be doing that to Roberts. But why single out Roberts? Is he any worse than Scalia, Thomas or Alito? I on't think any of them has ever deviated from the Party line with a single vote. (Actually, Thomas may have--once.)

Then again, Ginsburg and Breyer rarely stray, and I would hate it if they did. Though, fat lot of good it has done all these years they've been in the minority.

[Piewhacket]

28. They can sure work fast when they want, huh?

[sui generis]

40. yeah that WAS amazing

especially considering that it was the conservative fucktard concern trolls who got it in front of them in the first place.

[No Elephants]

93. Perfectly understandable.

No perp wants to be on TV.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. California Supreme?

Silly decision. Has there been any violence from equality advocates?

I think they're concerned that they'll be seen as bigots. Guess what? They're bigots.

[slackmaster]

53. Nope

Supreme Court of the United States.

[JerseygirlCT]

62. Geez

That's nuts.

[sui generis]

39. If they find in our favor there could be riots

by conservative blow hards. I hope so.

[Downtown Hound]

44. They're not going to find in our favor

And they already know that. That's why they don't want it shown live.

[Unvanguard]

48. Who is "[t]hey"?

The judge in this case was the one who originally ordered the broadcast. (And Supreme Court cases are never televised, so if this reaches them it won't be a matter of discretion, they'll almost certainly follow their general policy.)

[Downtown Hound]

49. LOL. "So if this reaches them it won't be a matter of discretion, they'll almost certainly follow

their general policy."

Keep telling yourself that.

[Unvanguard]

50. What on Earth are you talking about?

You think they'll televise it?

[Downtown Hound]

56. I already said they won't.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about how this is a purely political decision that has no real bearing in reality. There's no reason for them not to televise this process unless they're afraid of something. We're talking about millions of Americans having their rights as human beings being fundamentally affected. Why in the world shouldn't a democracy televise something like that? The only reason not to is that they already know they're going to rule in favor of prop 8, and they don't want the gays to be able to mobilize until the decision has been announced.

[Unvanguard]

60. Again: who is "they"?

The Supreme Court ordered the stay. But this trial is not before the Supreme Court; if it were, this would not even be an issue, because Supreme Court oral argument is never televised. The federal district court judge who will actually make the (inevitably-appealed) decision in this case was the one who ordered the original broadcasting.

As for televising, it doesn't really make any sense to me either, but my understanding is that traditionally federal court cases are not broadcast--it's one of the things they do to pretend they're isolated from the public--and it doesn't surprise me too much that the Supreme Court would err on the side of not permitting it.

[Downtown Hound]

61. Who are they? The Supreme Court

I would have thought that was self explanatory, but there is the answer. As to why, I've already answered that. And it doesn't matter that the Supreme Court isn't trying this case yet. As you yourself pointed out, they will be once it gets appealed. And they probably won't want it televised it then either for the same reasons.

[Unvanguard]

65. But this decision will be announced long before it goes to the Supreme Court.

So gay people will have plenty of time to mobilize. Not a reason to stop the broadcast of this particular trial; it won't be a fait accompli, plenty of time to act as it goes to the appeals court and then to SCOTUS. And for such a high-profile case as this, there will be plenty of controversy focused on the judges anyway. This ruling probably mainly helps the Prop. 8 backers, who, hypocritical cowards that they are, apparently are horrified at the prospect of becoming objects of public controversy.

[Downtown Hound]

68. Jesus Christ, how many different ways do I have to say the same thing

that I've already said?

Okay, I'll repeat what I've already said one more time for you, and then I'm not giving any more lip service to your rather feeble defense of this decision.

In this case, the Supremes already know how the federal court is going to rule. You can quote proper procedure and judicial independence and tell me they're going to actually make an honest attempt to come up with a fair decision, and I'm just going to laugh at your naivety. This is all about politics, nothing else.

Now by blocking this trial from being televised, they've already made it easier for the court to run through the motions and pretend that they're seriously considering the argument when they've already made the decision. And you can tell me that the cameras in the room wouldn't have made a difference in that, and again, I'm going to laugh at you if you really think that. You ever hear the saying that democracy dies behind closed doors? That's what's going on here.

Now that the Supremes have made cameras illegal, they've set a precedent. And they will likely be illegal throughout the rest of the process, appeals included.

Yes the gays will be able to mobilize, AFTER THE FACT. And that kind of mobilization is never as effective as one going on while the proceedings are going on. Yes, they will be able to mobilize in between rulings, but never while they're going on with the same effectiveness that they would be able to if they were allowed to see and experience what was going on inside AS IT WAS HAPPENING.

That is the reason for this ruling, And if you think anything else, you are kidding yourself.

[Unvanguard]

73. I'm not defending it. I think it was wrong. I just think your explanation is silly.

And your extended defense of it doesn't help.

First, no, the Supreme Court doesn't already know how Judge Walker is going to rule; nobody does, except maybe Judge Walker. This is not naive; it is a simple statement of fact. So far he's sided with our side on most of the procedural issues--as I said before, he was the one who ordered the broadcast originally--and that's an encouraging sign: if I had to choose one or the other, I'd guess he's probably going to rule against Prop. 8. But we will have to wait and see. And so will the Court.

Second, even if somehow it was known that Judge Walker was going to rule in Prop. 8's favor, your explanation of motive still would not make sense. There are a lot of problems with it, but perhaps the most obvious one is that Judge Walker ordered the broadcast in the first place: that's why it was appealed to the Supreme Court. If he were planning on ignoring the substance of the arguments and rule as he pleased (and his behavior so far, if you've been following the trial, is definitely not in accordance with that), he obviously wouldn't have done that. For that matter, if that were his wish, he could have issued summary judgment back in September, citing Baker v. Nelson, and upheld Prop. 8 without ever bringing it to trial. So your view requires a weird kind of nanny-state paternalism on the part of the Supreme Court, protecting Judge Walker from himself (as if he could be protected at all--he will make the ultimate ruling, and that ruling will be the focus of the controversy.)

Third, the Supreme Court hasn't made cameras illegal at all. They haven't actually issued any decision: they merely stayed the order until they have time to consider the question further. Nor, even if they vacate the broadcast order (as they are likely to do), would it be a general ban: the appeal to them revolved around the particular circumstances of this case and threats to those who were going to testify, and has little bearing on oral argument by attorneys later. (Of course, as I've stressed throughout, the general practice in the federal judiciary is to not televise cases.)

Fourth, the simple fact of the matter is that almost nobody mobilizes while trials are happening: people are lazy, real mobilization takes time, it's not ever as responsive as you seem to think. Even if it were televised gays would not be demonstrating against every offensive quote by the defenders of Prop. 8. The federal courts are not like Congress, they're not out to answer your phone calls or respond to your emails; effectively all mobilizations are after the fact of a decision however immediate the information is. And everyone involved knows that there's no way they can shield this from public scrutiny and controversy.

Fifth, even discounting everything I've said about why your explanation makes no sense, you still have no basis whatsoever for insisting that it must be the explanation for the court's ruling--nothing except your speculation and your unfounded faith in its truth. Even if it were plausible, it would be only one plausible option among many. If you want to look for malice in the Court's order, a better target would be their apparent receptivity to the homophobic paranoia of the Prop. 8 backers who think that the evil, depraved gays will attempt revenge killings on them or something if their testimony is televised.

[Downtown Hound]

76. Yep, actually they do know how he's going to rule, and so do I

This is me laughing at your naivety. Just wait, the ruling will come, and it will be in favor of prop 8. How do I know this? Let's just say that I'm waaaaayyy more involved in the politics of California than you are, living where you do. Especially those concerning gay rights. I have been active in the fight for gay and lesbian rights in spite of the fact that I am not gay. I was arrested for blockading a street as an act of civil disobedience in San Francisco last year after the state supreme court ruled in favor of prop 8. I am involved with gay rights groups. I hereby give you my complete assurance that the ruling will not go our way. If it does, I will gladly eat my words and be grateful that I'm doing so. But I'm not going to end up doing that.

Pretty much everything else you've said is horseshit, especially about people being too lazy to mobilize while a trial is going on. By writing that I can rest assured that you have in no way, shape, or form ever had ANY experience with Northern California's gay community and see just how fast and effective they operate. This decision definitely hurts them, and I've already received multiple emails about it. And yeah, they're pissed.

[Unvanguard]

77. You can revel in your dogmatic cynicism all you like; it doesn't make you any more right.

I'm not an optimist by nature, I tend to think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Prop. 8, but Judge Walker may well not--and I seriously doubt that either your place of residence or your history of activism (civil disobedience does not give you any expertise in the federal judiciary) makes you an authority for stating definitively otherwise. When I hear from legal analysts and court-watchers saying that, I'll be more inclined to believe it.

I didn't say the decision doesn't hurt gay rights activists; it does, which is why the people challenging Prop. 8 wanted the trial broadcast. I'll even defer to your personal experience regarding mobilization; I didn't consider the location of the trial, but that's obviously relevant. But it remains true that for a high-profile case like this, a case whose ultimate outcome is certainly not going to be decided at the district court level, there will be little long-term effect to blocking the broadcast of the first part of the process--especially since the main issues here are not the factual ones where the trial court matters, but the constitutional ones where the trial court is irrelevant.

Edit: And it remains true that your explanation, plausible or not, is only one of several possible ones.

[Downtown Hound]

102. LOL. Well, you're right, Nostradamus I'm not

However, my years of activism regarding this and other issues in CA have given me a pulse on things, and I have learned to trust it and find that it serves me very well. You are of course free to believe what you wish. And if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it as the slight bruise to my ego here would pale in comparison to the joy I would feel if the ruling went our way.

However I'm not holding my breath. And all I can do is give you advice that you shouldn't either. Take it or leave it. Your choice. Have a nice day.

[No Elephants]

92. Correct, (except that their general policy is always a matter of discretion).

[sui generis]

52. So what are they worried about?

What is it they think a three day information lag will accomplish? Oh the nice gays will just hold hands and sing kumbaya? I hope we don't.

I certainly hope we do something more effective than broadcasting our misery and sadness or having another march that's just one long circuit party and be too fucked up to even make it to a single senate office the day of.

I know there are those of us who would be offended by that comment but collective YOU are not who I'm talking about; that is if you've ever actually made it into a legislator's office in person. No, I'm not hoping for violence - I'm hoping for meaningful, sustainable action.

If the state uses the law to make the law meaningless for some of us, then we do not have an obligation to blindly adhere to the law, and that lesson isn't going to sink in until we get to see what kind of lame and pathetic arguments are presented to keep us from being equal Americans.

[Downtown Hound]

54. You pretty much answered your own question

If the gay community had been allowed to watch the proceedings as they happened, it would have given them time to mobilize against what will almost certainly be bigoted and ignorant rhetoric and turn it into action. Now that the transmission is blocked, they can do their damage and not have to face any consequences until it is all over, and at that point, any resistance will be largely symbolic.

[Unvanguard]

55. There's plenty of live coverage of the proceedings.

E.g.: http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/live_twitter_feed_of_prop_8_trial.php

[Downtown Hound]

57. Those aren't cameras

You ever hear the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words?

[closeupready]

71. Meaningful, sustainable action is the way to go.

Because I don't anticipate a favorable ruling.

[closeupready]

70. Yes.

That's exactly right.

[Unvanguard]

45. I'm not sure this is worth getting angry about.

Probably the wrong decision, but not an absurd one, and not one that actually has much to do with the issues of this case.

[SkyDaddy7]

46. WHY?

I guess I need to read the article but I know there is no "reasonable reason" as to why...To me anyway.


Edit: I read the article and it sounds like those who want to force their religious crap on others are to shy to do it in full view of the public...Like I thought, NOT REASONABLE!

[KamaAina]

58. Chickenshits.

I can thump a Bible, too, on occasion: "Every man that doeth evil hateth the light." -John 3:20

And the Extreme Court just gave the homophobes carte blanche to hide their bigotry from the public. :grr:

[David Zephyr]

59. Man, this nation really hates gay people. This has nothing to do with cameras.

Cameras are used all of the time in court cases. This is just more bullshit to mask the the systemic loathing my GLBT sisters and brothers deal with from the day we are born into this shitty world.

Why don't they just round us all up and exterminate us and get it out of their systems once and for all?

[Divine Discontent]

95. it's a temp stay until they make a final decision. but yeah, half this country hates Gay people...

I have no doubt in any bone about that. For I have literally seen a co-cast member at Disney, after the fireworks ended and people were bolting for the exits, yelled at by a woman with 3 kids, even though he is a very tall man and broad, he has feminine looking lips and big blue eyes and rosy cheeks, and she disgustingly rushed to where he was standing instead of around him and yelled, "move out of the way faggot!" I told her she was a sick and very poor mother. I could care less if she reported me, because these types of people need knocked down - especially in front of their kids so they know they're not supposed to behave like her.

It's a Gay-hatin' USA out there every other person you meet. Even some of those who support GLBT issues use it against us, but I'm not going to make the post long. Just saying - you're post title is right!

[DWilliamsamh]

63. Conservatives and bigots love to do their thing in the dark. And ONLY the dark. (n/t)

[winyanstaz]

72. So much for transparency and justice...

What are they trying to hide?

[William769]

80. Apparently Gays are no longer the closet cases.

[No Elephants]

96. Good one.

[alp227]

75. This sucks...

The Supreme Court said any additional action that would permit broadcast of the trial, which would test whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution's equality guarantee, would also be blocked. The Supreme Court said its Monday order would remain in effect until Wednesday at 4 p.m. ET, presumably giving the justices time to examine the issue further.

What do you mean broadcasting the trial would violate the Equal Protection Clause? Isn't Prop 8 violating the EPC in the first place? Nuts. Maybe by Wednesday they'll change their minds.

[Odin2005]

78. FUCK THEM!!!

[William769]

79. I was going to write a long reasoned response to this farce

Then I saw what you posted and came to the conclusion that thats the only response to have. Thank you for saving me time in writing something that would have done absolutely nothing! :toast:

[Odin2005]

82. LOL, you're welcome!

:hi:

[kirby]

81. Misleading headline...

According to the article, it is a temporary stay in effect into Monday, so the court can hear additional information before making a final decision.

[SpartanDem]

100. Aren't cameras banned in federal courts?

[Vidar]

105. Oh good, more "transparency."