Conservative wing of the Supreme Court decides what's best for you to see.

Anyone wanna take a stab at defending this no-precedent decision regarding "irreparable harm"?
Reporting from Washington - By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court kept in place Wednesday its order blocking video coverage of the trial of California's Proposition 8, with a conservative majority ruling that defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage would likely face "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were broadcast to the public.

"It would be difficult -- if not impossible -- to reverse the harm of those broadcasts," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer "harassment," and they "might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings." The high court also faulted U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for changing the rules "at the eleventh hour" to "allow the broadcasting of this high-profile trial" that will decide whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry in California.

Though the opinion is unsigned, it clearly speaks for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The four liberal justices dissented and accused their colleagues of changing the court's rules so as to "micromanage" a trial judge.

"The Court today issues an order that will prevent the transmission of proceedings in a nonjury civil case of great public interest to five other federal courthouses," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer. "The majority's action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order . . . to intervene in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone 'irreparable harm'. . . . And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts."

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor agreed.

The court's order means that the trial can be seen only inside the courthouse in San Francisco.

Last week, Walker said the trial would be taped each day and posted on YouTube each evening. On Monday, he revised that plan somewhat and said the video coverage would appear on the court's website. He also planned to have the proceedings streamed live to several courthouses around the country.

But the high court issued a temporary order Monday morning to stop the video coverage. The extent of the split became apparent Wednesday afternoon when the court issued the 17-page opinion and 10-page dissent.

The majority cited newspaper accounts from the last year to bolster its contention that opponents of same-sex marriage have been "subject to harassment," including "confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages" and even "death threats." Under the court's rules, the justices do not intervene in pending cases unless they are convinced that the appealing side has a strong legal claim as well as evidence of "an irreparable harm" if the court fails to act.

Breyer scoffed at the notion that the witnesses in this case would face harm, because they have gone on television in the past to advocate their views. "They are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a 'yes' vote on Proposition 8," he said.

Advocates for equal marriage rights lambasted the decision. "The Supreme Court just struck a huge blow against transparency and accountability," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign in Los Angeles. "The five conservative justices are enabling Prop. 8 supporters to mask their radical views. This historic trial will remain largely hidden from public view."

But Edward Whelan, a conservative critic of Walker, praised the majority for acting to rebuke him. He accused Walker of seeking a "show trial" in San Francisco to intimidate and embarrass the defenders of California's voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Good for Sotomayor.

Poor babies. Does one just not get the mileage out of self-identifying as a homophobe that one used to? Must be the recession.
 
Unsigned, huh?

Is CA a state requiring two party consent for electronic surveillance?

If not, I'm the iPhone or similar device can be turned into a recorder.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Unsigned, huh? [/quote]
They must fear irreparable harm.
Is CA a state requiring two party consent for electronic surveillance?

If not, I'm the iPhone or similar device can be turned into a recorder.
Federal courts is federal ground. Like an embassy. They make their own rules.
 
This is definitely odd. While the Supreme Court has a history of NEVER allowing cameras or videos in their courtroom, this is the first of heard of stopping cameras in OTHER courts. Of course I haven't done my research but if this has happened before please post links.
 
glad they did

I never ever want to see another trial spectacle like OJ's on tv.

The court needs to be about the court and not a godamn circus of wacko's on either side.
 
I know there's procedure to be followed, but isn't this case pretty much guaranteed to end up in the Supreme Court anyway? Why not just let the justices rule on the entire case now and get it over with... (although I fear the justices would rule the wrong way...)
 
Supreme Court could decline to hear it, but yeah, it's pretty much headed that way.

Immaterial to the subject, however, since there really won't be media covering it on video in the Supreme Court.
 
[quote name='Papa Neorev']glad they did

I never ever want to see another trial spectacle like OJ's on tv.

The court needs to be about the court and not a godamn circus of wacko's on either side.[/QUOTE]
Um, that was a county criminal trial featuring a judge that couldn't handle his court room. This is a federal judge going over a constitutional issue. The differences in court room sophistication is about as stark as it gets.

And yea, this is just its first stop. Tough to believe this won't end up at the Supreme Court and tough to believe they wouldn't take the case. This part *is* the most important part next to the SC hearing though. All appeals after the initial trial are based on issues created during the trial. They gotta make sure they get everything in so they can argue it in appeals later. That's why I wanted to see it.

Kelo was bullshit, but at least there was an actual constitutional issue there. This is just them going "ehh, we don't like it."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Supreme Court could decline to hear it, but yeah, it's pretty much headed that way.

Immaterial to the subject, however, since there really won't be media covering it on video in the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]

We need a JSPAN. ;)
 
[quote name='speedracer']Um, that was a county criminal trial featuring a judge that couldn't handle his court room. This is a federal judge going over a constitutional issue. The differences in court room sophistication is about as stark as it gets.

And yea, this is just its first stop. Tough to believe this won't end up at the Supreme Court and tough to believe they wouldn't take the case. This part *is* the most important part next to the SC hearing though. All appeals after the initial trial are based on issues created during the trial. They gotta make sure they get everything in so they can argue it in appeals later. That's why I wanted to see it.

Kelo was bullshit, but at least there was an actual constitutional issue there. This is just them going "ehh, we don't like it."[/QUOTE]

I realize that was a Country Criminal Trial and the stark differences between the too, I still do not believe any court room trials no matter how small or large should appear on tv. No matter how sophisticated the trial the media and wacko's in society will make it a fucking mess.
 
[quote name='Papa Neorev']I realize that was a Country Criminal Trial and the stark differences between the too, I still do not believe any court room trials no matter how small or large should appear on tv. No matter how sophisticated the trial the media and wacko's in society will make it a fucking mess.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying we can't handle the truth?
 
[quote name='Papa Neorev']I realize that was a Country Criminal Trial and the stark differences between the too, I still do not believe any court room trials no matter how small or large should appear on tv. No matter how sophisticated the trial the media and wacko's in society will make it a fucking mess.[/QUOTE]

Haven't had your coffee, or an indictment against Kansas' education system?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Haven't had your coffee, or an indictment against Kansas' education system?[/QUOTE]


lol lack of coffee thank god
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] (although I fear the justices would rule the wrong way...)[/QUOTE]

Pray tell what is the wrong way to decide in this case? Democratic discrimination should be allowed as long as the majority ruled that way? It's a good thing you weren't around for Brown vs the Board of Education. I'm sure you'd be whining that the good people of Kansas and every other state have the right to do whatever they want as long as it was voted on.
 
Perhaps he's referring to Chief Justice Jebediah Wrong, who, in 1848, became famous for deciding rulings with a dance-off. This method, called the "Wrong way" or "Jeb-a-palooza" is only used in the most controversial cases.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Pray tell what is the wrong way to decide in this case? Democratic discrimination should be allowed as long as the majority ruled that way? It's a good thing you weren't around for Brown vs the Board of Education. I'm sure you'd be whining that the good people of Kansas and every other state have the right to do whatever they want as long as it was voted on.[/QUOTE]

Wow, depascal, that was a harsh, unwarranted and uninformed attack. I am not at all surprised.

I've stated several times that the government (Federal, State or Local) should *not* be allowed to prevent two consenting individuals of sound mind from entering into a contract based solely on the gender of the individuals.

Unlike several posters around here, I do not believe that "majority rule" means that individuals should have to give up their rights.
 
Closed courtroom hearings aren't exactly a new thing. It happens all the time, regardless of the publicity surrounding the case.

Having a closed courtroom doesn't concern me as much as closed doors legislation. At least we don't have to worry about that happening. Oh, wait...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow, depascal, that was a harsh, unwarranted and uninformed attack. I am not at all surprised.

I've stated several times that the government (Federal, State or Local) should *not* be allowed to prevent two consenting individuals of sound mind from entering into a contract based solely on the gender of the individuals.

Unlike several posters around here, I do not believe that "majority rule" means that individuals should have to give up their rights.[/QUOTE]

I'm still waiting for the mod police to come in so it couldn't have been that bad this time.

You say you're against majority rule, but you've been a big proponent on these boards of states' rights so I was confused as to what the wrong way would be. I went with your Dr. Jekyll staunch conservative side instead of your Mr. Hyde liberal side.
 
The word "Butthurt" comes to mind.

Anywhoo - Individual rights typically trump State's rights, IMHO.
Sorry to let you down. Looks like you don't know or understand me as well as you thought.
 
bread's done
Back
Top