U.S. Supreme Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial

[quade 4]

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court, acting on an appeal from conservative defenders of California's ban on same-sex marriage, overruled a federal judge in San Francisco today and blocked video coverage of the trial on YouTube.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-prop-8-12-2010jan12,0,7701011.story

I'm waiting to see the conservative outrage over the opaqueness of this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skyrider 0]

How many times do the "Voters" have to speak?

[quade 4]

Quote

How many times do the "Voters" have to speak?

Well, the issue is that state's popular votes where never intended to supersede the U.S. Constitution nor were they ever intended to allow a simple majority to trample the rights of a minority.

A point lost on quite a few.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,070]

>How many times do the "Voters" have to speak?

In the 1960's the supreme court went against the will of the voters to overturn the anti-interracial marriage laws on the books. They determined that the right to marry could not be taken away based on someone's race, despite overwhelming popular support for traditional marriage laws. There was a huge uproar over it, leading to a lot of comments about how the supreme court had no right to "legislate from the bench."

Glad they did it, though; most people are.

[SimonBones 1]

I think Quade has been infected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZuK_wYrqp8

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[quade 4]

Stay classy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

How many times do the "Voters" have to speak?

I think you should read this.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

It is an article written by Theodore Olsen, a leading conservative attorney and avowed Republican.

It's a good read.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[lawrocket 3]

So we've got the only apolitical branch of the government (judicial). Similarly, the only branch of the government that is required to explain its decisions and its reasoning and have its logic subjected not only to public scrutiny but also to scrutiny of other courts.

In fact, it happens to be a branch of government whose decisions frequently are overturned by statute.

So we want to take a federal court and put television cameras in there, thus to turn what is already a media circus into a multimedia circus. Let's see some more lawyer grandstanding! Let us go ahead and have popular political movements descend upon judicial proceedings! All the better to make sure that the testimony and arguments are coherent and logical.

Yeah, paul. Seems to me that "opaqueness" is actually built into this system. Let's take a legal proceeding and make it into floor debate in the House.

Pass the tylenol...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So we've got the only apolitical branch of the government (judicial). Similarly, the only branch of the government that is required to explain its decisions and its reasoning and have its logic subjected not only to public scrutiny but also to scrutiny of other courts.

In fact, it happens to be a branch of government whose decisions frequently are overturned by statute.

So we want to take a federal court and put television cameras in there, thus to turn what is already a media circus into a multimedia circus. Let's see some more lawyer grandstanding! Let us go ahead and have popular political movements descend upon judicial proceedings! All the better to make sure that the testimony and arguments are coherent and logical.

Yeah, paul. Seems to me that "opaqueness" is actually built into this system. Let's take a legal proceeding and make it into floor debate in the House.

Pass the tylenol...

Thank you. I've never been comfortable with cameras in the courtroom.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

The judicial conference was created by statute in 1922 (it's been called different things and is now the "Judicial Conference." ) 28 USC section 331 provides that it is intended to:
- Make a comprehensive survey of the conditions of business in the courts of the United States;
Prepare plans for the assignment of judges to or from courts of appeals or district courts, where necessary;
- Submit suggestions to the various courts in the interest of promoting uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business;
- Exercise authority provided in chapter 16 of title 28 United States Codes for the review of circuit council conduct and disability orders filed under that chapter; and
- Carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure in use within the federal courts, as prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to law.

The Judicial Conference has for decades been against cameras in the courtroom. Sure, we'd all like to see what's going on. How about some poor chap who is subpoena'd to testify and ends up having some shyster bring out a bunch of past dirty laundry to impeach him? He's testified but been ruined in the court of public opinion.

I am steadfastly against cameras in trial courts. I don't have the same issues in appeals courts, where the arguments are legal, there is no jury, and there is no threat of chilling witnesses and litigants.

There's more at work here, Paul. Wanna know what was said? Get a transcript.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

I am steadfastly against cameras in trial courts. I don't have the same issues in appeals courts, where the arguments are legal, there is no jury, and there is no threat of chilling witnesses and litigants.

At a gut level, I'd have to agree with this statement. I'd have to be seriously convinced that it was incorrect.

Maybe it's conditioning because that's pretty much the way it's always been in the US. But it feels right, for all of the reasons that Jerry gave.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I am steadfastly against cameras in trial courts. I don't have the same issues in appeals courts, where the arguments are legal, there is no jury, and there is no threat of chilling witnesses and litigants.

I feel this way, too. The chilling effect extends to jurors and judges, too. During the OJ Simpson (criminal) and William Kennedy Smith trials, the potential jurors (during jury selection) were (IMO) clearly intimidated, and each judge acted like an asshole - most of which I attribute to the TV cameras in the courtroom. (FWIW, I feel even more vehemently this way re: criminal trials than for civil trials.)

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

I am steadfastly against cameras in trial courts. I don't have the same issues in appeals courts, where the arguments are legal, there is no jury, and there is no threat of chilling witnesses and litigants.

At a gut level, I'd have to agree with this statement. I'd have to be seriously convinced that it was incorrect.

Maybe it's conditioning because that's pretty much the way it's always been in the US. But it feels right, for all of the reasons that Jerry gave.

Wendy P.

Totally with Wendy and Jerry on this. I do not see what good can come of it.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

How many times do the "Voters" have to speak?

Considering that 48% (IIRC) of the voters were in favor of allowing it, I'd like to know how 4% of the population is allowed to make the decision for the whole state.

And in a different context, The "Voters" in the deep south back before the Civil Rights era were perfectly happy to pass laws restricting what black people could do. Was that right?

Just because the majority decides something doesn't make it right. That's what the constitution is for.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[roostnureye 2]

so much for "transparency" yet another lie from obama

Flock University FWC / ZFlock
B.A.S.E. 1580
Aussie BASE 121

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

so much for "transparency" yet another lie from obama

Nice meaningless slogan. Have you not read any of the commentary in the thread, or are you just going to "speak Tea-Bag"?

[PhreeZone 20]

How is this related to the Presidency at all??

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,070]

>so much for "transparency" yet another lie from obama

(pssst - dude - it's not Obama's trial)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

(FWIW, I feel even more vehemently this way re: criminal trials than for civil trials.)

As do I. Can you imagine the informant being called to testify? I can tell you what they do to snitches, but I'm sure everyone knows this.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

The difference being is that in this case it isn't the innocent victims that are being shielded from the media, but rather the people trying to take the rights of innocent people away. So, now, like the cowards they are, they are shielded from the eyes of their innocent victims in much the same way as members of the KKK hide behind their hoods.

I dunno, but I think when a person wants to take another person's rights away they should be forced into the sunlight to do it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SimonBones 1]

Aaah. I see. People with differing opinions from yours about law and society are cowardly guilty villains comparable to the KKK. The people who you agree with are innocent victims. In that case, the court decision should be easy! This is obviously a case of good guy vs bad guy.

Thanks for explaining the complexities of the situation in a way that us kindergartners can understand. Good luck with your infection

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

The difference being is that in this case it isn't the innocent victims that are being shielded from the media, but rather the people trying to take the rights of innocent people away. So, now, like the cowards they are, they are shielded from the eyes of their innocent victims in much the same way as members of the KKK hide behind their hoods.

I dunno, but I think when a person wants to take another person's rights away they should be forced into the sunlight to do it.

I agree mostly with this.

The "mostly" is because that this is such a divisive issue, and there are some pretty scary extremists (on both sides, but more of the antis).
Giving some level of privacy to those making the arguments and the decision is an understandable precaution.

I'm not sure I agree with the blocking of the video, but I understand the reasoning.

Edit to totally backtrack.

I read the link all the way through. The antis want to hide, those in favor want the whole world to see.

The antis have sued to block release of the names on the petitions in Washington State. Due to fears of repercussions against those who have signed them. They are public records.

If you aren't willing to stand up for your prejudices, then go ahead and put on the white hood

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[quade 4]

These aren't "people with differing opinions" they really are cowards that export their hate across state lines to promote their religious views. They're complete assholes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[guppykf 0]

I am all for protecting the sanctity of marriage...There are so many examples of quick vegas wedding, getting married after a 1 night stand..meet in a bar one night visit a JP the next day or even the same day..and if they are heterosexual not many blinks of the eyes...and what comes from many (not all, but a good deal) of these fast hook ups...a lot of heart ache...unplanned children, loveless marriages, and financial disarray for expensive divorces. If conservatives are going to protect the sanctity of marriage for religious connotations more than just gay rights should be warred upon. However, if a person is conservative and has religious beliefs they should ask this question, "what goes to heaven?...your body or your soul? If it is your soul..then "does a soul have a sex? I believe that God will have more compassion for someone who falls in love with a persons inner being rather than their shell. We as a society should stop worrying about who a person loves and really concentrate on the hatreds in the world...Peace,love and all that! I believe Aretha said it best: R...E...S...P...E...C...T

THRIVING IN MY DASH!!

[SimonBones 1]

The people who would rather not have the court process and decisions turn into a televisions media circus are all religious extremist hateful assholes who just happen to coincidentally differ with your opinion? I'm continuously amazed at how black and white this whole situation is! I never knew it was your side vs the evil side. For a second, I almost thought there might be some rational, fair, and educated people out there in the world who disagree with you. Thanks for enlightening us all with the brilliant omnipotence of the side with whom you agree with.

As a side note, there has been a recent spread of a new bizarre infection going around, easily diagnosed by a hickey on one's neck. You should check yours just to be safe. I care

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook