SCOTUS: Liberal vs Conservative Arguments re: Video/Gay Marriage

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look at the arguments of both sides. Which side's arguments hold the most water with you? Majority or minority?

----------
NYT: The Supreme Court...eliminated the possibility that any part of the trial of a constitutional challenge to a ban on same-sex marriage now under way in San Francisco would be broadcast before it concludes.

The vote in the case was 5 to 4 and divided along ideological lines, with the court’s four more liberal justices in dissent.

Saying lower-court judges in California had acted with unseemly and probably unlawful haste in pushing through new rules to allow broadcasting, the court extended a temporary stay issued Monday until it considers whether to hear an appeal of the issue based on papers yet to be filed. The court instructed the parties to act promptly, but the process will almost certainly take longer than the trial.

The 17-page majority opinion, which was unsigned, focused mainly on what it said were irregularities in how the trial judge, Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, changed the applicable rules to allow broadcast coverage.

The main flaw, the opinion said, was that Judge Walker allowed only five business days for public comment on the proposed changes.

“Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others,” the opinion said, “and must follow those requirements themselves.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said Judge Walker had invited comments from the parties to the case in September and had received 138,574 public comments as well, with all but 32 favoring transmission of the proceedings.

“How much more ‘opportunity for comment’ does the court believe necessary?” Justice Breyer asked his colleagues in the majority.

Justice Breyer added that micromanaging trial court procedures was not a wise use of the Supreme Court’s docket and that “the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

More Bush v Gore bs, or principle?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look at the arguments of both sides. Which side's arguments hold the most water with you? Majority or minority?

----------
NYT: The Supreme Court...eliminated the possibility that any part of the trial of a constitutional challenge to a ban on same-sex marriage now under way in San Francisco would be broadcast before it concludes.

The vote in the case was 5 to 4 and divided along ideological lines, with the court’s four more liberal justices in dissent.

Saying lower-court judges in California had acted with unseemly and probably unlawful haste in pushing through new rules to allow broadcasting, the court extended a temporary stay issued Monday until it considers whether to hear an appeal of the issue based on papers yet to be filed. The court instructed the parties to act promptly, but the process will almost certainly take longer than the trial.

The 17-page majority opinion, which was unsigned, focused mainly on what it said were irregularities in how the trial judge, Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, changed the applicable rules to allow broadcast coverage.

The main flaw, the opinion said, was that Judge Walker allowed only five business days for public comment on the proposed changes.

“Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others,” the opinion said, “and must follow those requirements themselves.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said Judge Walker had invited comments from the parties to the case in September and had received 138,574 public comments as well, with all but 32 favoring transmission of the proceedings.

“How much more ‘opportunity for comment’ does the court believe necessary?” Justice Breyer asked his colleagues in the majority.

Justice Breyer added that micromanaging trial court procedures was not a wise use of the Supreme Court’s docket and that “the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

More Bush v Gore bs, or principle?

So the conservatives are saying there were procedural issues dealing with time and availability for public comments? 5 days were not enough they say.

The liberals ask what more is needed than 138,542 out of 138,574 total favoring transmission of the court case.

138,574 public comments are not enough, or the conservatives just needed a justification to protect the conservative haters?

 

[JD_2B]

I think they are just ensuring that the trial remains fairly decided.. I am a proponent of gay marriage, and I think this is a GOOD idea, so that right wingers cant turn around and claim tampering, etc, and to help to keep jurors and witnesses safe from reprocussions, as well. All in all, a good decision, in all fairness.

 

[rdean]

The only real argument conservatives have is gay marriage destroys families and undermines "traditional" marriage.

When you point out that gays are family "members" and the majority of "straights", many times, don't even know any gays and not a single one can explain how a gay getting married will impact their own, then there is no real argument.

Just "portents" of unexplained "doom".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think they are just ensuring that the trial remains fairly decided.. I am a proponent of gay marriage, and I think this is a GOOD idea, so that right wingers cant turn around and claim tampering, etc, and to help to keep jurors and witnesses safe from reprocussions, as well. All in all, a good decision, in all fairness.

A bad decision. Why? Because the claims of the right are false, and because what teh right claims either way...is n-o-t law.

There were repercussions after overturning Jim Crow laws. So what.

You are misguided. The courts are not about fairness. The issue is about more than the case before the courts today.

Bringing camera feeds into the US Federal courts, is a good thing. What one side or the other will cry about later should not be a deciding factor.

...

that said, I understand where you are coming from and strongly disagree. But i understand.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The only real argument conservatives have is gay marriage destroys families and undermines "traditional" marriage.

When you point out that gays are family "members" and the majority of "straights", many times, don't even know any gays and not a single one can explain how a gay getting married will impact their own, then there is no real argument.

Just "portents" of unexplained "doom".

I know.

Prop. 8, the trial that should be seen - latimes.com

The high court, perversely, felt broadcasting should be banned precisely because "this case . . . involves issues subject to intense debate in our society." The majority stressed that studies had not shown "the effect of broadcasting in high-profile, divisive cases." What, imaginably, could that bad effect be? That the American people might have views on the subject and debate them?

Many proponents of same-sex marriage in the gay community opposed the Perry litigation, believing that the suit came too quickly; that public opinion is unsettled. Scopes may be instructive here as well. John Scopes lost and paid a small fine, though even that was overturned on appeal. But the real effect of the trial was to embolden creationists; it potentially set back the widespread teaching of evolution for years. The issue of creationism -- now called "intelligent design" -- was "tried" in Pennsylvania in 2005; it has not gone away.

It's wrong, of course, to think the Supreme Court will "resolve" this issue, any more than it managed to resolve the issues of segregation, abortion, the death penalty or gay rights, for that matter. But what the court ultimately decides (if it decides), and on what basis, will profoundly affect the terms of the debate. If matters of social change are going to be debated in the courts, we all should get to view the process -- and, through our reactions, to participate in it.



Barry Friedman, a constitutional litigator and law professor at New York University School of Law, is the author of "The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution."

 

[Yurt]

I think they are just ensuring that the trial remains fairly decided.. I am a proponent of gay marriage, and I think this is a GOOD idea, so that right wingers cant turn around and claim tampering, etc, and to help to keep jurors and witnesses safe from reprocussions, as well. All in all, a good decision, in all fairness.

agreed, i skimmed the decision and the majority is spot on

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rulesmay be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimonyabout a contentious issue.

 

[Oddball]

SCOTUS: Liberal vs Conservative Arguments re: Video/Gay Marriage

Look at the arguments of both sides. Which side's arguments hold the most water with you? Majority or minority?

Reject the premises of both sides, as they both rest on the seriously shaky ground that the state has any business proactively involving itself in the sanctioning of any private contractual agreements, let alone marriages.

 

[Yurt]

SCOTUS: Liberal vs Conservative Arguments re: Video/Gay Marriage

Look at the arguments of both sides. Which side's arguments hold the most water with you? Majority or minority?

Reject the premises of both sides, as they both rest on the seriously shaky ground that the state has any business proactively involving itself in the sanctioning of any private contractual agreements, let alone marriages.

the issue of the case is whether to broadcast the trial, gay marriage was not the issue in this case

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SCOTUS: Liberal vs Conservative Arguments re: Video/Gay Marriage

Look at the arguments of both sides. Which side's arguments hold the most water with you? Majority or minority?

Reject the premises of both sides, as they both rest on the seriously shaky ground that the state has any business proactively involving itself in the sanctioning of any private contractual agreements, let alone marriages.

the issue of the case is whether to broadcast the trial, gay marriage was not the issue in this case

marriage licenses are granted by the....gulp, state.


and the 21st century is here. televise the cases heard in federalcourts

 

[Yurt]

Reject the premises of both sides, as they both rest on the seriously shaky ground that the state has any business proactively involving itself in the sanctioning of any private contractual agreements, let alone marriages.

the issue of the case is whether to broadcast the trial, gay marriage was not the issue in this case

marriage licenses are granted by the....gulp, state.


and the 21st century is here. televise the cases heard in federalcourts

dear mental midget (MM):

i had no idea marriage licenses were issued by the state, i can't believe i did not know that. i swear billie bob clinton hisself prophisied over my marriage and signed the certificate....

it doesn't matter what century we are in MM. the majority is correct. the rules were not followed. and this is exactly the kind of case that does not need to be broadcast. i said this from the beginning and the intellectual giants agreed. sorry MM, you're wrong.

 

[JD_2B]

Agreed. What the trial is about holds no bearing on whether a trial in Federal Court should be arbitrarily broadcast or not. The fact remains, trials in Federal Court are not broadcast, it is not allowed, so the Supreme Court of course said "We are basically following stare decisis, the legal term meaning "let the decision stand"."

I don't know why DevNell is arguing all these other points, because they are totally moot in the question of whether a federal trial should be exposed to the media.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think they are just ensuring that the trial remains fairly decided.. I am a proponent of gay marriage, and I think this is a GOOD idea, so that right wingers cant turn around and claim tampering, etc, and to help to keep jurors and witnesses safe from reprocussions, as well. All in all, a good decision, in all fairness.

agreed, i skimmed the decision and the majority is spot on

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.

Are any issues non contentious?

You are being deceitful here. But on this issue, that is 'par for the course'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it doesn't matter what century we are in MM. the majority is correct. the rules were not followed. and this is exactly the kind of case that does not need to be broadcast. i said this from the beginning and the intellectual giants agreed. sorry MM, you're wrong.

The rules were followed, but not to a tee. The majority got it wrong, and they did not rule on whether this is the kind of trial that needs to be broadcast.

The intellectual giants are not on your majority.

This case is exactly the kind that should be broadcast, and that is why some in the majority stuck so narrowly to the issue of following the rukes to a tee. They fear public exposure of the tactics of the right wing haters.

The witnesses arguments are baseless as the main ones have been in the media since day one.

The minority mentioned over a hundred thousand public comments during a whole week.

More deception from the haters.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Agreed. What the trial is about holds no bearing on whether a trial in Federal Court should be arbitrarily broadcast or not. The fact remains, trials in Federal Court are not broadcast, it is not allowed, so the Supreme Court of course said "We are basically following stare decisis, the legal term meaning "let the decision stand"."

I don't know why DevNell is arguing all these other points, because they are totally moot in the question of whether a federal trial should be exposed to the media.

The minority agrees with me and it was a 5/4 split decision.

The court could have 1 justice switch sides and ....

The issue will be decided on a less controversial case...and cameras will be allowed.

btw, cameras are being allowed in some cases in Fed courts, correct?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look at the arguments of both sides. Which side's arguments hold the most water with you? Majority or minority?

----------
NYT: The Supreme Court...eliminated the possibility that any part of the trial of a constitutional challenge to a ban on same-sex marriage now under way in San Francisco would be broadcast before it concludes.

The vote in the case was 5 to 4 and divided along ideological lines, with the court’s four more liberal justices in dissent.

Saying lower-court judges in California had acted with unseemly and probably unlawful haste in pushing through new rules to allow broadcasting, the court extended a temporary stay issued Monday until it considers whether to hear an appeal of the issue based on papers yet to be filed. The court instructed the parties to act promptly, but the process will almost certainly take longer than the trial.

The 17-page majority opinion, which was unsigned, focused mainly on what it said were irregularities in how the trial judge, Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, changed the applicable rules to allow broadcast coverage.

The main flaw, the opinion said, was that Judge Walker allowed only five business days for public comment on the proposed changes.Nothing about NOT having cameras...only a side issue.

Again, the right @ USMB and elsewhere is deflecting

 

[JD_2B]

Agreed. What the trial is about holds no bearing on whether a trial in Federal Court should be arbitrarily broadcast or not. The fact remains, trials in Federal Court are not broadcast, it is not allowed, so the Supreme Court of course said "We are basically following stare decisis, the legal term meaning "let the decision stand"."

I don't know why DevNell is arguing all these other points, because they are totally moot in the question of whether a federal trial should be exposed to the media.

The minority agrees with me and it was a 5/4 split decision.

The court could have 1 justice switch sides and ....

The issue will be decided on a less controversial case...and cameras will be allowed.

btw, cameras are being allowed in some cases in Fed courts, correct?

No, not at all. The decision was made based on the status quo already in place for Federal Court proceedings. The reasoning for this case is just as important as the reasoning will be for any other lower profile case in the future.
And, partisanship is not the issue. Supreme Court justices are not picked based solely on whether they are a liberal or conservative. Give them some credit for their decisions. It's not like they don't base their decisions on subjective crap pulled out of thin air. They have a major responsibility to follow the judiciary rule of following previous decisions. Those previous supreme court decisions, made before those people were ever in office, are LAW. As such, all Supremes are required to follow the law. The history of supreme court rulings is not going to simply vanish just because YOU would rather think that this is a partisan issue, rather than giving credit to a couple of hundred years worth of justice's decisions actually lending credence to whatever the current one is.
Supreme Court decisions are not a partisan popularity contest. Each of their decisions is based on independent legal research on what the prior decisions have been in regards to the case.