Walker concluded "it is just the type of case that warrants breaking with traditions that generally have outlawed cameras in the nation's federal courts.Several federal courthouses around the country, however, will provide a live video and audio feed of the trial.
'I think it's worth trying in this case,'the judge told a packed courtroom.
Walker is permitting court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release of the Proposition 8 trial on YouTube. He becomes the first federal trial judge in the West to make use of an experimental program put in place recently by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council, the policy arm of the federal courts in nine states, including California."
"We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.posted by ericb at 11:39 AM on January 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
...But there’s a topline message here about this trial even many informed voters don’t yet realized: It’s not about California, it’s about the whole country. Gay-marriage advocates are in federal court arguing for a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump not only Prop 8, but the laws of 45 other states, including the 30 other states where the people have passed state constitutional marriage amendments. That’s right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage–in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy."
"A vocal gay marriage opponent who volunteered to become a defendant in the case challenging California's same-sex nuptial ban is now asking to be removed from the case.That's standing up for your convictions!
Hak-Shing William Tam was one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 who formally 'intervened' in a federal lawsuit challenging the voter-approved ban. The lawsuit officially names the state as the defendant, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend the voter-approved ban.
On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family's safety. In his court filing, Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.
Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected."
" The public will get a first of its kind look inside a federal courtroom next week when the Proposition 8 trial begins in San Francisco.posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on January 9, 2010
A delayed video transmission will be available on YouTube, the first time a federal trial has been televised.
'It’s a very positive first step considering the decades of non-camera access that preceded it,' said Thomas Burke, an attorney with the Media Coalition."
"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on January 9, 2010 [13 favorites]
At the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker kept asking Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, how exactly it did so. “I’m asking you to tell me,” he said at last, “how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.”posted by divrsional at 2:23 PM on January 9, 2010 [12 favorites]
“All right,” Cooper said.
“All right,” Walker said. “Let’s play on the same playing field for once.”
There was a pause—it seemed like a long one to people in the courtroom, though it was probably only a few seconds. And Cooper said, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”
The equal protection clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868. It's in the constitution, but not as 'drafted by our founding fathers'.That’s right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriageOf course it does. It can be argued, and I think with some validity, that Roe v. Wade was on pretty weak constitutional grounds, but bans on gay marriage quite clearly violate the ideals of both equal protection under the law and the separation of church and state.
(ii) that killing fetuses is an immoral thing to do?Here we were discussing the law and now you want to derail that and have some argument about the morality of abortion. I'm not taking your derailment bait and I earnestly hope that nobody else does, either.
"Yusef Robb, spokesman for American Foundation for Equal Rights, sent out an email saying that Olson and Boies have a brief period in which to respond:posted by ericb at 5:05 AM on January 10, 2010 [3 favorites]'In a last gasp attempt to keep cameras out of court, the Defendant-Intervenors in Perry v. Schwarzenegger have made an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking Justice Kennedy to block camera coverage.We have been asked to file a response by 12:00 Eastern on Sunday, January 10.
'Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved,' said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. 'Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide.'"
"The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a broadcast of the trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.posted by ericb at 8:27 AM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
The federal trial is scheduled to begin later Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.
The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday."
"The federal judiciary, notoriously hidebound when it comes to allowing any video of its proceedings, is jumping headfirst into the YouTube age.posted by ericb at 9:20 AM on January 11, 2010
...[Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn] Walker is permitting court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release of the Proposition 8 trial on YouTube. He becomes the first federal trial judge in the West to make use of an experimental program put in place recently by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council, the policy arm of the federal courts in nine states, including California. The council in December decided to allow federal trial courts to broadcast nonjury civil trials, just in time for the Proposition 8 proceeding, which is scheduled to begin Monday and last two to three weeks."*
"Perhaps what is most surprising about the life of Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier is how normal it was, up until recently. The lesbian couple has been raising four children in a quiet Berkeley, Calif., neighborhood, one known these days more for its cozy bungalows and good coffee than for '60s-era radicalism. Later this month, they will mark their 10-year anniversary, a decade spent mostly focused on the ups and downs of domestic life, like helping with homework or surviving morning-rush-hour commutes.posted by ericb at 2:08 PM on January 11, 2010
But the name Perry may someday be as widely known as Miranda or Dred Scott, whose landmark cases were decided by the Supreme Court. [more...]
Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker.posted by ericb at 11:34 AM on January 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Firedoglake's Prop 8 Trial Blog.
San Jose Mercury News Live Coverage.
Boies: "You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy. Whether that was causal or not, you're saying that's what happened after same sex was legalized, correct, same-sex marriage?"[facepalm]
Tam: "Yeah, look at the date. It's -- polygamy happens afterwards."
Boies: "Who told you that, sir? Where did you get that idea?"
Tam: "It's in the internet."
Boies: "In the internet?"
Tam: "Yeah."
Boies: "Somewhere out in the internet it says that the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy in 2005?"
« Older A peek into Netflix queues. From the New York Time... | Nobuyuki Tsujii is a 21 year o... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That says to me they really haven't thought this over, and really aren't ready to defend their position as a logical one. If their position is inherently easy to laugh at, it must be in some way ridiculous. And if you want to go to court to stop someone from marrying, I think I'm free to laugh at you as much as I want. I'm an American, and I have liberties like that.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:38 AM on January 9, 2010 [4 favorites]