Posts

Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow

/in , /by

I have just received the following email from the Judge Vaughn Walker’s court on the Prop 8 case:

August 3, 2010

ANNOUNCEMENT

On August 4, 2010, the court will issue its written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law following the court trial held in January and June of this year. The order will be e-filed in the court’s Electronic Case Filing system, and will be immediately available thereafter through ECF and PACER. Visit www.cand.uscourts.gov for details on registering for PACER. There will be no court proceeding associated with the publication of the order.

A small number of hard copies will also be made available for public review shortly after the order is e-filed in the following locations:

San Francisco Courthouse: Clerk’s Office (16th Floor) & Press Room (18th Floor)

Oakland Courthouse: Clerk’s Office

San Jose Courthouse: Clerk’s Office

So tomorrow will be a very momentous day. The decision in Perry will be groundbreaking and historic regardless of which way it goes. From what I saw and heard at the closing arguments in June, it is hard to believe there will not be some relief granted by Judge Walker to Plaintiffs Perry et. al; the question is how it will be formed. But that is just a guess; Walker certainly did not tip his hand in any regard, so it could go either way.

Stay tuned to Emptywheel and Firedoglake for full coverage of the decision when it is filed.

Supreme Court Blocks Video Coverage Of Prop 8 Trial

/in , , , /by

images5thumbnail1.thumbnail11On Monday morning, the Supreme Court entered a stay order halting the live video feed of the groundbreaking Proposition 8 trial to other Federal courthouses as well as the delayed release of video clips from the trial via YouTube. I indicated back then that the history and blinding self interest of the Supreme Court in not allowing the encroachment of video into Federal courts because of the abiding fear it will lead to video in their own hallowed and august courtrooms. God forbid the citizens of the country be able to see what their public servants are doing; and public servants is exactly what Supreme Court Justices, for all their self righteous bluster, are.

Today, in an opinion just released in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, those fears came true.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog summarizes the situation perfectly:

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked any television broadcast to the general public of the San Francisco federal court challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The stay will remain in effect until the Court rules on a coming appeal challenging the TV order. The Court, chastizing the trial court for attempting “to change its rules at the eleventh hour,” issued an unsigned 17-page opinion. The ruling came out nearly 40 minutes after an earlier temporary order blocking TV had technically expired.

The Court gave the supporters of the Prop 8 ban two options to seek a final order against the television coverage: they could (as they have indicated they would) file a petition for review from the lower courts’ orders), or they could file a petition seeking what is called a “writ of mandamus” — that is, an order from a higher to a lower court to take, or not take, some action. The Court did not indicate whether it would grant review of either approach, although Wednesday’s order was a fairly strong hint that it would.

This spells the end of any hope of video coverage of the Prop 8 trial, whether it be live stream to other Federal courthouses or the delayed release of YouTube segments. It is curious that the Supreme Court is fine with a video feed to other locations in the same courthouse as the trial, but not to other secure Federal courthouses. Again, it must be assumed this is all about insuring that the objecting five pompous justices never have to have their demeanor and conduct seen by the citizens they serve. As I explained in the previous post, the Supreme Court, in Chandler v. Florida, has already admitted it is not about constitutional due process; therefore it is, whether admitted or not, about their vanity and elitism.

When the Supreme Court, in its opinion, says:

We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question withoiut expession any view on whether such trials shold be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirements of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements ourselves.

it sure strikes me that the Court’s basis for finding the Local rule was violated, or inappropriately amended, is strained. At best. Others may differ, but for my money, this Read more →

Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day 3, Wednesday PM One (Twelve)

/in /by

I’m about to pick up the liveblogging of the Prop 8 trial from Teddy, who has earned a big break (and who is off to the court room for a spell). We’re in the middle of expert testimony–I believe that’s what we’ve got coming up after this lunch break.

Letitia Ann Peplau: Bachelor in Psych from Brown, PhD social Psych from Harvard. Research on heterosexual and same sex couples. Some studies that have involved marriage.

Christopher Dusseault (from plaintiffs).

Peplau: Four opinions. One, for those who enter into marriage, associated with benefits. Research of gay and lesbian couples remarkable similarities with heterosexual couples. When permitted to enter into civil marriage, will likely have same benefits as heterosexual couples. Permitting same sex marriage will not be harmful to heterosexual marriage.

Peplau: Americans very enthusiastic about marriage. Most Americans view marriage as one of most important relationships in life. Gallup poll, 91% reported that they have been married or planned to get married.

Dussealt: Any evidence that lesbians and gay men feel the same way.

Peplau: in most states, a hypothetical. Study by Kaiser Family Foundation, would you like to marry? Majority of gay men said they would like to get married. (study admitted)

Dusseault: Domestic partnerships valued as much as gay marriage?

Peplau: Researchers into prefer marriage or domestic partnership. These researchers asked, across all states that permit domestic partnerships. What percentage took advantage. Then, MA, where marriage available. What they found was that 10-12% took option of domestic partnership. Something like 37% of couples get married in MA. 3X as likely to get married as enter into quasi-marital relationships.

Dusseault: Research regarding impact of marriage on health?

Read more →

SCOTUS Scuttles Prop 8 Video Coverage; The History Behind The Denial

/in , , , /by

images5thumbnail1.thumbnail1As you may have heard (See here and here), the Supreme Court has entered a last minute stay to put a hold on the video feed of the seminal Prop 8 trial in the Norther District of California (NDCA) to select other Federal courthouses in the country as well as the delayed release of video clips of the proceedings via YouTube.

This is the full text of the order issued by the Supremes:

Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292, permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court, this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time.

Justice Breyer, dissenting.

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. This stay prohibits the transmission of proceedings to other federal courthouses. In my view, the Court’s standard for granting a stay is not met. See Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1–2) (Ginsburg, J., in chambers). In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of “irreparable harm.” With respect, I dissent.

This is, to say the least, a disappointing ruling. It had been my guess that Anthony Kennedy would field the issue, which went directly to him as the hot judge for emergency matters from the 9th Circuit, and see it as a matter within the discretion of the 9 Circuit and let them make the call, which they had done in favor of video dissemination. For those not aware, this idea of video from the courtroom was not germinated from the Prop 8 trial, even though that has been the focal point. Instead, the pilot program was the brainchild of the 9th circuit Judicial Conference, as described in this LA Times article from late last year:

Federal courts in California and eight other Western states will allow video camera coverage of civil proceedings in an experiment aimed at increasing public understanding of the work of the courts, the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday.

The decision by the court’s judicial council, headed by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, is in response to recommendations made to the court two years ago and ends a 1996 ban on the taking of photographs or transmitting of radio or video broadcasts.

“We hope that being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a Read more →