Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
I noted the highly unusual scheme hatched by liberal California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to turn the Prop. 8 challenge court proceedings into a show trial.
The US Supreme Court has just blocked Walker’s plans to put the trial on a delayed YouTube broadcast while it considers the legal issues:
The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.
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.
Bench Memos’ Ed Whelan has background on the stay application here.
In the NYT, Ed Meese looks at the many ways the deck has been stacked against Prop. 8 proponents:
The entire premise of this litigation is disquieting — that traditional marriage is nothing but “the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing,” as David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has written. According to the plaintiffs, there is just no rational basis for government to privilege marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, in their minds, Proposition 8, which was supported by more than seven million California voters, could have been adopted only as a result of “animus,” as the complaint puts it, toward gays and lesbians.
It’s disquieting that the trial is taking place in San Francisco, probably the venue most likely to support gay marriage. More than 75 percent of San Francisco voters opposed Proposition 8. That’s quite a home-court advantage for same-sex marriage advocates.
But most disquieting for supporters of traditional marriage is a series of pretrial rulings issued by Judge Vaughn R. Walker that have the effect of putting the sponsors of Proposition 8, and the people who voted for it, on trial.
Judge Walker’s decisions have been surprising because they differ from those of other judges who have previously scrutinized marriage laws — in Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and elsewhere in California, for example. In those instances, the courts have decided legal challenges to state marriage laws based on legislative history, scholarly articles and testimony by social scientists and other experts. They have, in some cases, looked for evidence of legislative intent in the statements published in official voter information pamphlets.
But in this case, Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. The judge went so far as to order the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He has even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination.
To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube. This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.
Thankfully, some of Judge Walker’s rulings have been overturned. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the disclosure of internal communications among the core Proposition 8 organizers. But there is no question that virtually every ruling by Judge Walker so far has put advocates of traditional marriage at an increasing disadvantage.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine voteJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidDaily Caller
» Obama’s deputy downplays church-state controversy
California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker believes that all animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.
Too bad you can’t walk on your hind legs just yet, judge.
Finally. Voices of reason. One more reason to ignore solitary activist judges who assume pope-like powers.
This whole trial is very scary.
This is a DIRECT assault on basic Democracy, and Federalism.
That the State of California is not even acting in its OWN defense on this… shows that the AG, and the Governator, are truly clueless…
Unless… they are thinking that by giving the Fed more power over the States, they will get somthing in return… like a Bailout?
If only it were possible….
But, that is one of the problems we traditionalist Americans have to deal with, and have been plagued with for the last 40-50 years:
these solitary activist judges are dangerous – very dangerous – because they have a degree of power that cannot be ignored;
that, and the fact that they are not so solitary – there are, unfortunately for America, so goddamn many of these dangerous Anti-American clowns.
On the up-side, doesn’t SCOTUS making a ruling at all give prima facie evidence of standing before SCOTUS, should Prop 8 make its way there?
In other words, even if this show trial overturns a constitutional amendment ballot initiative, when Prop 8 proponents then appeal to SCOTUS, Prop 8 opponents won’t be able to hope that SCOTUS will reject hearing the case based on standing.
And once it goes to SCOTUS, it should be a slam-dunk in favor of Prop 8. Most Ninth Circus rulings generally are.
gotta love the American victims. Nobody is being punished, nobody is being arrested, nobody is being charged with a crime. . . yet somehow we are supposed to believe that Americans are oppressing gay people.
A true sign that California has no concept of priorities, they won’t have enough money to fund the courts to hear this case in a year or two. If they do Obamacare, it’ll cut the time to bankruptcy for California in half.
But it’s all good as long as gays can get ‘married’. Once it becomes law, the work of the lawyer begins. This is just the warmups for when activist judges give them all the ‘discrimination’ business that the lawyers can stand.
No need when you have a prehensile tail to help you swing through the trees.
On almost every issue the fascist can not get through legislative action they seem to find a friendly judge and court. Now these Satraps want to explore the motives of their opponents with full force of law.
Judge Walker’s actions and rulings are little better than treason-rendering our people to the power of the state-Law and Constitution be damned. Should Blue Lips get another shot at the Supreme Court I am sure Judge Walker will be on the short list.
As they would render us subject to rule by men and not by law; as they have stripped us of the ballot box other actions may be needed.
Election 2010 may well be the answer and our last.
It was no accident that lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen brought this case in the federal district court in San Francisco. That is the favorite trick of activist lawyers who want to get a favorable and radical result. There is a huge federal class action lawsuit that basically seeks to destroy Walmart that was deliberately brought in San Francisco, even though Walmart is not based in San Francisco and has little presence in San Francisco. The activist lawyers knew that they could get a favorable result in San Francisco, given the collection of liberal activist lawyers who were installed on the federal bench in San Francisco. In the WalMart class action case, the federal judge ruled that he and he alone would determine the fate of the entire WalMart business. He said there would be only ONE trial and it would cover hundreds of thousand separate instances of alleged discrmination against thousands of people. He said he would only need to hear from an “expert” on statistics, thereby preventing Walmart from defending itself. The case was appealed to a panel of 3 judges on the 9th circuit which said “yipee”. The case is now before the entire 9th circuit although the result is preordained. So it was no coincidence that the prop 8 case would be brought before the same panel of judges in the same city. The result is preordained as well. And Vaughn Walker is a country club Republican who is star struck by David Boies.
A perfect example of where our courts system often leaves a lot to be desired – especially when it comes to the ability of unscrupulous attorneys to use straw-man distractions and water-tainting misdirects to deny justice.
It’s gotten to the point where a gay Congressman can hardly run a brothel in his basement…
This whole thing could dismantle the entire proposition system in CA, all for a small collection of activists.
I’m beginning to think the whole system needs to be turned on its head and reset.
How many times does Barney Frank have to tell you, he’s innocent because he didn’t know what his roommate was up to? Not his fault.
Haven’t lived in California since my days in South Oakland, aka NAS Alameda, and am not an expert on its state constitution, but by what right does the Supreme Court of California get to evaluate whether the state constitution is unconstitutional per the state constitution?
Yeah, let’s have Same-Sex issues tried in San Francisco.
And let’s have Ethics Issues tried in Chicago.
And Alcohol-related issues tried in Kentucky.
ED MAHMUD; who checks the black robed gods when the legislature can’t create a law they don’t find unconstitutional, and the people can’t vote to change the constitution if the black robed gods can overturn it?
“yet somehow we are supposed to believe that Americans are oppressing gay people.”
Considering the amount of lawsuits emanating from one particular spot, one would have to conclude that San Francisco gays are the most oppressed gays within the United States. It may be in their interest to leave such an intolerant community.
Deja vu in California. Remember the 1996 Prop 209 that won by a 55% – 45% ratio which said:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Within 3 weeks U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the proposition. (Later reversed by the full district court panel.)
Then CA Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to represent the voters in that action or in subsequent lawsuits trying to over turn the Prop.
Fast forward to today and take a guess who is the CA Attorney General? Yep. Good ol’ Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Seems that Jerry makes his professional decisions about whether to not the State Attorney General office will defend the citizens of the state based on two things:
1. His personal opinions about the underlying issue, and
2. His immediate political plans
Guess who is running for CA Governor in 2010? Jerry Brown – and he needs the gay vote if he has any chance of winning.
Winning Props that espouse conservative or middle of the road values are never certain that the state will defend them in court – but liberal Props are guaranteed that the State Attorney General will defend them with the full power of that office.
It does appear the intimidators have only lost this round yet are still leading in the re-match. However, there must be supporters of Prop.8 who can eloquently present their side and are not intimidated. Have ye no faith?
Just like prop 187, the liberal feds of the ninth circuit will tell Californians what they can and cannot do. This will cause more Californian taxpayers to flee the state while they are replaced with welfare grubbing non taxpayers. Lets just give California to Mexico already, it is a failed state with a failed economy, exactly what you get when liberals run amok. Let Mexico steal whatever wealth is left there and force anyone with a residence in Los Angeles or San Francisco to have to stay and become Mexican citizens so they will not try to flee to other states and destroy them with their moronic voting practices. They all pretty much hate the USA anyway, lets get rid of them.
Here in Pasadena, the local media was making a big deal telling everyone that the Pasadena Federal Court would be showing a live television feed to the public. Does this SCOTUS ruling include the live feed or does it only apply to the YouTube feed? Clearly, the establishment is making it clear that they just don’t intend to obey the law.
The live feed is not limited to Pasadena but several other federal courts in CA and other states. I know that Denver is part of this.
frontierguy, I lived in CA for a while and much of that state is populated by very conservative and hard working Americans. However there are a few very population dense areas which dominate state politics. The school campuses are also dominated by socialists and California has many, many large schools. Eventually, these kids grow up and start working. Personally I don’t want to get rid of Cal Tech, UCLA, Stanford, Silicon Valley, …. I would love it though if somehow Berkeley got cleaned up.
Excellent idea. I believe we should steam-clean all the residents.
Using this sham lawsuit as a means to “investigate” the religious beliefs of the voters and expose their so-called bigotry. And liberals see no problem with that. So what’s next: the lion’s den?
Hey, hey, HEY!!! I agree with the first two whole-heartedly, but what’s with the slam against KY? As a matter of fact, here are two separate sources that show that KY is WAY down on the list in per-capita alcohol consumption…
Clicky and Clicky
Excuse me while I go pour myself a celebratory cocktail!
Damn… just remembered I’m still at work…
vinny, you noticed I said anyone with a residence in Los Angeles and San Francisco must stay. I recognize that outside of these two areas, Californians are friendly, family oriented and have common sense, however lets face it, the Golden State is golden no more. SF and LA destroyed the whole state. I’m waiting to see if Boxer at least has a hard time holding on to the seat her husband bought for her. I am sure there will be busloads of illegals heading for the polls for that one, but if she at least has a hard time, I will be willing to suspend my hopelessness for California.
Have you noticed that, over the past few years, voting is slowly becoming a legal issue? If the vote doesn’t turn out the way it is wanted, it can be overturned by the court. It won’t be long before all voting will be censored…just like totalitarian governments. Take a vote result here, then one there, and soon, all will be checked and approved.
A relatively small nuke ought to do it. Just call it a “demonstration” when you notify San Francisco and LA.
ECS
San Francisco has become the metaphorical sister city of Babylon.
What do you guys have to hide? First, you think the donors of the Yes on 8 campaign should be exempt from freedom of information laws by having their identities hidden, and now you don’t want the public to see this court case? Where’s your sense of anti-gay pride?
Also, this habit of yours, dismissing everyone who wants to see their gay neighbours, brothers, sisters and friends treated fairly as “goshdarned LIBRILS!!” just isn’t going to cut it any more. You remember Ted Olson, right? Bush’s solicitor general is on the right side of history, and he’s very much a conservative.
California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should be impeached.
I think we ought to get a proposition proposed that would impeach this scumbag and then let the courts say the peoples voice does not matter or it is illegal to try and impeach out of control judges.
There is nothing is the constitution that gives these people life time appointments.Congress can impeach any of these judges for any reason. The old argument that they are appointed for life does not wash.
Why should we allow Judges to break the law with no accountability.Time to clean house.
Come now, Omu. We don’t really believe the witnesses will be protected in any event. The gay lobby will find out who they are and terrorize them, as usual.
We just don’t want to be subjected to the inevitable fashion choices of the plaintiffs.