Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[K1052]

I believe that Liberalism and Democrats are a religion. They have no problem openly admitting that they want to rule as activists from the bench.

Remember, Sotomayor slipped and indicated she would be an "activist Judge".

No matter, I believe this one will go our way strictly based on Law.

I won't make any predictions on the outcome of the trial or a potential appeal to the Supreme Court.

It's possible you'll win this battle but the war is inevitably going to be lost as the old socially conservative folks literally die off in the coming years. Gay marriage will eventually be legal in all 50 states.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

We're going to lose the war?

Really, read the book of Revelation and get back to me.

 

[Craig234]

I have read the SCOTUS opinion on this. The issue is more limited than you think. Youtube and CourtTV broadcasts were already prohibited by the trial court because this runs afoul of longstanding court rules which apply to every case. The issue decided by the SCOTUS was, should they be allowed to broadcast it by closed circuit to five other courtrooms throughout the US, where they would seat additional reporters. These reporters would be prohibited from taking photos or video. The idea was only to effectively increase the number of reporters allowed to view the trial beyond the physical confines of Judge Walker's courtroom.

That's incomplete, though. The other plan was to put the recording on youtube less tha a day later.

The legal issue was pretty narrow. The First District Court has a local rule that bans any and all broadcasting of court proceedings. They tried to amend that rule on the fly to create a pilot program to permit closed circuit broadcasting in this case. The majority opinion says that they did not comply with the proper procedure for amending their local court rule. The dissent says they did.

For the record, I agree with the reasoning of the dissent here. However, there wasn't that much at stake. There wouldn't have been any Youtube broadcasts. The court would have to totally reverse its longstanding rule for that to take place, which would apply to all trials, not just this one.

N.D. Cal local rule 77-3 (effective 1995):

"Unless allowed by a Judge or a Magistrate Judge with respect to his or her own chambers or assigned courtroom for ceremonial purposes, the taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for those purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding, is prohibited. Electronic transmittal of courtroom proceedings and presentation of evidence within the confines of the courthouse is permitted, if authorized by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. The term “environs,” as used in this rule, means all floors on which chambers, courtrooms or on which Offices of the Clerk are located, with the exception of any space specifically designated as a Press Room. Nothing in this rule is intended to restrict the use of electronic means to receive or present evidence during Court proceedings."

- wolf

That's my point though. Even on this 'fairly narrow legal issue', we got the standard partisan 5-4 split.

 

[Craig234]

Are people allowed to openly criticize gay sex in Canada?

Yes, but are any idiots to want to? You're here in the US, right?

 

[woolfe9999]

That's incomplete, though. The other plan was to put the recording on youtube less tha a day later.



That's my point though. Even on this 'fairly narrow legal issue', we got the standard partisan 5-4 split.

It isn't standard. Kennedy's record is about 55/45 right/left, and Stevens is about 45/55 right/left. I would not prejudge Kennedy's reaction to the core issue in the case if it makes its way up to the SCOTUS. Kennedy has voted with the libs on I believe every single substantive gay rights issue, including Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas (where Kennedy wrote the majority opinion overturning anti-sodomy laws as unconstutional.)

There is a school of thought in the legal community that allowing cameras in the court room creates a media circus that distorts the process, like it did in the OJ case. Also, it compromises the privacy of witnesses.

While the other four judges were likely being partisan on this, more than likely Kennedy is just opposed to cameras in the courtroom as a general rule.

- wolf

 

[K1052]

We're going to lose the war?

Really, read the book of Revelation and get back to me.

Blind zealotry will only get you one place, left behind.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Yes, but are any idiots to want to? You're here in the US, right?

I am a US citizen. I had heard horror stories about Canadians being jailed for expressing their view on gay sex. Am I wrong?

Blind zealotry will only get you one place, left behind.

Rock solid Faith will give me a prosperous life and then eternity.

 

[woolfe9999]

Guys, can you please stop replying to avocado? I have on ignore but every time someone replies I end up seeing his posts. I am a heathen and his holier than me-ness burns my eyes.

KKTY bye.

- wolf

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Guys, can you please stop replying to avocado? I have on ignore but every time someone replies I end up seeing his posts. I am a heathen and his holier than me-ness burns my eyes.

KKTY bye.

- wolf

I am logging that as a personal attack.

 

[K1052]

Rock solid Faith will give me a prosperous life and then eternity.

“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”

The problem with rational knowledge is that you are limited.

For instance, devine healing. If you depend on the Health Care System to maintain your life, your god Obama is about to destroy it. Your path to health is snuffed out.

If you don't have God, you will die.

 

[K1052]

The problem with rational knowledge is that you are limited.

For instance, devine healing. If you depend on the Health Care System to maintain your life, your god Obama is about to destroy it. Your path to health is snuffed out.

If you don't have God, you will die.

lulz

 

[BoberFett]

I am logging that as a personal attack.

Wow, that is onion thin skin.

Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek that he may strike that also, or something like that?

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

lulz

Glad you like it!

Wow, that is onion thin skin.

Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek that he may strike that also, or something like that?

I am trying to get used to the culture here. It seems that the skin here is very thin. Am I wrong? (thanks for that Bill O.)

 

[Craig234]

It isn't standard. Kennedy's record is about 55/45 right/left, and Stevens is about 45/55 right/left. I would not prejudge Kennedy's reaction to the core issue in the case if it makes its way up to the SCOTUS. Kennedy has voted with the libs on I believe every single substantive gay rights issue, including Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas (where Kennedy wrote the majority opinion overturning anti-sodomy laws as unconstutional.)

There is a school of thought in the legal community that allowing cameras in the court room creates a media circus that distorts the process, like it did in the OJ case. Also, it compromises the privacy of witnesses.

While the other four judges were likely being partisan on this, more than likely Kennedy is just opposed to cameras in the courtroom as a general rule.

- wolf

Not that we need to debate te word standard, but I meant by it as I desscribed previously, the same 4 radical right on one side, the same 4 mainstream on the other, with Kennedy the tie breaker.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not that we need to debate te word standard, but I meant by it as I desscribed previously, the same 4 radical right on one side, the same 4 mainstream on the other, with Kennedy the tie breaker.

Lawrence v. Texas went 6-3.

Of course, I am here being rather a smartass just to annoy you.

 

[Craig234]

Lawrence v. Texas went 6-3.

Of course, I am here being rather a smartass just to annoy you.

I said standard, not without exception

Look at my 'world vs. 40 Republicans' thread for how outmatched you are on annoying.