Supreme Court indefinitely blocks YouTube broadcasts (of Prop. 8 trial)

[Newsjock]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube, as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West.

The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast."

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14179875

[FiveGoodMen]

1. The cons own everything. SCOTUS included.

[onehandle]

2. But we're still going to get the names.

It will be in the public record. Right?

[2QT2BSTR8]

3. It is in the article.

Edited for out of context statement -

A closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling indefinitely barring any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial shows the difference between the majority and dissenters boiled down to two things. The majority (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia)concluded that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law in changing rules to allow cameras in his courtroom for the trial, in large part because they believe he didn't allow enough time for public comment on changes to local federal court rules. And the justices also determined that Prop 8 supporters demonstrated there could be harm to their fair trial rights because certain witnesses could be intimidated by broadcast exposure, reason to keep the stay in place.


The dissenters (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens) couldn't have disagreed more. They said Walker easily followed the rules, and rejected the idea Prop 8's defense would suffer any harm. They called the decision an unprecedented attempt to "micromanage" a district court's administration.

[2QT2BSTR8]

4. I would have to say...

that this sure as hell fell by party lines. What a crock of $@^+ .

[No Elephants]

25. Didn't another story posted in LBN say Breyer was the only one who disagreed publicly with the

majority of the Justices?


What doesn't go by party lines? Not sure if that was always so. I know one of Eisenhower's appointees, Earl Warren, voted with real liberals most, if not all, of the time.

But, I just realized something: Traditionally, the Republican Party has been the Party of WASP's. Yet, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, a majority of the Court and all Republican appointees, dating back to Ford's appointment of Kennedy to the Circuit Court, are all Roman Catholics. My guess is, after Roe v. Wade and the bargain the Republican made with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Catholics were seen as likelier to be anti-abortion? If so, I wonder how many they've planted in lower courts? (No, no litmus test at all. No questions about abortion, just "How often to go to confession and mass?").

Sotomayor, of course, is also Roman Catholic, so I am glad to see she apparently believes in Separation of Church and State, too.

[Unvanguard]

28. That was the preliminary, time-limited stay issued Monday.

This time, Sotomayor, Stevens, and Ginsburg joined Breyer's dissent.

[fascisthunter]

5. so... the public is not allowed to see... afraid of exposure huh?

[SoapBox]

6. Please read trial blog here...

If you are interested, there is a daily blog going on:

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

And yes, this is a No on 8 bend to it. However, every decent
American should be sickened by the crap that the supporters
say and what they did (and continue to do.)

Please share the link with friends.

[Hawaii Hiker]

7. Next time anyone thinks of not voting in 2012

Remember w/Republican presidents, you get far right justices like Roberts, Ailito, Scalia, & Thomas.....The SCOTUS is reason enough to vote for the Democratic candiate in every election...

[lobodons]

8. US got lucky W had only 2

If you think about the health and age of some SCOTUS members, it is fortunate that W only got 2 picks. Ever wonder why nobody retired during his first term?? I have. They knew the truth about the rigged selection of 2000.

You gotta hope that the SCOTUS will come together an do the right thing here in the end just as they did with Brown v. Board (9-0 decision)

[defendandprotect]

11. Scalia and Thomas are both religous fanatics . . . I think the only swinger is Kennedy .../????

Expect Alito and Roberts, the same . . .

[Iowa]

9. I would not be surprised in the least if Obama selected some RW corporate stooge for SCOTUS...

In fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

[defendandprotect]

10. Who would President Lieberman have given us for the Court . . . ???

[Hawaii Hiker]

18. Libermann? - I don't think he would have given us anyone since he would have been Gore's VP

But even still, & i'm certainly no fan of attention whore Libermann, but even he wouldn't "F" up the court like a Republican would....

Justice Kennedy is the only thing keeping the court from a fatal rightward shift....And had it not been for Senator Ted Kennedy & others, Justice Kennedy wouldn't even be on the court, it would have been Robert Bork, & who knows what this country would have looked like w/a kook like that on the high court....

[defendandprotect]

26. Lieberman was a Trojan Horse. . . . how long before something would have happened to Gore?

Certainly Gore knew who Lieberman was -- he had long served with him in the Senate.

Didn't Kennedy vote with the Gang of 5 to put Bush in the Oval Office?

[Tesha]

14. Strangely enough, 40 Republican Senators can block everything and anything, but...

46 or so Democrats couldn't stop anything including the Supreme
Court appointments that are now so troubling us.

Tesha

[Unvanguard]

17. The Republicans didn't stop Sotomayor. n/t

[Tesha]

23. Do you figure that one exception invalidates my entire claim?

Perhaps Sotomayor was no real threat to the established order
and the Republicans knew that?

Tesha

[Unvanguard]

27. Of course it doesn't. The point is that Supreme Court confirmations don't work like legislation.

Not every confirmation is a battle; even the ones that are often involve lots of crossovers. Several Republican Senators voted for Sotomayor. Several Democratic Senators voted for Bush's appointments.

What people who make your comparison forget, speaking more broadly, is that Bush's largest successful domestic policy initiative--the tax cuts--was done through budget reconciliation, and would have been filibustered otherwise.

[Suji to Seoul]

12. Gotta keep that homophobia secret!

Wouldn't want Scalia and Alito's bigotry to get out. That would ruin their. . .oh, who cares?

I am so disgusted with my country's politics now and I about the through my hands in the air. I ex-pated three years ago and I'm tired of being sad every time I read the news.

[Unvanguard]

13. Is this the court we're trusting to rule in our favor when Perry reaches them? n/t

[ArcticFox]

15. More than that, I dare say

The breakdown is predictable: Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia in the majority; Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens in the dissent.

This will be the breakdown if this thing goes to the Supreme Court. The S.Ct. will outlaw same sex marriage for all time.

[Tesha]

24. Don't be quite so pessimistic.

Even "Dred Scott" and "Plessey" were eventually overturned.
It took far too long (as may equal marriage), but the good guys
won in the end. One of the good guys even made it ONTO the
Supreme Court!

Tesha

[HCE SuiGeneris]

16. Transparency is Opaque!

Capitalism is Parity!

Information is Stupidity!

USA! USA! USA!

[customerserviceguy]

19. This is why I hold little hope

when this case works its way up to the Supreme Court. The Massachusetts case against DOMA is far stronger in its respect of legal precedents. I figured that having this case reach the Court first is the main motivation of Ted Olsen, so that equality can be dealt a severe blow before the really solid arguments can be brought up.

[sakabatou]

20. I don't think they can block Twitter.

Possibly our only way of knowing what's going on.

[David Zephyr]

21. Well, the trial is public record and a docudrama can be easily be made.

This is not over.

[alp227]

22. Don't y'all realize this is about federal court rules not secrecy rights?

Although I personally disapprove of this decision, it's because the court didn't change its rules. In fact, the Sup. Ct. justices did not even take a stand on broadcasting trials like this!

Still, it sucks that this trial can't be broadcast, but the OJ Simpson trial could.

[ArcticFox]

29. You don't think they knew what it was all about?

The fact that they deferred to the rules does not mean they made their decision based on the rules.