Leave a Comment Sagesse
Breaking: Supreme Court Continues Stay, No Cameras
January 13, 2010
By Julia Rosen
In a 5-4 ruling, with the conservatives in the majority, SCOTUS has continued the stay of Judge Walker’s ruling. AP:
The Supreme Court has indefinitely blocked cameras from covering the high-profile federal court trial on the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
This is a huge blow for accountability in transparency. In addition, viewing the trial had the potential to change the hearts and minds of countless Americans.
It’s going to be more important than ever that we continue to document the trial here and will need all of our readers’ help to get the word out about the proceedings to your friends, family and co-workers.
Help us keep the Prop 8 Trial Tracker going. We’ve set a goal of 2,000 donors by Friday. Can you chip in here?
[UPDATE] 2:08 The SCOTUSblog has more info up:
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 lower courts for attempting “to change its rules at the eleventh hour,” issued a 17-page opinion. The ruling came out nearly 40 minutes after an earlier temporary order blocking TV had technically expired.
[UPDATE] 2:58 Justice Breyer in his dissent mentions letters we delivered from our members and CREDO twice. If anyone out there doesn’t think online actions matter, here’s is proof that they do. (link: warning .pdf)
Then, on December 31, the Court revised its public notice to ask for comments directly. By January 8, 2010, the Court had received 138,574 comments, all but 32 of which favored transmitting the proceedings.
…here was also sufficient “opportunity for comment.” The parties, the intervenors, other judges, the public—all had an opportunity to comment. The parties were specifi- cally invited by Chief Judge Walker to comment on the possibility of broadcast as early as September. And the entire public was invited by the District Court to submit comments after the rule change was announced, right up to the eve of trial. As I said, the court received 138,574 comments during that time. How much more “opportunity for comment” does the Court believe necessary, particu- larly when the statutes themselves authorize the local court to put a new rule into effect “without” receiving any “comments” before doing so when that local “court determines that there is an immediate need” to do so (and to receive comments later)? And more importantly, what is the legal source of the Court’s demand for additional comment time in respect to a rule change to conform to Judicial Council policy?
Filed under: Televising
56 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Dr. Lao | January 13, 2010 at 7:07 am
Not surprised.
2.
Chad | January 13, 2010 at 7:08 am
This is complete and total bullshit!
3.
Scottie | January 13, 2010 at 7:09 am
It seems like bigots always get the benefit of promoting their bigotry under the cover of darkness.
4.
Elizabeth | January 13, 2010 at 7:10 am
That is so upsetting!!! UGH.
5.
Whitney Weddell | January 13, 2010 at 7:11 am
Just curious, as a layperson, what's the Court's rationale for denying the cameras?
6.
Holcombe | January 13, 2010 at 7:11 am
where do i send my check to support the appeal?
7.
Joetx | January 13, 2010 at 7:13 am
This is the same court that the Olson & Boies team thinks they'll be successful when the case is appealed to it?
8.
Roy | January 13, 2010 at 7:14 am
SCOTUS protects the bigots of Prop8…who's protecting gay men and women US Citizens?
9.
Renee | January 13, 2010 at 7:15 am
not surprised but once again painfully disappointed
10.
Josh | January 13, 2010 at 7:15 am
Well, luckily we have sites like this to allow us to know what's going on.
In today's world, there's no way that what's going on in there can't be available to people almost instantly.
Have no fear!
11.
Lance Lanier | January 13, 2010 at 7:17 am
Not sure what to think at the moment. Guess I will need to read in order to understand their decision. I'm putting things out there on Facebook for all my friends and family to see. As long as each of us continues to relay what we know, the information will get out there for all to see. I almost feel as if I'm an alien living in this country, but with special status. I want to be an American Citizen one day with all rights afforded to me in the Constitution of the U.S.A.
12.
James Sweet | January 13, 2010 at 7:17 am
I only just skimmed the first couple pages of the opinion, but it appears to be:
1) Because the ban on TV cameras is a generally-followed procedure shared by US district courts, the Judge in this case did not have the authority to unilaterally overturn the procedural precedent; and
2) It satisfies the "irreparable harm" test, because the broadcast could cause witnesses to be harassed, and this would create a "chilling effect" on witness testimony in the future.
I have not read the dissent yet, but Breyer's biggest argument appears to be that it is extremely out of order for SCOTUS to interfere in the procedural rules of a District Court.
Of course, the fact that this split down party lines maybe tells you something…
13.
Trey | January 13, 2010 at 7:18 am
I wished I was in DC to march on the Supreme Court.
14.
luke | January 13, 2010 at 7:20 am
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done (but apparently not according to the Supreme Court of the United States)
15.
Callie | January 13, 2010 at 7:21 am
COWARDS!!!!
16.
Brad | January 13, 2010 at 7:23 am
So how quickly could we get a transcript of the trial and arrange a dramatic reading of the text that we could run on YouTube? Surely we could find talented actors/actresses from Hollywood who would record the text.
17.
Callie | January 13, 2010 at 7:23 am
Lance, I'm doing the same thing, but my "friends" are notoriously silent right now. I believe I'm probably being hidden so they won't have to see my "gay" rants.
18.
Rex | January 13, 2010 at 7:24 am
IANAL, but from just scanning the summary on SCOTUS blog, it seems like a the court asserting its power over the 9th Circuit, which moved to allow broadcasting when the temporary stay expired at 4 without following procedure properly.
To my untrained nose, it smells like SCOUTS is annoyed the 9th circuit didnt curtsey for them so they are making a point to maintain the stay pending the appeal.
Correct me if im wrong.
19.
Craig | January 13, 2010 at 7:24 am
The SCOTUS ruled that the District Court implemented the rule change allowing cameras in violation of federal law. The District Court did not follow legal procedures, including sufficient notice and time for public comment prior to allowing cameras in the courtroom. SCOTUS clarified that they are NOT ruling regarding the appropriateness of televised coverage but on the district court's failure to follow its own rules in making a last-minute decision to allow broadcast to locations outside the courthouse itself.
20.
violet | January 13, 2010 at 7:24 am
Liveblogging is nice, but it would be lovely to actually see the trial. Alas.
I seem to recall the broad argument against distributing video of federal court proceedings centering on the gravitas of the court—the concern, in other words, is that TV cameras would turn federal court trials into either The Practice or Jerry Springer.
(I entirely support transparency, but I don't think the concern is entirely tosh. Next, I expect the courts will be banning Twitter and SMS, expressing concern that barristers will start speaking in 140 character sound bytes.)
21.
Ms. Geek | January 13, 2010 at 7:25 am
I hope that Obama gets to replace a couple more SCOTUS justices before the court gets the case.
22.
ron | January 13, 2010 at 7:26 am
You mean they also have secret people who remain nameless who only show up on video? Ya, sounds like real believable witnesses
23.
Ms. Geek | January 13, 2010 at 7:27 am
What I mean by this remark is a wish for resignations and retirement, not a wish for harm to any of the Justices of the Supreme Court.
24.
Roy | January 13, 2010 at 7:28 am
The identity of the witnesses is on record anyway, what does not 'seeing' them do? We have their names..we can still protest their companies etc. Stupid decision. Cowards.
25.
sami | January 13, 2010 at 7:31 am
Right. And this is how the breakdown will ultimately go in Fall of 2011. 5-4 against us. Then where will we be?
26.
Anna Conda | January 13, 2010 at 7:31 am
Hidden Bigotry? Like we don't know what bigots they are any way.
27.
BobbiCW | January 13, 2010 at 7:33 am
This isn't supposed to be a final decision, but given the short length of the trial it's effect is final. From the SCOTUSblog:
"The stay will remain in effect until the Court rules on a coming appeal challenging the TV order. 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…"
It sounds to me like SCOTUS is unhappy with the 9th Circuit and that this ruling is a response to that unhappiness. It doesn't really tell us anything about how they might rule in any appeal of the actual trial.
28.
F. Holt | January 13, 2010 at 7:36 am
This is very unfortunate. We have the right to hear the arguments presented as they are being presented. I fear for the outcome of this trial, and the following appeal to the supreme court.
29.
Warren | January 13, 2010 at 7:36 am
Where we were with Hardwick in 1986. It took 18 years to overturn Hardwick, and it would take at least that long to overturn this. But at the rate things are going with the existing approach I don't think that is much of a delay on reaching the goal of federal equality anyway, which is why this case doesn't hurt and can only help.
30.
Alex C. | January 13, 2010 at 7:37 am
Sending out #prop8 tweets pointing to this live-blog. I know some folks really hate Twitter but it's one way to help keep some transparency in this trial.
31.
ken erickson | January 13, 2010 at 7:39 am
The 15 pages (and change) of explanation granting the stay of the Federal Court's decision to broadcast Hollingsworth vs. Perry is followed by a dissenting opinion, which includes this line:
Then, on December 31, the Court revised its public notice to ask for comments directly. By January 8, 2010, the Court had received 138,574 comments, all but 32 of which favored transmitting the proceedings. Id., at 12.
The dissent is making the point that the No Cal Federal Court followed correct procedures, was able to make the initial rule change allowing broadcast without a comment period, then promptly asked for comments on its rule. The comments submitted by Courage Campaign are those mentioned in this dissent.
The dissent, written with the usual Supreme Clarity, is by Justice Breyer, who also makes it clear that the "harm" to possible witnesses is not mentioned by any witnesses themselves; none of them were part of the request to stay the broadcast of the bench trial.
The applicants also claim that the transmission will irreparably harm the witnesses themselves, presumably by increasing the public’s awareness of who those witnesses are. And they claim that some members of the public might harass those witnesses. But the witnesses, although capable of doing so, have not asked this Court to set aside the District Court’s order. (page
It is worth reading all of this. http://bit.ly/8qQS6R
Ken
32.
Gabriel | January 13, 2010 at 7:40 am
What about audio recordings? Can we at least get audio?
33.
Gray Peterson | January 13, 2010 at 7:48 am
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010…
34.
Ellen | January 13, 2010 at 7:50 am
All of the witnesses who are scared can just wear hoods like their KKK buddies
35.
Raymond | January 13, 2010 at 8:01 am
The district court judge should stay trial proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on the appeal.
36.
JosephH | January 13, 2010 at 8:02 am
Anyone who's read Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin's "Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs The American People" should not be surprised by the anti-democratic (anti-accountability, anti-transparency, etc) ruling by the Supremes. Bush v Gore; Plessey v Ferguson; etc.
[Jamie is famous for responding to a Maryland legislator (before being elected to the State Senate) who suggested that the Bible told us that marriage was between a man and a woman by telling her:" With all due respect, Madam, you swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around."]
37.
JimB | January 13, 2010 at 8:13 am
the desire for a lack of transparency indicates SCOTUS is hiding something, or supporting those who wish to hide things.
We will lose this.
And if no one is outraged outside of our community, then our nation is truly one of mere brainless sheep.
I believe the average US citizen is an ignorant buffoon.
I dearly hope to be proven wrong.
38.
Edd | January 13, 2010 at 8:29 am
Breyer also points out that the people claiming that they would be harrassed have already been on tv around the country during the run up to the Nov 4th vote and they weren't worried about harrassment then.
39.
K!r!lleXXI | January 13, 2010 at 8:44 am
Thanks, Joseph, for the info! I was wondering who said those famous words about swearing and upholding…
As for the SCOTUS decision, I don't even know if we should weep or laugh… I kinda to both at the same time, with a pinch of frustration and a spoonful of disappointment.
40.
Chris | January 13, 2010 at 8:57 am
Kennedy was the swing vote on this. For someone who is referred to as a "conservative justice", his track record doesn't suggest a kneejerk homophobe. Hopefully his stance on the cameras is more related to procedure than personal bias.
I absolutely agree that the camera ban is unfortunate, but while I'm worried about the outcome of this like everyone else, I think it is heartening that four of those justices supported having the cameras. Am I being overly optimistic in thinking this is an indication of how those four would rule when (if) the case comes before them?
41.
Paul | January 13, 2010 at 9:06 am
Can someone tell me this…
The SCOTUS said the trial cannot be BROADCAST to the general public. Does this mean that the trial cannot be video recorded as well???
Is the trial currently being video recorded?
If the ban on broadcasting is appealed, and the SCOTUS says it is ok to broadcast, can the whole trial then be broadcast, even though it may have already been completed?
42.
Chris | January 13, 2010 at 9:14 am
I was wondering that too. Initially I thought that it was a full ban of any cameras at all, but then I read this:
"The main opinion sought to portray the Court’s action as limited in scope. Aside from saying that it was not taking any position “on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally,” it said it was only blocking the streaming of video and audio of the trial proceedings to federal courthouses other than the one in San Francisco where the trial is being held. Thus, it added, it was not ruling on plans — not yet finalized — to permit broadcast on the Internet, through YouTube or otherwise, since “this may be premature.”"
http://www.scotusblog.com/prop-8-court-tv-blocked…
As far as I know, the trial is already being recorded – someone, I don't remember whom, agreed to recording as long as the footage was not distributed. So I would think that if the court is still deciding whether or not to make this available on YouTube, then they haven't forbidden the recording of the trial.
Not having the trial streamed is bad. But having no recording of this at all would be a tragedy. This is an event the world should see.
43.
K!r!lleXXI | January 13, 2010 at 9:15 am
That's a good question and I second it.
No matter what the outcome, the evidence and testimony presented in the trial is really, REALLY important for bigoted people to see… they need to see themselves in the mirror of justice. Maybe, this will help them to open their eyes, and minds, and ears.
44.
Warren S | January 13, 2010 at 9:17 am
Here is the full quote:"We therefore stay the court's January 7, 2010, order to the extent that it permits the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses. We do not address other aspects of that order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature."
My understanding was that Walker had already ruled on the posting to Youtube. As such with the original stay expired shouldn't the video be posted tonight??
Any lawyers???
45.
K!r!lleXXI | January 13, 2010 at 9:23 am
@Warren S
YouTube account created to post those videos ( http://youtube.com/USDCCAND ) is not even available right now, though it was available when the test video was posted there. I'm just saying (and reminding everyone where it was supposed to be posted). Subscribe, people, they need to see how many of us want to see that footage!
46.
keithincali | January 13, 2010 at 9:37 am
This is beyond comprehensible. The public should respond with immediate and overwhelming outrage. The conservative owned SCOTUS are publicly condoning discrimination–how pathetic for our country.
47.
keithincali | January 13, 2010 at 9:46 am
No shit. This is the writing on the wall that the SCOTUS, the highest court in the land that is supposed to rule by law is allowing their religious dogma and politics affect their decision making. They will never overturn prop 8 and have just made the SCOTUS lose a tremendous amount of respect and authority. Our country is in trouble.
48.
Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Some friends, eh, Callie? Getting the same thing from my FB troops. A pox on 'em!
49.
Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 1:06 pm
We may not even get this resolved in this adult generation's lifetime- it may take the turnover of another generation or two, as statistically, we have many more supporters in the youth of this society than in our elders. Maybe, though, at least our kids will have a better crack at all this than we've had. This is a necessary step in the right direction, even if we don't win this battle- we WILL win the war, it's only a matter of time.
50. New York Times on SCOTUS &hellip | January 14, 2010 at 2:20 am
[...] None more so than today when the U.S. Supreme Court continued its stay on broadcasting the trial, indefinitely banning cameras from the court room. The reaction was swift, in this community and across the ideological [...]
51.
richard | January 14, 2010 at 10:29 am
And Justice is blind?? Not if she is Republican,
Smarten up, gang. Thus has it ever been.
Now what are WE the people to do about that?
Get your dead-assed friends, colleagues and relatives to speak up. Apathy is what got us here in the first place.
52.
tannim | January 15, 2010 at 2:40 am
ocean=once. bad typo correction.
53.
tannim | January 15, 2010 at 9:34 am
You’re assuming A) with their plethora of inane and just wrong rulings (Raich, Kelo, Bong Hits, etc.) that SOCTUS has any respect in the first place, and B) this has anything to do with the merits of the case vs. the long-running difference of legal opinion between the 9th and SCOTUS.
Frankly, the ruling is wrong because as a publicly-funded legal venue, the public that funds it has a right to see it.
Furthermore, this case is the Inherit the Wind of our time, not some petty shoplifter.
54.
tannim | January 15, 2010 at 9:39 am
Uh, no.
The combination of Lawrence v. Texas plus Loving v. Virginia plus Romer v. Evans means if SCOTUS applies the precedents correctly (always a big IF since they seem to be more clueless than not up there) then the case is a slam dunk win for us.
The bigger issue is what happens to DOMA and will the Democrats in DC do something useful for ocean and repeal it as promised.
55. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | December 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm
[...] the U.S. Supreme Court asking that the proceedings be televised. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately stayed the broadcast of the proceedings in a 5-4 decision. Judge Walker withdrew Perry from the pilot [...]
56. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | February 2, 2012 at 10:10 am
[...] petition to the courts asking that the proceedings be televised. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately stayed the broadcast of the proceedings in a 5-4 decision. Judge Walker withdrew Perry from the pilot [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.