Leave it to Northern District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to tangle with an issue that is ripping the federal judiciary apart.
After a hearing last month in the challenge to Prop. 8, Walker summoned the parties into his chambers for a little chat — out of the press’s earshot. Turns out Walker wanted to float the idea of broadcasting the January trial, but not just to an overflow room in the federal building. He wanted to know how the lawyers felt about making the trial available for broadcast on a television station, according to a letter filed in the case.
Which side of the case is camera-shy? And does the Ninth Circuit hate 'em too? After the jump.
Walker’s request wouldn’t seem so unusual, given the immense interest in the Prop. 8 case. But if Social Security is the third rail of American politics, cameras in the court is responsible for electrocuting many a well-meaning federal judge. The national Judicial Conference thinks cameras shouldn’t be allowed in district court proceedings, and many circuits around the country — including the Ninth — have followed that line. Just last week, the Seventh Circuit chided a Peoria, Ill., jurist for allowing cameras into a civil proceeding there.
So, if Walker is really serious, it appears he would need special permission from the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council to pull it off (a group which may not be totally unsympathetic). Same-sex marriage supporters don’t have any problems with it.
But the Yes on 8 crowd sure does.
“Given the highly contentious and politicized nature of Proposition 8 and the issue of same-sex marriage in general, the possibility of compromised safety, witness intimidation, and/or harassment of trial participants is very real,” wrote attorney Charles Cooper (who we've just profiled on CalLaw this evening).
— Dan Levine
Boo hoo. Is it me or did the Prop 8 supporters think that their move to revoke civil rights wouldn't meet with a little disapproval?
I want all their mugs shown far and wide. And yes, so we can spit in their faces when we see them.
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1101341851 | October 06, 2009 at 12:44 PM
"Boo hoo... revoke civil rights" it's not a civil rights issue. Gay's can marry. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. They can marry though. It's a behavior choice. We regulate behavior all the time. We don't allow NAMBLA to marry boys, we don't allow polygamy and the PEOPLE HAVE VOTED. Deal with it!!!
Posted by: Tired of them whining | October 06, 2009 at 03:18 PM
"It's a choice. It's a choice!"
I've heard this so many times. It's like choosing what color hair you naturally have or the color of your eyes. Sure, you can dye your hair or wear colored contacts, but it doesn't change what nature gave you. Just like straight people don't entertain the thought of same-sex marriage (or "chose" to be straight), neither do gays consider the thought of straight marriage (or "chose" to be gay).
The difference is, straight people get to choose to marry the one you love. Gays and lesbians don't. And that's not equality, something that's guaranteed in this country. Oh, and another guarantee? Protection from mob majority rule (we're a Republic, not a pure democracy. Look it up.). Hence, the purpose of the courts.
So boo hoo, a tiny majority of people have voted to historically strip a minority's rights away and may be overruled. Thankfully, this country is working and is examining the legality of this brutal act.
Posted by: Unite the Fight | October 06, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Bigots, like vampires, hate the sunshine. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Let Freedom Ring | October 08, 2009 at 03:48 PM
pedophilia isn't a choice either. so what?
state-sanctioned marriage should not be about the sexual or emotional fulfillment of two partners. you can do that yourself without a license from the state. it should be about creating legal obligations and benefits that provide stability for the next generation. gay marriage doesn't do that in any way. it simply distracts from the real purpose of marriage and turns it into an institution meant to provide tax benefits while satisfying one's personal lusts.
Posted by: Fred | October 15, 2009 at 09:31 AM
What does pedophilia have to do with two legal adults wanting to benefit society by being in a monogamous relationship that could help raise future generations? I need to know how you made this connection. I want to know why discussing marriage equality made you think of adults taking advantage of legal minors?
Please explain yourself.
Posted by: Unite the Fight | October 23, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Judge Walker is a publicity hound. His rulings will be designed to grab headlines and catch people off guard. Walker is not only an egomaniac, but also a bully.
Posted by: Props | October 23, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Crazy religious bigots, you deserve all of the negativity that you have coming to you. You've facilitated transphobia, homophobia, and sexism through your precious proposition 8, and you will pay. It will cost you your pathetic religion. Proposition 8 is like the Titanic immediately after it hit an iceberg, and your religion is tethered too it!
Posted by: jesus Christ | October 31, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Prop H8 affects MY future in the sense that once DOMA falls I can get the legal benefits afforded every married couple in America.
I am not looking to do anything more than what the 14th Amendment allows:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No more, no less
Regards,
Leo Steel
Posted by: Leo Steel | January 12, 2010 at 06:43 AM