Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

BREAKING: Supreme Court Blocks Prop 8 Trial Broadcast

Just minutes before today’s Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial is supposed to start, the Supreme Court has stepped in and blocked all broadcasts and recordings from Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom until at least Wednesday. The reason? There hasn’t been enough time for the justices to consider whether it’s appropriate. This means no YouTube recordings, delayed or otherwise, or closed-circuit feeds, which have been made available in five major cities. Live Twittering from the trial, however, still appears to be kosher.


  • 29 Comments
    • Anyway
      Anyway

      Not a surprise. Has there ever been a recording of a federal (not state) trial?

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • beto
      beto

      Damn! It is a public trial!!

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      Damn. How much time do they need to “consider”? This is bullshit.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen
      Wen

      There is still hope, in a few days at least, they might rule in favor of the broadcast.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • emb
      emb

      Right. Wouldn’t want the delicate Prop 8 proponents to have their vile opinions exposed to the harsh light of public attention (seriously, that’s the contention more or less). The homos might refuse to shop in their store, or buy their products, and we can’t have that.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 4 · Wen: I am sorry all hope is lost. Somehow I jus
      can’t see Scallia, Roberts, uncleThomas, or Alito
      decidin’ they want to see this little show on the
      Youtubes…..

      Thing that ticks me off most is that miserable crunt
      Maggot Gallagher is most likely gigglin’ with glee
      right about now…………

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      The overwhelming majority of the justices on SCOTUS are strongly opposed to televising their own oral arguments, opinion announcements, etc. I’ve heard several of the justices explain that they’re worried about the federal courts becoming media circuses like famous trials in state courts often do. As this trial is being held in federal court, I suspect this decision is an extension of that fear. I wouldn’t read much more into this decision than that. Besides, the justices may change their minds on further reflection.

      Focus on the big stuff, guys. The goal is marriage equality. If it takes a few small decisions not going the way some would like, it’s well worth it.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Wen and Terwill, Peopel like Maggie Gallagher and Company are like cockroaches. They only come out in the dark. When someone switches a light on, they all go scurrying back to their hiding places.

      They know, deep in their vile, evil, little hearts, that what they are doing is wrong and they fear that if their antics are exposed to the populace at large, instead of just to the anti-gay crowd they are playing to, they will lose. Big time!

      Homophobia and hating on gays is their own little exclusive club. Fair-minded, decent people who believe in the Constitution and support it, are not invited.

      Talk about controlling…..

      Jan 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen
      Wen

      @6 Terrwill, I hope youre wrong, but I think youre right.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen
      Wen

      @8 schlukitz, in Holland, and I wanna mention this to show how crazy this woman is, it is possible as a citizen to sue cockroaches like Gallagher, with at the basis anti-discrimination and hate speech laws, meaning, its forbidden to demonize a group of people based on certain characteristics (homosexuality, but also religious beliefs). We have laws for that. A court will always decide if the complaints filed are suitable for proceedings to a next level etc and each case of discrimination is judged by a court on its unique basis, but the most important thing is there is the possibility for citizens to have legal options to fight this kind of lunacy like Gallagher. I know the US doesnt have such laws (your First Amendment overrules such laws), but I do think the lack of those does create a more hateful society in general.
      Now, dont think we dont have Freedom of Speech because we do, just as much as the USA has, but there are also few limits to it (like Canada has too for example). If Gallagher lived here, Im sure she would have seen a court by now. It doesnt mean she would have been convicted (which usually, if it happens at all, is a fine), but the good thing is you cant unlimitedly spread hatred here and thats a good and necessary thing for a healthy society.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 10 · Wen

      It sounds like Holland has a much more civilized, common sense approach to the issue of Freedom of Speech.

      Here in the US, the haters like Gallagher have learned how to use Freedom of Speech to their best advantage, while leaving the victims of hate speech literally impotent.

      Smearing and denigrating any group of people, regardless of reason, is totally unfair…and unjust. Unfortunately, fairness and justness are not words they are familiar with or hold any special respect for.

      Sad as I am to say it, the US is NOT a healthy society as witnessed by all of the religious nut and bolt jobs we have here.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vo Dong Cung
      Vo Dong Cung

      Christians (through God) are trying to hide the dirty things they did.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlwaysGay
      AlwaysGay

      The trial is expected to take two to three weeks. How much you want to bet the Supreme Court doesn’t make their decision before it ends? We saw this same behavior in Washington state last year with the petition count. The courts waited and waited and waited and waited until the petition count deadline expired and the gay side had no choice but to accept that referendum 71 made it on the ballot and would be voted on. Gay couples almost lost their right to full domestic partnerships because of it.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 11 · schlukitz –

      I couldn’t agree more. There is absolutely no reason for wanting the proceeding hidden from public scrutiny. If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, I’d want the world to see how I’m being railroaded.

      Now if I was a dirtbag (or a cockroach), guilty as sin of lies and distortions, then I’d protest the cameras.

      What I do not understand is how the court doesn’t understand that simple, obvious concept.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel
      Daniel

      The most disturbing thing is that rather than default to the freedom of the U.S. Constitution (First Amendment – Freedom of the Press) the Supreme Court (all but one of the justices) default to the opposite of the U.S. Constitution (Suppression of the Press); in other words, they do not support transparency until proven otherwise; they support suppression of the press until proven otherwise. THAT is appalling. The cameras should be permitted until the “suppression of cameras” case is heard by them.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      How long will it take before we have a decision? Years, months, weeks? I’m thinking a year or two, but i’ve never followed a supreme court case before and am ignorant about it.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wen
      Wen

      @ 11 schlukitz, ‘Here in the US, the haters like Gallagher have learned how to use Freedom of Speech to their best advantage, while leaving the victims of hate speech literally impotent.

      Smearing and denigrating any group of people, regardless of reason, is totally unfair…and unjust. Unfortunately, fairness and justness are not words they are familiar with or hold any special respect for.’.

      Yeah, thats why you need at least some laws so as a citizen you can do something about the hatemongerers. You could argue you can counter those hatemongerers, right, by talking to them or even do the same back to them, but real haters wont change through that. Not that they will change if you will fine them or punish them, but you at least should have the right to fight it, legally.
      Aint it actually silly you have the right to defend yourself, your own property, but cant prohibit hatespeech directed towards you (your group) as well in the USA? Now Ive come to think about it, I wonder.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      John the Baptist didn’t ban his audience. These guys have something to hide. Prop H8 is shamed. Laws weren’t meant to come about in this fashion. That’s going to be glaringly apparent. Rushing the altar can’t be quite humiliating. Televise it, so that we can see our oppressors. Let everyone see this trial. Love conquers hate every time.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naghanenu
      naghanenu

      So there is no semi live feed. There goes that one. I was looking forward to this…..

      Oh well..Queerty will post the outcome

      Jan 11, 2010 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @10 Wen:

      I’m starting to think we need ironclad hate speech laws that forbid in any way the practice of hate cults like Christianity and Islam, punishable by death to those who violate them, if that’s what it takes to bring about gay equality under the law.

      Since the court just violated the 1st Amendment’s freedom of the press, we no longer have free speech in this country.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 18 · 1EqualityUSA, “John the Baptist didn’t ban his audience.”

      Alas, John the Baptist banned Salome, who wanted an audience and was miffed enough at not getting it that she had John the Baptist’s head separated from his body and delivered to her on a silver platter. At least, that’s the story (and was visually quite graphic during performances of Salome last fall in SF).

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Salome’s mom gave her the idea, because she was offended by J the B

      Jan 12, 2010 at 12:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Regan Du
      Regan Du

      schlukitz:

      “Smearing and denigrating any group of people, regardless of reason, is totally unfair…and unjust. Unfortunately, fairness and justness are not words they are familiar:

      Comment: What an absolute laugher. This from a poster who smears Christians, people of faith, and anyone else that disagrees with his agenda. Here he is calling the other side unfair, when schlukitz practices the very same thing on a daily basis. What an effing hypocrite.

      By the way how has hammering on Christians worked out so far schlukitz? Lots of success there? Mormons come round yet?

      How does it feel sclukitz to have Maggie Gallagher whipping your ass every time you sit down to play?

      Stupid, stupid, to hammer on Chrsitians when you demand their support.

      The hypocrisy is so deep around here you have to wear boots so as not to step in it.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 3:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Regan Du
      Regan Du

      From the first day:

      One very telling excerpt:

      “Olson had barely launched into his opening statement when Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the trial without a jury, interrupted him to ask how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows gays to enter into domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.”

      Big problem.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 4:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear Regan Du, For one, having to write “Domestic Partner” on a job application can have a potential boss surmising one’s sexual orientation, rather than the qualities of the applicant.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 9:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      1EqualityUSA sez For one, having to write “Domestic Partner” on a job application can have a potential boss surmising one’s sexual orientation, rather than the qualities of the applicant.

      Discrimination based on marital status is illegal in California so I doubt that employers will be asking for a spouse or DP’s name on a job application. However, your underlying point, that differentiating between DPs and spouses may force disclosure of one’s sexual orientation, is valid and in fact was cited by the California supreme court in the In re: Marriage decision that struck down marriage inequality to begin with.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 22 · Regan Du

      Thank you for sharing. I think?

      You, Sir, are the one who is being laughable. Your accusatory verbiage does not invite discussion. In fact, it shuts it down before it can even begin. No doubt, that was your intent.

      You wrote This from a poster who smears Christians, people of faith, and anyone else that disagrees with his agenda.u wrote

      Obviously, you are ignoring the fact that these very same people are the ones who have been smearing LGBT people for a couple of thousand years now. Some cheese might be in order with your whine, Sir.

      By the way how has hammering on Christians worked out so far schlukitz? Lots of success there? Mormons come round yet?

      Bigoted, hateful, blockheads are not the most responsive group, in case you haven’t noticed.

      How does it feel sclukitz to have Maggie Gallagher whipping your ass every time you sit down to play?

      From the tone of your comments, I get that you, like Letterman, are taking great joy in that, eh?

      Stupid, stupid, to hammer on Chrsitians when you demand their support.

      No one is demanding their support. What we do want from them, is to get off our fucking backs. Telling millions of Americans how they must live, even when those people are not members of their faith, is undemocratic and unAmerican and sneakily passing laws that force them to do so, is illegal. Remember Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happines from Government 101?

      The hypocrisy is so deep around here you have to wear boots so as not to step in it.

      WRONG!!!

      The bullshit people like you drag into these threads, is so deep, that we are the ones obliged to wear boots…and protective gear.

      Oh…did I thanjk yoiu for sharing? Don’t hold your breath waiting for me to do so.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 21 · 1EqualityUSA “Salome’s mom gave her the idea, because she was offended by J the B” … only in the Bible, not in the Oscar Wilde / Richard Strauss version! In that one, Salome comes up with the idea out of spite because John the Baptist refused to kiss her, and then her mom Herodias simply encourages her. You can read the full play at http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-salome?id=WilSalo&images=images/modeng&data=/web/data/subjects/salome&tag=public (the opera used a German translation of the Oscar Wilde play, and it ends with Salome making love to the severed head, scandalizing early 20th century opera audiences already in shock due to Strauss’ bitonal score).

      It’s a lot spicier than the Biblical version – the dudes who wrote that were obviously not as talented as Oscar Wilde! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wEGn2tbnsg has a performance of the play.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Hilarious B. Fulton Sheen did an excellent job of describing the times, the setting, and the circumstances. He went on and on about John the Baptist before going into the manner of his death. I almost hate to get this picture bumped onto by someone else’s work. When I read, I’m one of those who need to create a picture of it in my head. Once the picture’s in my head, it’s nearly permanent, otherwise, the words are as jumbled has alphabet soup. I need to finish vacuuming. Have a good day.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.