|| News ||
Page 1 of 1

Story Updated : January 13, 2010 02:55:00 PM

High Court: No Cameras in Prop. 8 Case


CAMERA COURTROOM X390 (FAIR USE) | ADVOCATE.COM

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom for the high-profile federal case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban.

The court was split 5-4 on Wednesday, with conservative justices in the majority, according to the Associated Press.

"We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy. "We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves."

Former Clinton adviser and attorney Richard Socarides expressed his disappointment to Advocate.com shortly after the decision.

"The ruling means the public will be denied a wide angle-first hand experience of what's happening inside probably the most important trial of our lifetime,"he said. "Disappointing, but nothing that will impact the ultimate result, one we sincerely hope brings justice."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California, Irvine, also expressed concern.

"It's discouraging that the court split so clearly along ideological lines," he said. "Hope is that this doesn’t forecast where the court is likely to go in the long term."

The federal Prop. 8 challenge is currently in front of the U.S. district court in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the case, proposed last week that recordings of the trial be posted online, while live streams be broadcast to other federal courthouses.

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Facebook. Page 1 of 1
Reader Comments
  • Name: Mark
    Date posted: 1/14/2010 6:24:55 AM
    Hometown: Palm Springs, CA

    Comment:

    I agree with Jon and others who say that some of you really need to calm down. Cameras are not required in order for the court to do its job. Cameras also weren't required to invalidate sodomy laws, to overturn laws against same-sex marriage, or for the ruling in Brown v. Board Of Education. Quit being such drama queens. Do you think Ted Olson and David Boies are panicking? Hardly. They know exactly what they're doing. Have some faith, for cryin' out loud.

  • Name: dieter
    Date posted: 1/14/2010 3:20:42 AM
    Hometown: sacramento

    Comment:

    First of all since the transcripts are public accessible, all one has to do is pay 19.99 online and we can get the home addresses, work address and phone numbers of all these a-holes..and publish them online. Also with a transcript it could easily be re-enacted using actors reading the script...I mean c'mon..NOM did that in gathering storm....their info is going to go public whether they like it or not. PICTURES INCLUDED. so to all you lying haters...SLEEP TIGHT..we're comin..... (ironic that the 2 words I got for my captcha entry were CYCLONE - NEARS

  • Name: Allen
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 11:28:10 PM
    Hometown: San Antonio

    Comment:

    The right wing prop 8 side wins this one. Now the cockroaches will not see the light of day and can spew all their falsehoods and later deny them. They can then sit back and smugly announce how they don't hate gays. The people who do testify is public knowledge of course as is the general content of their testimony. They just won't have it appear on the internet in video form. A picture is worth a thousand words. People will not read but will watch the video.

  • Name: Kevin
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 7:53:14 PM
    Hometown: Ft. Myers

    Comment:

    Calm the fuck down. Jesus fucking Christ. This had nothing to do with gay marriage. This had to do with whether or not to permit a broadcasting of a civil trial, which (face the facts) never happens. Seriously, Jesus fucking Christ on a cross. This court has ruled in favor of both gay rights cases that have gone before it. Justice Kennedy is probably on our side, just not when it comes to cameras.

  • Name: Michael
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 7:48:44 PM
    Hometown: Fort Lauderdale

    Comment:

    THE SUPREME COURT IS 5-4 ANTI GAY (as we now see). OUR RIGHTS ARE LOST. PUT A FORK IN IT, WE'RE DONE.

  • Name: Jon
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 7:33:49 PM
    Hometown: Tucson

    Comment:

    Stephen from Dayton: Don't let the door hit you in the ass. You DO realize that you can't just "move" to Canada, right? They have immigration laws as well, and you often have to already have a Canadian job in order to immigrate from the U.S. But if you'd rather move than fight for your rights, we'll see you later. As far as the SCOTUS decision, I don't see how it's a travesty of justice, or not "in the interest of justice." Christ, it's just a ruling re: cameras in the courtroom. It doesn't stop the press from covering it. SCOTUS is not about the interest of justice, it rules on constitutional issues. So many of you want to be victims of someone (gov't., religions, courts, bashers, etc.) that you're blinded to what's happening. Justice is still being served, it's just not being filmed. Exactly the same as in most high-profile cases. Take a deep breathe people.

  • Name: mike
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 7:01:16 PM
    Hometown: cincinnati

    Comment:

    This is a super travesty of justice. It's like having a headlight on your car that doesn't work, and the police impound your car. I am worried about the appeal of this case. 5 to 4 might as well be 9 unanimous. Breyer's dissenting opinion about broadcasting the case was very well written and supported the pursuit of justice which is what the supreme court should be about. The majority of 5 opinion was not well written and seemed to be looking for something procedural instead of what would best serve the interest of justice. I hope that gays are getting ready for a fight.

  • Name: gisele
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 6:55:47 PM
    Hometown: new York

    Comment:

    Thats what would be the outcome from this case, I am pessimistic that the ruling would be 5-4, and we are lost again. Nothing will change the conservative mind, the Judges are too old to open their mind. I believe people would stop changing their view at the age of 40, and unfortunately the judges are over 60, only Miracle will play in our side, God Bless.

  • Name: paul
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 6:21:50 PM
    Hometown: kansas City

    Comment:

    someone who is more computer savvy than me should do a background check on each and every witness, and post all relevant public information online. Isn't the identity of the witnesses public record. it should not be too hard for someone to track down more information on these folks. Take pictures, post it all online. If they have something in their past that would impact the reliability of their testimony. Being nice and respectful hasn't helped us much. We need to be a bit more confrontational.

  • Name: Casey Cameron
    Date posted: 1/13/2010 6:17:03 PM
    Hometown: Chicago

    Comment:

    Doug, today the supreme court issued a ruling on cameras not same-sex marriage. Go read Kennedy's opinions on Lawrence vs. Texas and Romer vs. Evans. He is not a homophobe wackjob, relax.



Don't Miss
  • Best of Broadway Smash: Why You Will Love It

    Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, two of the producers of NBC’s new critically acclaimed musical series, explain why the backstage drama of creating a musical about Marilyn Monroe has mass appeal and why big stars like Anjelica Huston, Uma Thurman, Bernadette Peters, and Nick Jonas were eager to appear in it.

  • Best of Broadway How Broadway Does a Flea Market

    Find out why actress Kathleen Chalfant calls the annual Flea Market and Grand Auction in Times Square "the most glamorous flea market you've ever seen." It raised half a million dollars to fight HIV/AIDS.

  • Travel Slideshow Flag Gayest Cities in America, 2012

    It's no secret that megalopolises New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles have robust LGBT life — and we've even heard tell of little queer hoods like the Castro and P-Town. This isn't that list.

 
 
Advocate Subscribe Promo Banner 300x50
 
Follow Us Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterSubscribe to our RSS feedsDownload our app
Facebook Activity
 
COVER 1055 X135 | ADVOCATE.COM
Today's Headlines