Edward Whelan as a "must read" piece on a form of judicial arrogance that is outrageous even by the standards of the recent usurpation of power by judges. The story is too convoluted to be grasped by a few excerpted quotations, so please take the time to look at it here. The political venality and contempt for the rule of law is breathtaking.
Gil, are you opposed to telecasting of trials as a general principle, or is it just this particular trial that you do not want to see televised?
For Ted Olson's opening statement in the Proposition 8 trial, click here.
From the pre-trial hearing in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the Proposition 8 trial):
One of the arguments that the anti-gay-marriage side has increasingly turned to outside the courtroom is that allowing same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage. At the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker kept asking Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, how exactly it did so. “I’m asking you to tell me,” he said at last, “how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.”
“All right,” Cooper said.
“All right,” Walker said. “Let’s play on the same playing field for once.”
There was a pause—it seemed like a long one to people in the courtroom, though it was probably only a few seconds. And Cooper said, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”
This is from an article by Margaret Talbot in The New Yorker. You can read it here.
I noticed the title of your post, "If people don't vote the way they're supposed to..." During the comment period preceding Chief Judge Walker's decision to allow television coverage of the trial, 138,574 comments were received, and all but 32 favored transmitting the proceedings. Do you think that should have settled the matter, or do you support the Supreme Court's decision to prohibit TV coverage?
Post a Comment