Supreme Court Blocks YouTube From California’s Prop 8 Trial

source: the liberal oc.com

A small victory today for the Pro Prop 8 side.

The Supreme Court has blocked youtube streaming of the trial,

at least for now.

The U. S. Supreme Court has put a halt, at least temporarily, on plans to let Google’s (GOOG) video site stream coverage of the “Proposition 8″ trial, which kicked off today in a San Francisco courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was going to allow the trial to be covered, on a tape-delayed basis, on the world’s biggest video site.

The Supreme Court has granted a temporary order overturning Walker’s ruling to allow tape-delayed youtube videos to be uploaded to the site by Court staff.

The court didn’t explain its reasoning, according to the Los Angeles Times, but perhaps we’ll hear more down the road–the ruling is only supposed to remain in effect until Wednesday.

Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom

If you want up-to-date trial info, the San Jose Mercury News is covering the trial from the Court room, and you can read their updates here.

Sources: TorrentBomb News All Things Digital

Share this blog or post with your friends.  Click the button below:

Advertisements

Federal Prop 8 trial set to begin Monday//

Proposition 8 goes to trial – Federal lawsuit begins on Monday

The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The LGBT legal teams is set to try and convince the Federal court that the voting rights of Californians should be ignored and that what they (we) have passed into law for our state shouldn’t matter.

What about a child’s equal protection under the law and their right to grow up in a traditional family? The original arguments of Prop 8 proponents are still valid.

. . .the federal lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage, set to begin Monday, January 11, could have sweeping impacts on whether gays and lesbians can legally marry in the Golden State..

I guess that’s a no for In Session, formerly known as CourtTV, when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker rejected their offer to broadcast the trial. However he announced Wednesday that he will give the public access to the trial via tapped sessions that will be uploaded to youtube.com daily, via court staff, as he wants the process to be completely under the Court’s control.

The decision not to allow the media to broadcast the court proceedings live is somewhat of a setback for LGBT activists who had urged Walker to televise the proceedings. The judge issued his ruling after hearing arguments from both sides in the case Wednesday morning.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, must sign off on the video plan. The court only recently decided to allow judges to have discretion over whether to televise proceedings in the courtrooms or not.

Walker’s decision is a partial win for the attorneys for the groups backing Prop 8, who warned the court that opening up the procedures to television cameras could result in their witnesses being harassed. The judge said he would turn off one of three cameras set to be used during testimony if witnesses ask not to be videotaped.

The lawsuit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger , has drawn wide media coverage since it was first filed in late May 2009, particularly for the odd legal pairing of lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two notably argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case of 2000, which was won by Olson and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

The attorneys agreed to argue the Prop 8 case on behalf of two couples – Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Burbank residents Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – who were denied the right to marry by the passage of Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling upholding the constitutional amendment. The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The parties involved are expecting this case to be rather lengthy and complex. The No on Prop 8-ers and the couples who brought the suit are hoping that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court (which apparently they are planning on happening) that the Court will be very different from what it is today, more liberal and apt to rule in their favor.  They are also hoping that the country will be more accepting and sympathetic to their plight.

{Click here to continue reading. . .}

{ I Knew I Voted for the Right Man for President….Bob Barr and the Battle over the Defense of Marriage Act }

Ok, so I found this article via Drudge Report and it led me to some gay issues/news website. Creepy, I know, but I didn’t look around. I was just interested in this article, and rightly so, as it is titled, “Anti-Gay Marriage Groups Begin Fight for DOMA,” the Defense of Marriage Act. As I’m reading I see mention of Bob Barr, a candidate for president in this most recent election. I voted for him, as he was the candidate for the Libertarian Party and I felt he was the best choice. I know, I know, I love Sara Palin, but I still had to vote for Bob Barr. (I’m secretly, well obviously not so secretly since I’m posing it on my blog, hoping for a Romney/Palin ticket in 2012).

The Defense of Marriage Act legislation was authored by then-Republican Georgia Representative Bob Barr and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA was passed by a huge margin in Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives. The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA

Read More…

{ Ask Governor Schwartznegger to support the will of the voters }

Sign the petition here

Almost 10,000 people have already signed this petition. The letter being sent with our signatures will say the following:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

Since election day, you have made comments urging the California Supreme Court to overturn the citizens’ will in passing Proposition 8 in California defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This was passed after a rigorous election process by a healthy margin of 52% to 48%.

You have recommended that the state Supreme Court declare the initiative unconstitutional and said, “The important thing now is to resolve this issue.” The election passing Proposition 8 did resolve the issue, according to the most basic tenet of our free society, which is based on the “consent of the governed.”

When Thomas Jefferson put that language about “consent of the governed” in the Declaration of Independence, it was not just a nice-sounding phrase, but the keystone of the Declaration and, indeed, the entire revolution. It captured the fundamental reason the colonists had decided to leave the British Commonwealth, and why they were willing, as the Declaration put it, to “pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause of independence. The hallmark and foundation of this country is the “consent of the governed.”

James Wilson of New Jersey, who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, wrote that “the only reason why a free and independent man was bound by human laws was this – that he bound himself.” In other words, he consented to be bound by them, because he participated in the process.

To try to overturn an election is an insult to voters and undermines the democratic process. As governor, it is your responsibility to support and defend the California constitution, which now reads that marriage is between a man and a woman and the foundation processes of our country that are based on “consent of the governed.”

We urge you to:

* Publically accept the results of the ballot initiative as the will of the people
* Publically recant any suggestions that the California Supreme Court should overturn the voice of a free and fair election.
* Condemn the recent assaults upon the First Amendment rights of supporters of Proposition 8. We echo what the Protect Marriage coalition has said, “Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening.” We look to you to speak out against those who would silence free speech by targeting donors, disrupting church services and vandalizing property.

Sincerely,

Your Name & Address Here

{ State Attorney General Urges Supreme Court to Keep Proposition 8 in Effect During Review }

Attorney General Jerry Brown

Attorney General Jerry Brown

The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that State Attorney General Jerry Brown has urged the CA Supreme Court to keep Proposition 8 in effect while they review law suits. Same-sex marriage proponents are upset that Proposition 8 drastically changed the state Constitution, because as this article suggests, only the Legislature can place this type of measure before voters. I think that everyone was aware of the intention of Proposition 8, and voters voted in favor of it, over 50%, and Prop 8 was allowed on the ballot. The time to dissect and analyze whether or not it was legal was way before now……The people have already spoken!

Jerry Brown: Keep Proposition 8 in effect for review
By Aurelio Rojas
arojas@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Nov. 17, 2008

State Attorney General Jerry Brown today urged the California Supreme Court to review legal challenges to Proposition 8, but steered clear of taking a position on the gay marriage ban measure approved by voters.

In a written responses to three lawsuits seeking to overturn the initiative, Brown’s office said the state’s highest court should allow the measure to remain in effect during the review period because of the confusion that a stay of the measure would cause.

“Due to the potential uncertainty that may be caused in important legal relationships by a temporary stay, the public interest would be better served by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect while expediting briefing,” the Attorney General’s Office said in its response.

Brown, whose office is supposed to defend the initiative, was asked by the Supreme Court last week to respond to the lawsuits that seek to overturn the voter-approved amendment to the state constitution.

Opponents of measure contend the initiative process was improperly used because only the Legislature can place a measure before voters that radically revises the state constitution.

They also maintain that Proposition 8 would undo the constitution’s commitment to equality for everyone.

The court may act on the lawsuits as early Wednesday, when the justices hold their weekly conferences.

The sponsors of the measure, which has ignited a wave of protests nationwide, today urged the court to accept jurisdiction for the suits and render a decision as quickly as possible.

“The people of California are entitled to prompt resolution of whether Proposition 8 properly amended their consitution,” Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the Yes on 8 campaign, said in a statement.