Tweet
Per MSNBC—The United States Supreme Court has overruled Judge Vaughn Walker, moving to prevent cameras from recording the proceedings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for later-in-the-day distribution on YouTube.
According to the report, the Court’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday.
UPDATE: Justice Kennedy would be the “hot judge” for the 9th Circuit—the appeals court that had previously ruled that Judge Walker’s ruling could stand—but it appears that this matter might have taken up by the whole Supreme Court, as the Washington Post version of this story includes a note that Justice Breyer would have let the broadcasts continue pending the High Court’s final decision.
UPDATE 2: From Teddy (who is on site in SF):
Per Legal Times, SCOTUS issued a temporary stay in effect until Wednesday at 4pm. Whether this means the court will revisit the issue is unclear.
The temporary stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s plan to record the trial and post it on YouTube is in effect until Wednesday at 4 p.m. (EST). The Court said this would permit further consideration by the justices of what has become a very controversial issue. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented saying that the stay prohibits the transmission of the trial proceedings to other federal courthouses. “In my view, the Court’s standard for granting a stay is not met. In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of ‘irreparable harm.’” Breyer added that he was pleased that the stay is time limited because he agreed that further consideration is warranted.
UPDATE 3: From David Dayen at the Pasadena remote site for the trial:
The feed has just been pulled here in Pasadena. MSNBC is reporting on Twitter that Justice Kennedy has granted the stay. Damn.
The Washington Post is reporting the same. . . .
But, have no fear, FDL is here–and Teddy Partridge is there, in the courtroom, liveblogging it all.
44 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Not a good decision.
Shadow govt. at work again.
Very, very disappointing. I’m sure the anti-gay bigots are loving this – now they can argue against civil rights while, at the same time, not have to worry about pesky things like the public eye.
Gay marriage haters: welcome to the closet!
They fought hard to keep their hate off the tube. Wouldn’t want the whole world to see what idiots they are.
Just awful. There is no law. Just politics.
this means FDL will be the trial’s cameras.
I actually didn’t think that the Court would go this way. At least it’s only a short-term stay. What does everyone think will come out of the full Court’s deliberation?
That’s not all bad!
I think that our side should file an injunction for a delay until SCOTUS makes a final ruling.
This is what happens when you have a Catholic supermajority on the Court. On some issues, they take their marching orders direct from Rome. Doubt me? Check the voting record on Church issues – it’s a solid bloc.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Straighten out yer undies folks, this decision only makes FDL live blogs more important and will actually serve to increase print coverage as well as increase FDL’s visability…the idiots are still gunna be idiots and their arguments will not be lost on the public.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, BUT DON’T SHOOT AT THE SMOKE!!!
In general I oppose televised trials, the O.J. Simpson trial was a travesty on so many levels. Although that was a worst-case scenario, being a high-profile celebrity in the land of entertainment, Hollywood.
On the other hand, the Minnesota senate recount between Franken and Coleman showed exactly how useful televised court proceedings can be. Having that exposed to the public in its entirety helped to give the decision greater weight and reinforce confidence in the system. And oh yeah, shut down any whingeing from the losing side.
I think, since the Prop 8 hearing is about government, it really would benefit from being televised. And just why are the Prop 8 organizers so scared of being exposed? Don’t they believe in their position, why the shame?
That’s an excellent idea. Why lose the first couple of days, if in the end the SC rules in favor of an open and transparent process?
Puts a lot of pressure on our reporters but I’m quite sure they are up to the job. It’s going to be a really good day.
Someone should take a grainy feed off of the CCTV and put it up on YouTube.
On what planet is it in the interest of the people to have court proceedings on such an important civil rights issue blacked out?
Someone tell me why…
Some folks are control freaks. Others don’t like their hate on display for the whole world to see.
…in the interest of the people…. that sounds vaguely familiar. Must be something from the old days.
Stunning decision, IMO. Not surprising, but shocking in its backwardness.
See Teddy’s liveblog #2 at The Seminal: he says a judge is standing by to issue contempt orders for anyone with a camera or other recording device.
Teddy is reporting in his liveblog diaries, there are judges, plural sitting in the feed room for the express purpose of issuing contempt orders
At every CCTV location?
The fact that SCOTUS is inserting itself into the process at this early stage and clearly on the side of Prop 8 supporters does not bode well.
He was reporting about the site where he is. I don’t know about the others.
Precisely, my dear Watson!
I have mixed feelings on this.
I understand that transparency in governmantal events, executive, legislative and judicial, is generally considered to be a good thing. But, when you introduce a television camera to an event, it doesn’t simply let you see what is happening, it fundamentally changes the event. Often, that change is not for the better. The farce that political conventions have become is a good example.
Another problem is that the television camera creates its own universe. A viewer has a very difficult time of being cognizant of what they aren’t seeing. In judicial matters, that would be about 90% of the real action.
you know what this decision means?
it means the judge made up his mind and doesn’t want public opion second guessing his decisions during the trial
the roberts scotus?
I think you are correct.
The judge has already made up his mind.
FDL is always on top of the story. As compared to, say, MSNBC breathlessly furthering the Republican spin machine on Reid.
The cameras are already there for the CCTV. The only q is whether the great unwashed get to see it or not.
There would still be a public record, it just wouldn’t be televised.
Nor would the not so great but reasonably hygienic.
Yes, I caved in & took a shower this morning. Don’t have any cheetos in the house either.
It was Walker who agreed to allow delayed broadcast. If anything, it is SCOTUS that has already reached a decision.
What do ya want from a RePuke Led SCOTUS!! Secrecy and fear Rules the Day!!
Official snack food of the great orange satan.
I can’t fucking believe this. Arghh! Impeach SCOTUS!
I seem to recall the lawyers among us giving Judge Walker props in the past for his due diligence on Decisions so as to minimize chance of overturning on appeal –
I’m not questioning that, in fact if that’s the consensus, it gives me hope that transparency will rule the day
After the Bush v Gore decision I wrote a letter to the local paper stating that if SCOTUS can’t even feign being nonpartisan they should have to stand for election like any other politicians.
Wouldn’t help though, all three branches of government appear beyond redemption.
Sure you can. A group of Catholics can’t allow the discussion of gay people on the tubes. Oh, wait…..
Teddy Partridge is live-blogging at Seminal: Prop 8 Liveblogging Two
Ridiculous.
The most likely cause of the decision is the simplest cause, lack of settled precedent for video broadcasts of federal trials.
That said, it would be possible for someone to use their smart phone to digitally record the proceedings and broadcast audio either streaming or after the fact.