UPDATE: Live blogging the court at the end of the post. But, to cut to the chase, I’m sorry to say, Ken Starr was by far the most impressive of the attorneys. Some of his argument was horrifying. But it was extremely well constructed. Plus, he came off as a heavey hitter. A super pro. The others, not so much. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think so.
****************************************************************************************************************
At 9 a.m. this morning, the three-hour hearing in front of the California Supreme Court about the issue of same sex marriage will begin with Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter delivering opening arguments for and against Proposition 8, respectively.
And it’s on television.
Fire up the Jumbotrons. (Actually there will be a Jumbotron in front of the Sacramento San Francisco court building* to accommodate those who want to witness whatever history is or is not made—but who can’t squeeze inside the actual court.)
The New York Times—in its new bid to get LA readers to jump ship from the Los Angeles Times—has a story about the first day of the Prop. 8 case featured front and center on its main web page, whereas the putative actual LA newspaper of record (that would be our beloved but beleaguered LA Times) has nothing on its own front page about the hearing (at least last time I checked). There is, however, an editorial that gives a not-bad rundown on what to expect from today’s opening arguments.
A good companion rundown may be found at the Huff Post in a column written by civil litigator Emma Ruby-Sachs, titled Prop 8 For Dummies..
Ruby-Sachs concludes, as I do, that the best argument against Prop. 8 is going to be— not that it violates the equal protection clause—but the contention that it is not a proper amendment to the California constitution at all, but a constitutional revision, which must be approved by the state legislature.
Gentleman and ladies, start your TiVos. I’ll meet you back here when the first round is over.
(And then we’ll check in on the other big legal drama still unfolding—namely the W.R. Grace trial.)
* Next time, with more sleep, I might even get the city right on the first go-round. (sigh.)
*************************************************************************************************************
UPDATE: LIVE BLOGGING
So far the justices are not going for the “revision” concept. But we ain’t done with that concept just yet.
The lawyers are trying to get the justices to say that any time you take away a fundamental right from a minority, this constitutes a revision, not an amendment. If the court goes for this, they will be setting a precedent. After initially being resistant. They are now at least entertaining the notion.
The best Twitter feed on the hearing may be found here.
AG Jerry Brown is live twittering: @JerryBrown2010 His updates aren’t that speedy, though. At least not yet.
Attorney Terry Stewart, now arguing for SF, has a very problematic bright mauve pocket hanky.
Did I mishear or did Ken Starr just say the power of the people includes the right to eliminate free speech under the California constitution. WTF???
Starr: “We don’t view Prop 8 as invalidating marriages–they just wouldn’t be recognized.” Okay, sure. That works. (NOT.)
We are now hearing double-speak on the level of Starr’s nemesis and the famous “it depends on what the definition of is is..”
OMG, Justice George is making “definition of IS” jokes. Go Justice George!
Okay, back to work on other deadlines. (Mostly)
Justice Kennard: Is it still your view that the sky has fallen in and that gays and lesbians are left with nothing?
If Justice Kennard is the swing vote, Prop 8 will remain law. No question. Kennard’s starting to get on my last nerve, by the way.
SF Deputy City Attorney Terry Stewart gave a great rebuttal. She was excellent—my new hero, mauve pocket hanky and all. (Stewart: “The amendment power is a limited power.” Uh, yeah.) Don’t think it will be enough for Kennard, sadly.
And the court is adjourned.
Over and out. We’ll know in 90 days – ish.
Reversing prop 8 because of some technicality is like getting an axe murderer off because the cop forgot to read rights to the guy holding a severed head. But is a typical liberal strategy, which disgusting to all those who respect justice.
Okay, Pokey, now that’s just weird.
Pokey, was it in self-defense?
What’s disgusting is this replay of equal rights under the Constitution not including certain people. It’s equally disgusting – and ignorant – for someone to call this a “technicality.”
Bigots can go to hell.
I will admit the equal protection argument has some merit, but the contention that Prop 8 is a Constitutional Revision is prima facia NONSENSE, and is an attempt to win on pure technicality when rational discourse fails.
The entire text of Proposition 8 is – “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.â€Â
Arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision – is an insult to any thinking person, and Jerry Brown should be ashamed to even argue this issue.
reg would defend marriage with goats and the dead–especially if they were gay.
The sad thing is that the GOP is hardly more coherent or less degenerate than the childish ranter who graces these threads. Today Cong. Michelle Bachman accused President Obama of following the agenda of Ward Churchill. We’re dealing with cretins, not conservatives. Luckily they’re the walking dead – moral and intellectual zombies.
If you hurry, reg, you can make it to a gathering of “moral and intellectual Democrats”:
It must drive you crazy that we don’t appreciate your intelligence and sophistication.
Oh, reg, you might not get the connection between Obama and Churchill. You know, since Ayers is Obama’s big buddy and Ayers is also buddies with Churchill, that gives Obama only one degree of separation from Churchill! Well, one is as bad as the other.
Okay, you can go back to defending homosexual relationships as marriage, now.
Son of Return of the Bride of Night of the Living Dead (Meets Abbott & Costello) !!!!
Did you like the bathroom scene in Midnight Cowboy?