|
The U.S. Supreme Court's decisionto censor the broadcast of the federal trial challenging theconstitutionality of California's Proposition 8 has met with strongopposition. California State assembly member Ted Lieu said Thursday the goal ofthe American civil justice system is to seek justice. The SupremeCourt's decision to censor the public broadcast of the historictrial to reverse California's Proposition 8 amounts to a fear oftoo much justice. "Our courts are not star chambers, where testimony and rulings aremade in secret and hidden from the public," said Lieu. "We do not live in a Totalitarian State," Lieu stressed. He said the Supreme Court majority's rationale that broadcastingthis trial will result in "irreparable harm" has no basis in fact. The Court states that witnesses may suffer harm because they areconcerned about possible "harassment" if the public actually foundout what they will say under oath. Under that rationale, the Courtshould seal the transcript of this entire proceeding, not allow anynon-witness to attend the proceeding, and block newspapers fromreporting on this trial. To show the silliness of the Court's opinion, consider thatwitnesses who apparently would suffer "irreparable harm" arewitnesses like William Tam who intervened in federal court todefend Proposition 8, said Lieu. "I suppose I just caused 'irreparable harm' by announcing his namepublicly, the same way that multiple newspapers have alreadyreported his name publicly as a 'reluctant' witness allegedlyafraid of potential harassment," said Lieu. He said if the Court is actually that concerned about shieldingwitnesses, "we have the technology to put a blue dot or otherwiseshield the witnesses' identity during the broadcast. The Courtnever even considered that far less restrictive option. They justdecided to censor the entire proceeding and keep it away from thegeneral public." Even some judges and justices disagree with the Supreme Courtruling. "The Court today issues an order that will prevent the transmissionof proceedings in a non jury civil case of great public interest tofive other federal courthouses," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer. "The majority's action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order... to intervene in a matter of local court administration that itwould not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent fordoing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone 'irreparableharm'... And the public interest weighs in favor of providingaccess to the courts." Advocates for equal marriage rights opposed the decision. "The Supreme Court just struck a huge blow against transparency andaccountability," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaignin Los Angeles. "The five conservative justices are enabling Proposition 8supporters to mask their radical views. This historic trial willremain largely hidden from public view," he said. "Now, without video, it's even more critical that we continue toget the truth out about the Prop 8 trial. The Courage Campaign willcontinue our live coverage of the trial at Prop8TrialTracker.com.In just three days, the site has been viewed more than 250,000times and has become one of the leading sources of informationabout what is going on inside Judge Walker's courtroom," Jacobssaid in a statement. The trial in San Francisco will decide whether California 'sProposition 8, the November 2008 ballot initiative that overturnedthe right of same-sex marriage in the state, is constitutional. This current suit was filed in May 2009 by two prominent attorneysknown for arguing against one another over the 2000 presidentialelection in Bush v. Gore and is on behalf of two same-sex coupleswho were denied marriage licenses after the passage of Proposition8. It is the first case in the U.S. at the federal level to considerwhether it is legal for states to ban same sex marriage throughballot initiatives. In May last year, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8in a 6 to 1 ruling. The proposition, which passed 52percent to 48percent, overturned a May 2008 ruling of California Supreme Courtthat resulted in, among other provisions, the legalization of samesex marriage in the state. The Court's 2009 opinion preserved the marriages of the 18,000same-sex couples who married in California during the periodsame-sex marriage was legal. Same sex marriage is currently legal in Connecticut, Iowa,Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington D.C. approvedsame sex marriage legislation in December 2009 and is waiting for amandatory 30 day congressional review period to expire before thelegislation becomes law. by George Bao. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as Frosted Plastic Film Manufacturer , China Matte Laminating Pouches for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Clear Laminating Pouches.
Related Articles -
Frosted Plastic Film Manufacturer, China Matte Laminating Pouches,
| 
