Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sun

24

Jan

2010

Keeping Same-Sex Marriage in the Dark
Sunday, 24 January 2010 07:53
by Marjorie Cohn
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and co-author, with David Dow, of “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice.”
On Wednesday, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned a ruling made by a federal trial judge that would have allowed limited television coverage of a trial that will decide the fate of California’s Proposition 8. The trial, which is currently proceeding in San Francisco, is one of the most significant civil rights cases of our time. The plaintiffs are seeking to overturn a ballot initiative that makes same-sex marriage illegal in California.

It was unusual that the Supreme Court even decided to hear this case. The high court takes very few cases. It generally decides issues about which the state or federal courts are in conflict or cases that raise important questions of federal law. Yet relying on the Supreme Court’s “supervisory power” over the lower courts, the five conservative justices – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy – joined in an unsigned 17-page decision and chided Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for seeking to broadcast the trial without a sufficient notice period for public comment.

Justice Breyer wrote in the dissent joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor that he could find no other case in which the Supreme Court had intervened in the procedural aspects of local judicial administration. Indeed, Breyer cited a case in which Scalia wrote, “I do not see the basis for any direct authority to supervise lower courts.”

Moreover, in the comment period that Walker did allow, he received 138,574 comments, and all but 32 favored transmitting the proceedings.

The majority concluded that the same-sex marriage opponents would suffer “irreparable harm” if the trial were broadcast to five other federal courts around the country. But all the witnesses who allegedly might be intimidated by the camera were experts or Prop 8 advocates who had already appeared on television or the Internet during the campaign.

No one presented empirical data to establish that the mere presence of cameras would negatively impact the judicial process, Breyer wrote. He cited a book that I authored with veteran broadcast journalist David Dow, “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice.” It describes studies that found no harm from the camera, and one which found that witnesses “who faced an obvious camera, provided answers that were more correct, lengthier and more detailed.”

The five justices who denied camera coverage noted at the outset that they would not express “any view on whether [federal] trials should be broadcast.” Toward the end of their decision, however, they stated that since the trial judge intended to broadcast witness testimony, “[t]his case is therefore not a good one for a pilot program.”

In my opinion, it is no accident that the five majority justices are the conservatives who, in all likelihood, oppose same-sex marriage. Why don’t those who oppose same-sex marriage want people to see this trial?

Perhaps they are mindful of the sympathy engendered by televised images of another civil rights struggle. “It was hard for people watching at home not to take sides,” David Halberstam wrote about Little Rock in The Fifties. “There they were, sitting in their living rooms in front of their own television sets watching orderly black children behaving with great dignity, trying to obtain nothing more than a decent education, the most elemental of American birthrights, yet being assaulted by a vicious mob of poor whites.”

The conservative justices may think that televising this trial will have the same effect on the public. Witnesses are describing their love for each other in deeply emotional terms. Religious fundamentalists who oppose them will testify about their interpretation of scripture. Gay marriage is one of the hot button issues of our time. Passions run high on both sides. This is not a jury trial in which jurors might be affected by the camera or a criminal case where the life or liberty of the defendant is at stake.

In spite of what the conservative majority claims, the professional witnesses are not likely to be cowed by the camera. Modern broadcast technology would allow the telecast without affecting the proceedings in the courtroom.

There is overwhelming public interest in this case. It will affect the daily lives of millions of people. The decision denying limited broadcast coverage at this point effectively eliminates any possibility that it will be allowed before the trial is over. The conservative judges are using procedural excuses to push this critical issue back into the closet.

More from this author:
Bush Plans War on Iran (4019 Hits)
by Marjorie Cohn The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200...
Erwin Chemerinsky and the Post-9/11 Attack on Academic Freedom (5680 Hits)
by Marjorie Cohn One week after renowned legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky was offered the position of dean of the new law school at the...
Pursue Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran (4609 Hits)
by Marjorie Cohn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United States has prompted an outcry, including protests and tabloid...
Cheney Sounds Out Jordan, Egypt on U.S. Bombing of Iran (5512 Hits)
by Marjorie Cohn My cousin Larry Russell, a travel writer, spent three weeks (May 11 through May 31 of 2007) in Jordan as a guest of the...
Torture Endorsed, Torture Denied (7197 Hits)
by Marjorie Cohn Originally published on the Jurist The April 2004 publication of grotesque photographs of naked Iraqis piled on top of ...
Related Articles:
A DARK ANNIVERSARY (4215 Hits)
By William Fisher This week, as the world marks the fifth anniversary of the arrival of the first detainees at the U.S. naval facility at...
Polluting Politics, Perverting Religion, Degutting Education: The Dark Agenda of the Christian Right (7663 Hits)
by Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D. A failure for most of his adult life, George W. Bush was the Christian Right’s anointed one, their messianic...
More Thoughts During a Dark Week (2918 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler As shown by my piece of a few days ago – ”Hope May Spring Eternal, But It Also Has Its Dry Spells” – ...
Keeping a Lid on a Hot Story? NASA Scientists Challenge Security Rules (4345 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff [from The Nation magazine online] Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goddard Space Flight Center are up...
Tom Friedman Puts on Dark Glasses and Discovers the Sun (2933 Hits)
Mark W. Bradley Given the hectic pace of life these days, I suppose it should come as no surprise that we Americans are inexorably loosing...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top