• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Report Finds Big Increase in SEC Cases in 2009 | Main | The Morning Wrap »

January 13, 2010



Will someone with more legal knowledge please comment on the following questions and observations.

The Supreme Court maintains audio archives of its proceedings. In time, these are available to the public, perhaps with some limitations. Is the trial in San Francisco being archived in audio format? What rules will govern access to any archive?

I ask, because what is being protected by blocking video dissemination of the trial appears to be the body language of those who testify, plain and simple. Perhaps I do not appreciate its significance.

Here are more requests for professional comment. Correct these if they are wrong:

1) The courtroom for this trial is open to those of the public who can fit in. It is not a closed trial.

2) A court official maintains a publicly available transcript of everything that is said 'on the record.'

3) Any witness must identify his or her self before the court.

4) Media representatives are not barred from attending the trial, taking notes, and reporting what they have seen.

5) Given all this, it would seem that far more irreparable harm might result to individuals from biased reporting by the media than from the public seeing for themselves the proceedings.

Help this retired chemist understand the Court's logic. Legal logic and scientific logic seem to be different animals.



The Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to face his accusers, yet when the idea of gay marriage is accused of endangering our civilization, that idea can be tried in court without having its accusers publicly accountable for their testimony. Seems to me somebody willing to advance intolerance and hatred should always be held accountable in view of the public. If they're afraid of humiliation, maybe they should stop saying such humiliating things...Outrageous.


Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said "Sunshine is the best disinfectant". The current SCOTUS continues the tradition of darkness and providing cover. The supporters of Prop 8 want it both ways. They want the freedom to deny the rights of their fellow citizens through "democratic" action at the ballot box while championing what they claim is majority opinion and the ability to defend their doing so without recourse because they would be harassed for their "unpopular ideas" which that "majority" purportedly favors? Hmmm . . . Can't wait to hear (err, read about now) their twisted logic with arguments about marriage being for procreation while not supporting any tests for fertility and permitting those who deny any desire whatsoever to procreate the right to marry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad