For those who are interested, today at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time CSPAN will televise the oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Perry v. Schwartzeneggar (the Prop 8 case). Tune in if you want to hear a summary of what the case is about!

That's 10:00 a.m. PST.

This is the link, at the time of the post, 10:26 AM Utah time, the proceedings have not started so there is no video yet. It should start at 11:00 AM Utah time.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=7823589



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2010 12:28PM by MJ.

Starting at 10:00 pacific time, KQED will be streaming live coverage of today's arguments in the CA Prop-8 Federal appeal,

http://www.kqed.org/

First hour will cover the question of standing. Basically, a few years ago the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (in an Arizona case) that if the proponents of a proposition are the ONLY parties to an appeal, then they do not have standing. That means that the appeal is denied and the ruling stands.

Worth noting that the current governor of CA Arnold Schwarzenegger has declied to enter the case and defend Prop-8

The current State Attorney General of CA (and governor elect, Jerry Brown) has also declined to defend Prop-8.

The second hour of arguments will address constitutional issues (Equal Protect and Seperation of Church/State). The proponents of Prop-8 are trying hard to introduce a lot of new evidence. That's something that is almost never allowed on appeal. It will be interesting to see how the 3-judge appellate court deals with this attemp to 'relitigate' the case.

I watched the last 15 minutes on standing and thought the defense didn't look good. :P

Thanks for posting this.

The commentators noted that the defense did not present good witnesses. In fact they only had one, questionable, person willing to stand up for the anti-gay stance.

I noticed that Judge Smith came around to a point that Boise made earlier, that a county deputy clerk was only acting in a ministerial capacity meaning they were only completing forms and not making discussions. Having only ministerial duties would mean the Imperial County's Deputy Clerk would not have standing.

Same old arguments, different court.

Rational reason?

Timothy

Cooper, arguing for the proponents, doesn't even believe what he is saying as far as standing. completely grasping at straws.

When they get to merits he'll be even worse.

He is talking about how heterosexual marriage is good for society because it allows the nurture of children.

Judge told him that he is arguing against divorce, but not same sex marriage.

Cooper is saying that same sex couples are worse because they can't procreate. He is handing the victory to the opposition. They'll turn everything he is saying around to say that same sex couples can only have kids if they REALLY want them, and not by accident. Also, same sex couples are not worse parents. Who knows how they'll rule, but Cooper isn't making any points.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2010 03:03PM by MJ.

On the issue of standing, I think they try to find a way to grant standing to someone, and if they did it would be Imperial County. I think they might do this just to move the case forward on the merits of the case. From what I have heard, it would seem to me that granting such standing would broaden the law as to who had standing. Judging by what I saw and heard, by the definition of standing that they were discussing, there is a very good chance that they would find that there was nobody that has standing and there would be no appeal.

I think they will find that once the right is given, it can not be taken away with out a very good reason. This would limit the scope of the decision to California and if the SCOTUS agrees, may have some influence on Maine.