|
Post by Meshakhad on Dec 11, 2011 3:21:25 GMT -5
They don't need a good argument. They argue with their wallets (or rather OUR wallets). That's how the Prop got passed in the first place . . . with a little help from people that weren't even in the #$#@$$%@ state! I don't see how money will help, short of actually bribing the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Dec 11, 2011 15:20:44 GMT -5
I don't wish to necro the thread, however, it appears that the Supreme Court has already started on this. It's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. That second video is just so hilarious, though. The first three minutes is Cooper going off about how the people who brought the suit were in long-term relationships, and because Walker was in a relationship, they're in the same shoes, as it were (including one rather erroneous statement about how two of the plaintiffs were together for eight years, just like Walker!! *scare chord*). And then one of the judges completely whoops his ass, starting by asking if a married judge can hear divorce cases and then asking if there is any evidence that Walker wanted to marry his partner. And that's in the first six minutes. I still have to get through the rest. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Dec 11, 2011 18:01:49 GMT -5
I watched both those videos. That shit is just fucking sad. How do they even think they have a case?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 11, 2011 18:24:30 GMT -5
I watched both those videos. That shit is just fucking sad. How do they even think they have a case? God.
|
|
|
Post by Miles, The Slightly Off on Dec 11, 2011 19:41:10 GMT -5
I apologize, Smurfette, will edit in the appropriate information in the original post. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
I'm not exactly knowledgeable about the judicial system...
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Dec 11, 2011 19:53:28 GMT -5
I have to hand it to Judge Walker for having the foresight to gather a veritable mountain of evidence in support of his ruling. I mean, just look at his list of 80 separate "findings of fact." He made sure that it would be damn near impossible to convince an appeals court to overturn it.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Dec 11, 2011 20:02:52 GMT -5
I think he was plugged-in enough by the end to realize "dude, these people are fucking nuts, they will say anything to get their way, let's make it impossible for them to do that"
"We argue that his decision should be overturned because he made it impossible for us to argue it should be overturned. Nobody could be prepared for how many lies we'll come up with to appeal so he must be favoring the plaintiffs!"
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Dec 11, 2011 20:16:20 GMT -5
Oh, God that video was hilarious. I especially liked Boise (lawyer for the plaintiff). He completely steamrolls Cooper's argument, then is followed up by Stewart, who further steamrolls. The last bit about "a dark day for the American jurisprudence" was just icing on the cake, especially after Cooper's strawmanning.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Dec 12, 2011 3:49:12 GMT -5
Wow, Coopers case was completely blown out of the water by the judges and plaintiffs. He, the judges even try and help Cooper as much as possible and his argument still falls flat. I think they way they quote multiple examples of other cases gives their argument much more weight than the one paragraph Cooper kept quoting.
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Dec 12, 2011 4:45:59 GMT -5
I don't know how I managed to sit through both videos, but I managed somehow...
And now my head hurts. With all the political-speak, I was having a hard time understanding what the hell they were saying. And I'm admittedly perplexed by the first video... What's the huge deal about this tape they were talking about?
Yeah, I'll admit I hardly know anything about how the politics works in my OWN country, much less south of the border...
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 12, 2011 7:54:44 GMT -5
There are four entirely separate components to this case. The 9th Circuit only heard oral arguments on two of these last week, and heard oral arguments on the other two nearly a year ago. The four distinct issues are:
1) MERITS: Was the District Court correct in finding that California's ban of same-sex marriage violated Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution?
2) STANDING: Did the official ballot proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal the District Court decision, even though the official defendants (the Governor and Attorney General of California) did not want to?
3) VIDEOTAPE RELEASE: Did the District Court err in ordering the videotapes of the District Court trial to be released to the public?
4) MOTION TO VACATE: Was the District Court correct in ruling that the original trial court judge, Judge Walker, did not need to recuse himself from the case because he was in a same-sex relationship?
All oral arguments and written briefs have now been conducted and submitted before the 9th Circuit in the matter of Perry v. Brown. The 9th Circuit is expected to issue a decision on all of these issues sometime in January.
|
|