Lawyer Beatdown!Wisconsin's Samulsen argues in circles, and is mercilessly pummeled by the judges.http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/rt.2.14-2526_08_26_2014.mp3Indiana's Fischer gets a similar thrashinghttp://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/rt.1.14-2386_08_26_2014.mp3
They're showing up fine for me.
Related to this, from Slate:
From that article:
In the day’s testiest exchange, Posner pushes Samuelson to identify a single rational basis for his state’s anti-gay-marriage law. Who is being helped, Posner wonders, by gay marriage bans? When Samuelson claims that “society” is helped by gay marriage bans, Posner pushes back: “How is it being helped? You’re not trying to force homosexuals into heterosexual marriage. So what is the harm of allowing these people to marry? Does it hurt heterosexual marriage? Does it hurt children?”When Samuelson’s yellow light flashes, signaling that he’s running out of time, Posner encourages him to continue. Judge Ann Claire Williams jumps in, informing Samuelson that the light “won’t save you.” The courtroom erupts in laughter. A defeated Samuelson responds, “It was worth a shot.”
Those 3 judges did not leave much room for doubt about where they stand on the issue. I expect a 3-0 decision in favor of marriage equality. And then on to SCOTUS.....
The state attorneys did not sound very convinced of their own feeble arguments. Because opposite sex couples can have unintended children, same sex marriage ought to be banned. ??????? HunnH?????
Source: Bureau of Statistical Analysis Management
After asking Fisher why Indiana shouldn’t just “criminalize fornication” in order to deal with its “unintended child problem,” Posner returned to...
Ouch. There goes the "we have to protect traditional marriage so straight people will stop having unwanted babies" argument. Again. Last we saw it, this argument was mortally wounded by the "So...how's that working out for you, exactly?" counter-argument.
(Criminalizing fornication would almost certainly be unconstitutional under Lawrence. Judge Posner was not being serious.)
Samuelson’s argument is centered around the idea that gay marriage harms … someone. But whom? Posner demands an answer. Samuelson suggests that gay marriage would harm society at large. But how? Samuelson shrugs; he just doesn’t know.
Samuelson must have drawn the short straw or lost the arm-wrestling tournament or something. NOM should send him a cupcake.
Fisher at least sounded confident (even without a real basis to be). Samuelson, on the other hand, sounded like the kid in class who hasn't read the assignment. When grilled by the teacher, all he can do is hem and haw.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 0 guests