Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 3602
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby Chilidog » Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:15 pm

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

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 3602
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby Chilidog » Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:19 pm

Hey, how come my links don't show up?Grrrr

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby Sugar Magnolia » Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:47 pm

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.


User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby gupwalla » Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:51 pm

Links are not showing up on Fire/Android (Silk).

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby MN-Skeptic » Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:01 pm

Related to this, from Slate:

Listen to a Conservative Judge Brutally Destroy Arguments Against Gay Marriage

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.”


User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby esseff44 » Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:21 pm

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?????


User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby gupwalla » Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:07 pm

From Slate:

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.


User avatar
June bug
Posts: 4534
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby June bug » Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:20 pm

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.


User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 11368
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Oral arguments in the 7th ca marriage equality cases

Postby Reality Check » Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:51 am

I would be willing to bet everyone involved knew what the BS "tradition" argument is about; it is about the Bible. Samuelson and Fisher know they can't say that or the court would jump on institutionalizing religion instantly. That's what the same sex marriage bans are all about at the core. The discussion with the other side's attorney about how domestic partnership just is not the same as marriage was interesting. I hope to finish listening later today.
“The reality of what we really are is often times found in the small snips, way down at the bottom of things.” – Jean Shepherd


Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests