Monday, December 13, 2010

Standard-Examiner National Commentary: Must-see Court TV

Added Bonus: a link to C-SPAN's Monday Proposition 8 appeal oral argument

Excellent national commentary editorial in this morning's Standard-Examiner by Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten, arguing in favor of "the camera's indispensability" in U.S. courts in general, and touting "the high seriousness of the three judges" and their lack of politicization during the hearing for oral argument on the appeal of the Proposition 8 lower court judgment in particular, which hearing was heard by a three-judge panel last Monday in San Francisco's U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal:
Must-see court TV
The SE headline characterizes this as "must see court TV," and we believe that's exactly what it is. So to pick up where the Standard left off, and for the benefit of WCF readers who may have a little extra time on their hands this morning (2.5 hours, to be exact), we'll helpfully link Monday's recorded C-SPAN broadcast, which represents in our view an example of a highly diligent U.S. District Court of Appeal, which is clearly running on all cylinders:
Perry v. Schwartzeneger Oral Argument
It may be a slow news day in Emerald City, but that doesn't mean there's nothing interesting for our gentle readers to contemplate for hours on end.

And yes. This will be on the test.


googlegirl said...

Should a Mormon Judge Prop 8?

RudiZink said...

This is interestimg:

Curmudgeon said...

Yes, Rudi, the commentary the SE ran was well worth the time. And I'd be willing to be millions of people who are concerned about what the court will do on this case [from either political direction] are concerned largely, if not exclusively, about the policy outcome only [gay marriage allowed/gay marriage not allowed], and only in a minor way, if at all, about the questions of law and its interpretation and application involved and the precedent that any decision might set with other specific issues likely to come before the courts. Those are matters the judges --- if they're good ones and serious about doing their jobs well --- do have to ponder and probe.

Curmudgeon said...


In re: GG's link to the article about whether a Mormon judge is qualified to rule on Prop 8. Kind of a slippery slope, using religion to eliminate judges ruling on issues that touch upon their faiths. Where would we end doing that? Does that mean no Catholic judge could rule on a case touching abortion? [Scalia on abortion cases, e.g.] Or no Souther Baptist judge? And so on and so on and so on.

At some point, we have I think in order to have functioning high courts at all, have to rely on judges to be able to reasonably apply the law before them for consideration in light of their understanding of it, of the Constitution, and the existing precedents involved. And we have to rely on any judge who can say honestly to himself "I cannot rule on this case in a way that would be unacceptable to my co-religionists, regardless of what I think the law requires" to recuse himself.

Otherwise, in the end, we'd have a whole raft of cases that only atheist judges would be deem suitable to hear impartially.

Hmmmmmm.... maybe that's not such a bad idea after all.

RudiZink said...

"Otherwise, in the end, we'd have a whole raft of cases that only atheist judges would be deem suitable to hear impartially."

Not a half bad idea, in my never humble opinion.

Let's get tin-age religion outta modern politics, I say.

ozboy said...


What? I think your last suggestion about ridding modern politics of religion would pretty much eliminate the Republican party from Utah politics! Now that you mention it, sounds like one hell of a good idea. An undies check before some one could register to run!!!

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved