Audio: Supreme Court on Prop 8

Here’s the audio from today’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

ScotusBlog’s Lyle Denniston opines:

If the Justices, in the initial vote they will take on this case in private later this week, do not find themselves with a majority on any of the issues they canvassed, then they might well be looking for a way out. One way would be to find that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have a legal right to be in court to defend it, but even that was a hotly disputed issue on the bench. The other way out was directly suggested by Kennedy, and pursued by him in more than a fleeting way: dismiss this case as one that should not have been accepted. A decision like that, though, could take weeks or months to reach.

  • Hal Christiansen

    Was disappointed in both respondent’s and petitioner’s performance. Respondent could not answer, and just got flustered over, the question, “Has Gay marraige ever been unconstitutional?” It is my opinion that it has never been until states began making laws against it; however, that does not make it unconstitutional, as one of the justices said, such law merely means that such action has been taken, whether constitutional or unconstitutional. And Cooper’s argument that we need the institution of marriage between opposite couples so that a man and woman will not live together and produce illegiitmate children is idiocy. I didn’t even begin to become impressed with either side’s arguments or counsel. The Gay community (respondent) was wrong to have its counsel try to make the issue apply to the whole union. Respondent’s counsel did not have one convincing, let alone logical, argument as to why the Supreme Court should rationally make such a judgment. Why does the Gay community waste its time an money on such losers as the attorneys for respondents? I think that the case will not be decided on the merits as neither side made even so much as a logical argument as to the merits, although it is more meritorious to say that no person in California, ought to be discriminated against for any reason. I tend to think that it will be decided on standing or on the fact that the case ought never to have been brought. Cooper’s answer to Justice was hysterical: “It is rare that both parties who are over the age of 55 will be infertile”; and then her response, “Let’s get real here . . . .”

  • BJ

    I don’t think either respondent’s and petitioner’s performance was poor.

    This court is different.