Lisa Keen wrote a fabulous post on the day’s events. This is one of my favorite moments in the oral arguments:
As [Yes on 8 attorney Charles] Cooper attempted to read from his prepared statement, Judge Hawkins interrupted almost immediately to ask him whether voters have the right to reinstitute segregation in public schools.
“No,” said Cooper.
“Why not?” asked Hawkins.
“Because it would be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution,” said Cooper.
“As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,” interjected Hawkins.
“Yes,” conceded Cooper.
But in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court probably would not have interpreted the constitution to forbid segregation, would it? asked Hawkins.
Cooper conceded that was probably true.
“Well, how is this different?” asked Hawkins.
How, indeed. For more on the Prop 8 Oral Arguments, read:
Prop 8 arguments: Feisty questions on standing and merits for both sides [Keen News Service]
Flash 9th Circuit Hearing Analysis: Standing, Romer, and the Word [Prop 8 Trial Tracker]
The Prop 8 Oral Arguments: A Primer [Change.Org: Gay Rights]
To watch the oral arguments on CSPAN and/or read the transcript, click here. The video runs 2 hours 45 minutes.
[Photo credit: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images]
Disclaimer: The information, comments and links posted on the blog do not constitute legal advice. I will not respond to any specific legal questions in the comments section of this blog. Read my entire disclaimer.
copyright 2010 Irene C. Olszewski