December 7, 2010

I talk about the appellate argument in the Prop 8 case with Emily Bazelon.

The argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took place yesterday, and Emily and I gabbed about it this morning for Bloggingheads.

33 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...

Emily and Althouse are agreeing on pretty much everything, but it's still interesting (and it keeps me from having from listening to hours of legal arguments).

Coketown said...

As always, very interesting on your part. Kind of short, which is never a good thing. Bazelon spent too much energy arguing in favor of gay marriage rather than addressing the case as a case. As though anyone might mistake her position on gay marriage, or are unversed in the arguments for it and need a refresher.

Coming away from the diavlog, I'm curious why there's a bias against the accents of southern bumpkins but not Californians. Usually people with a southern drawl are assumed slow and stupid. Meanwhile Bazelon sounds like a total airhead, but most people, I think, wouldn't take it as a sign of being dumb--even though she sounds dumb with the heavy intonation on the last syllables of each sentence and the totallies and for-sures. Like omg. ttyl u guyz. That, in conclusion, is what I took away from it.

mesquito said...

Okay. I'll download this and listen at work tomorrow. I'll do this because, a) I like althouse, and B) I posess a weird integrity that forces me to inform myself about comments I make.

But is Emily Bazelon not the most Constitutionally ignorant airhead ever tasked by anyone to comment on the law?

Lem said...

If schoolyard bullying is the scourge that some people say it is, It follows that it would be 'easier' for kids not to have that as a source of scorn.. but to be raised in a heterosexual home..

Emily is just wrong there.. you dont need a study to figure that out.

I'm not saying one way or the other.. just making a "rational" point ;)

Roux said...

Slippery slope slippery slope slippery slope...

Same sex marriage (IT'S NOT GAY MARRIAGE) will lead to legalized polygamy and incest.....

Jason (the commenter) said...

Lem: If schoolyard bullying is the scourge that some people say it is, It follows that it would be 'easier' for kids not to have that as a source of scorn.. but to be raised in a heterosexual home..

If gays don't get marriage equality the bullies win!

Jason (the commenter) said...

Roux: Same sex marriage (IT'S NOT GAY MARRIAGE) will lead to legalized polygamy and incest.....

I read too much Heinlein to be bothered by either.

Lem said...

There is hard data saying traditional marriage has been steadily on the decline while divorce has been steadily climbing.

Maybe gay couples can reverse that trend ;)

Lem said...

I cant hardly believe my ears..

Althouse trashes ballot initiatives.

(kidding)

Leo Ladenson said...

The blind leading the dumb.

rhhardin said...

The injury is implicit in the case.

Namely that marriage doesn't mean same sex.

The courts don't get to redefine the language.

Marriage involves the mystery of opposite sex.

If you want to delve into what it might be, I think the mystery, which cannot be made objective, cannot be made objective because it is a future which becomes a child.

That's a matter for poets, not district judges; and the voters were doing the poetry.

In this matter, the courts are being assholes.

Rational basis itself depends on that mystery, because it depends on an agreement.

Lem said...

Somebody tell Emily to pull the blinds next time..

Fred4Pres said...

You and Emily should debate the issues of the day while also throwing Meade's empty beer bottles at each other. It would be entertaining and performance art.

ndspinelli said...

DSM-5 removed narcissistic personality disorder as a diagnosis just last week.

Kirby Olson said...

Apparently the judge that overturned the case is gay. Is that true, and if it's true, doesn't it seem to show putting personal interests before impartial judgment?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Kirby Olson: Apparently the judge that overturned the case is gay. Is that true, and if it's true, doesn't it seem to show putting personal interests before impartial judgment?

Then all the straight judges who ruled against marriage equality are doing the same.

Jason (the commenter) said...

rhhardin: That's a matter for poets, not district judges; and the voters were doing the poetry.

"Can't you see? It's only poetry, when you agree with me!"

Ron said...

Ann's on-camera outfit indicates a nostalgia for the Rat Pack and her secret desire to be Shirley McClaine.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Ouch, Kirby, walked right into that.

Doesn't matter if the judge is gay or not gay, all that matters is did he do right as a judge? I don't think he really did.

I do support gay marriage, but it is not in the Constitution as written. The Constitution had to be formally amended to free slaves and give women and blacks the vote, and I don't see why gay marriage is any different.

The Constitution is not a magic wand that rights wrongs and dispenses justice. If you approve of treating it as one for your pet issue, then later someone else is going to come along and use it to your detriment.

Kirby Olson said...

Voting against someone else's interests is different than judging to give yourself benefits over the votes of the majority.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Kirby:

Voting against someone else's interests is different than judging to give yourself benefits over the votes of the majority.

So individual straight California voters were wrong to pass Prop 8 and give themselves a benefit over the non-straight? Noted.

Seriously, think harder.

AJ Lynch said...

9.8% unemployment, enormous govt deficits, two wars with no end in sight, states and cities with hidden and uncalculated pension bombs, 30% or more of our high school students are dopes, 100 colleges charge more than $50,000 per year yet if you asked Bazelon and others, DADT and gay marriage are high priorities.

jaltcoh said...

Same sex marriage (IT'S NOT GAY MARRIAGE)

That's true, the issue is fundamentally about people's sex, not their sexual orientation. The discrimination is based on sex. Tom isn't allowed to marry Steve, while Alice is allowed to marry Steve; gender is determinative. The government keeps records of your sex, not your sexual orientation.

However, you seem to have something else in mind.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@jaltcoh:

The discrimination is based on sex.

Let's not forget discrimination on age, consanguinity, and already being married. We have to be careful when we say that not granting legal sanction to a marriage is the same as denying Constitutional rights.

One of Walker's findings of fact is that sexual orientation as an identity only goes back to the nineteenth century. To me that underscores that same sex marriage isn't a Constitutional right, but Walker saw it differently.

Jason (the commenter) said...

AJ Lynch: yet if you asked Bazelon and others, DADT and gay marriage are high priorities.

We were happy to let the courts decide, but Obama and the Republicans seen intent on using valuable legislative time on these issues.

AJ Lynch said...

Jason:
Oh I thought this was about a Calif court case due to lawsuit by SSM supporters.

Penny said...

As usual, I loved the Blogginghead's dialogue.

The visuals? Not so much.

We had Bazelon presented neck up, aHEAD from the start, and Althouse, in just a flurry of body language that seemed to rotate between clenched arms followed by outstretched, almost pleading arms.

We might decide that was because she is conflicted on said topic, if only because she has a gay son who might want to marry in the full sense of that word, or we might decide that her indecisive body language was the equivalent of throwing this discussion in Bazelon's "heads-only" direction, without doing that...exactly.

Sometimes our heart and mind are MEANT to tussle with each other, and that usually results in greater understanding of the topic at hand.

That said, I was extremely impressed with the quality of the dialogue, and the understanding on both ladies' part that this was, in fact, best left to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to suck the air out of well-understood emotions, and to have the courage to look to law for their guidance.

At least this time out....it seemed to me that only Althouse appreciates the repercussions of ANY answer the Supreme Court may give.

Being "personally conflicted" is a sign that your awareness goes beyond you and yours.

Excellent beginning for those of us who say we care about humanity.

rcocean said...

Gay marriage is constitutional because law professors and Ivy leaguers like it.

End of story.

rcocean said...

I just hope this DV make Titus happy.

deborah said...

Man...Woman...Life...Death...Infinity.

There's a good soap opera in there, somewhere.

DaveW said...

Bazelon wasn't listening. There were at least 2 times where Althouse carefully outlines a point only to have Bazelon rephrase it back as if she (Bazelon) were making the point herself. At one point Althouse was so surprised by it she was sort of struck silent.

Bazelon seems like a pleasant enough person but she doesn't respect other's views enough to listen for 15 seconds on a point she doesn't necessarily agree with. I've noticed this tendency before.

Bazelon also contradicts herself, saying at one point there was "absolutely no research" that children were better off in traditional family settings, then later saying "it's just not true". Either there's no research or there's research that shows it isn't true, pick one. She does that again later too, but I'm not going to go back and transcribe it.

And when she asked you to explain what republican government is I just about fell out of my chair. I don't know why she asked for that explanation, perhaps she thinks her readers (and viewers at BHTV) are really that ignorant? It can't be that she doesn't know. Right?

I do enjoy these brief diavlogs you have with her professor.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The deeper error Bazelon makes is thinking that rational-basis scrutiny involves substituting the judgment of researchers for that of the people. The latter can be mistaken about the effects of traditional family settings without being irrational.

If the difference between marriage and domestic partnership is a meaningless distinction-without-a-difference, why wasn't Judge Walker wrong to think he had an actual case or controversy before him?

Kirby Olson said...

So what is the new criteria for marriage that the left supports here? any two people should be able to be married? Any number of people? Is it mostly about protecting the children? Could a grandfather marry his own grandson if they were both of age, as long as they "loved" one another? It's hard to find any criterion in any of this except tolerance for "love," which is never defined, and could apparently exist between a grandson and a grandfather, or a granddaughter, and a grandfather, provided they were both of age, which seems to be the only remaining limitation in the eyes of the progressives. Love is love, and should always be held as sacred?

If a judge wanted to sleep with children, and everyone else didn't want him to do that, he could presumably nevertheless pass a law that said he could, and he could justify it in the name of love? (I know that isn't the case here, but I don't hear any limitations imposed on marriage -- simply an ever-expanding tolerance.)