Court tosses Prop. 8 ruling on strategy papers

[Kadie]

Court tosses Prop. 8 ruling on strategy papers
Chronicle Staff Report

Friday, December 11, 2009


(12-11) 17:52 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco has reversed a judge's order that backers of Proposition 8, the state initiative that banned same-sex marriage, give their campaign strategy documents to opponents trying to overturn the measure.

In a unanimous ruling today, the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals tossed out the order that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued in October against backers of Prop. 8, which state voters approved in November 2008.

Walker had said lawyers for two same-sex couples and a gay-rights group were entitled to see internal memos and e-mails between Yes on 8 strategists to look for evidence that the campaign had exploited prejudice against gays and lesbians.

The plaintiffs are trying to show that the measure was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

Prop. 8 sponsors argued that their discussions were constitutionally protected and that Walker's order would discourage candid communications in political campaigns. The three-judge appeals court panel unanimously agreed.

"The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the First Amendment," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the court. Prop. 8 proponents, he said, had shown that turning over the documents "would likely have a chilling effect on political association and the formulation of political expression."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/11/BA3A1B34VC.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0ZRNOmsUI

[David Zephyr]

1. Would making Klansmen remove their hoods have a "chiling effect on political association"?

What a stupid ruling.

What a hateful ruling.

Mob rules and secretive mob rule is even better according to the court.

Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the court. Prop. 8 proponents, he said, had shown that turning over the documents "would likely have a chilling effect on political association and the formulation of political expression."

Yeah, just like having Klansmen remove their hoods might have a "chiling effect on political association."

The Mafia can use this ruling now.

[ThomCat]

2. You frame the issue perfectly.

This is exactly the same as making clansmen remove their hoods, and yes, we should be allowed to look behind those hoods to see who they are. In fact, the law has repeatedly said that we can. That's why there are laws prohibiting wearing anything covering your face during marches and rallies in many municipalities. Those laws originated with the fights against the clan.

:grr:

[David Zephyr]

7. Well, thank you ThomCat.

What a friggin' awful ruling. And what a precedent it would establish.

Yeah, the klan is what came to my mind immediately.

[targetpractice]

4. Should the DU "un-rec" posters be revealed?

I think so.

You make an excellent point, and your argument is solid.

[Kadie]

9. .

Well said.

:kick:

[Starry Messenger]

3. WTF?

This is ridiculous. :(

[tabbycat31]

5. it's a matter of time

before a federal court will see all the anti-marriage equality amendments and rulings throughout the states as unconstitutional.

I just did a constitutional law paper on marriage equality in NJ.... if case law sets precedent, then one needs to look no further than two Supreme Court cases over a generation old. In 1954 separate but equal was thrown out (Brown vs Board of Education), hence ruling unconstitutional civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a civil right (Loving vs Virginia). Put the two together and you get marriage equality. Unfortunately we need to get rid of a few of the RWers on the Supreme Court first.

[NMMNG]

6. Ugh

Granted, ample evidence that they're hateful bigots lies beyond the internal memos. Too bad it won't end up in court.

[alp227]

8. So the Founding Fathers intended for free speech to include privacy rights too?

I'm so baffled right now. Where in the Constitution is there a right to know and right to secrecy at the same time?

[petronius]

10. I like this ruling, even if it did favor the wrong side

Allowing private papers and communications to be opened up for search, for what sounds like a fishing expedition, would have a chilling effect on far more than bigoted political campaigns. The original order sounds like it tore a great big hole in the 4th Amendment...

[Tesha]

11. Thank you. You are correct. (NT)

[Cid_B]

12. Agreed...

"I'm sure it's there. If you'll just allow me to go through their things I am sure I'll find something bad"

tsk tsk tsk...

[dickthegrouch]

13. That kind of expression SHOULD be chilled

The god damned KKKristians who think their morals trump my civil rights SHOULD have their lies and scare tactics restricted. If they can't win a fair fight, their deity says they shouldn't be fighting at all ("Thou shalt not bear false witness").