Connect with us

What Happened? 22 Tweets From Reporters At Supreme Court Prop 8 Hearing



Direct from reporters at this morning’s Prop 8 hearing in the Supreme Court, 22 tweets with interpretations of today’s Q&A. The current perception from SCOTUSblog is that prop 8 will not be overturned by the Supreme Court, therefore avoiding a broad ruling by the Court.

[View the story “Interpretations Of Prop 8 Arguments At Supreme Court” on Storify]

Interpretations Of Prop 8 Arguments At Supreme Court

Direct from reporters at this morning’s Prop 8 hearing in the Supreme Court, 22 tweets with interpretations of today’s Q&A.

Storified by David Badash· Tue, Mar 26 2013 08:58:59

Arguments done. #scotus won’t uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.SCOTUSblog
Alito said there could be terrible consequences: Same sex marriage is younger than cell phones and the Internet…we can’t see the futureAdamSerwer
Clever trolling from Roberts: since children of same sex couples are doing ok, can’t argue they are hurt by parents not being marriedAdamSerwer
Kagan asked prop 8 def if states could ban couples too old to procreate. He said no because its “rare” that both spouses would be infertileAdamSerwer
Breyer was baffled by Obama admin argument that only states that recognized some rights of same sex couples had to recognize marriageAdamSerwer
Scalia, incorrectly, to SG Verrilli: You are asking us to impose [same sex marriage] on the whole countryAdamSerwer
Kennedy called same-sex marriage “unchartered waters,” said there is either “a wonderful destination or a cliff in it.”Ryan J. Reilly
Kennedy: children of same-sex couples “want their parents to have full recognition and legal status.” #SCOTUS #Prop8Ryan J. Reilly
Scalia: “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it’s certainly true there is no answer to that scientific question…”Ryan J. Reilly
Scalia: “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex couples raising children. #SCOTUS #Prop8Ryan J. Reilly
Ted Olsen: “Based upon the questions that the justices asked, I have no idea [how court will decide]”Sam Stein
RT @ryanjreilly: Scalia: “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex couples raising children. #SCOTUS #Prop8Sam Stein
Olson: “I have no idea”Based on the questions asked what the Supreme Court will do.Kerry Eleveld
Kagan asked prop 8 defender what harm was caused by same sec marriage. When he couldn’t answer, Kennedy asked if he was conceding the pointAdamSerwer
Kennedy: There are 40k kids in California of same se parents who want their parents to be married…their voice is important isn’t it?AdamSerwer
First #SCOTUS take: Very significant questions about whether the proponents had standing to bring the #Prop8 appeal at all.Chris Geidner
Scalia demanded Olsen pick a date for when banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional. Olson said it was irrelevantAdamSerwer
Verrilli shockingly conceded that in a different case, a state might be able to argue that marriage equality could be harmful to kidsAdamSerwer
It seems like the standing issue will have a bigger role than most thought in the #SCOTUS #Prop8 case… hmm.Waymon Hudson
Olson: if you said mixed race couples could have a “union” but not marriage, everyone would know that was wrongAdamSerwer
Remember #SCOTUS typically avoids sweeping rulings if possible. Think of narrowest way to allow #ssm in CA without one. #prop8Nancy C. Jacobson
MT @AdamSerwer #Prop8 defender unable to answer q on what harm was caused by gay marriage, Kennedy asks if he is conceding the point #SCOTUSCandidly Canadian
Seems to be some interest in this case #Prop8 #SCOTUS J. Reilly
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


‘Boldly Ignorant’ Ted Cruz Slammed by Retired NYPD Detective for His Suggestions to Protect Kids



Appearing on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show,” a retired NYPD detective expressed disgust with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) over his attempts to dismiss the idea of new gun laws to protect children in schools and instead is insisting America needs to turn schools into fortresses.

In interviews and appearing at the NRA convention this weekend in Houston, Cruz has vociferously disregarded the easy availability of high-powered weapons and instead focused on a door that was left open at the elementary school where the shooting occurred.

After host Phang shared a clip of the Texas Republican making his case, she asked former law enforcement detective Marq Claxton his thoughts on what Cruz was proposing.

Calling the controversial senator “boldly ignorant,” he proceeded to rip Cruz’s proposal apart.

“Marq, I was a prosecutor for half my career, I never prosecuted somebody for leaving a door open. How absurd is this proposal by Ted Cruz that the solution is to make sure that we don’t have too many doors at our schools?” host Phang asked.

“Ted Cruz’s statements were boldly ignorant and dismissive of the clear obvious danger that is faced by so many people in society because of the prevalence of violence and gun violence in particular,” he replied. “It really shows just how so many political electeds lack the fortitude to move forward and do the right thing: save lives.”

“Instead of sloganeering, Mr. Cruz and his other elected colleagues really should be working on legislation that provides, or minimizes the risk of damage, and could quite possibly and probably save lives,” he continued. “That is some additional gun restrictions, some background checks, there are other things that are out there that will undoubtedly be effective and save lives, and prevent these gun violence deaths.”

Watch the segment below or at this link.


Continue Reading


‘Taking Us All for Fools’: Critics Decimate Greg Abbott’s Claims and Defense of His Actions in Wake of School Shooting



Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott in a press conference that left reporters frustrated defended his actions and insisted his earlier praise for law enforcement’s widely criticized response to the Uvalde school massacre was the result of being “misled.”

“I am livid about what happened,” Abbott declared, blaming others for his “recitation of what people in that room told me.”

Critics aren’t buying his claims.

Abbott, who’s in the middle of a heated re-election campaign, appeared extremely defensive when reporters asked him questions.

“Let’s be clear about one thing. None of the laws I signed this past session had any intersection with this crime at all,” Abbott told reporters when asked if he would call the legislature back for a special session, as The Texas Tribune’s Sewell Chan noted.

“No law that I signed allowed him to get a gun,” Abbott insisted.

“The answers fell pretty flat,” opined MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, who noted the press event lasted just 36 minutes, less time than the police officers “stood outside and did nothing,” which was 47 minutes.

Abbott ended the press conference with many reporters almost begging him to take more questions. As the governor left one frustrated reporter was caught on a hot mic saying “unbelievable.”

Chan, who is the editor in chief of the Tribune, added on Twitter: “Abbott rejects background checks as a simplistic and ineffective fix. Wouldn’t have prevented Sutherland Springs and Santa Fe shootings, he says. Tries to turn focus to broken mental health system.”

Former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi on MSNBC delivered a strong rebuke to Governor Abbott’s remarks.

“No amount of free flights, no amount of free caskets, no amount of mental health counseling is going to bring back any one of those murdered children,” Figliuzzi said, referring to Abbott’s announcement an anonymous donor is putting up  $175,000 for funeral expenses of those who were murdered in the shooting and said the state will pay for mental health treatment.

Abbott also insisted that since Texas became a state it’s been legal for 18-year-olds to buy long guns.

Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was murdered in the Parkland school shooting, blasted Abbott:

And long guns of today, as Figliuzzi noted, are often semi-automatic “killing machines.”

“The governor seems completely unable to understand that he can easily make a distinction when you’re talking about whether an 18-year-old should buy an assault rifle or not. And all he cares about is a century of history in Texas on long guns. We didn’t have the AR-15 style assault weapons back then.  He can easily make a distinction and say, ‘you can go hunting, here are the rifles you can do, you can buy, you can possess – and here’s an assault-style rifle.'”

“If he thinks that people are stupid and unable to understand that there is a clear distinction between a killing machine and a hunting rifle, that he’s taking us all for fools.”


Continue Reading


‘I Apologize for Interrupting Your Press Conference’: Tearful Texas Democrat Urges Greg Abbott to ‘Do Something’ on Guns



The Texas Democratic State Senator who represents Uvalde stood up during Greg Abbott’s Friday afternoon press conference and almost begged the Republican Governor to “do something” about gun violence after Tuesday’s massacre at Robb Elementary School that took 21 lives.

Abbott was trying to place the blame for the school shooting on mental health despite the gunman having no documented issues, and told attendees, “we’re focusing our attention on the wrong thing.”

That was not good enough for Democratic State Senator Roland Gutierrez, who politely introduced himself and said, “I’m not making a political speech.”

“My colleagues are asking for a special session, you’re getting a letter tomorrow,” from the Senate Democratic Caucus.

“We’ve asked for gun control changes – I’m asking you now, bring us back in three weeks.”

Gutierrez grew emotional, sounding as if he was choking up, and added, “I apologize for interrupting your press conference about the needs of this community. I’ve been here for three days with all of these elected officials – this county judge has been working his ass off,” he continued.

“I don’t know how to express the loss of the families that I’ve talked to,” he added.

“You have to do something, man,” Gutierrez said, all but begging the governor to take action, and saying his “own colleagues are calling me and telling me this is enough.”


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.