And unlawful, too. So says the Supreme Court in denying the webcast or telecast of the extremely tense court challenge to Proposition 8.

“The Supreme Court on Wednesday effectively eliminated the
possibility that any part of the trial of a constitutional challenge to
a ban on same-sex marriage now under way in San Francisco would be
broadcast before it concludes.” …

“The 17-page majority opinion, which was unsigned, focused mainly on
what it said were irregularities in how the trial judge, Vaughn R.
Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, and Chief Judge
Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, changed the applicable rules to allow broadcast coverage…

“Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others,”
the opinion said, “and must follow those requirements themselves.”

That’s what’s wrong with this case at its core to begin with.
Activists angrily denounced the voters and the results of their vote
when California voters passed Prop 8. So they’re trying to overturn a
constitutionally legitimate election result in court.

Pro-life activists in South Dakota didn’t like the results of the
narrow loss in the last election on the Vote Yes for Life referendum,
either. But pro-abortion activists touted their success as final,
having been won at the polls, after the voters spoke, and they told
pro-lifers ‘you lost, go away, and don’t try this again’.

The integrity of the electoral process is at stake in the California
trial, and the nation will be watching. Just not on a video screen.

Sheila Liaugminas

Sheila Liaugminas is an Emmy award-winning Chicago-based journalist in print and broadcast media. Her writing and broadcasting covers matters of faith, culture, politics and the media....