Some see a bad omen in the U.S. Supreme Court intervention into the federal Prop 8 challenge and its decision to block broadcast of the trial:
Legal experts on the left and right gleaned three insights from the high court intervention:
First,
the justices are following this case closely. They typically rule on
appeals after cases are decided. It is rare for them to intervene in a
pending trial.Second, the court's conservatives do not trust
Walker to set fair rules for proceedings. Their opinion described how
he had given shifting explanations of his plans. This suggests Walker's
ruling on Proposition 8 may be viewed with some skepticism.And
third, the majority has a distinct sympathy for the foes of same-sex
marriage. The justices cited a series of newspaper stories reporting on
the threats and harassment faced by those who have publicly opposed gay
unions."The ideological split was stunning," said Erwin
Chemerinsky, a liberal law professor and dean of the UC Irvine Law
School. "It made me think of Bush vs. Gore" — when, after the 2000
presidential election, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 emergency order
to halt the recount of Florida's paper ballots and three days later
ended the recount.Last week's intervention in the San Francisco
case "suggests the majority has a very strong sympathy for Prop. 8's
supporters," USC law professor David Cruz added.
Olson and Boies refuse to be concerned, or at least don't show it: "Boies said the court's involvement so far should not be seen as
foreshadowing its eventual decision. This was 'a split based on cameras
in the court,' he said. Olson noted that Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy twice has written strong opinions that rejected discrimination
against gays and lesbians. 'I won't predict the outcome, but Justice
Kennedy will take this issue very seriously,' he said."
