‘Freudian’ Interpretations of Supreme Court's Broadcast Ban
Did the U.S. Supreme Court signal its views on broader issues when it barred broadcast of a trial challenging a ban on gay marriage?
Some court watchers suspect the high court opinion signals sympathy for gay marriage opponents, the Washington Post reports. Others didn’t go quite so far, instead noting that the opinion seemed to evidence an anti-camera bias, despite language couching the dispute in terms of the administration of justice.
The court ruled on Wednesday, holding that the federal court in San Francisco didn’t follow proper procedure when it changed its local rules to allow the broadcast of the trial to five courthouses around the country. The four liberal justices dissented.
The Post says the question of whether to broadcast the trial “has been cast in decidedly ideological terms beyond the court. Conservatives view the proceedings as a show trial from one of the nation’s most liberal cities meant to promote a gay rights agenda. Liberals said the trial would expose bigotry on the part of those who promoted” the California ballot proposition banning gay marriage.
Northwestern law professor Andrew Koppelman told the Post that the opinion “is almost classic Freudian, in that it is talking about one thing, but really seems to mean something else.”
The ideological issues weren’t before the court, but they create an atmosphere of “what side of the cultural divide are you on,” Koppelman said.
