Psychic Thomas Roberts: Supreme Court 'Is Expected to Affirm' CA Gay Marriage Ruling
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts forecasted the future on Wednesday, declaring that the U.S. Supreme Court "is expected to affirm that [California] decision" overturning Prop 8.
Roberts, who is openly gay, didn't explain how he had such inside knowledge, but made sure to use liberal language about the ruling, saying that the judge decided "the denial of marriage equality to gays and lesbians violates the U.S. Constitution."
It's possible Roberts was basing his prediction on the Lawrence V. Texas Supreme Court decision, a 6-3 ruling that struck down Texas' sodomy law. However, one of those judges in the majority (Sandra Day O'Connor) has retired and been replaced by a more conservative justice.
The other, Anthony Kennedy, has ruled on different sides of multiple issues, such as abortion. So, theorizing where he might fall on the issue could be tough.
Roberts interviewed two plaintiffs of the California case. Talking to Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, he offered this softball: "Jeff, I want to start with the argument of liberty. Even some conservatives saying at the heart of this very debate is personal freedom."
Roberts continued, "Have you spoken to anyone who has changed their opinion about this or have people in your own circles knowing what you've gone through stood firm in how they feel about the issue?"
The anchor of News Live offered no tough questions. At one point, he mused, "...On a personal level, yesterday's appeals court decision, do you see that as a vindication, really a win for your original lawsuit or just another hurdle accomplished in the battle of this ongoing fight against Prop 8?"
Roberts has a history of pushing his own personal agenda. On September 20, 2010 hyped the pro-gay rights Lady Gaga as the "Joan Baez of her time."
A transcript of the February 8 segment, which aired at 11:45am EST, follows:
ELLEN DEGENERES: If you haven't been following it, I'll catch you up on it. For a long time, same sex marriage was not legal and then here in California it was legal for about 25 minutes and then it was not legal again because of something called Prop 8 which banned same sex marriage and I'm happy to say that yesterday an appeals court ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional!
THOMAS ROBERTS: That was Ellen DeGeneres celebrating yesterday's appeals court decision on California's controversial Prop 8. The Supreme Court is expected to affirm that decision finding the denial of marriage equality to gays and lesbians violates the U.S. Constitution. One of the attorneys, Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush in Bush vs. Gore, spoke about that decision with Rachel Maddow last night.
TED OLSON: People have the right to get married, which is a fundamental right in this country. You cannot take it away from those individuals without violating the Constitution.
ROBERTS: Joining he this morning are Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, two of the plaintiffs in the original case that kicked off the debate. Gentlemen, it's nice to see you this morning.
JEFF ZARRILLO: (Prop 8 plaintiff): Hi, Thomas. How are you?
PAUL KATAMI (Prop 8 lawsuit plaintiff) Thanks for having us.
ROBERTS: Absolutely. Jeff, I want to start with the argument of liberty. Even some conservatives saying at the heart of this very debate is personal freedom. Have you spoken to anyone who has changed their opinion about this or have people in your own circles knowing what you've gone through stood firm in how they feel about the issue?
JEFF ZARRILLO: Oh, sure, Thomas, and it's not even just in the recent weeks. It's really been since we filed this case almost two and a half years ago. We have spent time telling our stories and changing the hearts and minds of people across the gay and lesbian community and also in America overall.
ROBERTS: So, Paul, on a personal level, yesterday's appeals court decision, do you see that as a vindication, really a win for your original lawsuit or just another hurdle accomplished in the battle of this ongoing fight against Prop 8?
KATAMI: You know, it's a part of the process. Yesterday was a great day. It is absolutely a step in the right direction. The 9th Circuit's ruling yesterday says you can't recognize a right for a minority group and then lobby against that group because you have a bias and strip away that right for them. So, it is a vindication in many ways because for a long time we never thought we would actually have these rights and now we're on the road, the quick road, we hope, to being married and having equality.
ROBERTS: When we talk about what's taking place in the country right now, Jeff, Washington state specifically has legislature scheduled to take up today a bill supporting marriage equality that is supported by the state's governor, Gegoire. Do you think that your battle had anything to do with this nationwide movement towards marriage equality, movements that we're seeing take place on the east coast and Maryland as well?
ZARRILLO: I would certainly hope so. I think when you look at the record that we've put together, first at the district court and then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and we have Ted Olson and David Boise on our side, we have spent the last two and a half years not only educating people but making sure that people are informed when they go to the ballot box and they understand that we do not put the minority rights up to a vote.
ROBERTS: Paul, again, this has moved on, ultimately, do you feel this has to reach the Supreme Court?
KATAMI: You know, as much as we want equality for California, I think we need equality as a nation. You know, there's people in other states that are like Jeff and I, like Chris and sandy, that have the same desire to marry, to be part of that institution that has universal recognition and we would hope that if this does become a Supreme Court case and the Supreme Court does accept it that it could eventually affect our entire nation. To us, it seems strange that you could have rights in one state and not in another so eventually we hope that all gay and lesbian people across the country and the world have equality.
ROBERTS: You guys are leading the charge on this, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. Thanks so much for being here this morning.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Isn't the 9th Circuit the most overruled Appeals Court?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:15pm.
I remember reading that statistic somewhere.
And what will Roberts do if the SCOTUS does not affirm the decision as "expected"? The only choice will be for California to put repeal on the ballot, and that takes a while to accomplish.
That's correct
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:17pm.
The US Supreme Court overturns about two-thirds of the 9th Circuit cases that come up to them -- far more than the rulings of any other US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Dang I wish I could get a job
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 3:30am.
Dang I wish I could get a job where I still get a paycheck for being wrong 66% of the time.
Truth be told the 9th circuit court of appeals has been on the end of some of the most scathing rebukes from the Supreme Court for their continued failure to rule properly within the confines of the Constitution and well-settled law.
"In strong words rarely used to attack the actions of another court, the five-justice majority reprimanded the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for its order blocking an execution two days before it was scheduled to take place.
The justices said the 9th Circuit's sudden reprieve for a murderer and rapist who it had earlier turned away was unjustified and a threat to the integrity of the judicial process."
That's right folks a man whose appeal was REJECTED by the 9th circuit court was, just two days before his scheduled execution, without even a hearing into the matter, was halted.....by the same 9th circuit court that had earlier said, in effect, that he didn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Not only do these twits get it wrong 66% of the time they do so with a blatant disregard for the law, lower court rulings, existing precedence and the Constitution as a whole.
Predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold ANY ruling of the 9th Circuit Court is betting against very long odds.
A psychic? Reminds me of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:33pm.
A psychic? Reminds me of Network
stupidity gone viral
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:29pm.
"the denial of marriage equality to gays and lesbians violates the U.S. Constitution"
Huh? Precisely how?
Does the denial of marriage equality to polygamists also violate the Constitution? How about pedophiles? How about zoophiles? How about necrophiles? And last, but not least, about about narcissists?
it's outrageous
Submitted by humanzee on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 3:10am.
It's a big old fight over the definition of a word that has meant one thing for thousands of years.
Not matter how you slice it, relationships between people of the same sex are inherently and intrinsically different than heterosexual relationships. You don't have to be religious or Christian to see the difference... just possess an objective mind and a big dose of common sense.
The gay activists' obsession and war against the definition of marriage makes me lose hope for humanity... it shows that a big segment of the population is completely and utterly beyond logical redemption... these people have abandoned all reason. They are waging war against human civilization... obsessively trying to destroy the human invention to promote ordered human procreation in every language, every race, every culture, every corner of the Earth. Gay marriage is an affront to our evolution or creation. It is an assault on our genetics, our evolved/created design. T
It's sort of pointless trying to reason with them or make them want to see the TRUTH because they've already made up their mind and they don't care about the facts, reality, logic, reason, etc.
well said
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:25pm.
The only thing I would point out is that even if "they" (those who have become close-minded) have made up their minds, indeed, even if it seems a losing battle, "we" must still be out there acting as the voice of reason.
It reminds me of a quote from "The Lord of the Rings" movie:
"Too few have come. We cannot defeat the armies of Mordor."
King Theoden: "No. We cannot. But we will meet them in battle nonetheless."
Question
Submitted by octavioj on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:10am.
Are there not lots of states that have constitutional prohibitions to same sc marriages? How can the Supreme Court say it was illegitimate for California to do the same? Also no one ever mentions that this applies only to marriage, not civil unions. So this is not a matter of rights, is it?
This is so wrong on so many
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:36pm.
This is so wrong on so many levels. But leave it to Liberals to cheer the fact that a handful of judges just spat on the will of the people. The people of California voted a certain way. The majority spoke and California judges spat upon their vote.
I love it how Liberals love to talk about, "the people spoke, they voted for Barack Obama. Thus, they voted for Liberalism. The will of the people has spoken." But when the will of the people vote against their abnormal beliefs, all of a sudden the will of the people no longer counts.
I don't know what will happen in the Supreme Court, but regardless, gay marriage is a sin, it is wrong, it is evil, plain and simple. God will not changes His rules and Laws because men do.
I wonder, will the courts now decide too that it is discrimination to not allow five consenting adults to marry?