Conservative group Protect Marriage Washington doesn't sway Scalia

[babylonsister]

Conservative group doesn't sway Scalia in ballot signature case

By Les Blumenthal | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices from the left and the right expressed skepticism Wednesday at a conservative religious group's argument that Washington state should keep secret the names of 138,500 people who signed petitions in favor of letting voters decide whether to overturn the state's same-sex domestic partnership law.

James Bopp Jr., a lawyer for Protect Marriage Washington, argued that those who signed the petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot would face harassment and intimidation from gay rights groups if their names were made public. Bopp argued that the signers' rights to privacy trumped the state's public records law.

Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's most conservative member, dismissed the arguments as "touchy-feely." "The fact is, running a democracy requires a certain amount of civic courage," he added.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's more liberal members, said that even if the state withheld the names, they could become public because organizations that sponsored petitions sometimes sold or traded the names.

"They use them for fundraising purposes," she said. "So that would be the end of a person's privacy."

However the court rules, the case is likely to set legal precedent in a battle that pits openness in government against the right to take part in the political process without fear of intimidation.

The hearing marked the last oral argument for Justice John Paul Stevens, who's retiring at the end of the court's term in June.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/28/93054/supreme-court-skeptical-on-hiding.html

[regnaD kciN]

1. I bet he votes with them anyway...

...because, as we learned in December 2000, facts and legal arguments mean nothing to the Reagan/Bush Five when it's a matter of enshrining their ideology into law.

[paulsby]

2. i bet you are wrong

scalia is pretty good on speech issues.

most people have a very simplistic view of scotus justices, but it aint that simple

ginsburg has made some awful decisions, for example. it's not as simple as left/right wing.

on this case, i would have bet dollars to doughnuts scalia would have come down this way