Supreme Court justices oppose civil rights if they don't publicly support showing the proceedings?

[CreekDog]

I refer to the proceedings of the Federal Court here in San Francisco.

Have some people here just completely forgotten how to *think*? :wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4220102

If you really think that they oppose civil rights not because they even voted against this, but because they might have voted to *broadcast* the proceedings, but *did not make a public statement* of their decision --that makes them opposed to civil rights?

Have people forgotten what the issue actually is here?

Silly me thought it was about the civil right of marriage being rightfully restored to people who should have it.

But I come here and read that the high crime is not making a public statement about saying the case should be televised.

:banghead: