<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kennedy Doesn&#8217;t Like to Watch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://f11f.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/kennedy-doesnt-like-to-watch/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://f11f.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/kennedy-doesnt-like-to-watch/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:46:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marriage, Not Gay Marriage &#8211; says Judge Walker &#171; FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST</title>
		<link>http://f11f.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/kennedy-doesnt-like-to-watch/#comment-519</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marriage, Not Gay Marriage &#8211; says Judge Walker &#171; FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:07:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://f11f.wordpress.com/?p=163#comment-519</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Kennedy might not have liked to watch this case at first, but he will most certainly enjoy being in the center of the action once Perry v. Schwarzenegger gets to the Court..  A jurisprudence of rights as opposed to identities appeals to Justice Kennedy, whether or not American society has caught up to his ideal.  And as opposed to his more conservative brethren, he sees rights as robust vessels rather than narrow privileges.  For this reason, Walker&#8217;s Due Process analysis broadly reading the right of marriage will be Kennedy&#8217;s reasoning of choice, while we can count on Scalia to see such a robust reading as leading, at the very least, to unions between all consenting adults no matter how many or how closely related. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Kennedy might not have liked to watch this case at first, but he will most certainly enjoy being in the center of the action once Perry v. Schwarzenegger gets to the Court..  A jurisprudence of rights as opposed to identities appeals to Justice Kennedy, whether or not American society has caught up to his ideal.  And as opposed to his more conservative brethren, he sees rights as robust vessels rather than narrow privileges.  For this reason, Walker&#8217;s Due Process analysis broadly reading the right of marriage will be Kennedy&#8217;s reasoning of choice, while we can count on Scalia to see such a robust reading as leading, at the very least, to unions between all consenting adults no matter how many or how closely related. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Secession &#38; Affirmative Action, the Sequels? &#171; FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST</title>
		<link>http://f11f.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/kennedy-doesnt-like-to-watch/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Secession &#38; Affirmative Action, the Sequels? &#171; FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://f11f.wordpress.com/?p=163#comment-159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] smacked down a challenge to the amendment in 1997.  Second, Justice Kennedy, who may or may not be favorable to gay rights when it comes to marriage, is absolutely and unequivocally against [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] smacked down a challenge to the amendment in 1997.  Second, Justice Kennedy, who may or may not be favorable to gay rights when it comes to marriage, is absolutely and unequivocally against [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://f11f.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/kennedy-doesnt-like-to-watch/#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://f11f.wordpress.com/?p=163#comment-39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, the majority opinion -- at page 7 -- specifically defers addressing whether Internet broadcasting (such as on YouTube) would be appropriate: &quot;We do not address other aspects of that order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.&quot; The opinion bans only the &quot;live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses,&quot; because that is all the California district court permitted.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the majority opinion &#8212; at page 7 &#8212; specifically defers addressing whether Internet broadcasting (such as on YouTube) would be appropriate: &#8220;We do not address other aspects of that order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.&#8221; The opinion bans only the &#8220;live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses,&#8221; because that is all the California district court permitted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
