Demagogue

Maybe I was too modest in my post on the prospect that the New York Court of Appeals will decide a marriage equality case very soon. I conceded that my experience with that court was limited before concluding that it's very hard to say how these seven judges would rule.

Turns out that's what the "experts" told a reporter.

"It's difficult to handicap the court," said Larry Moss, an expert on New York marriage law. "The result is unpredictable and anyone who tries to tell you that they know what the Court of Appeals is going to do is not being very helpful."

If Moss and I are both right, then it's impossible to say anything "helpful" on the subject. As I wrote:

So how will it come down? It's hard to say (gee, that's helpful, Arnold).

So I guess saying how it will come out isn't helpful, and saying we don't know how it will come down is also not helpful. Serves me right for even trying.

My general characterization of the court's members and of Gov. Pataki's appointments also seems to be the consensus view, at least according to the people interviewed for the article.

The court that could ultimately decide whether same-sex marriages are legal in New York may be dominated by Gov. George Pataki's nominees, but that may not give him much comfort.

The Court of Appeals' two most significant rulings in the last 18 months were both major defeats for Pataki, a moderate Republican who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage....

The current court has three holdovers picked by the liberal Cuomo, including Kaye, and four justices selected by Pataki. All were confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate. The three Cuomo selections are seen as comprising a liberal-to-moderate bloc, while the four Pataki judges swing in the moderate-conservative direction.

Pataki denies using a litmus test, such as a prospective judge's stance on capital punishment, to select members for the court's 14-year terms. The governor has said he picks judges he believes will employ "common sense" when interpreting the law and not look to thwart criminal convictions on technicalities.

The court under Pataki has continued a tradition that began in the 1970s of interpreting New York's constitution more broadly than the U.S. Supreme Court does the federal Constitution.

That has given New Yorkers somewhat freer civil liberties, more protections against police searches and other freedoms than the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized.

Since I often point out when Republicans are lying and don't often praise them for telling the truth, I should note that Pataki's claim that he doesn't use a litmus test seems accurate to me.

As I said before, stay tuned.