Tweet
Lawyers are settling into their places; it’s 8:38 here. Perhaps the SCOTUS stay has delayed our start here? Twitterers casting the SCOTUS stay as "the first loss for the Olson/Boies team."
Counsel table camera is now having a little earthquake of its own.
Court personnel setting papers up for Judge Walker.
We still don’t have sound; I sure hope that the AV team remembers to turn it up when they start.
We are reminded not to use any cameras or recording equipment in the overflow courtroom. There is a judge standing by ready to issue contempt orders! A couple of people put away cameras.
This room we’re in is very 1960s ceremonial, lots of wood paneling and not-very-impressive portraits on the wall, perhaps of retired judges? There is a huge plate at the center of the front wall with a large eagle done in gold leaf, the entire wall is grey marble. The room where the trial is actually going to be held looks very similar, except there’s room on the dais for only one judge, while in this room there are fifteen judges’ chairs.
The court recorder just sat down at her seat.
Not everyone has turned off their phones here in the ceremonial courtroom. But our front-row enforcer team seems to have perfected "the look" when someone’s phone rings.
We’ve just been told by helpful court personnel that they expect to start on time, which would be now 9am.
The right hand screen and projector in our room will display exhibits.
Judge Walker will control the activation of the microphones which has not happened yet. Still awaiting Judge Walker’s appearance in the courtroom.
Everyone is in place and seated, and there was a faint chime in our viewing room. Not sure if that means anything.
Everybody’s up in the courtroom, clerk is calling the case.
Ted Olson speaks first.
Buttress speaks.
David Boies speaks.
Jeremy Goldman introduces himself.
Steve Holtzman.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera for plaintiff-intervenor SF City and County, also Teresa Stewart for the city.
Cooper for the defendant-intervenor.
Other Cooper and Kirk attorneys introduce themselves
James Campbell for the Alliance Defense Fund, defendant intervenors.
A lawyer for the governor and a lawyer for the attorney general.
Lawyers for the defendant Alameda registrar and county clerk, also the Los Angeles county registrar and county clerk.
28 Comments
Nice setup. Thanks, Teddy.
(((Teddy)))
You Rock!!
morning newt..
Teddy on the cutting edge of history!
Lets hope it is!! This Prop8 crap of allowing a simple majority to rescind a citizens basic rights is way to fucking wrong. Next they will have a Proposition to strip all unmarried couples of their right to co-habitat under penalty of the law they make up. Where is the principle of separation of Church And State?? These fuckers have to be put in their place and take their religious morals home where they belong!!
The same sex marriage fetishists within the LGBT community SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE THEY FILED LAWSUITS THAT WOULD END UP AS BALLOT MEASURES BEFORE THE PEOPLE, PUTTING MY CIVIL RIGHTS UP FOR POPULAR VOTE.
It is not like the conservatives launched a campaign to restrict marriage, no, conservative white homosexuals with money filed lawsuits to privilege THEIR version of liberation upon us all, THEY picked the fights that they lost, the consequences of which are visited on most of us who do not have wealth or power.
maybe but they Are fighting for everyone’s rights no matter how ya look at it. If they are su8ccessful in this case what is next?? Maybe a Prop to ban all public display of Religion (I might support that) or some other Right we all have??
Once you’re willing to engage in a reality-based analysis of civil rights and politics, get back to me, okay?
What’s missing from so much analysis is that activists CAN make matters worse if they make poor decisions, those which are neither grounded in political or process reality. But in reality, those who are financing same sex marriage uber alles are financially comfortable, not needing job and housing protections, so the fact that losing same sex marriage puts headwinds in campaigns for basic, universal economic rights does not really concern them.
What? Are you saying that rich gays who want to marry are getting in the way of the progress for economic rights for all? How? If one group fights for their rights it not at the expense of the rights of others. It enhances their struggle. Why are you so angry?
All I’m saying is that for the past 20 years, the most conservative issues in the LGBT agenda have been made to dominate and to disastrous results.
Marriage and gays in the military were supported by a conservative minority of the LGBT minority, hardly the stuff that provides the base of support for victory.
The reason why they were able to dominate is because of resources, pure and simple, not democracy.
So as LGBT support amongst the population has skyrocketed, our rights at the federal level have lagged. No job protections. No housing protections. Even though that’s what we wanted.
If there were a positive synergistic phenomenon associated with the shotgun approach, then we’d have seen successes. To the contrary, we’ve seen perhaps 15% win against 85% loss with the military and marriage.
In politics, one is only as strong as the base of power one has to back up reaches. When one loses campaign after campaign, one is deemed less powerful, easier to both deny reaches and to attack and move back the agenda.
Losing ballot measure after ballot measure sends a flashing green light to the flyover that LGBT are indeed second class citizens. And when that message is telegraphed around, that lowers the bar for bashing and abuse.
Most all LGBT need to compete for housing and jobs. Housing and jobs are life necessities. When LGBT cannot get housing and jobs, we go homeless and sick.
Contrast that to marriage and the military, which are choices that relatively few LGBT make. Yet those two conservative, divisive issues have eclipsed job and housing protections for two decades.
So while the wealthier, more conservative homosexuals have been dominating our movement as the wealthy and conservative would dominate everything, working class queers, especially in the flyover, have been left to fend for ourselves as we seek the basics of survival.
The space for political accomplishment is not infinite. Taking up valuable space with failed campaigns visits consequences on other contenders for that space. Continuing down that path of failure without any sort of strategy for what happens when you lose (other than throwing good money after bad) is tantamount to an attack on campaigns that are indeed viable, like job and housing protections.
In what world do sane activists in a minority group decide to pick the most divisive, most controversial campaigns to move on first, rather than picking the low hanging, consensus campaigns to win and consolidate a position of power?
It is like the LGBT movement is being led by dominant masochistic bottoms.
I understand what you are saying and agree somewhat. I need to think about it some more.
Maybe it is like the difference between house slaves and field slaves. Not trying to be funny here. Just trying to understand.
No, its just a garden variety plain vanilla issue of class.
Yep. That is what I was trying to say.
It is so disturbing to see those whose attention was attracted by same sex marriage all of a sudden positioning themselves as instant experts on the context of LGBT liberation that’s gone on for the past 60 years.
What really scares me are the young ones, especially gay men, who will jump on the marriage train only to realize that monogamy is not necessarily the norm for most all gay men. That’s going to fuck up a bunch of young lives.
Just like those pesky wimmin and darkies did too with all their voting and jobs, and blah, blah blah! How dare two loving adults want to get married. The nerve of those people!
By the way, what rights are they trying to take away from you?
Same sex couples need the right to “marry”, otherwise they’d have to live-in-sin, and we wouldn’t want to accuse them of living an immoral lifestyle, now would we.
Its worked for me and my partner for 20 years, thanks.
The LAST thing I’d want is church or state legitimation of our relationship.
teddy, that’s a terrific scene set you put together
away we go
Does this action provide you with the evidence that the deck is stacked, all the way to the top. Karl the turd’s action in the previous admin was to do this. In 2004 one analyst that I read said that it would take up to 80 years to undo the damage (stacking of the courts) done by Karl.
Is it just me or has there been no new input from Teddy in an hour or more?
move to part 3
What Marcos is pointing out is the simple fact that the Marriage campaign has served to obscure the fact that across this country it’s entirely possible for LBGT citizens to lose their jobs and homes simply for being LBGT
WITH NO LEGAL RECOURSE TO FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!
Oh sure there are civil rights protections in major cites here and there, but if you look at the map as a whole LBGT Americans are takign their lives in their hands every day
and Marriage is a highly secondary concern.
I just got back from the Pasadena Courthouse, where they were supposed to be live feeding from SF. Nothing was happening down there. I parked a block away from the courthouse. A bunch of news vans and a handful of people, including Robyn Tyler who, along with her partner, are part of this case. There were a handful of other people there. That’s it. Nothing else. Hugely underwhelming.
Where’s the part 3?
In the Seminal list third from the top.
Thank you. What a great civics lesson I got this morning.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post ready: Gay Rights Advocates React With Disappointment To SCOTUS Ruling Blocking Video Of Prop 8 Trial
Part 3 Here
Another liveblog, while we wait for Teddy:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/