Preview of Tuesday’s Prop 8 Trial Action (Day Eleven: 1/26) |
|
| By: Teddy Partridge Tuesday January 26, 2010 12:05 am | |
Tuesday, Plaintiffs’ Counsel David Boies will continue his cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Kenneth Miller. Then D-I Counsel David Thompson will conduct redirect of Miller. After that, we’ll see David Blankenhorn testify for the D-Is, with possibly cross and redirect. Judge Vaughn Walker has scheduled to finish Tuesday; we’ll see if (and hope!) that will happen.
Liveblogging will continue at the Seminal at 8:30am pacific time. See you then!
Help the Occupy Supply Fund continue to support more than 60 occupations across the country!
$202,345.00 RAISED
$191,293.71 SPENT
Last updated 2/15
100% of donations committed to the occupations served by Occupy Supply
About MyFDL
MyFDL is the community site of progressive political blog Firedoglake. Anyone can participate by writing a diary, commenting on others’ diaries, or joining groups to find other people in your area. Content posted to MyFDL is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to Firedoglake.
News. Community. Activism.
Firedoglake is a member-supported organization.
Help us continue our work for as little as $45/year.
Tweet
23 Comments
As the D-I case continues to melt down, I find it doubtfull that the D-I’s can salvage anything worth having from here. I think that this case may well end up in the supreme court; with the shoddy, even pitifull, job that the defence has done it is doubtfull that they can win so be prepared for Prop 8 to be ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory and in a few years (if the supreme court grants cert)there to be a major overhaul of the current laws with DOMA and DADT the first to fall.
Technically Boies maybe cross examining the D-I witness but in reality he is executing an almost surgical dissection of him. How did the D-I’s ever think this witness would survive an expertly handled cross examination. For an expert he lacks considerable depth and breadth of knowledge on even the basics of the LGBT community.
The chickens have come home to roost. Breeders — in that they control the world — imagine they understahd every aspect of it. For eons LBGT was dismissed as a mere freak-show side-issue.
But then we fought back.
And now here are these clowns trying to float the precious — wildly inaccurate — little they know about us as “expertise.” Boies takedown was expert, but shooting fish in a barrel has a greater level of difficulty.
Could you please not refer to people as ‘breeders’?
When the Heterosexual Dictatorship surrenders.
Thank you PJEvans. I take offense at ANY group who is assigned a derogatory, demeaning label that dehuminizes them to the point where it makes it easier to discriminate against them. Isn’t that what we are all fighting for here?
I’m fighting for far too many things to mention.
Though I grant the temptation to swing from “roosting chickens” to “breeders” is poetically strong, some of those “breeders,” like me, for example, are on the side of equality and fairness, Cellar47, and for an end to all prejudice.
Don’t become your own worst enemy.
Plaintiffs: Game, Set, and Match. Defense has lost 3,0 3,0
Down in flames to an ignominious splat, time to break out the hasmat gear to clean this last witness off the walls.
What’s the chances that Blankenhorn will be withdrawn to save him from an equally ignominous dissection at the hands of Boies and Co?
What are the rules for evidence in a SCOTUS case?
Can new evidence be introduced or do they have to rely solely on that introduced in the previous trial?
Would there be any reason to deliberately tank the case?
It sure seems like that is what they are doing.
There is no new evidence in the Supreme Court. The trial judge hears the evidence, then applies the facts to the law and reaches a legal conclusion. On appeal, you can’t re-argue the facts; the trial judge (or a jury if there is one which there isn’t in this case) is the trier of fact. On appeal, you challenge the legal conclusion reached by the trier of fact, not the facts.
dong basically has it right.
SCOTUS is an appellate level court, as are the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Whereas, the fact-finding stage of a litigation is done at the trial level (District Courts). Appellate courts are generally left to apply the facts as presented in the trial “record” in determining conclusions of law.
Now, at the appellate level, the court may take judicial notice of certain easily verifiable information. For example, an advocate might offer a recent Dept. of Labor report on unemployment figures in his/her appeals presentation that may not have been available at trial, but which is otherwise useful the the court–rather ‘obvious’ facts like that which do not really require such a throrough vetting through the rules of evidence.
Actually, SCOTUS has held one trial in its history. I would surprised if the Roberts Court is so activist as to hold a second to give the D-I’s a second bite at the apple. Of course, given how things are looking now, the D-I’s could try to get a retrial due to ineffective assistance of counsel, but that would seem a long shot I think.
In a case like this, while there are facts (and I think the plaintiffs’ lawyers are doing a great job getting them into the record), the biggest thing is to get the case rolling, and then God and everybody writes a “Friend of the Court (amicus curiae) Briefing” explaining, as self-proclaimed experts, what it all means.
I guarantee that some of the groups you are seeing grossly underrepresented but referenced, like Traditional Values Coalition and Focus on the Family are going to weigh in once they have no chance at being put on trial and cross-examined. Then they can use whatever sideways logic they want without having to defend it.
Good morning, all! Good morning, Teddy – hope you are well rested, and a HUGE THANKS for your incredible talents!
Does everybody find this trial to be fascinating and entertaining? Fascinating in the sense that we are “watching” history, and entertaining in the manner by which Boies et al present a remarkable case on behalf of the plaintifss as well as how they neatly slice and dice the D-I?
It’s both, because arrogant ignorance is being called on the carpet. No wonder the Prop 8ies and the Supremes want to keep this trial in the closet.
Thanks to Teddy and all the other Firedoggies that’s just not possible.
Made the mistake of taking a dip over at NOM’s website. I feel dirty now. The pure ignorant, factless, slimy dribble just makes your skin crawl. Just goes to show why voter initiatives bypass the principles of democracy…no logical discourse.
I actually subscribed and they now send me requests for money along with pre-paid envelopes. I send them back empty… teehee.
When I got the first mailing it was not readily apparent where it was from nor was it apparent, to me, which side of the issue they were on – which was probably by design.
You should send them back filled with something heavy but valueless, thereby costing them money in postage.
That’s brilliant! Send ‘em back empty. Or better yet, send them back full of shredded paper. Especially if they’re postage paid envelopes.
The SF Chronicle’s report in today’s paper came across a bit dire for the plaintiffs/us. They basically presented Kenneth Miller in a very very positive light — almost like nobody from the Chron was actually in the court room and heard/read what we’ve been witnessing in the Boies dismantling of him. Go figure.
@PJEvans I agree. As a lesbian, even I find it very off color and out of taste. My mother and father and others don’t deserve that word or disrespect. Thank you.
Please, Please call Maggie Gallegher!!!
Just finished reading yesterday’s transcript… OMG! Br. ‘B’ tore it up! :)
“Then they can use whatever sideways logic they want without having to defend it.”
Rat bastards!