THE JAMES R. BROWNING COURTHOUSE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA – “The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Judge Walker’s radical decision overturning Prop 8 comes as no surprise,” said Catholics for the Common Good President William B. May. Read more…
I’m happy to report that our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team has won yet another important legal victory for supporters of traditional marriage in California!
Today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 24-page opinion REVERSING the lower court’s earlier decision to illegally release courtroom trial recordings of the Proposition 8 trial for public broadcast. Read more…
Cooper’s rebuttal:
If the judge has an interest in the outcome, he has an obligation to reveal it.
It was the plaintiffs who continually put forth evidence that 64% of gays in CA, in committed long-term relationships, would want to get married. Hence, it is the fact that Walker was in a relationship, not the fact that he is gay, that merits disclosure at least, and possible recusal. Read more…
Therese Stewart:
A seal order doesn’t preclude the parties from revisiting the question of whether the seal should be opened. She seems to think that the Proponents shouldn’t have relied on this promise so seriously.
Rhinehart: the potential for broadcast has been eliminated.
Stewart seems to say that rule only pertains to media coverage immediately of the court proceedings, basing this only on the letter by Judge Kozinski. Read more…
3:05 PM, PST,
Judge Hawkins:
Were your clients under the impression that the tapes would be sealed forever?
David Thompson:
No, only for 10 years, at which time, an extension could be asked for, and possibly given.
Plaintiffs want to know, what are the harms?
DT says, four harms: Read more…
3: 30 PM PST, Thomas Burke, from Media Coalition
First brings up the claim that since Walker’s objectivity is in question, we should have access to the tapes.
Rhinehart stops him and urges him to stick to the point: which is the issue of the video tapes.
The guy is in over his head. Read more…
Sitting here in the federal court building at the corner of Mission and 7th in Down town SF. Things are much calmer, both inside and outside the court, compared with other times I’ve been to these hearings. Only a handful of people were outside at the Pre-Game warm-up Equality rally. They have the same signs they had a year ago, from the looks of it, and fewer people holding them. Read more…
I just came from Mass in honor of the feast of the Immaculate Conception. I will soon head off to the airport to go to SF, for the Prop 8 trial. It is fitting that this trial take place on this feast day. I realize that many of my readers are not Catholic, and think such a feast is a lot of mumbo jumbo. But let me explain the vision behind the Immaculate Conception, and suggest why it offers a hopeful alternative to our current cultural morass.
The first point is the meaning of the feast itself. We celebrate Mary’s conception without the stain of original sin. We hold that original sin causes weakness of the will, darkness of the intellect and forgetfulness in the memory. Have you ever experienced any of those things, dear reader of any religion or no religion? Then you know what I’m talking about. The effects of original sin are part of the universal human condition. Read more…
Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court
Washington – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the US Supreme Court where NOM expects a victory. NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and has invested substantial funds in the defense of the initiative in court. Read more…
When I went to San Francisco last week to cover the Prop 8 trial, I indicated that I would be watching for something specific from the Marriage Redefiners. Will they try to distinguish their case:
That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents of other potential ballot initiatives. If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.
I knew that I cared about this, as a fundamental issue of fairness and good government. Will the Marriage Redefinition Crusaders gut the initiative process, just to get the outcome they want? I wasn’t prepared for the extent to which the justices of the CA Supreme Court cared. Read more…
My earlier post, called “Rob Reiner, the Founder of the Feast,” prompted a call for citations. How do I know that Rob Reiner is bankrolling the Prop 8 legal challenges? Basically, because he has said so, and because Ted Olsen thanked him for it.
Look at the website for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The president of that organization claims to be the “sole sponsor of the Perry case,” in the video on the lower right hand corner. Also, you can see Rob Reiner in the video at 6:30. Ted Olsen thanks him and his wife for their support around 7:30 on the video.
Rob Reiner is proud of his involvement and has never hidden it. See articles here: and here.
You can also look at the 990 form for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Read more…
From One News Now:
In the wake of yesterday’s hearing before the California Supreme Court, a pro-family leader is optimistic that supporters of Proposition 8 will have the right to defend the traditional marriage measure in court. A majority of California voters passed the referendum in 2008, but homosexual activists are fighting to get that vote nullified. Read more…
The justices seemed to be concerned about over-reaching on both sides. On one side, they asked, suppose we adopt your theory, Mr. Olsen, and rule that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing to defend the measure? What will be left of the initiative process?
On the other side, they asked Chuck Cooper, suppose we adopt your theory that the Proponents do have standing? Do the Proponents act as agents of the state, in place of the Attorney General? How far does that ability to represent the state’s interest extend? Cooper made it clear that he thought it was possible and proper, for the Proponents’ right to speak for the state should be limited to the specific ballot issue, and nothing more.
Ted Olsen, on the other hand, seemed to be completely uninterested in the question of the long-range consequences of his legal theory on the future of the initiative process.
They did indeed take our electronic equipment when we entered the courtroom. Our friends over at the NOM blog were watching the broadcast on TV. They were able to comment in real time, and I wasn’t, even though they were in DC and I was right in the courtroom! Oh well!
I really appreciate everyone coming back over here to the Ruth Blog and checking in with us throughout the day. I will try to make it up to you!
I did try to capture some images and interviews that wouldn’t be available on TV. I will be adding those throughout the evening, while I’m waiting for my plane back to So Cal. I was able to e-mail a few pix to Betsy, which she uploaded in earlier posts. I’ll go back and provide a bit of commentary on those photos later on.
Bottom line: the judges of the CA Supreme Court were not nice and gentle to Ted Olsen. I think there is little doubt that they will rule in favor of the proponents having standing to defend Prop 8. The only question is what the vote count will be, what the reasoning will be, and how many individual concurring opinions there will be.
In today’s hearing, I will be watching for the Marriage Redefiners to try to distinguish their case. That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents of other potential ballot initiatives. If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.
On the other hand, if they do make an effort to limit the impact of their request to Prop 8 and only Prop 8, that would at least show some good faith on their part.
I will be watching.
I have been told by a veteran of these hearings that I may be asked to give up my electronics before entering the courtroom. In that case, I will have to file my posts later. The hearing begins at 10 AM Pacific Time, and will probably run through noon.
Watch this space….
I am in San Francisco today, observing the Prop 8 hearing on behalf of NOM. The issue in today’s hearing is standing: who has standing to defend Prop 8 in court against legal attacks.
This issue is significant for several reasons. First, the State of CA has the responsibility of defending its laws in court. That’s right: Proposition 8 is a duly enacted law of the State of CA. The people passed this initiative in a highly visible election that was not even a close call, 51% to 49%, approximately the same percentage of the vote that elected Barack Obama President of the United States.
Second, the elected officials charged with this duty, the Attorney General and the Governor, have consistently refused to perform their constitutional duty. They only enforce the parts of the law they like, I guess. Read more…
Proposition 8′s sponsors will be in court Monday morning to argue whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be vacated on the basis that the long term same-sex relationship he is involved in (and was involved in at the time of the Prop 8 trial, but failed to disclose) constitutes a conflict of interest.
If you want to follow the hearing, and don’t mind going to the website of one of Prop 8′s opponents to do so, then you can find live updates at http://www.afer.org/june13 starting at 9:00am.
The on-going drama of Prop 8. The opponents of Prop 8 are willing to gut the state’s voter initiative process in order to defend the same sex “marriage” decision imposed on the state by the Supreme Court back in 2008. Let’s see: the State Supreme Court overturned a citizens’ legislative initiative and declared the male/female requirement for marriage to be unconstitutional. So, the people used the initiative process and passed a constitutional amendment. The purpose of the initiative process is to allow the citizens some redress against the government, when they believe the govt is out of control.
Now, the opponents of Prop 8 challenge the amendment in court. The Powers That Be in the State of CA refuse to defend Prop 8 in court. The Attorney General, herself a charter member of The Powers That Be, has declared that the proponents of the initiative do not have standing to defend Prop 8 in court. By this reasoning, all the Powers That Be have to do is to lodge a challenge to an initiative and the initiative becomes void because no one has the right to defend it. By my reckoning, that pretty much guts the initiative process. Let’s look at the AG’s reasoning: Read more…
When the so-called ‘justices’ of the California Supreme Court, in their ruling overturning Proposition 22, commanded the State to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ immediately – in the face of warnings that those ‘marriages’ would be be the source of enormous legal confusion when Proposition 8 passed – it was a case of the judiciary attempting to deny the people their right to self-rule (Proposition 22 passed by 61%) and it was a very transparent attempt to influence the outcome of Proposition 8, and it was an obvious attempt to make the will of the people utterly irrelevant anyway by making same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ a fait accompli irrespective of any constitutional requirements. Read more…
Loading ...
