Tag Archives: Boies and Olson

BREAKING NEWS! – Prop 8 – Perry v Schwarzenengger Trial Verdict To Be Announced TOMORROW! (Wednesday August 4, 2010)

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

From the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The federal court announced today that it will release its decision in the American Foundation for Equal Right’s landmark case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, on Wednesday August 4, 2010, the court will issue its written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law following the court trial held in January and June of this year. The order will be e-filed in the court’s Electronic Case Filing system, and will be immediately available thereafter through ECF and PACER. Visit www.cand.uscourts.gov for details on registering for PACER. There will be no court proceeding associated with the publication of the order.

A small number of hard copies will also be made available for public review shortly after the order is e-filed in the following locations:

San Francisco Courthouse: Clerk’s Office (16th Floor) & Press Room (18th Floor)
Oakland Courthouse: Clerk’s Office
San Jose Courthouse: Clerk’s Office

Here we go kids.  Tomorrow is going to be an exciting day.  I am so excited I’m sick!

Hold me James Franco!  (What?  it’s as good an excuse as any.)

Prop 8 Trials Closing Arguments MIGHT Be Televised.

Uncategorized, , , ,
Olsen and Boies

The San Francisco Chronical reports that Federal judges in the Bay Area are revisiting the question of cameras in the courtroom, and the timing could affect the Prop 8 trial’s closing arguments and could possibly result in it being televised.

“Despite a rebuff from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bay Area’s federal judges are again proposing to allow cameras in their courtrooms, a plan that could lead to telecasting of closing arguments in a suit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The U.S. District Court in San Francisco has posted a rule change on its Web site that would allow its judges to take part in a pilot program of airing selected non-jury civil trials. The public comment period began Feb. 4 and ends next Thursday…If his court approves the new rule next week, Walker could allow camera coverage of the arguments along the lines of his previous order, subject to approval by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Telecasting of lawyers’ arguments, without witness testimony, might pass muster with the Supreme Court, which hasn’t objected to televised hearings of arguments before the Ninth Circuit.”

The final round of briefs in the case are due this Friday, and Walker is to schedule closing arguments once that date arrives.  So lets keep our fingers crossed that this plays out so we can watch Olsen and Boies kick some homophobe ass!

The Prop 8 Trial (Non) Secret That No One Talked About Until Now. – Judge Vaughn Walker Is Gay.

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

Thats right.  Judge Vaughn Walker, the man in charge of deciding the fate of  Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 Trial) is GAY!

This is the biggest NON SECRET of the trial.  Walkers sexual preference was and has been really no secret since well before the trial and it’s only NOW that the media is beggining to pick up on it and report it.  Regardless of the fact that  the Prop 8 case was assigned to Walker at random, and Walker has ruled against gays in cases past.  National Center for Lesbian Rights head Kate Kendell thinks the judge’s sexuality will likely be brought up by Prop 8 supporters should they lose the case, a notion that general counsel for the Prop 8 side Andrew Pugno denies.  But objections to the ruling if the Prop 8 supporters lose because of the judge’s sexuality seem unlikely to get very far legally.  But will be more hyperbole homophobic propaganda.

From SG GATE:

Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to us when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit.

Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.

“Life is full of irony,” the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.

And did he have any concerns about being characterized as gay?

“No comment.”

Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker’s. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that “people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality.”

“He has a private life and he doesn’t conceal it, but doesn’t think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn’t bring it to bear in any decisions,” said the judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the Prop. 8 trial.

“Is it newsworthy?” he said of Walker’s orientation, and laughed. “Yes.”

He said it was hard to ignore the irony that “in the beginning, when (Walker) sought to be a judge, a major obstacle he had to overcome was the perception that he was anti-gay.”

SURPRISE!

—————

6:30 PM – EST UPDATE:

The far-right shit rag The National Review is already calling for Walker to step down. The linked editorial cites Walker’s attempt to have the trial televised, then closes with this:

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial. Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8. Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause. And so on. Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Perry vs. Schwarzenegger – Olsen & Boies ReadyTo Rest Case Monday 1/25/2010

Uncategorized, , ,

Lawyer David Boies tells the Wall Street Journal today that his side will rest their case tomorrow.  After they rest, the religious freak bigots are expected to present a short defense as four of their six witnesses have withdrawn over claims that violent homosexuals will attack their families if they do.

From the WSJ:

“We’re pleased with the way it has gone,” said David Boies, an attorney for the gay couples who want to wed. He said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples. “We’ve proven all three of those,” he said. Judge Vaughn Walker will decide whether the 2008 voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman codified discrimination or protected a legitimate state interest. This is the first federal challenge to state gay-marriage bans. Defense lawyer Andrew Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.

Prop 8 Trial Updates – Opening Statement, Courtroom Tweets, News Outlet Coverage

Uncategorized, ,

The New York Times reports that the trail opened with some sharp words from Judge Vaugh Walker who repeatedly interrupted the opening statements of both Mr. Olson and the lead defense counsel, Charles J. Cooper, admonishing them to provide hard evidence — not just rhetoric.

Ted Levine aka FedCourtJunkie liveTwittered the following from the packed coutroom today and also talks about a little letter war between Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington, D.C. The folks back East asked Kozinski to “consider” conference policy against cameras in the court. Kozinski, who has a turbulent history with Conference oversight (Internet firewalls, anyone?), fired back a missive defending the Ninth Circuit’s power to broadcast.

Associated Press Lisa Leff reports….
Among other things, Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.


“If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?” the judge asked.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who represent two same-sex couples who filed the suit, answered that he did not think such a move would be politically feasible.

“I suspect the people of California would not want to abandon the relationship that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent a tremendous amount of resources describing as important to people, and so important it must be reserved for opposite-sex couples,” he said.

Olson quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s own lofty description of matrimony to demonstrate what his clients were being denied.

“In the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life and of fundamental importance to all individuals,” Olson told a courtroom packed with witnesses, reporters and members of the public…..

Also, in his opening statement Theodore Olson went right after common right-wing arguments against marriage equality:

“And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.”

It was a busy and eventful dayand the rest are sure to be just as full

Today Is The Day When A New Era In Our Fight Begins – Prop 8 Trial Begins And It’s Not Just About California

Uncategorized, , ,

It’s been a long time coming, but today we are FINALLY  be taking the fight for our rights where it belongs, through the Federal Justice System

Today the federal trial on same-sex marriages in California begins and the result of Perry v. Schwarzenegger is expected to affect gay marriage legislation nationwide.  We should all watch this trial very closely, because it not just affects Gay’s and Lesbian marriage rights in California but it affects ALL of us not only because Perry v. Schwarzenegger will ask “ultimate question” of whether we have a federal right to marry, but because the case is alleging that Prop. 8 violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal court decision will have implications for gay Americans in nearly every arena of public life, from housing to parenting to military service. The court is set to consider questions as wide-ranging as what it means to be gay and whether it affects one’s contribution to society. It’s not just marriage rights on trial it’s veing gay itself and where out country holds us in its eyes.  And whatever the decision, good or bad we should be ready to act accordingly.

The stakes are high. If Perry v. Schwarzenegger reaches the Supreme Court and Boies and Olson are successful, gays and lesbians nationwide would not only have the right to marry, we stand to gain many of the legal rights they have sought for decades. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be invalidated, as would employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. In the eyes of the law, gay people would be equal to straight people, and any legislation that discriminated against them could be challenged and easily struck down against this precedent. 

Boies and Olson will be arguing that such discriminatory laws are illegal because that we as gay Americans constitute a “suspect class,” such as racial minorities, religious groups, and foreign-born citizens — who qualify for special protection. Laws that target these groups are immediately “suspect” and have to serve a “compelling state interest”. But even if Boies and Olson are not able to establish a suspect classification, there is a Supreme Court precedent against discriminatory laws whose sole motivation is ill will. (In 1996, the court ruled in Romer v. Evans that a Colorado ban on nondiscrimination ordinances was driven solely by anti-gay sentiment and therefore did not have a rational basis.) That’s why Boies and Olson also plan to show that Prop. 8 was motivated by prejudice and also plan to call to the stand the gay couples involded in the suit, experts on the history of sexual discrimination and marriage, and the architects of the ballot measure itself.

Theodore Olson will make the opening argument and David Boies will examine the first witnesses.

The trail will be braidcast with a time delay on YOUTUBE