Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 10: Part IV Miller continues

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

After twenty minutes of staring at the evidence, Professor Kenneth Miller (M), witness for the defense is ready to answer questions again from David Boies (B).

M: Okay, I’ve looked through it.

B: May counsel approach?

B: What do question marks me?

M: Most of question marks mean I do not remember whether I found these myself or whether counsel showed it to me?

(B and W and are witness stand looking through the notebook with M. They agree and go back to their corners.)

B: Admit deposition.

Judge Walker: PX 749A

B: At the time of your depo, you were not aware of how many of the ten most populous states had laws protecting l and g from discrimination?

M: I did not know how many had statewide laws.

B: When you say statewide, let’s look at your depo. Q: How many of the top ten states do not have discrimination laws? A: I do not know. Was that your testimony?

M: Yes. I should have said that I thought that some of these states might have adoption protections. I just said I did not know.

B: You talk about adoption on p. 190, right? Q. I understand that, but you just told me that there is no statement in which there is no protection for g and l. A: Answer, would include wide range of things including adoption and not sure if any other state has protections that CA has.

No issue that you were talking about statewide laws or not?

M: I should have asked him if he meant statewide.

B: If the question had been how many of the top ten states have no anti-discrimination laws, would you have known the answer?

M: Not at the time of my deposition, no.

B: Looking at demonstrative 33, none was contained in information you relied on, isn’t that correct?

M: Not true.

B: Where are the things you relied upon?

M: Human Rights Campaign.

B: Show me.

M: I’m trying to remember. Maybe it was NGLTF. Should be in the report. Paragraphs 99 of the report. I was going through the HRC website and there’s a link to laws and elections and that’s where I found the information about discrimination as well as adoption rights. Some confusion because HRC map has different colors for different rights.

B: What did you do to resolve that confusion?

M: I attempted to break them out. I can read them out.

B: You don’t have to read these things out. Does it say there is confusion?

M: Reads report.

B: To move things along, you don’t have to read this into the record. Let me try to phrase this in a way that won’t be confusing.

[UPDATE] 3:03

B: Asking if M knows what he is talking about on gay power via elections.

M: I don’t know because it’s difficult to think about either the numerator or denominator with respect to the number of l g who have been elected to office.

B: You know that not one gay or lesbian has ever been elected to statewide office in history?

M: Yes. That’s true.

B: So whatever the denominator is, the numerator is zero (holds up hand and puts hand in shape of zero).

B: Did you ever use the term LGBT in any or your writings or your deposition?

M: I don’t recall.

B: You refer to DADT. Gays and lesbians are still being discharged from the military?

M: Yes, I think it’s less than it was.

B: Is there any other minority that would be dismissed from military that has been discharged from the military for doing a perfectly good job just because somebody discovers their sex?

M: I’m not aware of any.

B: You also mentioned the DOMA. DOMA has not been repealed. Correct?

M: Yes.

B: That would be against LGBT community interests?

M: I would guess that the majority of the LGBT community would like that repealed.

B: You say you guess that. Is it your opinion that the majority of the LGBT community would like that repealed?

M: Yes.

B: Since you are an expert, you are aware that there is a history of discrimination against the lesbian and gay community?

M: Yes.

B: And you are aware that that continued into the 1970s in the era in which you began to study LGBT history?

M: Yes.

B: You used the term gay bashing in your depo. What does that mean?

M: Insults or sometimes physical attacks.

B: When did you discover it was physical attacks also?

M: I have always known that, but think it’s more to do with insults.

B: Reads from depo in which M says that gay bashing does not include physical violence. “Seems like it has a sense of violence to it. The way I have heard it used in conversation it refers more to pejorative attacks rather than physical violence.” Did you give that testimony at your depo?

M: Yes.

B: Depo: “What titles of books and articles can you refer to that ideal with prejudice against minorities?” “None.”

M: There are books that informed me, but they are not solely about prejudice.

B: Do you believe that laws that discriminate against intimate relationships between gays and lesbians is prejudice?

M: I would vote to repeal such laws. I have no idea what good purpose would they would serve.

B: You defined prejudice in your depo, as an unfair judgment. Using definition that way, does law that prohibits ss relations, rise to definition of prejudice?

M: I can’t speak to what was in the minds of lawmakers. If there was no supporting data as to why such laws were passed, I cannot say.

B: Sitting here today, you cannot say that such laws constitute prejudice?

M: Not something I would support, but cannot say if those constitute prejudice.

B: Laws that prohibited sex between gays and lesbians?

M: Yes and there were sodomy laws that prohibited sodomy between anyone before Lawrence v. Texas.

B: How many states had laws that prohibited homosexual sex?

M: Not sure.

B: Gives number.

M: (after considerable back and forth in which Boies tries to get him to answer questions directly, judge orders him to.)

M: Yes, there were several states in which homo sex was illegal.

B: Do you know that there were statutes against hiring homosexuals in many states before WW II?

T: Objection. We are not offering witness as expert on gay and lesbian history. Dr. Chauncey was here for that.

B: Well, counsel has a good point.

(Gales of laughter.

B: That was too easy to resist.

B: Have you ever heard of Prof. Chauncey?

M: No. I heard he was a witness in the trial.

B: Goes through a long list of scholars and scientists on history and political science of LGBT.

M: Has not read any of the work by any of them.

[UPDATE] 3:10

B: Any examples of discrimination against gays and lesbians in modern period?

M: Military.

B: Any others?

M: Private situations about which I cannot opine, but only official discrimination of which I can think is DADT.

B: Is that your definition, official discrimination, that is legally enforced by the state?

M: Yes.

B: Are you aware of any official discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country today other than DADT policy?

M: (Thinking) I’m trying to think of other laws that are official…policies that discriminate on that basis. One thing you are looking at would be DOMA policy.

B: There you go!

M: That’s what you are getting at. The DOMA policy is a differentiation of the treatment between gays and lesbians.

[So the Prop. 8 official and so far only witness just said that DADT and DOMA are “official discrimination.” Thanks, Ron Prentice!]

[UPDATE] 3:22

B: Are there state laws?

M: More ones that do not protect rather than discriminate. Maybe Arkansas that prohibits unmarried couples from adopting.

B: But Arkansas passed law that says g and l cannot marry, so only g and l cannot adopt.

M: Yes, that is true.

B: What about what you call “private discrimination?”

M: There are instances of discrimination between and among people and gays and lesbians have recourse through administrative and judicial proceedings.

B: Are you familiar with the Williams Institute?

M: Yes.

B: What do they do?

M: Research and find funding for research on LGBT rights.

B: Testimony here of R. Bradley Sears before House judiciary committee.

B: Have you ever read this?

M: No.

B: Do you know who R. Bradley Sears is?

M: No.

B: Reads Sears testimony to House: based on research ‘there is widespread and consistent pattern of discrimination against LGBT people for federal jobs. Same for state and companies. Instances far exceed instances listed. Do you agree?

M: I have not done research in this area so I have no basis on which to form an opinion.

B: Report on bottom of first page substantially same as what Mr. Sears told the Congress.

M: Appears to be substantially the same.

B: Have you ever read this?

M: No.

B: Reads, “Courts and others have concluded that discrimination is not based on job performance.”

T: Object. Outside of scope.

B: He says that there is political power.

J: In same vain as videos. Meant to get reaction. Overruled.

M: I can’t think of any examples that would give me any objection to this statement

[UPDATE] 3:35

B: You compare the political power of gays and lesbians today with that of AA. Which minority do you believe has greater political power? First nationally? Then CA.

M: Somewhat difficult to make these comparisons. We have to define what we mean by power.

B: That’s what you were testifying to!

M: The ability to attract attention of lawmakers.

B: Using political power as you defined it, which?

M: Somewhat difficult to say.

B: Yes, no, I don’t know.

M: I’d have to say I don’t know. I’d have to think about it some more.

B: California?

M: Compared to national level?

B: I’m not asking you to compare to national level. I’m asking you in California.

M: Closer call.

B: That means you don’t know?

M: Complex analysis.

B: You have not made that analysis?

M: Difficult to make comparisons.

B: You would need to do more analysis before you answer my question?

M: I would need to do more analysis to understand the resources that AA bring to bear. I think I can say that AA are not powerless.

B: I understand in your official testimony that you said both communities have political power. You are saying that there is not that much difference nationally, correct?

M: Yes.

B: And in California?

M: Difficult to say.

B: Could you tell us which if you had done enough work, a comparable amount of work on g and l as AA?

M: Yes.

B: In your academic work, you have done more work around AA than g and l?

M: Yes, but I have done more work on ballot measures on g and l.

B: You have said that Prop. 8 and 22 did not pass even with the political power of g and l community?

M: Yes. I ‘m glad I’m not the only one who makes that mistake (about passing v. not).

B: Given the amount of power that the g and l community has, I was almost ready to believe that Prop. 8 had failed!

(Laughter)

[This guy either has the best anti-perspirant on the planet or he is one big wet mess under that jacket.]

[UPDATE]

B: Reads from article by M in late 2004 or early 2005 about recall election.

M: Sometime in 2004 after 2003 recall.

B: You mention that you were a lawyer and you wrote an article for the law review.

M: Yes.

Judge Walker: Break until ten minutes before the hour.

[NOTE] Following the break I started a new thread.

Tags: , ,

259 Comments

  • 1. Jared  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Duh.. errr.. uhhh… i dunno

  • 2. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:45 am

    I can hear the condescending tone in his voice

  • 3. Yann  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:46 am

    I think I'm going to start calling myself an "expert" a lot more frequently now…

    "Yeah, I'm an expert in martial arts" (translation: I've seen The Karate Kid)

    "Sure, I'm an expert in divorce laws!" (Tranlation: I cried during Kramer vs. Kramer)

    Love,

    Yann

  • 4. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Whose scratching their fingernails on that chalkboard?

    This is painful. And it's painfully obvious their "expert" hasn't actually looked into successes or failures of the gay and lesbian community with regard to the political process.

  • 5. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:46 am

    If I had ever seen testimony on television or film like this I would have thought the writers were insane to think we could believe this would happen…and yet here it is. IN REAL LIFE…right before our eyes.

    It's a sad day for the defense.

  • 6. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Who's — not whose. D'oh.

  • 7. Ann S.  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:47 am

    No, I'll bet Boies is trying very hard not to sound condescending. That's how I imagine it, anyway — like trying to patiently and carefully lead a little kid through a hard lesson. After all, if he gives this guy enough rope . . .

  • 8. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:48 am

    This is another reason why not putting this up on Youtube was a tragedy

  • 9. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:49 am

    And now we know why the DI's witnesses decided they had other things to do….

  • 10. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Sure I can do your hair girl…I watched Beauty Shop…..

  • 11. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:52 am

    I can be the Judge, I have a robe!

  • 12. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Don't forget now you're an expert on communication techniques in the 21st century! (aka, you posted on a blog once or twice)

  • 13. Jhar  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:53 am

    David Boies is my hero.

  • 14. Ravyn  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Really! I can not believe they actually put Miller up as a witness. Not that I am upset..just that much better for the GLBT community.

  • 15. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:53 am

    This witness might need some serious professional help after this is over with. He may even need to sue the defense for putting him up to it.

  • 16. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    When/Where can we buy posters?

  • 17. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    "Let me try to phrase this in a way that won’t be confusing. "

    Hahah!

  • 18. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    emotional distress?

  • 19. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda!……..Is this guy serious? Expert my @$$!

    And he put question marks because he doesn't know if he found it or the lawyers did?

    UMMMM!……couldn't that be a sign that he is trying not to purger himself?…….I don't know…… This guy is just opening himself up to all sorts of SNL skits.

  • 20. Laura Kanter  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Rick. How can you sit there and not want to jump out of your seat and do something violent to Miller? You should see the tweets from the other side.

  • 21. Meredith  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I want to know the numbers!! How many sources did he find himself??

  • 22. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    is it me or are many of the whitnesses frequently stating "the internet" as their source of information? (predominantly the other side while our whitnesses seem to actually read scientific papers)
    I mean honestly I've learnd from school that internet is not a very reliable source…
    at least one should have something that has been peer reviewed

  • 23. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:55 am

    stigmatization!

  • 24. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Take that one step further…

    …THIS is the BEST they could come UP with.

    I mean, they probably interviewed a TON of potential witnesses, and THIS is the best they got?

    The anti-gay attorneys are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO out-educated in this case, I almost wonder if this trial is make-believe.

  • 25. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:55 am

    It does shed a lot of light on the credibility of this "Expert Witness", since he has to look everthing up.
    Love,
    David

  • 26. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:56 am

    same here

  • 27. The Boys' Trave  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:56 am

    "Let me try to phrase this in a way that won’t be confusing."

    That is the richest sort of condescendsion

  • 28. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:56 am

    0

  • 29. M.E. Graves  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:56 am

    twenty minutes for him to say, "I don't know?" These are the people who managed to take away our rights? Seriously? SRSLY?!?

  • 30. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:56 am

    B:…"Let me try to phrase this in a way that won’t be confusing. " Prof. Miller, is your name Prof. Miller?

    M: I don't know.

    That's right,. At this point, this joker can't even testify with any certainty as to what his own name is.

    You go, Boies!!

  • 31. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Hey need a doctor girl I watch ER….

  • 32. randompro42  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:57 am

    You mean Wikipedia is not a reliable source? There goes half my dissertation…

    TRO

  • 33. Ben  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:58 am

    <blockquote cite="I was going through the HRC website and there’s a link to laws and elections and that’s where I found the information about discrimination as well as adoption rights. Some confusion because HRC map has different colors for different rights.">

    So, since I can go online and read all about the politics of Uzbekistan, even if I find it confusing (hey, I can't even read Uzbek), I too can be an "expert?" Who said you actually had to UNDERSTAND things to be an expert on them?

  • 34. sugarbritches  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:58 am

    It's fairly telling that this is about all the defense could scrape up for witnesses. Not a lot of objective thinking going on that would be favorable to them.

  • 35. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:58 am

    " Ann S. | January 25, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    No, I’ll bet Boies is trying very hard not to sound condescending. That’s how I imagine it, anyway — like trying to patiently and carefully lead a little kid through a hard lesson. After all, if he gives this guy enough rope . . "

  • 36. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:59 am

    tom-foolery?

  • 37. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:59 am

    You can't fix stupid!

  • 38. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Any chance they can get Ed Begley Jr. to play David Boies in the reenactment? He had him down rather well in Recount.

  • 39. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    I am struck at the fact that they are using information gleaned from the HRC website, which is trying to show all of its successes in order to get people to donate money. The HRC website does not have a column for "losses" or "things we tried to do but didn't have enough political power for."

  • 40. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    "I'm an expert at cooking" (translation: I watch Rachel Ray)
    "I'm an expert at plastic surgery" (translation: I watch nip/tuck and I'm myspace friends with Heidi Montauk)

  • 41. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    *loool* poor you, I pity you now you have to write everything again ;D
    He's not even citing wikipedia but some homepage. i mean one way or the other, homepages of organisations are biased by definition….

  • 42. Calvin  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Law & Order witnesses are ALWAYS better prepped. Especially expert witnesses. I'm guessing that the Proponents didn't watch any episodes to prepare….shame, I bet it would have helped.

  • 43. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    apparently a 6 inch piece of dental floss is enough here…

  • 44. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    btw, I was talking about the defense, not the witness. I actually pity this guy. He got setup by the defense.

  • 45. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    irreconcilable differences

  • 46. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:01 am

    I absolutely had the same thought. He visited the website but has no idea what they mean, so he's trying to read from the paper rather than explain what it means. that's why he can't answer the question.

  • 47. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Need a new Gynecologist ??? I looked at a Playboy once..

  • 48. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:02 am

    yeah, I have seen enough shows on Medicine, therefore, I am a doctor!
    Love,
    David

  • 49. Carl E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Well, they did kind of have to 'self select' for ineptness. Pretty much anyone in acedemia worth their salt wouldn't be willing to testify for a side trying to support an argument with, well, what? Feelings and innuendo? Fundie rhetoric and ignorance? Who would be willing to do that?

  • 50. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I have a theory.

    The defense put this joker up to overwhelm us with incredulity and bait us all into trashing him and their whole side so they can claim that we're bad people discriminating against them. Yeah?

  • 51. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I still can't get over the fact that their "expert" said that gays have power because they would be able to prevent a law that takes away domestic partnership.

    "But we'd take it away if we could!!"

  • 52. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Well I saw it someplace out in the beyond you know…the internet…LMAO

  • 53. Laura Kanter  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

    First it seemed that they wanted to prove how many dems voted for prop 8, then they wanted to prove how many dems vs. how many repubs in Calif. to demonstrate LGBT political power. They are total hypocrites. They are ridiculous.

  • 54. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Right on point, Abbe.

  • 55. Ann S.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

    LOL, Bill!

  • 56. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

    It's so rich that they say we're attacking Miller "personally." As if questioning an expert's credibility on the topic s/he's supposed to be expert in is a "gotcha moment" or something.

    **Deep sigh.**

    Now, Prop 8 (and all those videos this morning)–THAT'S what I'd call a personal attack…on US!

  • 57. randompro42  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Hey – I was doing well with my topic

    "The Denegration of Expert Witnesses as a Result of the Internet."

    But now that I know that the Internet and Wikipedia are not reliable sources, that changes my whole outlook.

    TRO

  • 58. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Maybe he will get out blocks to help him demonstrate…

  • 59. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    I almost got for an "F" on my american history paper for citing wikipedia….but if William Tam and these "professionals" can then why can't I…….

    "Double Standard!"……..move to strike!

  • 60. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Yeppers, that's for sure!

  • 61. bJason  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    I am imagining a conversation between Mr. and Mrs. Boies this evening….

    Mrs. (upon Mr. entering): Hello, dear. How was your day?

    Mr.: Fantastic, and yours?

    Mrs.: Just fine, thanks. Are you hungry?

    Mr.: No, dear… I've eaten already.

  • 62. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    M: I would guess that the majority of the LGBT community would like that repealed.

    DOH!

  • 63. Calvin  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    The only problem is that they're already playing the victims. All of us big bad homos are attacking their religious freedom by wanting our own freedoms. I think the truth is that, as the Plantiffs have stated, there is NO LOGICAL REASON to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. So now they're just making stuff up.

  • 64. Ben  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Exactly. The point that one of the REAL experts made last week was that if you were studying the causes of war, you study not just those times that war started, but those instances where it didn't as well.

  • 65. Calvin  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:06 am

    haha I tweeted that exact response to ADF Media 😛

  • 66. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:06 am

    yeah maybe Rick is making things up to spare our feelings cause th other side has some unbreakable evidence that Gays are just some recruiting vamipires engaged in all sorts of poligamy and child molesting activity but have a lot of political power to keep this hidden and prop8 in a heroic act is unveiling it…
    Or maybe they just couldn't FIND any competent whitness cause THERE IS NONE…. :)

  • 67. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:06 am

    The conversation at the Millers' house will be similar, except that Mr. Miller's appetite will have been dulled by eating crow…

  • 68. Jane  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:07 am

    I read it on the internet, so it must be true!

    Is this the new "twinkie defense"?

  • 69. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:07 am

    "Big Bad Homo"–that'd make an excellent T-shirt, I'm thinking

  • 70. Laura Kanter  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:08 am

    I don't mean to be repetitive, but if any of you have a moment to see what is being tweeted, especially by defense side, it is a pretty interesting perspective. It may also make your blood boil. This list of tweets has both sides… http://twitter.com/#list/nobackseats/prop-8-fed-t

  • 71. Laura Kanter  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

    exactly!

  • 72. Flewellyn  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

    My schaden is seriously freuding here.

  • 73. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

    WTF makes him an expert again? I feel confused.

  • 74. Meredith  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Bursted out laughing at that one!!

  • 75. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:10 am

    And WTF was his expertise in? Japanese origami? Rock, paper, scissors? Shadow puppets?

    Get this clown off the stand!

  • 76. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:11 am

    "Some violent attacks?"

    This guy needs to be zha zhaed!

  • 77. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:11 am

    I really believed we were going to get better than this from the defense.

  • 78. M.E. Graves  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:12 am

    M: (Thinking) I’m trying to think of other laws that are official…policies that discriminate on that basis. One thing you are looking at would be DOMA policy.
    B: There you go!
    M: That’s what you are getting at. The DOMA policy is a differentiation of the treatment between gays and lesbians.

    Jesus Barbara Elizabeth Christ. I am so glad I'm at home alone right now because I have had to start beating my head against the wall.

  • 79. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:13 am

    B: Goes through a long list of scholars and scientists on history and political science of LGBT.
    M: Has not read any of the work by any of them.
    Excuse for saying this, but exactly what does this guy know?

  • 80. M.E. Graves  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Sorry, do not think I meant for this comment to go here.

  • 81. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:13 am

    B: Goes through a long list of scholars and scientists on history and political science of LGBT.
    M: Has not read any of the work by any of them.

    This is their "expert"????????????????

  • 82. Calvin  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:14 am

    haha lmao

  • 83. M.E. Graves  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:14 am

    No, keep him on. I beg you, please, keep him on.

  • 84. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:14 am

    rofl

  • 85. Brian  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:15 am

    B: Mr "Expert", allow me to hand you your ass…

  • 86. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Boies is on a Killing Spree

    "OWNAGE" (in a deep bass voice)

  • 87. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I am most amused by Boies' use of "Since you're an expert…".

  • 88. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Not to sound demeaning, but this downright embarassing for the Prop8 side.
    Love,
    David

  • 89. Jan  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I wonder when Miller will cry "Uncle!"

  • 90. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:16 am

    M: (Thinking) I’m trying to think of other laws that are official…policies that discriminate on that basis. One thing you are looking at would be DOMA policy.

    This guy's career just ended.

  • 91. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Yeah, you gotta love the irony! I don't think I have laughed this hard in a long times, so yes, please…keep him on!

  • 92. PM, in the UK  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:18 am

    B: Are you aware of any official discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country today other than DADT policy?
    M: (Thinking) I’m trying to think of other laws that are official…policies that discriminate on that basis. One thing you are looking at would be DOMA policy.
    B: There you go!

    Assuming he's not a virulent homophobe – which I don't think he is at all from this coverage – some one needs to give Professor Miller a pity hug.
    Also; milk & cookies.
    Maybe a No H8 badge too…

  • 93. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:18 am

    I can think of some policies: One school told a gay student he can't bring his boyfriend to prom, another student who is a lesbian could not wear a men's suit for school pictures, another student who is willing going though the transexual process was told that he/to become she, was violating dress codes……Do some research mister expert!

  • 94. MordacP  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

    An "expert" who hasn't read any of the experts who have written papers and books?

    Where do they get these witnesses?

    This isn't going well for the Prop 8 supporters.

  • 95. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

    because William Tam is unavailable!

  • 96. Jason  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Where did they get this guy? Craigslist?

  • 97. M S  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Jesus Barbara Elizabeth Christ.

    OMG, that's my new favorite. I no longer have to decide whether the H. stands for "Hiram" or "Hernandez"!

  • 98. jerek  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:20 am

    He's clearly getting sodomized on the stand!

  • 99. Jhar  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Proposition 8's own "EXPERT WITNESS" testifies in Federal Court that DADT and DOMA are "Official Discrimination."

    Shouldn't they just throw in the towel now?

  • 100. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Appropos of nothing, glad to see you over here, L8R_G8R.

  • 101. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

    He's a test subject at the "For Dummies" publishing house.

  • 102. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    I am sitting in my room sceeming *Fuck* *Oh my God* *is he really serious* *OH MY GOD* *fuck*
    i scream at my screen 😀 hands covering my mouth. breath going fast so not to lose it at the sight of such lack of expertice and simple knowledge. Heart rate up, eyes staring unbelieving at the screen. I could be a better whittness (ok I could not but equally bad :D)
    breathing throough my hands, shocked (in an amused way) and disbelieving….

  • 103. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Not to insult their intelligence, but don't tell them that. They think this guy is the best witness ever, he's their smoking gun.

    They don't realize that it's pointed at them though.

  • 104. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    He's being presented as an expert of lesbian & gay political power, and yet has no knowledge of their political power. Sigh. Did it not occur to him to cram before the deposition?

  • 105. Jane  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    He's obviously forgotten that just a few years ago, there were NO laws against same-sex marriage — groups only started passing them when they all realized there's really NO reason that we should be able to get married.

  • 106. l8r_g8r  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    He said "The DOMA policy is a differentiation of the treatment between gays and lesbians."

    I think he thinks that by saying that instead of saying "DOMA is discrimination" he's saying something different.

    Nope. Means the same thing.

    Discrimination: Different treatment of a class of persons.

    Duh…

  • 107. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Wikipedia (like the encyclopedia) is valuable only for pointing you toward primary sources (those listings at the end). "The Internet," without the actual link for source material and evaluation if bias is about as valid as "what some bloke down the pub said."

  • 108. paulo  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

    As my grandfather often told me when I tried to bluff my way into looking smarter than I was: Son I am not as stupid as a stone but you are beginning to make the stone look smart.

    Can our side pay Miller for this? LoL

  • 109. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

    I LOL'd at work at that one!

  • 110. Lisa  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

    They should have done that long ago. Pre-trial even. But then we would have missed out on all this.

    *snicker*

  • 111. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

    B: Are you aware of any official discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country today other than DADT policy?

    M: (Thinking) I’m trying to think of other laws that are official…policies that discriminate on that basis. One thing you are looking at would be DOMA policy.

    B: There you go!
    http://www.sadtrombone.com/

  • 112. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    any guesses on what Pugno's blog is going to say tomorrow?

  • 113. bJason  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Barb is my hero!

  • 114. Jerry  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I have to wonder how much the mighty dollar has to do with Prop 8 and all the groups (like NOM, Focus, etc.) that attack the LGBT community. It creates jobs for them. They tell people that can't think for themselves that we're horrible. That generates dollars that they pay themselves with. They then create more lies and create more vitriol to generate more money for themselves.

    When we win, I wonder who the next target will be?

  • 115. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I like that.

    he seems seriously malinformed, as so many others who currently supprot prop8 and similar things and view points. so here's our challenge: go and get these people informed!

  • 116. Pearl  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Oh this is just so delicious!

  • 117. Jane  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Amazing!!!!! More zing than normal! "There you go!"

  • 118. Johnathan Fii  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Freakin' pwned…
    I cannot believe they'd offer Miller up. I almost feel sorry for the guy – I figure he probably has this deer-in-the-headlights look on his face up on the stand.

    Love,

    Johnathan

  • 119. Ozymandias  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    [So the Prop. 8 official and so far only witness just said that DADT and DOMA are “official discrimination.” Thanks, Ron Prentice!]

    Holy crap… he DID say that! It's in the official record!!! *mind boggles*

    The defense witness is testifying that DADT and DOMA are in fact, state-sponsored discrimination!

    Now it seems to me that Boise is leading our 'Expert' toward an inescapable conclusion – that since DADT and DOMA are examples of state-sponsored discrimination, and 'the DOMA policy is a differentiation of the treatment between gays and lesbians' how can Prop 8 be counted as anything else? *crosses fingers*

  • 120. Lisa  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Well, it's not as bad as it was with Dr. Tam but still…

    SRSLY???

  • 121. Charles  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    M: That’s what you are getting at. The DOMA policy is a differentiation of the treatment between gays and lesbians.

    [So the Prop. 8 official and so far only witness just said that DADT and DOMA are “official discrimination.” Thanks, Ron Prentice!]

    OMG I just can't stop laughing. Honestly, I'm laughing s fucking hard. That's so RICH. I mean what the fuck, right? This guy is either completely insane either completely stupid, or most likely both.

    I can just imagine the drinding of teeth in the DIs camp…

  • 122. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    eBay. "Would not buy again."

  • 123. Ozymandias  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Oh, and –

    Love,

    Ozy

  • 124. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I want to high-five Boies right now!

  • 125. MordacP  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    And he's supposed to be their number one expert.

    Hi Ray. Fellow Bakersfield resident here (I read the Californian blogs).

  • 126. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Probably a little hype about their questions to Miller, but nothing on the cross examination

  • 127. Anne in Tennessee  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Yeah, what's with all those quotation marks around GLBT, gay and so forth? Is the ADF quoting someone?

  • 128. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

    I DID notice that, but I failed to see that it's actually their "expert" saying this!!! I guess I was so opposed to the idea of him being an expert that i failed to see that he was presented as one:) let's see what comes in the redirect..

  • 129. Andrea  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:27 am

    "Activist judges just had our attorneys disbarred."

  • 130. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Yeah…the difficulty with being all exultant about the witness being a dolt is that — remember? — the H8ers got TV coverage blocked, so they fully control what their minions and followers believe about what is being said by whom and in what way. Think about the eventual consequences.

  • 131. Colt  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Miller is so pathetic it's almost sad … LOVING the hilarious comments on here! :)

  • 132. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:28 am

    PLEASE Rick, give us some comment about the voices and looks of the people in court! I wanna have pictures on that!

  • 133. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Question: What is the sound of one career ending?

    Answer: "B: There you go!"

  • 134. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:28 am

    +10

  • 135. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:29 am

    I want to have his children!!!!!

  • 136. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    They can redouble their efforts against atheists and scientists (and, especially, atheist scientists).

  • 137. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    My exact thought. Miller's career is OVER.

  • 138. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    OMG!!! I'm a lesbian who wants to marry attorney Boies… I'm freaking out! I LOVE this man!!

    Boies! Boies!
    Boies! Boies! Boies!

    YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!

    This moment has completely lifted my mood into the stratosphere – and I'm both PMSing AND pissed that the Vikings AND Jets lost yesterday! It's a miracle. I'm founding a new church where Boies is the deity.

    I love me some Boies!!

  • 139. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Can you imagine what this would have looked like on television…with commentators?

  • 140. Michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Nah… he has TENURE
    woo

  • 141. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    You know, I agree with you. He's being thrown under the bus … and I think he knows it.

  • 142. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I saw him first, you huzzy!. Wait. You get Boies and I'll take Ted Olsen. Olsen's my *exact* cup of tea.

  • 143. Marlene Bomer  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:32 am

    I'm not a psychiatrist, but I worked at a Holiday Inn Express…

    >chortles<

  • 144. PM, in the UK  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:32 am

    To be honest, the vibe I'm getting from this & what little I could find about the professor online is that Miller is just seriously not invested in the case at all.

    From my vantage point, it looks like he is (was?) just happy to get his day in court on such a big case – and why not?
    That's a big'un for your CV and references!

    Not so much a defense witness, as an academic who was willing to show up.
    He just seems so happy to go along with everything that's said to him, regardless of which side is asking.

  • 145. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:32 am

    @Anne: back in my days as a newspaper editor, we referred to those as sarcasti-quotes. They're meant to indicate pretty much the opposite of what is enclosed in them. For instance, when someone on the Prop 8 side refers to gay "marriage" … they are saying it isn't really marriage. There are a whole lot of folks who think that no one is really GLBT, but just choosing a lifestyle … hence "gay."

    Absurd, obviously … but there you go.

  • 146. bJason  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:32 am

    B: Do you believe that laws that discriminate against intimate relationships between gays and lesbians is prejudice?
    M: I would vote to repeal such laws. I have no idea what good purpose would they would serve.

    You guys are making this up, right?

  • 147. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    This is like the Couric-Palin interview.

  • 148. pearlheartgtr  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    I'm thinking MST3K over here.

  • 149. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    I'm an expert on cancer, I've looked it up in the internet! (THE source where the defens-whitnesses seems to get their expertice from)

  • 150. Devon  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    I honestly can't believe the defendants didn't put more effort into the "defense".

    It's honestly laughable the people they've had here on the stand.

  • 151. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Done! And it's SHAMELESS Huzzy to you, sir! :) LOL

  • 152. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    I want what Happy is drinking!

    You are so correct though, this guy is a phenom. Never heard of him before all this started…

    I want a Boies T-Shirt. The next lesbian rage!

  • 153. Chris  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I can't believe he really said that.

    I would hate to be put on cross against Boies. I'm not very familiar with legal work but this is ridiculous.

  • 154. pearlheartgtr  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    It's one of those things where you just can't make this sh!t up.

  • 155. Chana  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I fear that the kind of thing he said during Thompson's examination, though, is just the kind of thing that the Supreme Court will buy. (Has this occurred to anyone-it's starting to worry me. We all keep saying that Olson has won so many Supreme Court cases-but maybe that's because he's always on the winning (conservative) side? He's clearly a brilliant lawyer, but before any case comes to the Supreme court it's pretty well accepted that he conservative side will win. Not clear how he can swing that this time).

    OTOH-ohmigod. I am an academic. I am a limited expert on one small topic-and for that topic, I would not ever have to look at some website, and I would be seriously ashamed not to remember which sources I had found myself and which not. Sources are like kids. If you work with them enough, you should remember their names. If my dissertation defense had gone like this, I woulda failed. Hands down. This is a court of LAW??

  • 156. MordacP  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    And that's exactly why Prop 8 wanted to keep it out of the public eye.

  • 157. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:34 am

    M-M-M-MULTIKILL

  • 158. Tom B.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I'll do you one better!

    <a> http://www.pacdudegames.com/fail/

  • 159. Anne in Tennessee  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Can't wait to catch up on this tomorrow. It's quittin' time here in the Southland….

  • 160. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:35 am

    In the end they still get their paycheck, so I don't think they care if the win or lose.

  • 161. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Sure, but reënactments are easily dismissed by the willfully ignorant as propaganda unfaithful to the actual proceedings.

  • 162. Steve  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:37 am

    In addition to thanking Mr. Boies, we should also send thank-you cards to Mr. Thompson, for picking such an unqualified "expert", and then for preparing him so badly.

  • 163. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:37 am

    M: Somewhat difficult to make these comparisons. We have to define what we mean by power.
    B: That’s what you were testifying to!

    Very rich!

  • 164. Gregus  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:38 am

    First – Rick – awesome job! Seriously.

    Second – loving reading this. Sounds like this 'witness' is just getting killed up there.

    Third – anyone have any insight into why Maggie Gallagher Srivastav (I prefer to use her full name, she prefers not to), or Brian Brown were not called to this trial?

  • 165. aaron  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:38 am

    would someone please make a movie of this trial.

  • 166. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:39 am

    I would hope that after this hilarious drubbing in court, the anti-LGBTs would understand the power of science to irrefutably discredit bullshit, but that assumes that they can see anything past the end of their noses.

  • 167. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:39 am

    B: You used the term gay bashing in your depo. What does that mean?

    M: Insults or sometimes physical attacks.

    B: When did you discover it was physical attacks also?

    M: I have always known that, but think it’s more to do with insults.

    –> he really DOES believe that, doesn't he?

  • 168. Lisa  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Boies: So how come Prop 8 passed when LGBT have as much power as you say?

    Thank you! I was waiting for that.

  • 169. Sara  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Someone IS making a movie of this trial 😉 http://marriagetrial.com/

  • 170. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

    And how is this guy an expert on LGBT history he hasn't read anything?…..my 13 year old heterosexual male cousin knows more about LGBT history then this guy.

  • 171. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

    The more this goes on, the more It just keeps getting worse. He now knows nothing!

  • 172. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

    My Cousin Vinny 2: Uncle Dave

  • 173. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

    yeah, PLEASE!!!
    ANY movie-makers around here? directors? writers?

  • 174. Marlene Bomer  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Yeah — Like throwing transfolk under the bus in trying to pass DOMA, for instance!

  • 175. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Boies T-shirt slogun:

    Lesbians Love Boies (hoping his name is pronounced like "boys." If not, I guess it really doesn't work) :-/

  • 176. Rachel  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Much as I'm loving all this, and much as I wish, wish, wish this was up on Youtube, I can't help but think that the bad guys have one advantage that outweighs everything Boies is doing. Four justices on the Supreme Court are flat out ideologues against us, and the deciding vote may let his own prejudices overrule reason.

    As good as Boies is, we've got an awful lot of eggs in this one basket.

  • 177. James  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Actually, I believe that they think Blakenthorn is their smoking gun. But based on Boise' performance today, he's going to get ripped apart, too.

    *is imagining the scene from Jurassic Park where they lower the cow (Expert Witness) into the raptor's cage (David Boise)*

  • 178. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

    MIller: Well how did I do up there?
    Thompson: Great job, just don't read the internet, blogs or newspapers four about 15 years!

  • 179. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Nice. Bookmarked.

  • 180. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Damn, this is brutal. Can we stop and let Little Kenny Miller get an ice pack?

  • 181. hearsay  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:44 am

    waitaminute… Miller doesn't know if AA's have more political power (attract attention) than L and G?? The president is AA… I was starting to feel sorry for Miller but he's just being a weasel now.

  • 182. Tavin  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Is it wrong of me to derive some sort of salacious glee from the cross-examination? Because I'm finding that's exactly what's happening…

  • 183. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Just hope you never get into an argument with him.

    Partner: You never take out the trash!
    Boies: Do you have the documented dates that you took out the trash, and can you prove that I never took it out?
    Partner: No, but..
    Boies (Interrupts): so there is no substantial evidence to back up your claim that I never take out the trash? Well I can verify that I saw our neighbor, Mr. White, just a few weeks ago when I took it out. Since I took out the trash at least once, can you still say that I never take out the trash?

  • 184. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Miller is a lawyer?

  • 185. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:46 am

    "I think I can say that AA are not powerless."
    So he says AA are not powerless, neither are LGBT so we can conclude that groups that HE thinks are not powerless can still be a suspect class? (did I spell that correct?…) since AA's are…

  • 186. hearsay  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:46 am

    He should go somewhere down south to a redneck bar and say he's gay. Nothing to worry about, right? They'll just insult him, right? Sticks and stones…

  • 187. Jane  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:47 am

    did he get his degree off the internet?????

  • 188. Colt  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Me too! :)

  • 189. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Lol, I'VE read more scientific paper on the subject than he did 😀

  • 190. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:48 am

    right

  • 191. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:48 am

    I don't know…… I don't know……. I don't know…… I don't know……

    Well WHAT THE FU<K! DO YOU KNOW….. Mr. Miller?

    OMG I have headache!

  • 192. Laura Kanter  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Miller "Harvey who?"

  • 193. Charles  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I have a legal question:

    After this trial, what happens? Ether side appeals, of coure, but what happens on appeals?

    Does every expert and witness come back to do it all over again? Do they have to bring new experts?

  • 194. pearlheartgtr  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:49 am

    and printed it up on his home printer.

  • 195. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    http://twitter.com/ADFMedia

    They "forgot" to mention the part where the witness said DADT and DOMA discriminated against G&L

  • 196. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    ROFLMAO!!

  • 197. Kate  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Well, there are also the official court transcripts:
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea

  • 198. Dolores Cordell  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Jerry: When we win, I wonder who the next target will be?

    You've got it right, Jerry. They will always find a target. Think about it: Conservatives (really Reactionaries) have lost on: 1) Slavery 2) Universal male franchise 3) Poll taxes 4) Women's franchise 5) child labor 6) 40 hour work week 7) contraceptives 8) miscegination. And more and more and more.

    The Cons have pretty much always lost in the VERY long run. Having lost on every other stupid idea, now they are taking a virulent stands against those with the least political voice, e.g. the poor, pregnant women, and people who don't screw the way they claim to.

    Bullies and hypocrites, one and all.

    I'd like to say that if they loose the SS marriage and abortion issues that they will finally be so discredited that they will slink away in shame. But these folks will always find something on which to blame the deficiencies in their own lives.

    PS: I'm a 62 year old straight lawyer with 2 grown kids. Hardly a symbol of radicalism!!! (Unless living in the Bay Area counts :) )

  • 199. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Sure, why not. If he's an "expert" with these credentials, then he's probably a lawyer, a doctor, a pastry chef, a dog groomer, a woman, a pleasant day, and a delightful but uncompromising hairdresser.

  • 200. pearlheartgtr  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Reminds me of the Bill Cosby 'Himself' show when he talks about the kids, "I don't know!"

  • 201. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

    The next phase does not include witnesses. All of the depositions and transcripts are used with the lawyers making arguments as needed.

  • 202. Holcombe  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:52 am

    so, so good. mmm.

  • 203. Happy  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:53 am

    For Boies, I would take out the trash. Case closed. :)

  • 204. Ziad  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:55 am

    We gotta stop mocking the guy lol … it's getting intense 😛

    Let's applaud our lawyers more

    "clap"

  • 205. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:55 am

    What's so OBVIOUS about ADF's tweets is how FEW there are since virtually NOTHING Miller has said has been of benefit to the defense.

  • 206. Caleb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:55 am

    "Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake."

    -Sun Tzu

  • 207. Tom B.  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:56 am

    B: Is that your definition, official discrimination, that is legally enforced by the state?

    M: Yes.

    B: Are you aware of any official discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country today other than DADT policy?

    M: (Thinking) I’m trying to think of other laws that are official…policies that discriminate on that basis. One thing you are looking at would be DOMA policy.

    B: There you go!

    <a> http://www.pacdudegames.com/fail/

  • 208. Ray Harwick  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:56 am

    CLAP = C
    STANDING OVATION = SO

    CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

    SOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSO

  • 209. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:57 am

    LMAO

  • 210. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I think so too :) I'd get one for my friend 😀

  • 211. Lisa  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:58 am

    It is pronounced "boys". Yay!

    Sources: Rachel Maddow's interview. I rely on the Rachel Maddow Show. And it's on the internet.

  • 212. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:59 am

    From Firedoglake, some of the testimony before the break that was not noted here, due to the sound issues I suppose:

    B: Now, despite all these allies you discussed — your honor, may I approach?
    Walker: Yes
    (gives Miller a brand new binder!)

    B: Look at third volume, Tab 90 PX2865.
    M: okay
    B: Can you identify this?
    M: An article I wrote for the journal of american politics research.
    B: when?
    M: shortly after teh gray david recall, so after 2003.
    B: first page under the title, it says 2005?
    M: it says 2 March 2005 — oh, i’m looking at the next page
    B; You are more precise
    M: But written several months before that
    B: LOok at page 138, second sentence, first full graf: "Sometimes called lawmaking without goernment, the initiative process radically departs from MAdisonian ideals by substituting represnetation for direct democracy." You wrote that?
    M: Yes
    B: In 2003?
    M: Well I probably wrote it in 2004, before it was published.

    B: You menitoned publication in law reviews?
    M: Yes
    B: Turn to tab 35, PX2865, Volume 2, Miller book

    Walker: When would be good time to take a break?
    Boies: THIS WOULD, your honor.

    Walker: We’llcome back at ten minutes before the hour.

  • 213. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:59 am

    B: Reads from article by M in late 2004 or early 2005 about recall election.

    M: Sometime in 2004 after 2003 recall.

    B: You mention that you were a lawyer and you wrote an article for the law review.

    M: Yes.

  • 214. Urbain  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I can't wait until the ProtectMarriage spin — For sure, there will be something about the brilliance of the testimony that was based on facts, not "feelings."

    Love,
    Urbain

  • 215. JonInSF  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:02 am

    I have to admit, I'm concerned. The defense expert testimony — and I really have to feel sorry for Dr. Miller, but he chose to side with demons, so… — is pretty week but apparently the Yes8'ers have a mighty spin in progress. (I have not read any; I do not want to sink like them into an eliminationist mindset.). This sort of testony… hell, this entire CASE should be monumental, a capstone of the American justice system. And yet it is not.

    Moreover I do not like the thesis of the plaintiffs. It is shaky and mutable, and it relies less on facts and more on getting someone to agree with a number of easily contestible statements. Rationally, the case is going swimmingly for those who support LGBT equality. But my paranoia is going overdrive, and I'm concerned about when this goes to appeals.

  • 216. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Lets make a t-shirt

    "Big Scary Monster"

    and below it a rainbow teddybear!

  • 217. Taelyn  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Remember kids: This is why you DO your homework!!

    …the FAIL is strong with this one. Makes sense. The rest of the defense witnesses at least had enough to sense to bail when they realized it was going to be bad for them. The doctor, once again, didn't read the memo.

    Love,
    ~Taelyn

  • 218. anwaya  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Attorney, dentist and realtor.

    Oh, no – wait, that was Orly Taitz. Sorry.

  • 219. s saxon  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Just read the last several updated of the redirect of Mr Miller and OMG! I didn't think there really were lawyers as good as TV's Allen Shore, but Mr Bois is BRILLIANT!!

  • 220. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:06 am

    THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT. Firedog is a little ahead in posting and this stuff comes up in the immediate cross of this witness, should read it if you can.

  • 221. Jane  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I wonder what his answer would be if Boise asked him

    What was the final count for AA to receive equal rights when voted on?

    (he probably thinks it was voted on!)

  • 222. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Indeed, Loren, it's a tall order. Most of them watch The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.*

    *Hat tip to Lewis Black

  • 223. Jerry  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Thanks for your support, Dolores!

    I've thought a lot about it and the people behind Prop 8 and the money is playing a big part.

    I'm not an activist, but I'll be there supporting whoever the next target happens to be.

  • 224. Jane  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:10 am

    B: You have said that Prop. 8 and 22 did not pass even with the political power of g and l community?

    M: Yes. I ‘m glad I’m not the only one who makes that mistake (about passing v. not).

    B: Given the amount of power that the g and l community has, I was almost ready to believe that Prop. 8 had failed!

    He probably voted No at the Polls because he thought it meant No-they can't marry.

    Confusing people was what they set out to do and obviously it worked — on ther own witness!

  • 225. Gaby Tako  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:11 am

    I cannot imagine that this isn't a sad day for the defense. Do we have any retired lawyers, law school professors and/or judges who can comment on today's witness and general lawyering – the defense strikes me as rather mediocre at best and Professor Miller seems rather weak and not unlike a fish out of water. He also seems like he did not support Prop.8 and appears conflicted. Or is it just me? I can only imagine what Judge Walker will make of this – at worst, perhaps he sees the community has having some form of "limited power?"

  • 226. robert K wright 1 of  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Do you mean that you do not like the thesis of the defendants? I thought our side (the Plaintiffs) were doing a good job of supporting all their arguments.

  • 227. michael  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:12 am

    The internet of course….

  • 228. Charles  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Thanks Alan!

  • 229. Steve  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:16 am

    B: Goes through a long list of scholars and scientists on history and political science of LGBT.
    M: Has not read any of the work by any of them.

    How can an "expert" not have read the literature?

    Someone who has a Ph.D. in a subject (or has done post-doctoral research in the subject, or even who has graded some graduate-level term papers in the subject) really should have read most of the literature in that subject, and much of the literature in closely related fields.

    When I finished my Ph.D., I had an annotated bib of about three thousand items. I think that is about typical.

  • 230. Jan  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:18 am

    "Standing Ovation"

  • 231. Laura Kanter  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Anne – yes – the put the "m" for marriage in quotes, and the word "marriage" in quotes whenever they are referring to same-sex marriage; it is a way to dismiss, devalue, and delegitimize…

  • 232. Roger  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:20 am

    I think one of the previous witnesses (Chauncey?) has already made that very point.

    The only thing that will save Miller's hide is for the courtroom ceiling to open and a dove to flutter in saying "This is my beloved son. Hear ye him" in a loud voice.

    And I suspect that the defence has been confident that it will happen. No need for credible human witnesses when the Lord is on your side.

  • 233. Rebecca  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from my house.

    Oh wait, that one was used already. LOL.

  • 234. Roger  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:24 am

    To JC @83 — I once played (for want of a better word) in a video called Big Bad Bears and somone made me a T shirt with BIG BAD BEAR on it.

    Alas, it wore out years ago. I want a new one.

  • 235. Devon  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:26 am

    OMG! This is the absolute best comment of them all. I honestly laughed out loud.

  • 236. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:36 am

    This is going to be a 2-pint night for Maggie Gallagher and Bryan Brown.

    I'll leave it to you to guess which one hits the Guiness and which the Ben 'N Jerry's.'

  • 237. Roger  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Probably because they have been denying hotly that they were involved with ProtectMarriage.

    That went out the window during Tam's testimony, of course, when he spoke of liasing with Brown during the Prop8 campaign.

    And I doubt that Mrs Srivistav could be relied on to curb her ego and refrain from taking all the credit for Prop8's success.

    Perhaps I'm wrong and they're saving her up for the Supreme Court?

  • 238. Brian D  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Becca,

    Perfect. LMAO.

    Love,
    Brian

  • 239. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Mother Earth is next.

    They are already starting to attack global warming science. I heard a pastor on television say that we should not intervene at all in regards to global warming. And that Jesus will decide when the Earth ends, not us. Seriously. These folks WANT the apocolypse to happen. And they will not stop until they have lived out this bizarre, biblical Armegeddon. Just look at the wars we are in. For what? Really. For what?
    Bush himself called it a holy war.

    Scary much?????

    Sarah Palin thinks it was 'God's plan' for her to be chosen to run with McCain. I mean, by all means, prasie God if it comforts you, but these people are bringing that into Politics and into foriegn policy and everything else. It is terrifying to me and should be to every American, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    But they will never give up their fight to hurt LGTB citizens. They feel that Jesus/God commands them to do it.

    Just how many times does someone have to show us who they are before we start believing them. They ain't playin.' They'll never leave us alone. Until the government forces them to, just like they did with African-Americans. (DISCLAIMER: That is as far as my comparison goes with the African American's Civil RIghts struggle. I know many African-American people do not like ANY comparison to it. I only compare it in that right-wing Christians did many of the same things to African -Americans that they currently do to us.)

  • 240. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:00 am

    But they will never give up their fight to hurt LGTB citizens. They feel that Jesus/God commands them to do it.

    Yes, that is what is so scary!

    Love,
    David

  • 241. Casey  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I'm actually a little disappointed in our opponents. I was expecting a more riveting fight from their side. We're not done yet, but between this and Tam, this is better than must-see-tv.

  • 242. george  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:46 am

    The witness is not on trial here; by legal standards, the defense's case is strong. You can't lose a case with bad fact/opinion witnesses when you have a rock solid case as a matter of law. I've seen lousy lawyers with lousy witnesses win countless cases

  • 243. Jenny O  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:14 am

    I was just thinking that! God, I wish I could see this in action. Not only because it's so entertaining to view the deconstruction of half of the defense, but also because people should know this is the only excuse for a witness prop 8 could find.

  • 244. Jenny O  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Jon Stewart and Colbert would have a field day with this!!

  • 245. Jenny O  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:39 am

    "Since you are an expert,…"

    I just hear the sarcasm dripping from this statement! Boies is owning this guy left and right! It's pretty sad that the plaintiffs can produce two weeks works of quality emotional and knowledgeable expert witnesses and this is the best the defense can muster up! I am underwhelmed. Their one other witness will have to have really strong case to counter this massacre. Boies is the hero of the day!!

  • 246. Cammie  |  January 25, 2010 at 11:51 am

    FLAWLESS VICTORY.

  • 247. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Miller, get a clue! It's really bad when the witness can't even remember what lies he told during depo!

  • 248. Misken  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    HAHAHAHAHA. Is this really the best the other side can come up with? This guy essentially admitted that GLBT people were being discriminated against.

    And from what I read, even Walker doesn't seem to be taking him seriously anymore. 😛

  • 249. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Oh come on now george they have no legal standards….today proved that not only do they feed their witness the info but that prop ha8te was voted based on prejudice and discrimination.

    bad witness is one thing but legality is another and they are on the verge of getting the book thrown at them…lol

  • 250. Liveblogging Day 10: Part&hellip  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    […] Liveblogging Day 10: Part IV Miller continues […]

  • 251. Devon  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Wow I didn’t meant to say honsetly so much! But it’s still a hilarious read.

    Following this and the protectmarriage.com coverage is like night and day though.

  • 252. DonG  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    That’s why the re-enactment is going to be priceless!! I hope it gets lots of hits on YouTube.

  • 253. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:54 am

    B: Do you know that there were statutes against hiring homosexuals in many states before WW II?
    T: Objection. We are not offering witness as expert on gay and lesbian history. Dr. Chauncey was here for that.
    B: Well, counsel has a good point.
    (Gales of laughter.

    Burned!

  • 254. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:00 am

    M: Somewhat difficult to make these comparisons. We have to define what we mean by power.
    B: That’s what you were testifying to!

    OMFG. I can't believe Miller said that. The entire point is he's supposed to be an expert on political power, using a definition more favorable to the defense than the plaintiff's experts. And when pressed, he says he can't define political power! WTF…

  • 255. Marcia  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:09 am

    I'm an expert on cattle! We live across the road from a cow pasture.

  • 256. Karin  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:07 am

    LOVE the t-shirt idea. I'd definitely wear that! What a great conversation starter – and makes activism fun!

  • 257. LB  |  January 27, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Stop attacking Miller. As a prior student, many of us have speculated that he is a log cabin Republican. He wants Prop 8 to fail, but he wants the people and the initiative system to go down with it.

  • 258. how to car repair&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Blog Reader…

    […]Loving the blog and check other links[…]…

  • 259. becoming an expert witness  |  September 1, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4
    year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to
    her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it
    pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!