Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 11: Part I

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

David Boies continues his cross-examination of Prof. Kenneth Miller.

Judge Walker: Ready to continue you’re cross-examination, Mr. Boies?

Boies (B): Yes, I am, your honor.

Judge Walker: Prof. Miller, you are still under oath.

Miller (M): Yes.

B: Offering as exhibit the documents that Prof. Miller indicated yesterday on which he indicated he had produced, did not remember or counsel produced papers on which Miller relied for his testimony.

B: At break, we talked about polls. Offer 2853, exit polls you looked at. Clear to you that people who attended church more often were highly more likely to vote yes on 8 than other people? My question goes to your state of mind.

M: Yes, this looks like other polls including LA Times. Fair to say that those who were regular church attenders more likely to vote yes on 8 than others.

B: Look at p. 8. 32% of population that attended church weekly voted yes on Prop. 8 84% of the time. Consistent with your understanding?

M: I’m not sure of the percentage, but that seems generally right.

B: Everyone else voted no more than voted yes.

M: Those who attended occasionally voted narrowly no.

B: Now when you say narrowly, 54-46% for occasional which is more No than the actual vote.

M: Yes. Narrow yes.

B: You said labor unions were one of the major allies of No. Did you investigate how labor unions voted?

M: I don’t recall looking at that.

B: Of people who had union member in household 56% voted yes. Is it consistent with your understanding that people with labor union member in household voted yes on 8?

M: I did not investigate, but that is what the poll says.

B: Is it consistent with your understanding that professional associations voted No on 8? (list of psychologist, psychiatrists, university professors and legal organizations).

M: Not sure.

B: Not sure I have your testimony.

M: I’m confident that people in these categories voted in favor of same-sex marriage.

B: Let’s go through them. Why would psychologists support same-sex marriage?

M: No.

B: Psychiatrists.

M: No.

B: Let’s say something closer to home. Have you investigated why professors and university professor organizations support same sex marriage?

M: I think California Faculty Association is in favor. I am not sure, but I think it has to do with fairness for university professors.

B: Legal organizations?

M: I have not read, but probably same. Fairness and equality.

[UPDATE] 8:56

B: Offer Gallup poll. Did you use this to prepare your testimony?

M: I believe so, but I don’t recall.

B: In this poll, people were asked whether if their party nominated a well-qualified person for president, would they vote for that person if that person had certain characteristics?

Catholic? 95%

M: Yes, that’s what poll says.

B: 94% AA, 92% Jewish, 88% woman, 85% Hispanic, 72% Mormon, 57% who has been married for the third time (everyone laughs, including judge), 57% 72 years of age, but only 55% would vote for a well-qualified person who is homosexual.

M: Yes, very close to 72 year old.

B: 40 points below Catholic and 37 points below AA. Does that tell you something about whether homosexuals are less likely to be elected than AA or Catholic. Does that tell you anything about prejudice toward g and l?

M: Yes, it’s a data point.

B: Did you investigate any such polls?

M: Not sure.

B: Did you look at “this document” from the Human Rights Campaign?”

M: Let me look. I may have, but I don’t recall.

B: Offer 2859. Look at page 5, second paragraph.

[UPDATE] 9:08

[Wherein Mr. Boies continues to allow Prof. Miller to look pitiful.]

B: (Reads HRC document that says that homos are discriminated against in work place simply for being homo). Do you have any reason to disagree with that?

M: Last sentence, I have no idea how many author refers to? Prior sentence says “untold millions” but not sure how many (at least until ENDA passes, he says).

B: You agree that some people will lose jobs due to discrimination?

M: Yes, I believe that is the case.

B: You believe? You have found out that is the case in the course of your investigation?

M: Yes, there is discrimination against gays and lesbians.

B: Have you found out if that number is large or small?

M: I assume it’s a significant number but I have not found out how many.

B: Reads more from HRC. Gay and lesbian discrimination knows no bounds. Includes daily harassment, including name-calling, physical threats, name-calling from workers and bosses alike. Did you find that anti-gay discrimination includes the above?

M: I have no reason to doubt that.

B: Document from CA Safe Schools Coalition. Have you seen before?

M: I don’t think so.

B: Are you familiar with CA SS Coalition?

M: I don’t recall.

B: 4H Center for Youth Development at UC Davis?

M: I don’t recall.

B: Do you see where it mentions 4H Center?

M: Can you direct me to it? (has trouble finding tab)

B: This is from CA SS Coalition, yes?

M: Yes.

B: I know you said you don’t remember whether or not you have seen this before. First statement says that bullying for actual or perceived sexual orientation pervasive. 7.5% report such bullying. Translates into 200,000. Do you have any reason to disagree?

M: No basis for knowing.

B: You investigated that, didn’t you?

M: No, I did not.

B: Do you have any reason to believe that there is harassment and bullying and that constitutes discrimination?

M : Yes, it does.

B: Goes to Prof. Kane and Estridge document. You previously identified them. Take a moment to familiarize yourself with the context. When you have finished, let me know.

[UPDATE] 9:16

[Wherein their witness agrees that there is anti-gay and lesbian prejudice that caused “at least some people” to vote for Prop. 8, but wherein their witness did no, zero, research of his own into any of this and nevertheless “proved” that gays and lesbians have a lot of political power.]

B: Reads from paragraph that says that voters are reluctant to vote for homos.

M: Compound sentence.

B: Let’s break it down. Do you believe that there are stereotypes that gays are predatory to children?

M: Yes.

B: Have you investigated?

M: No.

B: Do you agree that there are anti-gay stereotypes that gays and lesbians destroy traditional families?

M: (Stumbles).

B: In your view? Just in your view?

M: It’s a bit different than the above.

M: I believe there is a perception that homosexuals threaten families.

B: Do you believe that some voters …

M: Let’s go back. I don’t think that I said that homos undermine families. I believe some voters think that gay marriage…

B: (Interrupts M a few times to “Listen to the question”) Do you believe that there is an anti-gay stereotype even without marriage?

M: I don’t know.

B: Do you think the stereotype about children caused some people to vote for Prop. 8? You came in here saying that you were an expert saying that you had done research about gay and lesbian political power.

M: Yes.

B: In connection with that, did you reach a conclusion about predatory stereotype causing people to vote yes?

M: I believe that at least some people voted Yes due to anti-gay stereotype.

B: How many?

M: I don’t know. No poll that shows.

B: Have you done any investigation to find out?

M: No.

B: Refers to Dangerous Democracy book that you and professor Kane wrote. “One also can expect initiatives…” to provide less protection for minority interests than legislative. Do you agree?

M: Let me read this.

[UPDATE] 9:30

[Boies is going through Prof. Miller’s book, published in 2009. Miller is squirming because the book says that minorities are often disadvantaged by initiatives due to prejudice, which is the opposite of his “expert” testimony. Either he disavows his academic work or his expert testimony. As it’s going, he’s soiled both.]

B: You say, “the problem however is that initiatives that directly…affect minorities can easily tap into an anti-minority sentiment…”

[Trial interrupted by a heavy-set guy who starts to scream epithets and is escorted out of courtroom, as if proving Mr. Boies’s point.]

Judge Walker: Carry on, Mr. Boies (totally unflapped).

B: Continues to read about anti-minority initiatives that target folks for language, ethnic other stuff.

M: Although these initiatives should not be seen as a majority attack on minority…

B: Yes, but you say also that “that danger certainly exists.” In your book, you never said this was wrong, in your book you published in 2009?

M: Not in those words.

B: Did you ever say it was inaccurate?

M: Not in those words.

B: You were describing in this paragraph a four-decade study of initiatives in high use initiatives states. Do you think this inaccurate?

M: I’d recast it.

B: I’m sure you would (as an expert for the defendants). When you say that the problem is that initiatives can directly or indirectly differential affect minorities?

M: Yes.

B: Can tap into anti-minority sentiment?

M: On occasion that can occur.

B: Has that occurred?

M: Yes.

B: Examples you give include initiatives to restrict state efforts to protect the rights of homosexuals.

M: Yes, and some others.

B: Yes and others. I did not meant to imply that homosexuals were only minority that suffered.

B: Initiative government leads to more responsive government to median statewide voters, but leads to minority imbalance that does not occur with legislature.

M: Median statewide voter is political science term. Median is voter in center of curve of all voters (on opinions held).

[UPDATE] 9:39

B: (Reads from article in which M uses phrase “majoritarian values.”) What did you mean by that?

M: I assume that I meant the majority of electorate.

B: You write, “all of these consequences of the populist triumph—the pressure on the courts, legislature — who admire … Did you have particular commentators in mind? (I missed

M: Most critics of the initiative process come from left. Most initially came from right, including William Howard Taft.

B: “Direct demo’s threat to minority rights is of course one of the reasons Madison and the other founders favored representative democracy.” That’s what you were referring to a moment ago with Madisonian analysis?

M: Usually focused on Federalist papers.

B: Are you familiar with Federalist Society?

M: Yes.

B: Would you consider it a left wing organization?

M: No.

B: Would you consider it a right organization on the spectrum?

M: I don’t know if I am expert an expert on this in this courtroom (Tries to make joke about Olson, who is a prominent member thereof).

B: Reads sections that M wrote including that checks and balances are good. In contrast, the direct initiative system by bypassing checks and balances, … targets minorities disproportionately including ethnic, racial and homos…” After your reference to homos in that statement, you have footnote 68. The recent example is Prop. 22 of 2000. Was Prop. 22 of 2000 an example of the direct imitative system bypassing checks and balances at the expense of certain minorities. Is that what you are saying?

M: That’s what the footnote says. But the footnote is factually and analytically incorrect because it says it’s a constitutional amendment and it’s not.

B: You got that wrong. But you agree that it was an initiative that affected homosexual minority even though it’s statute, not amendment.
M: Yes, but I no longer believe that.

B: Let’s see about that. Your depo was taken in Dec. 2009, after you wrote your most recent book. You were asked, “Q: do you agree that the direct initiative can be and has been used to disadvantage minorities? Y: Yes and can be and has.”

M: Yes and I would give that same testimony today.

[NOTE] There is a new thread up.

Tags: , ,

151 Comments

  • 1. Michael  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Umm… fairness and equality.
    Yes, that's exactly what this is all about, no?

  • 2. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:59 am

    UMMMMM!!!!…….OMG!…..More "I don't know" from Mr. Miller…. i though he was supposed to be an expert on this stuff?

  • 3. Randy  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:59 am

    That’s exactly what I just thought, so who is this guy testifying for?

  • 4. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:01 am

    All of what Boies is discussing now was the basis of the blog entry early this morning from Andy for PM.com.

  • 5. sarah  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:02 am

    I can't believe this is the best they've got. Well guys, say hello to years more of this kind of testimony.

  • 6. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Miller's reputation is in tatters…

  • 7. Ryan H  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:04 am

    It's nice that Mr. Boies had a night off so that maybe he could really focaus on more questions for today and reallybring this guy down.

  • 8. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:04 am

    "I'm not sure"
    "I don't recall"
    "I did not investigate"
    "Not sure"
    "I have not not read"
    "I believe so, but I don’t recall."
    "Let me look. I may have, but I don’t recall. "

    Oey!

  • 9. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Miller is saying the people support same sex marriage out of "fairness and equality." What better testamony can you get?

  • 10. Wolfinlv  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:05 am

    this is where I thought they needed to go.
    Labor unions were No on 8 but their members overwhelmingly voted YES on 8 56% of union members voted Yes.

    Just because we have support of the organization doesn't mean that we have the support of it's members and therefore can't really call them a strong ally… The organization is just putting a good face on their organization by saying that we fought for equality sorry it didn't win.

  • 11. JPM  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:05 am

    55%would vote for a well-qualified homosexual for President? I would never have guessed it would be that high.

    Maybe there is hope.

  • 12. JPM  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:07 am

    (Of course the poll is inherently biased. People are presumably reluctant to tell someone they are NOT willing to vote for a well-qualified individual, regardless).

  • 13. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Miller just cannot stop digin his own grave, can he?

  • 14. MarkOH  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:09 am

    My question: did this guy do ANY research? Or does he recall ANYTHING he has done?

    Does he really (shudder) have tenure?

  • 15. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:09 am

    If he were teaching at my university, I'd give him his walking papers after this fiasco.

  • 16. Jack  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:10 am

    OK. . .what is he sure about?

    He IS a defense witness, correct? 😉

  • 17. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:11 am

    He just said it again……Jesus on a cracker, his blood in a goblet……..this guy is just an expert of Nothing Known University!

  • 18. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:12 am

    He's sure of two things:

    1) He's getting his ass handed to him, and

    2) He's not the "expert" he presented himself as.

  • 19. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:13 am

    I doubt that will happen, but his academic reputation will surely suffer because of this. He's represented himself as an expert by agreeing to be an expert witness, and has shown himself to be anything but.

  • 20. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:13 am

    It's a damn good thing this isn't a drinking game.

    We'd all be sloshed before 9am.

  • 21. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Boies realized a shovel wasn't good enough and gave Miller a backhoe to use.

  • 22. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:14 am

    You have a point. But there are times while reading his testimony yesterday I did feel 'sloshed' and thought, "am I reading this right?"

  • 23. Wolfinlv  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:15 am

    55% of the people polled. who did they poll. I could take a poll of about 1000 people and gurantee that at least 99% would vote to give us our equality. That's the problem with polls.
    Factors that effect polls. Where you ask the questions. If I ask in the Castro Near Daddy's (is that still there) will be more support. If I ask near a catholic church should be less support.

  • 24. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I just found some online video of Thompson in the actual courtroom!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI#t=0m23

  • 25. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Ah crap, that was supposed to link to 0:22 seconds in rather than embed. Let me try it like this.

  • 26. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:16 am

    MordacP, if I were the president of a university, and this guy were on the faculty, he would have been gone long before now. The first time I caught him giving a lecture this disjointed, ill-prepared, and illogical, he would have been booted, and a better professor would have been found before the day was out. Not that finding a better professor than Miller would be all that diffcult. Probably wouldn't even begin to break a sweat.

  • 27. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:17 am

    who saysh we arnt playinsh alredy?

  • 28. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Does anyone have a link to the pm.com site, where their spin is so remarkably diametrically opposite of what really happened? I am referring to Pugno's remarks.

  • 29. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

    I knew it was going to go badly for the defense after reading how the prosecution's witnesses eviscerated the defense attorneys.

  • 30. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Ah, but to the radicals who are posing as conservative Americans, all your qualifications to be POTUS disappear once they find out you are gay.

  • 31. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

    "No basis for knowing"?

    Well at least he's consistent but is capable of saying it differently…yeah?

  • 32. Cytherea  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

    I'm sure he's grateful for tenure by this point.

  • 33. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

    I love that movie! It's pretty scary too.

  • 34. Benjamin Geiger  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Can we just hang a sign on Dr. Miller that just says "I don't know"? It'd save some time…

    (PS: Apparently, the numbers have been going down over time. In 1999, 79% of people would elect an otherwise-qualified homosexual as President. Atheists, by comparison, are at 49%, and dropping.)

  • 35. Anne  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Unbelievable, isn't it? Yes, it's about fairness and equality! Even their own witness admits it. So what – yes on prop 8 is for "unfairness" and "inequality"? well, we knew that, nice of them to admit it!

  • 36. MarriedInCT  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Wow. I'm willing to bet that lots of us who are not scholars know quite a bit more and could come up with better answers to this line of questioning that didn't make us look so incompetent. This guy is horrible (for the defense)!

  • 37. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:19 am

    I think you are right. What is next, hand him his own personalized IED? No, wait, that was yesterday with the videos, wasn't it?

  • 38. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:19 am

    it's on their blog section at protectmarriage.com. Check out this play by play review of Pugno's post to ohttp://zackfordblogs.com/2010/01/protect-marriage-day-10-quantity-not-quality-oh-wait/

  • 39. Jay  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:20 am

    …Where did they find this guy?

    I'm trying not to let myself hope too much, but after this, I sort of can't help it.

  • 40. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:20 am

    http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/01/protect-marriage

  • 41. JefferyK  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:20 am

    That he doesn't have to know what he is talking about in order to get people to believe what he says.

  • 42. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:21 am

    WOW, i cant believe this guy!! And the SADDEST part is that this is how most of them are. they HATE us but have no real reason why. (except religion)

    I had one lady argue that we are only 3% (although the number is higher) of the population, thus we DO NOT need any rights> My jaw hit the floor!!! These people are sooooooo ignorant!!

  • 43. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:21 am

    http://www.protectmarriage.com

  • 44. Flewellyn  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:21 am

    It's the Ronald Reagan defense.

  • 45. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:22 am

    This is the stuff of legend.

    After this, there's no way the court could rule in favor of 8 and still keep its dignity.

  • 46. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:22 am

    B: Refers to Dangerous Democracy book that you and professor Kane wrote. “One also can expect initiatives…” to provide less protection for minority interests than legislative. Do you agree?
    M: Let me read this.
    Okay, now let me get this right, this guy wrote this book in collaboration with professor Kane, but doesn't know what it says?

  • 47. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Well, they live by the old saying that "Ignorance is Bliss."

  • 48. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:22 am

    UGGGGG!!!!!……..I don't know!!!!!!

  • 49. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:22 am

    I like your "wherein" titles to each update.

  • 50. Jack  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I am waiting for another "Good God man!"

    Or maybes something new like, "Jesus, Mary, and St. Joseph . . .did you do any research or know anything!"

  • 51. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Isn't this the guy (Miller) who was the "expert" witness for the Dover School District (who lost the ID case)?

    He wasn't much of an expert in that case either.

  • 52. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:24 am

    That's why it's a perfect case for the SCOTUS.

    They have no dignity.

  • 53. abbe  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:26 am

    This is infuriating. Does this guy know anything at all???

    "Did you tie your own shoes this morning?"

    "That's a possibility, but I can't recall specifically."

    "What is your height?"

    "I don't have the information needed to answer that question."

    "Didn't you just say you used a measuring tape?"

    "Yes, but I wasn't sure if you wanted it in inches or feet, so I don't know how to answer that question."

    *headdesk*

  • 54. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I was just thinking that.

    And of *course* the initiative process provides less protection of minority interests. It's run by yutzes with clipboards and a grudge.

  • 55. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:27 am

    "It’s the Ronald Reagan defense."
    LOL!

  • 56. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:27 am

    How I remember those horrible days of high school harrassment based on perceived sexual preference. Some days I wantted to kill myself. Sure glad I didn't. If schools would only do a little more to help prevent bullying it could make a world of difference to some kids.

  • 57. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:27 am

    He doesn't recall HIS OWN WORK. Under OATH.

  • 58. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:27 am

    No that was Ken Miler at Dover. Different field completely.

  • 59. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Yeah even asked to reread something he had worked on with a partner!

  • 60. JefferyK  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:30 am

    You know, I was walking down Van Ness at Market last weekend and looked at the row of strung out, drunk, crazy people sprawled out on the sidewalk and realized that that is how all of the stoners who made my life hell in high school ended up. I think the emotion I felt when I made that realization was something like "schadenfreude."

  • 61. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Oooh…think hard on it and maybe it will suddely pop into Bois' mind~! That would indeed be priceless!

  • 62. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:30 am

    It's call 440 Castro now. :-)

  • 63. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:32 am

    "Where you got in the shower?"

    (singing) "Oh my god you guys!"

  • 64. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:32 am

    No, you are confused, but good call on spotting the same name. I also noticed this.

    A different Ken Miller was an excellent witness for the plaintiffs, i.e. the good guys. And he did a fantastic job, actually. I believe you are thinking of Michael Behe, who was the main witness for the defense, and an incompetent asswipe. Heh, actually, I do see some similarity between his testimony and (today's) Ken Miller… in both cases, the cross-examining attorney dumped stacks of evidence contradicting their argument, and said, "Have you read any of this?" to which the reply, of course, was no…

    Anyway, Ken Miller — the evolutionary biologist, not the clown that's on the stand right now — is an interesting character. He is an extremely religious Roman Catholic and has written a book called Finding Darwin's God on reconciling his faith with his science — an exercise I personally find superfluous (why not, you know, live in reality… just sayin'…), but it made him an invaluable witness for the Dover case. He is truly an ally of science and reason and deserves our accolades.

    And he rocked it. He was able to tear the ID folks to shreds. His testimony was instrumental in the victory for the Good Guys.

    Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe

  • 65. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Not to mention voted on by the majority, who by definition does not have a vested interest in the results.

  • 66. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Argh, my best comments keep getting hung up in moderation! I think it's because I provided some Wikipedia links to give further background.

    Anyway, yeah, wrong Ken Miller. But good catch on the name! I also noticed the coincidence. Ken Miller was a witness for the Good Guys at Dover, and actually rocked it.

    You are probably thinking of Michael Behe, whose testimony was indeed eerily similar to today's Ken Miller. "I don't know" "I haven't read that", etc.

  • 67. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Key phrase: well-qualified.

    You know, the best boy in the world. They support someone like George Bush who can't even talk in complete sentences as long as he is straight, but to support a homosexual, we have to be "well-qualified."

  • 68. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:35 am

    I love David Boies. When I grow up, I want to be just like him!

  • 69. JPM  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Which, of course, is why reputable polling organizations like Gallup do scientific polling, attempting to get a representative cross-section of the population, instead of going and standing in the Castro and asking questions.

    Sheesh.

  • 70. JefferyK  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:36 am

    "…he's soiled both." Lovely turn of phrase! :)!

  • 71. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

    (Trial interrupted by a heavy-set guy who starts to scream epithets and is escorted out of courtroom)

    ok, what the fuck? Another reason why it should be televised. I really hope that marriagetrial.com gets that one in there!

  • 72. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

    True, but any scholar worth his/her muster should at least know what he/she has or has not written on. Cardinal rule of academia: once that dissertation is in hand, you are the expert. You better know every bit of research on that topic, including the opposition, if you want to be a credible academic.

  • 73. David John Lawrence  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Tenure *can* be revoked. It's not easy, but it can be done.

    Love, –David.

  • 74. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

    epthets epithets-I want words! (wonder if the court reporter has to include them….?

  • 75. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:38 am

    More updates please! But I'm guessing it's taking him a while to read the aforementioned passage. To be fair though, I'd be surprised if anyone could find a strong anti-gay witness. This probably IS the best the defense has!

  • 76. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Trial interrupted by a heavy-set guy who starts to scream epithets and is escorted out of courtroom

    Stay classy.

  • 77. Jane  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Lol, Alan!

  • 78. Doug  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:38 am

    B: Examples you give include initiatives to restrict state efforts to protect the rights of homosexuals.
    M: Yes, and some others.
    B: Yes and others. I did not meant to imply that homosexuals were only minority that suffered.

    SLAM DUNK! LOL

  • 79. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Miller should just plead STUPIDITY. Can he do that, by the way?

  • 80. Rebecca  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:39 am

    "(Trial interrupted by a heavy-set guy who starts to scream epithets and is escorted out of courtroom, as if proving Mr. Boies’s point.)"

    Hearing stuff like that is what makes me fear for my safety should we earn our equal rights.

  • 81. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:39 am

    IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the court reporter can't include them. If I'm not mistaken, the court reporter records the official trial dialog, i.e. it would also exclude remarks that were "stricken from the record", etc.

    I could be full of crap though 😀

  • 82. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Thanx for the links! Indeed it does appear their spin is very different from the realities – is it any wonder they didn't want this trial televised?
    Love, David

  • 83. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:41 am

    "eean" linked this over at firedoglake.com/prop8trial
    http://books.google.com/books?id=j7-Do6HKdmgC&amp

    This is what Miller wrote.

  • 84. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Good one Flew!

  • 85. Kohai  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:41 am

    No he wasn't different Ken Miller. The Dover Miller was on the Plaintiff's side in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

    That Ken Miller is a Harvard Tenure Biological Sciences professor and research scientist who is the leading proponent of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory in evolutionary biology. His testimony in the case was the reason the Plaintiffs won.

    This miller is just an idiot.

    There are some funny parallels in this case and the Dover trail. the most notable of which is the defense witnesses were at the beginning of the trial were 5 and by the time it came down to testifying, three dropped out, leaving only two, and like this trial, both defense witnesses hadn't a clue about what they were talking about.

    additionally, even before the case was decided the defense side attacked the judge as an activist judge also.

    This seems to be a pattern for Chrstians (and yes it is Christians really at the heart of this trial as well) of not being able to adequately defend their positions. They really do not do well in courts of law. I think they know this is a limitation for them, but why are they constantly trying to undermine constitutional law?

  • 86. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Lol. He doesn't seem to know HIS OWN BOOK so well, wonder if he's surprised that turned up?

  • 87. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:42 am

    "I’m sure you would"

    LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 88. Lily  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:42 am

    I'm really thinking that this is going to be a win. I mean, assuming the presentation we're getting is honest, this really looks like a (insert sports euphemism).

  • 89. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Was it Chris Christie?

  • 90. jerek  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:44 am

    must …. resist….F5…key……..get…..work………………done.

  • 91. JefferyK  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:44 am

    But the Prop 8 campaign operated in the public political sphere, not academia. And Dr. Miller is typical of the so-called experts Prop 8 used during the campaign. I remember hearing and seeing the ads and thinking that no one would believe the lies. I mean, the lying was so blatant. But people did believe them, at least partially because the mouthpieces passed themselves off as experts (pastors, academics, etc.). IMHO.

  • 92. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Thanx for the link.
    Love, David

  • 93. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:45 am

    He wouldn't know 😉

  • 94. Slade  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:46 am

    I remember a poll like that being on KCRA 3's website and I voted on it ( I guess I am one of the 55%, eh?)

  • 95. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:46 am

    The guy they escorted out was another of their ex witnesses

  • 96. Michael  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Who was the heavy-set guy…
    Pugno? M. Gallagher?

  • 97. Daniel  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:47 am

    David Boies is a scary man. His cross-exams are beautiful.

  • 98. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Let's not pick on the Christians too much. Faith, by definition, is the belief in something without evidence (I believe the biblical definition is something along the lines of "belief in things which are not seen", but in modern terms we would probably consider it to refer to things for which one has no proof). Reserving comment for the moment on whether this is a virtue or a fault, is it any surprise that when faith collides with the courtroom — where evidence is the sole currency — that it does poorly?

    It's not just Christians. Any faith that tries to defend its tenets in a court of law will, by definition, do poorly. If there was evidence that would stand up to legal scrutiny, it wouldn't be called "faith", would it?

  • 99. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

    It's mostly word-for-word, and there aren't many ways to skew all those "I don't know"s ^^

  • 100. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

    The defense knew coming in they were going to lose.

    They're counting on the conservative majority in the Supreme Court to rule in their favor.

  • 101. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Check out this facebook page, there are TONS of lies on here!!
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Understand-the-Cons

  • 102. Mouse  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

    (Trial interrupted by a heavy-set guy who starts to scream epithets and is escorted out of courtroom, as if proving Mr. Boies’s point.)

    What? Are you sure this isn't a script for some prime time legal drama?

  • 103. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:50 am

    It must've been!

  • 104. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:50 am

    I think you are correct here.

    Which explains why some of the defense's cross-examinations have been so tedious. This is a warmup, and one they expect to lose. Why not take half a day probing for weaknesses? Because you'll piss off the judge that you know is going to rule against you anyway???

  • 105. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:50 am

    B: You got that wrong. But you agree that it was an initiative that affected homosexual minority even though it’s statute, not amendment.
    M: Yes, but I no longer believe that.
    B: Let’s see about that.

    Go Boies!

  • 106. abbe  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:50 am

    badumbum!

  • 107. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Did he just say that Proposition 22 unfairly targeted a minority, in this case, gay people???? "Oh I take that back, because I said it was an amendment, and it was actually just an initiative." FTW?

  • 108. Steve Mathias  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:51 am

    LOL You and me both… My work's been rather scant for, oh, about 11 days.

  • 109. RAL  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Sorry if this is a re-hash, but what were the nature of the epithets? could be the guy was screaming at the defense. Or was he screaming at the plaintiffs?

  • 110. Steve Mathias  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:51 am

    If that's fact, please provide a source. I could always use another good laugh.

  • 111. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:52 am

    M: That’s what the footnote says. But the footnote is factually and analytically incorrect because it says it’s a constitutional amendment and it’s not.
    B: You got that wrong. But you agree that it was an initiative that affected homosexual minority even though it’s statute, not amendment.
    M: Yes, but I no longer believe that.

    Ouch. Didn't he write this book in 2009? So in less than a year, he decided part of his book was factually and analytically incorrect. Hmmm, what major event might have changed his mind? Could it be…. coaching by the defense lawyers??? Naw…

  • 112. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:52 am

    " I assume that I meant the majority of electorate."

    You assume to know the reason why you wrote something?

    2nd: If the footnote in HIS book was wrong then why the hell did it get published?

    Proofread……Mr Miller….even a 13yo knows to triple check his facts, footnotes and resources!

  • 113. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:54 am

    It was most likely aimed at the witness. I could certainly see someone yelling at him for NOT being a true expert witness.

  • 114. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:54 am

    From an academic perspective, this is pathetic. No wonder my English professor wife has a hard time getting her freshman composition kids to NOT use Wikipedia and the Bible as scholarly resources! If PhD's can get away with this total buttscrew of research 101, why can't they?

  • 115. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:54 am

    In a 1986 Gallup Poll contracted out by the Christian Broadcasting Network, respondents were asked: “In light of the AIDS epidemic, do you feel that homosexuals should or should not be allowed to work as food handlers, teachers, medical doctors, or day care nurses?”
    • 61% said gays should not be day care nurses
    • 55% objected to gays being food handlers
    • 53% did not believe gays should be doctors
    • 49% disapproved of gays being teachers

  • 116. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:55 am

    No wonder they didn't want the trial publicized. . . probably didn't want the public to see their failage. I so wish the public could watch this.

  • 117. Mouse  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:55 am

    I get that, and I am nervous about the fairness of the Supreme Court – especially one that just decided that corporations deserve more rights than people.

    But don't they at least have to try? Shouldn't they at least pretend they have a case? Is Pugno really the most brilliant supporter of gay rights? Is he role playing a bigoted hate-supporter so he can throw the match?

  • 118. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Nevermind, the book came out in 2001. So that's less damning; I certainly have changed a lot of my opinions in the course of a decade! Still, I'd hate to have to testify in a court of law that I thought my previous published work was dead wrong… :/

  • 119. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:57 am

    I love Boies' response, "Let’s see about that."

  • 120. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:57 am

    New thread started

  • 121. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:58 am

    But the problem with losing on purpose is the fact that once this trial is over, any appeals can only go on the record and evidence of this trial as well as the lawyers' answers to questions by the appeals court. So in other words, they're basically shooting themselves in the foot.

  • 122. Loren  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Wow. Seems Like Miller is playing for the wrong team. He claims to be a defense witness, but we can see he's done some experimenting with the plaintiff's side in college, but is trying to keep that on the down low. He should just come out as a proud witness for the plaintiffs. We'll throw him a parade if he does!

  • 123. becca  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:04 am

    seriously? or just a joke?

  • 124. Wolfinlv  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Well I've participated in many polls. And they were in malls, on streets, by phone (annoying cause it's always when I'm busy). I was once crossing union square and was approached by a pollster.

    I was using that as one of the examples. another could be they call at dinner time or during prime time. People get pissed off and that effects their answers. Trust me polls are inherently flawed.

  • 125. JonInSF  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Oh, make no mistake — equal rights for LGBT folk is only the start. Even after AAs gained legal equality, there were many decades — and still are — of struggle, strife, and violence. The struggle has only reached the end of the beginning withprotection under the law… but it is a START.

    The question becomes, can the struggle for LGBT rights ultimately be done without violence? Did the Black Panthers help or hinder MLKs efforts? Will there need to be, for want of a less whimsical name, a "Pink Panther" movement, or can this be done without invoking the hyperconservative wet nightmare?

  • 126. Happy  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Hi Barb – LOVE your new handle "Lesbians Love Boies"

    …. and we DO! :-) LOL

  • 127. Devon  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    "B: Let’s see about that. Your depo was taken in Dec. 2009, after you wrote your most recent book. You were asked, “Q: do you agree that the direct initiative can be and has been used to disadvantage minorities? Y: Yes and can be and has.”
    M: Yes and I would give that same testimony today."

    LOL If that was damning the rest is.

  • 128. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Precisely. And just because we have political officials who speak to us favorably or allow us to meet with them doesn't mean they will expend political effort on our behalf.

  • 129. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Yeah, all it means is that 45% are willing to say flat-out that they would never vote for even a well-qualified homosexual. Some unknown additional percentage feels that way but would never express it out loud in public or to an unknown pollster.

  • 130. Wolfinlv  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    I do believe there was already a group like this in the 70's in NY… I remember reading that somewhere. But to quote our favorite witness I can't recall and don't know where. LOL But we can always create a new one.

  • 131. Nicole A  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:29 am

    B: (Reads from article in which M uses phrase “majoritarian values.”) What did you mean by that?

    M: I assume that I meant the majority of electorate.

    Are you kidding me? He can only assume what he meant? How is this guy going to keep his job? I can't stop laughing!

  • 132. jamie d  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Mouse- no, Pugno really is that much of a toad. I remember him from college where he was involved in student government and the head of the UCD young republicans. He was a truly hateful person who seems to really enjoy offending people. He will espouse a position, even take it deepy to heart, just to hurt people on the other side. He really is (or at least wants to be) the next Karl Rove.

  • 133. ragekage  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:50 am

    What was the guy screaming???

  • 134. ragekage  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:51 am

    certainly more word-for-word than what the other side is doing: taking in everything and then spinning the day into some skewed, 5-paragraph "wrap-up," just to make sure their followers don't get any stray ideas of their own.

  • 135. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:08 am

    "B: Reads more from HRC. Gay and lesbian discrimination knows no bounds. Includes daily harassment, including name-calling, physical threats, name-calling from workers and bosses alike. Did you find that anti-gay discrimination includes the above?"

    ___________________________________________

    Most amazing that so many heterosexuals participate in this type of behavior against THEIR VERY OWN OFFSPRING, while screaming about morality.

    I just do not and never will understand that. I mean, you can't be the group acting immorally toward millions of citizens while assuming moral superiority. It simply does not work.

  • 136. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Look at the University where he 'teaches.'

    'Nuff said.

  • 137. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:23 am

    It was both.

    Embroiled in a tussle over the last spoonful of Ben & Jerry's. (Their Hubby Hubby flavor, no less!)

  • 138. ZackFord  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:54 am

    If you guys are curious, I've actually responded to every one of Pugno's posts since the trial began. You can find them all here (they're the links in italics):
    http://zackfordblogs.com/zfb-complete-archive/per

    Thanks for linking to my site!

  • 139. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Someone on Propeller.com "Endoscopy" makes this comment all the time in gay-related posts. If 'it' isn't calling people libtards or other profane terms, it's attacking "those pesky gays who want to change the definition of marriage to satisfy 3% of the population…the NERVE"

  • 140. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 7:29 am

    I wanna hear the epithets!!! I wanna riddicule the slovenly idiot.

    I'm not prejudiced towards overweight people and it might be because I saw the movie last night…but did anyone else picture that morbidly obese guy from "Gamer" when they said that?

    Or maybe just some random big-guy redneck with a Jeff Foxworthy 'stash and a NASCAR hat?

  • 141. Matthew S.  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:06 am

    B: (Reads from article in which M uses phrase “majoritarian values.”) What did you mean by that?

    M: I assume that I meant the majority of electorate.

    Ummm… You "assume" you meant the majority of the electorate?? Didn't you write it?

    Yep… tatters.

  • 142. Terri  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:35 am

    and you forgot the:

    M: I assume that I meant the majority of electorate.

    It is pretty bad when you have to assume about your own thoughts. LOL

  • 143. Terri  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    at one point he says:

    M: I assume that I meant the majority of electorate.

    Why would he have to assume he meant something if he wrote it? I started to think that maybe he just penned his name and that was the total sum of his input into the book.

  • 144. Terri  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    I know, I actually laughed out loud when I read that. What does he mean "I assume that I meant"? Did he or didn't he write that book…

  • 145. fern  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I would have voted no, so, do I rank with university professors even tough I worked construction when 14 y/o?
    I'm out of a job rite now but does anyone needs an expert?
    I'll be cheap I promise.

  • 146. Kendall  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:25 am

    ROFL…thanks, Loren. I'm catching up and just have time to skim the comments, but yours really made me LOL….

  • 147. Daniel  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    He's actually an extremely effective teacher-I took a con law course with him last semester and I'm taking another with him this semester, and he's far more intelligent than this testimony indicates…he's one of the best profs I've ever had, gotta say I'm glad Boies destroyed him on the stand, though.

  • 148. Ed-M  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    And makes me fear not only for my own safety but also for the safety of what remains of the REPUBLIC.

    There's a good piece over at Bradblog.com http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7663 concerning the invidious discrimination against Jews, non-Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and nonbelievers alike by the Dominionist Fundamentalists, on top of discrimination against LGBT military personnel due to DADT (thanks, Clinton!).

  • 149. Ed-M  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I think they are looking for any excuse for a Federal (antigay) Marriage Amendment. For if Roberts and Kennedy (or either) merely interpret the Constitution instead of joining the radical judicial activists, we win at SCOTUS! 😀

  • 150. The Gaytheist Agenda &raq&hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    […] TT Liveblogging Day 11 Part 1 […]

  • 151. Imposing Religion Over th&hellip  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:40 am

    […] Bruce Kain that appeared in Dangerous Democracy, published in 2009. The article explains that minorities are targeted in the initiative process which can be fueled by prejudice, and that initiatives bypass the governmental checks and balances […]

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