Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 11: Part II

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

[Wherein Mr. Boies backs Prof. Kenneth Miller into a very small corner bounded by Prof. Miller’s own words and views.)

Sorry if some of this is not clear. I’m trying to get the quotes that Boies reads from Miller’s writings. When they read stuff, that’s hard sometimes. So I try to get the gist.]

B: Look at your Seattle Law Review article. At times … initiative process has provided convenient means by which to undermine minorities and bypass checks and balances. In CA steady stream has passed, nearly all of which have been challenged in court.

M: Yes.

B: Courts have long assumed the responsibility for defending the rights of minorities, especially when political process harms them.

M: Yes.

B: Conflict between initiatives targeted at minorities and courts strict scrutiny to protect minorities is normal. (Courts have long assumed the responsibility for protecting minorities…especially when the operation of those political processes ordinarily relied on to protect minorities..”)

M: My understanding of this quote…

B: You wrote this.

M: Quote from Justice Stone.

B: What is he saying?

M: He’s referring to the democratic processes, the legislative process.

B: Now let me ask you to look at tab 35, page 12. Accurate in 2001 to say that in California over the past four decades, approximately 2/3 of all voter initiatives have been challenged in court and half have been overturned in whole or in part?

M: Many of those did not involve minority rights, but correct.

B: You then go onto say that popular initiatives that go after minorities are sometimes challenged in courts. By contrast initiatives that protect the environment are rarely challenged in court.

M: Yes.

B: You wrote that courts’ strict scrutiny of minority rights means that many times initiatives that affect minority rights are frequently litigated.

M: Yes.

B: You ask, “What prevents initiatives from undermining individual rights? You answer, the Courts.” Would that still be your view?

M: I believe the courts still play a role in checking the initiative process.

B: If it’s a constitutional amendment, only courts can be check?

M: Unless it’s repealed, yes.

B: In exercising judicial review, must check…including individual rights, especially those of unpopular minorities. You wrote that. You agree?

M: I think there is a difference between protecting rights versus expanding rights, but I think that’s right.

B: At the time that prop. 8 was passed, in the months of July, august, did gays and lesbians have a right to marry?

M: There was an initiative pending…

B: Answer yes, no or you can say “I don’t know.” (Laughter).

M: Yes.

B: Simple question, in your view as pol sci did Brown v. Board protect a right or expand a right.

M: Protecting right guaranteed by 14th amendment.

B: So you believe Brown v. Board was not expanding, but protecting a right granted by 14th Amendment?

M: Yes, that’s my view.

[UPDATE] 10:17

B: Reads from another article. “Popular view that courts should be lenient in judicial review for initiatives is 180 degrees off. … “When courts review initiatives, need to be more vigilant, not less.” “Courts are the only institutional filter, the check of first and last resort” in imitative process. Courts project against “majoritarian” rule. Did you believe this when you wrote it?

M: It’s compound statement. Which part?

B: All of it. You wrote it!

M: I did not agree with all of it.

B: You don’t say here that you are exploring the issue. You don’t say maybe this is right and maybe you don’t know?

M: Maybe I should have written it differently. Maybe courts should look at initiatives in the same way as laws passed by legislature.

[Everyone laughed at this guy when he said he did not necessarily agree with all that he wrote at the time he wrote it.]

B: Once the initiative is passed, the only filter is the court.

M: Unless initiative allows for amendment or repeal.

B: Prop. 8 did not do that?

M: No.

B: At that time, you believed that “it is easier for violation of minority rights to emerge from unfiltered majoritarian” measures. You believed that at the time, yes?

M: Yes.

B: Plaintiff’s article, “Anatomy of a Backlash” written by you?

M: Conference paper, never published.

B: This is one of articles you testified about on direct, article you listed when qualified as expert?

M: Yes. Yes.

B: On page 10, you say, “once this majority gives its preference in initiative, neither state courts nor legislature can change it, only federal court can.”

B: You believed that when you wrote it?

M: Yes.

B: And you believe that today?

M: Depends on the state.

B: The state you wrote about and the state we have been talking about in this trial has been and is California.

M: Legislature can put on initiative on the ballot to repeal.

B: Return to the same majoritarian electorate?

M: I reject that. Different electorate in each election.

B: But there is still prejudice in the population and you don’t know how many voters were motivated by prejudice?

M: Correct. (But he says that prejudice is declining.)

B: Hate crimes. Were there other laws that were passed that demonstrate gay and lesbian power?

M: That’s the one I examined.

B: Laws that were passed that you used to demonstrate the political power of gays and lesbians?

M: That’s the only one I identified.

B: Only federal legislation you know of?

M: Only federal legislation I know of passed by congress.

B: All federal legislation is passed by congress! It’s the only one you know!

M: Yes.

B: Do you know the official name of the hate crimes bill?

M: Matthew Shepard Bill? (Sheepishly)

B: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Bill. Do you know who Byrd was?

M: Someone killed…

B: AA.

M: Yes.

B: So AA community supported bill.

M: Part of the coalition, but AA hate crimes already illegal.

B: Better as a citizen of the US that this hate crimes bill passed? Better for all of us to protect people from hate crimes?

M: Yes.

B: Are you familiar with Meagan’s law?

M: Yes.

B: Provides punishment for people who perpetrate crimes against little girls.

M: Yes.

B: Do you think that passage of that law showed the political power of little girls?

M: No, those who care about them.

B: That’s my point, sir. We’re all better off having this law, just as society as a whole is better off with hate crimes bill.

M: Yes.

B: Looking at hate crimes stats in LA County. Do you have an opinion as to what minority is most subject to violent hate crimes?

M: I would guess gays and lesbians high as are racial minorities.

B: Have you investigated?

M: Not closely.

B: Adjusting for percentage of population, what segment most subject to hate crimes?

M: Have not done that work. Difficult to know percentage of population that is gay and lesbian.

B: Do you have opinion?

M: Not well formed.

B: Did you research that?

M: No. I relied on others. I estimate it’s 5%, but could go one-way or another.

B: Now look at hate crimes stats in California and LA County, exhibit 675, which is hate crimes in CA 2007.

Judge Walker: Asks where it is in book.

[UPDATE] 10:47

[Wherein Mr. Boies teaches us all how to conduct a cross-examination. He manages to get scripture and positions all admitted as evidence by cross-examining the witness, making clear that the witness has done virtually no research for this trial and is at cross purposes with himself. Recall how the Prop. 8 side clumsily just read stuff and tried to get entire books admitted. This is how it is done. And aside from the intellect, skill and style of Mr. Boies, he is making very, very clear points.

Hate crimes stats admitted as evidence, but now changing subject. My guess is we’ll get right back to it as Boies shows that LG are powerless.]

B: You described yesterday all of the powerful allies that gays and lesbians have.

M: Yes.

B: It passed.

M: Yes.

B: Reason it passed was religion?

M: I don’t know if I’d agree with that.

B: You showed report of religions that opposed Prop. 8?

M: Yes.

B: You did not show chart of those that support Prop.8?

M: No. Rebuttal report.

B: Do all churches here (CA Council of Churches) support same sex marriage?

M: Hard to say. They support same sex marriage.

B: Did you look at these one at a time to see which do and do not support same sex marriage?

M: The local ones do, but national or international may not.

B: Do you belong to organizations that have views that you do not share?

M: Yes.

B: The mere fact that these churches are members of CA Council of Churches does not mean that they support ss marriage?

M: Problem is definition of church. National may have different view.

B: Some do not support same sex marriage?

M: Yes, I agree with your statement.

B: You say that there are 1.5 mm members of the Council of Churches. How many are Catholic in the state?

M: Not sure, but I believe it is the largest denomination in the state.

B: Does it constitute 30% of the population?

M: A third of the 36 million CA population.

B: 12 million.

M: It’s difficult to estimate accurately the numbers of church members, but it’s safe to say that there are more Catholics than Council of Churches members.

B: What is your opinion of how many are Catholic? 30%?

M: About 30%.

B: Second?

M: About 20%, but not hierarchical like Catholics.

B: So taking your estimate of CA population, about 18 million?

M: Yes.

B: You know Catholic Church’s opinion on homosexuality?

M: Uh…

B: Catholic Church calls homosexuality a “serious depravement.”

M: I don’t know…

B: Let’s take a look. (Admits exhibit showing that Catholic Church calls homosexuality and serious depravement.)

M: Let me find the context of that.

B: Let me know when you find the context (muted laughter).

M: Sacred scripture says that Catholic Church says that homosexuality is a serious depravement.

B: Did you know that?

M: I knew church morally opposed.

B: Did you have any doubt that was position of Catholic church?

M: …

B: What is second largest church?

M: Evangelical.

B: That encompasses many churches.

B: Is it true that Southern Baptist church is second largest in CA?

M: Knew that is in US, but not sure about CA.

B: But you investigated that?

M: No.

B: Do you know that Southern Baptists say that homosexuality is shameful and an abomination against God? (Admits this as evidence.)

M: I did not know that language. I knew they were morally opposed.

B: Did you research any other religious groups?

M: Jewish faith. Mostly opposed Prop. 8.

B: Did you investigate what the view of Orthodox was?

M: As well as reform and conservative.

B: Orthodox oppose same sex marriage?

M: Yes.

B: View Orthodox is that homosexuality is a sin like adultery and shall be punished by death. (Admitted into evidence.)

(Confusion about exhibits so moves to Orthodox Churches).

B: Does Orthodox Church favor same sex marriage?

M: They are part of this coalition (California Council of Churches). I do not know if there is local church that supports, but think they must if they are part of CA Council.

B: You keep calling CA Council a coalition. Was it formed to pass same sex marriage?

M: Big part of their leg agenda last few years.

B: But CA Council does a lot of other things?

M: Yes, but I’m not aware of what.

B: Did you investigate that those churches supporting Prop. 8 provided far more money and people than those on the other side?

M: I did not have access to No side, but I made better assessment of yes side.

B: That would mean that you did have access to Yes side’s info?

M: I did have access to some papers, but can’t make comparative judgment.

B: Is this a document that you had access to? (Put in evidence.)

B: Second page, second paragraph that begins, “Grassroots signatures…” Email from Mr. Prentice?

M: Appears to be so.

B: Reads, “largest grassroots in CA history. 300 churches and thousands of pastors” supporting 8.

M: Yes.

B: Next exhibit. As you probably know the giving from LDS members is topping $6mm with no sign of slowing down. You may know that Mormons have been out walking neighborhoods with about 20,000 volunteers. Do you disagree?

M: No reason to disagree with that.

Judge Walker: “Takes massaging to get evangelicals involved, according to this” (Laughter)

B: They may not be so different from the rest of us. Can you say that contribution to yes greater by religious groups than those who opposed?

M: In looking at media reports…

B: Is it your opinion that larger contribution of money and resources by religious groups to yes than no?

W: Objection. Compound.

Judge Walker: (Looks on puzzled) Overruled.

M: My opinion is that religious groups put more resources into 8 than against.

B: Did they provide more institutional resources?

M: Depends upon how to define.

B: Your definition?

M: Depends upon campaign.

B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

[NOTE] You guys were filling up the comments here, so I’ve moved to a new thread.

Tags: , ,

185 Comments

  • 1. Chris  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Wow. This has gone (and continues to go) well beyond my expectations.

    It's been said dozens of times already…… but this is the best man they could find??

  • 2. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Ahhhh, the beautiful 14th amendment!!!

  • 3. Rod S  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:02 am

    I swear…. I almost feel sorry for the guy.

  • 4. nancy c  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Wow he just admitted that we have a constitutional right. I wonder how the defense is feeling right now? Although hopefully his "expert witness" role and testimony will be thrown, good to know he agrees.

  • 5. Yann  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:02 am

    If he wasn't actually testifying to take away my rights, I would probably ask for somebody to put this guy out of his misery. But in this case, you'll have to suck it up, buddy!

  • 6. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:02 am

    heck out this facebook group of lies, they are saying crazy shit!!
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Understand-the-Cons

  • 7. NJLawGuy  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:03 am

    "B: Answer yes, no or you can say “I don’t know.” (Laughter)."

    Awesomeness. The claims of this witness have been revealed for the pathetic mess they are.

    Great, great arguments here for the plaintiff. Although I doubt any of that will matter at the SCOTUS level when we are not granted a protected status. I fear we will be subject solely to a rational basis scrutiny and thus lose again.

  • 8. abbe  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:03 am

    I've never wished I had a legal background until this case. I just want to understand the defense's strategy here, putting this guy on the stand.

  • 9. Carl E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Don't! He knew which side he was defending when he took the job. He knew where his paycheck was coming from.

  • 10. Loren  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:04 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!

  • 11. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:04 am

    B: Answer yes, no or you can say “I don’t know.” (Laughter).

    hahahahahahaha….."GOOD GOD MAN!"

  • 12. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:05 am

    The fact that the defense presented this man as their expert witness, reaffirms the fact that nothing is solid in their case. It's all smoke and mirrors, designed to support narrowmindedness, and hatred. TWO THUMBS UP FOR DAVID BOIES!!!

  • 13. jrw  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Regardless of Judges ruling, we just won.

  • 14. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:06 am

    I agree, I had a feeling the cross of defense witnesses would be brutal, but I did not expect this.

    Remember, they pulled two witnesses because they felt their testimony hurt more than it helped. That means those witnesses were worse than this one.

  • 15. Brian  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:06 am

    He's just been utterly destroyed. Yesterday was one thing, but Boies really knows how to start the day!

  • 16. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:06 am

    dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb…..dumdedoobie de doobie dum!……..

    WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAHHHHH!

  • 17. Brian  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:07 am

    I still laugh at that! Will somebody please print up some t-shirts with a picture of Boies and the quote bubble?!?!

  • 18. NJLawGuy  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:08 am

    I doubt the defense is terribly worried. They know this is going to the Supreme Court and I would guess that they are counting on having 5 of the 9 votes of the Supreme Court.

  • 19. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:08 am

    I thought his examination by Thomson went well. He made some interesting arguments about LGBT having political power. And if the defense can show LGBT has political power, than they get the rational basis test.

    Frankly, though, I am stunned that they couldn't find a more competent "expert" to make that argument for them. I guess it just goes to show that nobody who really studies the issue is on their side…

  • 20. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:08 am

    What the hell is wrong with those people?

  • 21. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:09 am

    I'm working on it….lol

  • 22. Jenny  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:10 am

    wow, that is some serious hate going on there. mean people suck.

  • 23. abbe  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:10 am

    I agree about the examination. That was a good strategy, to bring up things pointing toward LGBT political power, but to have someone who appears so completely inept seems to undermine that strategy.

  • 24. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Pot meet kettle. (Except there is no kettle. )

    “Homosexual activists have devised a propaganda campaign to confuse and deceive the American people about their objectives. They rely on intimidation, lies, and fear to silence opposition to their agenda.” – From the “Traditional Values Coalition Exposes Homosexual Agenda” report

  • 25. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:12 am

    B: Simple question, in your view as pol sci did Brown v. Board protect a right or expand a right.

    M: Protecting right guaranteed by 14th amendment.

    B: So you believe Brown v. Board was not expanding, but protecting a right granted by 14th Amendment?

    M: Yes, that’s my view.

    Myth BUSTED!

  • 26. DM  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Seriously, who is this guy? From the snippets of his book, he does not SEEM to be advancing an anti-gay agenda. Yet he's willing to get up on the stand and say stuff like "[my book from 2009] was factually and analytically incorrect?" What kind of academic disavows his own work so cavalierly?? Is he really a hater underneath??

  • 27. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Indeed. It's hard to look at the things in toto and not be sympathetic.

  • 28. DonG  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:13 am

    The defense put him on to show that gays and lesbians have political power. The reason for this is that the plaintiffs (us) are trying to show that gays are a "suspect" class. If you are a suspect class, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove that Prop 8 was enacted to ensure a "compelling state interest" and that Prop 8 was the least restrictive means to accomplish this compelling state interest.

    In order for the plaintiffs to show that gays are a suspect class they have to show 4 things:

    the statute at issue must target:

    1. a "discrete" or "insular" minority who
    2. possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion),
    3. share a history of discrimination, and
    4. are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

    It is #4 that the defendants are trying to show is not available to gays since this gay is supposed to testify that gays have political power.

  • 29. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:13 am

    "Answer yes, no or you can say “I don’t know.” "

    LOFL!!!

  • 30. Kiapita  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Argh! Cliffhanger! Then what did he say?

  • 31. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:13 am

    I am starting to question this man't sanity. He should be asked easier questions, like…

    Q: What is your name? A: Yes
    Q: What is your address? A: No
    Q: Are you a moron? Yes or No answer A: I don't know

  • 32. M. N.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Good God man! Did he just make our case?

  • 33. Mouse  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    B: Answer yes, no or you can say “I don’t know.” (Laughter).

    I admit this made me snort with laughter.

  • 34. James  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    I think the defense would be best to simply state, "no further questions" when asked to do the redirect, since I can't imagine what they can possibly ask him that would recover his credibility and prevent harm to their case.

  • 35. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Thank you for putting

    except in the case of religion

    . Many people have been trying to push that point without thinking about the 1st Amendment.

  • 36. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:15 am

    David freakin' Boies…I love this guy!

  • 37. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:15 am

    I doubt that, I bet this guy will be on the rest of the day with the defense trying to gather some of the dignity they lost.

  • 38. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:16 am

    I guess they must have thought they could give him enough coaching that he could stand up to cross-examination…? Clearly they tried to do that — but it didn't take.

    As NJLawGuy points out, this is probably not a significant blow long-term for the defense, though. What's more interesting is whether they will try to take this guy with them to 9th Circuit and SCOTUS…. Or will the defense just not have any witnesses? heh…

  • 39. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:16 am

    They only have a handful of people as fans, and several of those are just to call them on their lies. :-)

  • 40. Michael  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Thanks for the great coverage.

    I had a name mixed up when reading some testimony, so I checked your link "key players" (http://prop8trialtracker.com/key-namesplayers/)
    and noticed that Dr Miller is NOT listed in the defense.

    That's clearly appropriate

  • 41. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Well, most of us aren't legal scholars and most of us are probably a bit tired of religion getting a free pass to kick us around like a football. Self-preservation is instinctual, after all.

  • 42. DonG  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:17 am

    That's supposed to be "since this GUY is supposed to testify that gays have political power."
    Freudian slip, I guess.

  • 43. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:17 am

    And WTF are they doing with their whole this guy wanted to marry his horse thing which isn't true.

    LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 44. James  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I thought we had laws against torture in this country!

  • 45. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:18 am

    The one calling them on their lies, is me :o) lol I couldnt help myself.

  • 46. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:18 am

    No doubt they will do some redirect. They'd be foolish not to. They can at least try and salvage his basic point, that LGBT is not politically powerless, e.g. just because initiatives have been used to target minorities does not mean that some of those targeted minorities are not politically powerful. That would be a useful point to make on redirect…

    But yeah, his credibility is pretty shredded, and there's not a whole lot they can do about that…

  • 47. Marko Markov  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I LOOOOOOVE THIS!!! It's better than watching Avatar and Titanic simultaneously 😀 😀 😀

    M: I think there is a difference between protecting rights versus expanding rights.
    B: At the time that prop. 8 was passed did gays and lesbians have a right to marry?
    M: There was an initiative pending…
    B: Answer yes, no or you can say “I don’t know.” (Laughter).
    M: Yes.

  • 48. Marko Markov  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Ooops!

    Love,
    Marko

  • 49. Jon  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    You may count on prevailing on appeal, but it is never better to lose.

    And you may not get your appeal. Over 98% of the cases appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court declines to hear.

    So the stakes for the defense are not zero in this trial.

  • 50. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    I was a little worried when Miller brought up protecting vs expanding rights, that he might be saying something respectable, but no. Boies is awesome.

  • 51. Kevin  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Nobody knows who will be on the court in the years it will take to make it there. Even if it's the same I would still be extremely worried if I were them. After all, the only justice they'd really be talking to is Kennedy, and he wrote the Lawrence decision.

  • 52. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Unfortunately, the myth originally started as a MISSOURI man who wanted to marry his horse. This was a long time ago.

    Then, because of Massachusetts allowing same sex marriage, they now spin that it happened there.

  • 53. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:21 am

    B: Are you familiar with Meagan’s law?
    M: Yes.
    B: Provides punishment for people who perpetrate crimes against little girls.
    M: Yes.
    B: Do you think that passage of that law showed the political power of little girls?

    Zing!

  • 54. Al  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Report them to Facebook as creating hate and bigotry, etc. See if you can provide some of the testamony from today and then cite hate crimes. Worth a try if somebody has time to pursue.

    A.

  • 55. Loren  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:22 am

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

    Thanks for the reminder. It's right there, in the highest law of the land, but I hadn't been thinking about it.

  • 56. M S  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:23 am

    It's maddening, isn't it? The notion that marriage equality paves the way for polyamory and such just WON'T DIE.

    When one considers who the major funding sources are for the anti-equality side (*cough* LDS *cough cough* Catholics) and what THEIR respective track records are for a) "Redefining Marriage" and/or Keeping Marriage Purely Between One Man and… well, anyways, that's water under the bridge and b) Man-Boy Love, it's just pathetic. If only consistency mattered!

  • 57. proudprogressive  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:23 am

    i reported the page to FB for innapropriate content. FB took out the choices of hateful , which had been an option for reporting a page – i put my comments regarding the hatefulness, the potential damage to young people's self esteem and the peddling of lies as some of my objections.

  • 58. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:25 am

    That part was awesome. Go Boies!

  • 59. proudprogressive  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:25 am

    done i told them the page puts lgbTq in imminent danger among other things.

  • 60. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:26 am

    B: Do you know the official name of the hate crimes bill?
    M: Matthew Shepard Bill? (Sheepishly)
    B: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Bill. Do you know who Byrd was?
    M: Someone killed…

    Oh…my…gawd!!!! O.O

  • 61. Tim  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:27 am

    That last update was particularly brutal for Miller!

    Did you believe this when you wrote it?
    M: It’s compound statement. Which part?
    B: All of it. You wrote it!
    M: I did not agree with all of it.

    (And it's not like it was something they wrote 30 years ago like they tried to do with our witnesses!)

    B: Only federal legislation you know of?
    M: Only federal legislation I know of passed by congress.
    B: All federal legislation is passed by congress! It’s the only one you know!

    (BRUTAL)

  • 62. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Me thinks someone is getting tired and a little testy, and Boise is smelling blood in the water. Teehee!

  • 63. Al  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Need a 100 or more people asking for removal. otherwise Facebook will not even review

  • 64. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:29 am

    "someone who died"?

    "someone who died"?

    WTF….you POS…..WTF is your f-ing problem you ignorant…I don't know….I don't know….

    UGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!

    You wrote it but you don't agree with it? It was last year moron….OMG

    "Where you got in the shower?"

    Move to strike……badgering the witness!

    I'm sorry that I relied on others!…(a.k.a my lawyers!)

  • 65. Carl E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:30 am

    From the FDL blog:

    A bit of background on the courtroom interruption (from the ADF Twitter):

    #Just had unfortunate interruption. Gentleman carrying Bible forced way into ctroom and past fed officers… #prop8 about 1 hour ago from web

    #Who then had to forcefully remove him. Man exclaimed the family should be “returned to Jesus” as he was removed #prop8 about 1 hour ago from web

  • 66. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:30 am

    i meant someone killed…..but you get the point!

  • 67. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:30 am

    My guts are all tied up (coffee) and the hysterical laughter is bothering my Basset Hound (Angel).

  • 68. proudprogressive  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:31 am

    YES!

  • 69. Charles  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:31 am

    http://i46.tinypic.com/28mpdti.jpg

    An illustration attempt about Miller and Boies :-)

  • 70. Doug  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I reported them as well. Only 24 fans though so it's not like they are lying to very many people LOL

  • 71. Wolfinlv  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Are you sure he knew… maybe he "doesn't know." or "Can't Recall"

  • 72. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:31 am

    For a brief second, I was feeling sorry for Miller. Eh, not so much anymore.

    "someone killed"???? REALLY?! SRSLY?!

    I fully expected Boies to come back with "Ya think?"

  • 73. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:31 am

    seriously…is this guy for real?

    he's harvard educated?

    boies is ripping him apart.

    i have no clue how, with this guy at the legal helm, we got 8 miserable years of W, the appointed

  • 74. Pandora  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:32 am

    I'll bet redirect will consist of the defense trying to paint this guy as a lunatic, flip-flopper, basically unreliable and not representative of their side. Which, since he's *their witness*, will go over just swimmingly.

  • 75. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Oh great! I can hear the cries of "victim" all the way on the other side of the Mississippi!!!

  • 76. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Thanks, I was wondering if the political cartoons were following this trial.

  • 77. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Augh, I have to go do a training, but I don't want to leave my computer!!!!

    *claws at desk to hold on*

    NOOOOO, don't make me leave!!!!

    LOL, later guys and dolls!

  • 78. MKrumm  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Well, in the nearly 12 months of the group's existence, they have amassed a whopping 25 fans, so I'm not too worried about them.

  • 79. Pandora  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Now that song will be stuck in my head all day. Thanks ever so. 😛

  • 80. Marko Markov  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Don't forget they paid him to go there! 😀

  • 81. RAL  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Another reason pro prop 8 side didn't want this televised. A sound bite / outburst like this (with juicy visuals) would make all the news outlets.

  • 82. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Reported too.

  • 83. M. N.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:34 am

    ICEBURN. And that was the only piece of legislation he could think of to back up his claims.

  • 84. Loren  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:35 am

    This reminds me of the most cruelly surreal feature of the Yes on 8 campaign – the fact that they were able to make the campaign about the fear of what might happen if same-sex marriage was legalized.

    I knew smart people who were genuinely concerned about potential taxation of church funds, completely missing the fact that during a state budget crunch ss marriage was completely legal for six months and no churches were even threatened with taxation.

  • 85. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Judge throw the good book at him!

  • 86. Choinski  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:35 am

    From personal experience, you DO NOT want to piss off the little girl lobby!

  • 87. Wolfinlv  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:35 am

    if I continue reading that page my head will explode…

  • 88. Rod S  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Sweet !

  • 89. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:36 am

    If they can cry victim, then so can Code Pink.

  • 90. NJLawGuy  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Jon – totally agree on it being better to win when it moves to appeals.

    I am starting to wonder if this god-awful testimony on their side will be the beginning of a panic. They've mismanaged a lot on their side – poor witness choice, weak arguments, so-so cross-examination.

    Perhaps (and I am hoping here) that what we are witnessing is the disintegration of their fight/cause. It cannot withstand a rational examination.

  • 91. Tim  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Why can't they accept that Christianity is not our national religion and that there may be "non-traditional" (in the Christian sense) families that are just as good???

    One thing that wasn't mentioned in the trial was that people are even LESS willing to vote for a well-qualified atheist president than a gay one! (It's from the same study.) I guess atheists are considered even more immoral than gays. As a gay atheist racial minority, I guess I can count on never holding political office in my lifetime (not that I would really want to). -_-

  • 92. kenny  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Miller is providing the best laughs I have had in days……

  • 93. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:37 am

    LMAO….you're welcome….. ; )

  • 94. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:37 am

    So, just to be clear… This man hasn't researched, studied or read anything pertaining to this case, pretty much? Can someone please, explain to me how this person was even admitted as an expert witness? My answer is I DON"T KNOW!

  • 95. JonInSF  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Boies.

    He bites. Meowch!

  • 96. obsidianraine  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:38 am

    … freedom of religion infers freedom from religion …

  • 97. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Walker was allowing the defendants to have their witness, and he told Boies to bring all this up in cross, which he is.

  • 98. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:39 am

    It sounds like he's wearying a bit. Getting less defensive, seems resigned to admitting to things instead of pleading ignorance. . . .

  • 99. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Right, religion is treated as a special situation in our country's history and Constitution. It's the First Amendment that ties religion into the 14th Amendment.

  • 100. PaulN  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:41 am

    I created this for icanhascheezburger.com. You're welcome to use it.
    http://cheezburger.com/View.aspx?aid=3113078272

  • 101. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Also reported.

  • 102. James  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Since he's left Miller's credibility on the side of the road to die, I'm guessing that means the court would weigh his testimony accordingly?

  • 103. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:41 am

    @obsidianraine yes but that is no reason to no give protections to those religions. What we are establishing with this trial, and has been established with many other court cases, is that freedom from religion.

  • 104. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I've been wondering what the Defense will try to do to salvage this on redirect.

  • 105. proudprogressive  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:42 am

    jaw drops. oh the re enactments of these two days are going to be un freaking believable !

  • 106. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Walker said he would determine weight later, so it must be comparing the weight of a feather to that of a mountain.

  • 107. Brian D  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Word. I agree…it almost feels weird because I'm sure Boies will say "this guy is not an expert" but can we still use his stupidity then to further our case? Hmmm….I'll have to think more about that one…

  • 108. Slade  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:43 am

    I also reported.

  • 109. Soundboy_Jeff  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:44 am

    I reported it for innapropriate content as well.

    something tells me if Facebook had a neo-nazi page promoting hate, they'd pull it… this should be gone, there's no difference.

  • 110. proudprogressive  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:45 am

    i would love to see an illustration of Lady Justice her scales and all , with her blindfold off, and her eyes bulging out of her head in reaction to this – ala Ren and Stimpy

  • 111. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:45 am

    The fact that this man is even alowed to speak (by the defense, no less) is beyond tragic and hilarious at the same time. I am amazed at David Boies, and am hoping that judge Walker makes the right decision. Oh my…

  • 112. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Ah, thanks Alan E., I had forgotten about that little exchange when Miller was first brought on the stand. Good call.

  • 113. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:46 am

    He's supposedly an expert on initiatives in general, but "in general" is kind of irrelevant when what's needed is an expert on initiatives relating to civil rights and minority issues.

  • 114. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:48 am

    I LOL'ed! :)

  • 115. obsidianraine  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Interesting that they've had experts pull out.

    It should be noted this is the same thing that happened at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. Expert witnesses for Intelligent Design bailed, arguing they didn't agree with the strategy of the attorneys (the same group as here, I believe). One did try to file a friend of the court brief (to avoid cross), but that was rejected.

    Bottom line: when this stuff, this hate-driven stupidity, is put under the harsh magnifying glass of reason and fact, it tends to fall apart …

  • 116. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Seriously!!

    No more Thin Mints for you, if you do.

  • 117. Nikki  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Well, it was just a matter of time before one of their religious crazies made an unofficial appearance…only proves Boies/Olson's point even moreso that Prop 8 was passed largely due to religious bigotry…

  • 118. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:52 am

    I reported them over on their Blogger host site as well.

  • 119. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:53 am

    You are so right, Choinski! Remember The Bad Seed? Those little girls are scary!

  • 120. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:55 am

    B: Did they provide more institutional resources?
    M: Depends upon how to define.
    B: Your definition?

    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    yes, let's do Boies : )

  • 121. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:55 am

    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    Ooh, burn!

  • 122. Rhonda  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:56 am

    B: Did they provide more institutional resources?

    M: Depends upon how to define.

    B: Your definition?

    M: Depends upon campaign.

    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    ACH! I could've had a V-8

  • 123. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I hear the violins playing as the ship is sinking

  • 124. Al  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I hope this guy Miller got enough payment from Prop 8 to retire. He's going to need some serious cash or a new job by the time this is over.

  • 125. TamChin  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:56 am

    And.. SNAP!

  • 126. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:57 am

    I am going to get in so much trouble with all these outbursts.

    B: Did they provide more institutional resources?
    M: Depends upon how to define.
    B: Your definition?

    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    HAHAHAHAHA!

  • 127. Nikki  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:58 am

    I dunno about that….I am a lesbian atheist (or should that be, atheist lesbian?) and honestly, I've never been discriminated against or bashed on the basis of my atheist belief, but have been for being a lesbian. Also, I was an atheist long before coming out as a lesbian; however, it wasn't until I came out as a lesbian that I lost 90% of my *friends*. So I would question that atheists are more hated than glbt…

  • 128. JonInSF  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:58 am

    M: My opinion is that religious groups put more resources into 8 than against.
    B: Did they provide more institutional resources?
    M: Depends upon how to define.
    B: Your definition?
    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    Meowch. I'm thinking Boise is circling closer now and any moment it's going to be CHOMP — "No further questions, your honor. *urp*"

  • 129. Adrenalin Tim  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Amazing! I love it, Charles. I'm reposting on my blog, with a link back here. :)

  • 130. Happy  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:59 am

    I actually just laughed out loud. This is priceless.

    M: My opinion is that religious groups put more resources into 8 than against.
    B: Did they provide more institutional resources?
    M: Depends upon how to define.
    B: Your definition?

    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    ….. just to pick one out of the air. Boies is HILARIOUS.

    Lesbians Love Boies!

  • 131. Eddie  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:01 am

    B: Your definition?

    M: Depends upon campaign.

    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    LOL

  • 132. Brian  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Oh please, I'm a straight guy and I'd marry Boies!

  • 133. Anne in Tennessee  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Yep — I think I just heard it here in Memphis.

  • 134. Alec from SC  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Oh snap.

    F5, F5, F5. Man, I wish the public could see this on youtube. This is absolutely crazy.

  • 135. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:02 am

    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    Okay, I now officially feel a littlesorry for Miller. It's his own damn fault for trying to get on the wrong side of history, and do so in a court of law… but still, this is brutal.

  • 136. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Yeah, that was pretty much the final nail in Miller's coffin.

  • 137. Will  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:02 am

    B: Is it your opinion that larger contribution of money and resources by religious groups to yes than no?

    M: My opinion is that religious groups put more resources into 8 than against.

    Fabulous! Just fabulous!

  • 138. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Rick surely must know those stopping points he sometimes chooses are priceless.

    Great job…AGAIN…Rick.

  • 139. BMc  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:03 am

    ROTHFLMOA

  • 140. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:03 am

    "Nearer, my god to thee, nearer to thee …"

  • 141. Al  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Do you get the feeling that they (Prop 8 defendants) Want too loose here?

  • 142. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:06 am

    B: Did they provide more institutional resources?
    M: Depends upon how to define.
    B: Your definition?
    M: Depends upon campaign.
    B: Well, let’s talk about Prop. 8 just to pick one out of the air.

    God, I knew this would be an important case but I had no idea how much humor there would be.

  • 143. obsidianraine  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Death of a thousand cuts …

  • 144. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:07 am

    “I really believe that Christian oppression is just around the corner. I really believe that the level of anger arising out of the homosexual community primarily, but the whole humanistic movement that's out there… as they gain political power – and they got it now – they're going to continue to oppress us.” — James Dobson of Focus on the Family

  • 145. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:07 am

    After this is over, he will have to go back and face his students. You know they are watching his testimony.

  • 146. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Part III thread has started

  • 147. Happy  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Lesbians Love Boies is just the continuation of some play from yesterday's comments.

    I know we ALL love Boies at this point.

    Even the Defense, who must HATE Boies right now, at least has to respect his genious.

  • 148. homogenius  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Their problem is they have to convince a federal judge using all those icky hard things like, you know, facts and evidence and stuff.

    It's so much easier with their right-wing religious voters using faith-based arguments. That's the beauty of "received truth" versus "perceived truth". Religious and low-information voters can be won over with arguments that reinforce their existing beliefs and prejudices. This "activist" judge demands all those pesky facts and documentation and flimsy arguments that don't evaporate as soon as you walk away.

    I want to see a re-enactment of this cross-examination with Groucho Marx as Boies!

  • 149. Alec from SC  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:10 am

    I've felt that way ever since he has been on stage. It's bad, real bad.

    I don't understand why they are using him. Also, I don't know why they thought it would be beneficial.

    They would NEVER put him back on stage if this thing goes to the SC. It's an embarrassment.

  • 150. obsidianraine  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:10 am

    I dunno about that. My experience following religiously agendas that make it to court – like in the case of Creationism over the past few decades – is that they tend to be overconfident to arrogant in the assumption they have a winning hand.

    I wonder if their innate prejudice regarding the righteousness of their positions blinds them to the more practical reality of what they are fighting …

  • 151. Paul Isaacs  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Yesterday B got the witness to say that lesbians experience at least as much, if not more, prejudice and discrimination in general.

    Women are a quasi-suspect class.
    This means their witness asserts that lesbians are either quasi-suspect or full suspect, which means that the test should be higher than rrational basis, at least for lesbians.

    so, hey, maybe lesbians will get to marry but not gay men?

  • 152. Steve  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:11 am

    It seems to me the result so far is not dissimilar to what one would expect from putting an expert-witness report through a good cross-cut paper shredder.

    Boies seems to be putting the expert witness through the shredder, too. One opinion at a time.

  • 153. obsidianraine  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Excuse me – I meant "religiously-influenced agendas"

  • 154. homogenius  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Oooops–

    End of second 'graph should read "pesky facts and documentation and NOT JUST flimsy arguments that (don't) evaporate as soon as you walk away

  • 155. Anaguma  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:12 am

    "Returned to Jesus"? But Jesus didn't get married…

  • 156. Tim  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Right, and by "oppress" he actually means "prevent us from foisting our religion onto the law and politics of this multicultural, multi-religious society"

  • 157. DebbieC  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Reported.

  • 158. homogenius  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:13 am

    There's no testimony at SCOTUS. It's just the lead attorney's before the Justices.

  • 159. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Reported.

  • 160. abbe  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:14 am

    "It depends on what the definition of "is" is."

  • 161. truthspew  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:15 am

    <blockquote cite="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.">

    We in RI have a perennial crank known as Chris Young that always does the same thing at marriage equality hearings here. He's been tossed from chambers a zillion times for screaming epithets. It's to the point now where a well thrown voice of "It's because you're a bigot!" to get him on the tear that gets him thrown out. I should know, I'm the one who said it.

  • 162. Anaguma  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:16 am

    One wonders how Rick is able to type so well while still laughing…

  • 163. Ray Harwick  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:17 am

    If you read the Associated Press article on yesterday's trial activity, you'd think that Kenneth Miller butchered David Boies and fed him to the sharks.

    Thus sayeth the story in my local newspaper today, The Desert Sun, Palm Springs, California.

    I honestly think the AP reported simply did their "research" by going to the Alliance Defense Fund twitter page.

  • 164. Jenny  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:21 am

    How do you report it? Is there a link from that page somewhere?

  • 165. James Sweet  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Link? I tried to find it on Google but was unsuccessful.

    Without having read the AP article, they might have had a point, yesterday… the defense's examination of Miller actually went fairly well, and he scored a few points off of softball questions. The cross-examination was only just ramping up yesterday, so a reporter at that time might be forgiven for mischaracterizing Miller's testimony as a victory for the defense.

    The early coverage on today's testimony seems to reflect just how brutal the cross-examination has been, so I wouldn't worry too much. It will be interesting to see if even Pugno can spin this one… heh..

  • 166. drjams  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:22 am

    "Let's talk about Prop 8 just to pick one out of the air"!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  • 167. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:24 am

    I am *so* over the "repressed majority hegemony" argument …

  • 168. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Or, "oppressed," even … Argh.

  • 169. Sean  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Just saved that picture onto my computer. Thanks, PaulN!

  • 170. MikeLT  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:38 am

    But was it a gay horse?

  • 171. Rebecca  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:44 am

    "B: Are you familiar with Meagan’s law?

    M: Yes.

    B: Provides punishment for people who perpetrate crimes against little girls.

    M: Yes.

    B: Do you think that passage of that law showed the political power of little girls?

    M: No, those who care about them.

    B: That’s my point, sir. We’re all better off having this law, just as society as a whole is better off with hate crimes bill."

    Is he the Defense's export or ours? LOL

  • 172. M Keane  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:56 am

    This reminds me of an icon I saw someone use. It showed Lady Justice and the Statue of Liberty in a lip lock. I really wish I could remember where I saw it. If I find it again I'll post a link.

  • 173. Buddha Buck  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:09 am

    I thought it was weak. Yes, he did list a lot of ways that LGBT have political power, but those exact same issues were examined last week with a plaintiff witness (who's name escapes me at the moment).

    Miller pointed out a number of ways in which GLBT have a voice, friends in high places, and have the support of powerful organizations. Ergo, saith Miller, GLBT have political power.

    The plaintiff witness pointed out that the definition of political power is the ability to get results — which GLBT have been rather poor at doing (0 for 30 in initiatives, no hate crime legislation, etc). On cross, he admitted what Miller testified to, but also reiterated that friends in high places haven't gotten results.

    So what I see are two experts specializing in political science and the study of political power, one for the plaintiff and one for the D-I. The plaintiff expert comes across very well, and testifies to the reasonable proposition that political power is the ability to get results, and that despite visibility and apparent influence, GLBT have failed to get results. The DI expert testifies that GLBT have a lot of visibility and apparent influence, therefore they must be powerful. Oh, and he's woefully underprepared and was apparently coached by the DI.

    If Miller was the only expert talking about GLBT political power or powerlessness, perhaps his testimony would be influential. Given the plaintiff expert, then to me it becomes weighing one expert's testimony against the other.

  • 174. William  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Why isn't this a first amendment establishment case? This cross is clearly confirming that Prop 8 legislated the religious views of the majority of Californians.

  • 175. Tim In Dallas  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:52 am

    OMG! This persons tweets are hysterical!
    http://twitter.com/protectmawwiage

  • 176. CharlieRay  |  January 26, 2010 at 7:55 am

    I just LOVE that Boies has a very sharp although constructive sense of humor.

  • 177. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Is ZMiller one of THEIR witnesses? Everything Rick quoted from the trial in this part sounds like what OUR experts were saying! Talk about shooting the DI's case right through the heart. Oops! My goof. They don't have a heart.

  • 178. Roger  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:48 am

    But the mutability of religious belief is the very thing that the first amendment protects!

  • 179. Liveblogging Day 11: Part&hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:59 am

    […] Liveblogging Day 11: Part II […]

  • 180. Chris  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:19 am

    I love Boies. Enough said.

  • 181. APOLARITY » Blog Ar&hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:59 am

    […] via Charles, a commenter at the trial […]

  • 182. Ed-M  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Actually genesis of that bogus lie goes back to "Mr. ED." Wilbur and that talking horse always came off as an old married couple. LOL!

  • 183. Ed-M  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    No, but he did have a beloved disciple — likely two: St John and St Lazarus.

  • 184. Ed-M  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    The real problem with the RR are the activist founding fathers who enshrined an activist judiciary into the Constitution in order to protect minorities from majoritarian tyranny. That, and the fact they want to replace the Constitution with their idea of "Biblical Law…."

  • 185. Will H  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:44 am

    That south park clip was hilarious!

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