Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Tag: Charles Cooper

Liveblogging Day 12: Daily Summary

By Julia Rosen

This is the last daily summary for a few weeks.

Here is the timeline we are looking at… Amicus briefs are due on February 3rd. Judge Walker is bringing the lawyers in to go over these briefs on Feburary 26th. He indicated as they were wrapping up today that at that time (the 26th) he will schedule the closing arguments. That likely means we will not have closing arguments until early March, with the ruling several weeks after that, depending on how long Judge Walker takes.

I know, the wait stinks, but I’d much rather Judge Walker be deliberative about this process and his ruling than it be rushed. No matter what way this goes, the wording in his ruling will influence what the appeals court and eventually the Supreme Court will say and do.

The hiatus does not mean we will be stopping around these parts. There will be fresh content throughout this break, so keep coming back and join in the comments. (more…)

68 Comments January 27, 2010

Liveblogging Day 12: Part IV Wrapping Up

By Rick Jacobs

Well, its noon and it’s over. I just had a person from Gibson Dunn come up and thank me for the blog. That means a whole, whole lot. And nice young man from Australia.

Now, our work really begins. Now we have to spread the substance of this trial everywhere.

And sooner than later, we need to thank AFER, Chad Griffin, Bruce Cohen, Kristina Schacke, Yusef Robb, Amanda Crumley, Rob and Michelle Reiner, Ted Olson, Ted Boutrous, David Boies and all of the partners, associates, colleagues and staff of Boies and Gibson Dunn.

Hopefully, we’ll hear from them soon.

We fully expect and hope that the wonderful, brave plaintiffs will be out front more and more.

Thank you to Eden, Julia, Robert, Sarah, Andy and the entire Courage staff, as well as Brian, Paul, Caitlin, Jennifer, and Laura for blogging their excellent trial analysis posts.

And finally, thank you. Thank you to the community of Trial Trackers that has formed in the comment threads. All and each.

More soon! Stay tuned…

——–
Boutrous: We have documents. Will keep them and not submit them to court unless court wants them.

Judge Walker: We have enough.

Laughter

Boutrous: Court said relatively brief Amicus Briefs within seven days of presentation of evidence.

Cooper: we have no strident opposition to that, but think that court has enough to chew on, but we’d like to submit our own papers in response.

Judge Walker: Obviously. We’ll set a deadline for next Wednesday Feb. 3 to file applications for Amicus Briefs and either grant or deny as appropriate. Will set a fifteen-page limitation and will provide ample opportunity for response by parties. I will agree with Mr. Cooper that the record is abundant and I doubt that we’ll get much from these, but one never knows, so we’ll leave the door open.

Judge Walker: Here’s what I’d like. I’d like to take time to go over this material. I don’t think at this time it’s helpful to have post-trial briefs. You may very well find it useful to submit your proposed findings of law tied to evidence. You’ve already submitted your proposed findings of law. I realize that you do have a lot of material to go through. I’ll be guided by your suggestion for amount of time you need.

I’d like to review those and then set a date for closing argument. Then I’ll probably tee up some questions that have come to the fore to give you the opportunity to address in closing arguments. I would like to leave the date open now. But when the time comes, I’ll have the clerk call both parties with a range of dates so that you can work that out with your schedule.

How long?

Boutrous: 30 days would be fine with us.

Cooper: 30 days should be adequate, your honor.

Judge Walker: Why don’t we set February 26th. Alright February 26th and probably by that time I’ll have a much better idea of closing argument schedule.

Boutrous: On behalf of plaintiffs, want to thank court for making this easy.

Judge Walker: I want to extend my thanks to the lawyers for both sides for an extremely interesting, well-presented case. Obviously old hands, but I was struck by the expertise of the younger colleagues both in the courtroom and behind the scenes. The older hands should be very pleased. I’d just like to take a moment to congratulate you and tell you all personally (goes into courtroom to shake hands).

154 Comments January 27, 2010

Liveblogging Day 11: Part VI

By Rick Jacobs

This witness is probably very clever. He is belligerent, but clever. I fear that even though he is worthless or worse for their side, he’ll be great to say that he was bullied or whatever. He was not. He’s just uncooperative and not an expert on anything discernable.]

Boies: Did Prof. Quayle write anything in here about same sex marriage?

David Blankenhorn (DB): No. I’m not aware of her ever having said anything about same sex marriage. That was written in 1988.

Boies: Deinstitutionalization?

DB: No. She’s a historian. That’s a term that comes from sociology.

Boies: Neither Davis, nor Quayle, or Fraser, nor Committee of Anthropology of Northern Ireland, nor prof. Vandenberg, nor prof. Malinowski talk about same sex marriage or deinstitutionalization of marriage?

DB: Not correct.

Boies. I was trying to speed things up, but it won’t work. (more…)

169 Comments January 26, 2010

Livebogging Day 11: Part V

By Rick Jacobs

[Wherein at the end, the witness says “Discriminatory not to call two things that are the same by the same name.” This is not out of context. That’s what he said about same sex marriage vs. domestic partnerships. Read to the end. This guy is just too much. And boy can he talk!

I’m sorry to keep editorializing, but this guy has strong opinions and no data. He just knows what he knows, is apparently incapable of original research and just keeps repeating himself.]

DB: Dr. Norval Glenn who is prominent sociologist at Univ. of Texas in Austin 2004. Reads: However, acceptance of the arguments made by advocates of same sex marriage would lead to its logical end, i.e., that purpose of marriage is the couple rather than anything larger than the couple.

The scholars are on opposite side of policy side of whether we should adopt same sex marriage.

CC: Are there other scholars who talk about same sex as accelerating deinstitutionalization of marriage?

DB: Yes

CC: How confident are you that same sex will accelerate deinstitutionalization of marriage? (more…)

315 Comments January 26, 2010

Liveblogging Day 11: Part IV

By Rick Jacobs

[Looks like we won’t finish today. If the judge is indeed going out of town tomorrow, this will likely get held over until Monday. We’ll see.]

Dr. David Blankenhorn (DB) is sworn in.

Charles Cooper (CC) is examining him.

DB: Harvard in 1977 with degree in social studies. 1979 degree of history at University of Warwick. MA with distinction. John Knox fellowship as undergraduate study abroad at University of Warwick. Then spent two years in VISTA program, as community organizer in Boston and then continue my work as community organizer in Massachusetts and Virginia.

Our job as organizers was to advocate for reforms they thought were important. For me, seeing the weakened state of communities and families in those communities, particularly of children without fathers, motivated me.

In 1987, started Institute for American Values. Non-partisan think-tank focused on marriage and childhood well-being. I’m president.

Commission research, hold conferences. Our signature product is report to the nation where scholars work intensively for a period of time and then jointly release findings and recommendations. Main subjects, fatherhood, marriage, family structure, family well-being. In past years added other areas, but these are primary.

Annual report called state of our unions, which is report on the state of marriage. And then working on third periodic report on marriage.

Work with fifteen scholars to come up with principal social science findings on marriage. Have done two; now working on third.
Personally involved as principal writer or investigator or working with scholars to identify them and then with them in non-leadership role as they develop their conclusions.

CC: Have you authored any books?

DB: I authored a book called Fatherless America, a book about consequences of 35% of children living apart from their fathers. Then 2007, Future of Marriage that looks at marriage and how we might strengthen it in future.

CC: Describe research re: Fatherless America?

DB: Interviews with fathers in six different cities around the country and used transcripts. Looked at literature. Then held scholarly gatherings at which papers were commissioned and presented. Strengthened my work.

DB: Fair to say that book was widely and generally well reviewed: LAT, Washington Post, NYT, Newsweek, and CBS Evening News. Led to lots of public speaking at civic and community groups.

CC: Dr. Michael Lamb has testified in this case. Did he review your book? (more…)

320 Comments January 26, 2010

Liveblogging Daily Summary: Day 6

By Julia Rosen

We are back from the long holiday weekend and had a short day today, with Judge Walker adjourning early to deal with some other business.

Today Brian Leubitz liveblogged the morning, with Rick Jacobs taking over the duties for the afternoon.

Thanks to everyone who introduced themselves this morning in the welcome thread that now has more than 300 400 comments. Our Trial Trackers are amazing. The stories you have been sharing have been painful and inspiring to read.

We are now over 700,000 views, 5,000 comments and 80 blog posts in a week and a half. Just incredible.

The daily summary is below. All of the livebloggers today seemed to think that the defendants were hurting themselves with their line of questioning on the statistics during the cross-exams this afternoon. What do you think? How did the day go? (more…)

33 Comments January 19, 2010

Next page Previous page