Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Archives – January, 2010

Get your “Lesbians Love Boies” t-shirt

By Julia Rosen

David Boies became a hero around these parts for his thorough embarrassing of both Dr. Kenneth Miller and David Blankenhorn during his epic cross-examinations. One of our regular Trial Trackers in the comments, the poster formerly known as Barb, even changed her username to “Lesbians Love Boies”.

We loved that phrase so much that we made it into a t-shirt. It’s available on Skreend, with a portion of the proceeds going to benefit the Courage Campaign. Think of Skreened as a more ethical Cafepress that prints all of their gear on American Apparel. So all of you gay boys can buy one too and fit your gym bodies. Or if you haven’t been to the gym in a while, there are some sweet hoodies and tote bags available.

If you are wearing one and ever run into David Boies, please do take a picture of the two of you together. We’d love to post it.

[UPDATE] You asked for it in the comments and you got it. “Boys <3 Boies" is now available for purchase!

76 Comments January 27, 2010

Trial Trackers: Stay involved with the Courage Campaign

By Julia Rosen

After Wednesday’s proceedings, our minute-by-minute liveblogging of the trial will pause until the trial resumes again for Judge Walker’s final question-and-answer session with the plaintiffs and defendants.

Meanwhile, keep checking back at the Trial Tracker for new analysis and updates as we wait for the closing arguments. There will be new content up here every day.

Of course, just because the trial will be on hiatus doesn’t mean that our work ends, or even pauses. The Courage Campaign Institute and the Courage Campaign were hard at work fighting for equality before this trial started and will continue long after Judge Walker rules.

We’d love to have you join us. Here are some ways to stay involved and get to work:

In addition, we are going to be collecting all of your wonderful personal stories, so keep your eyes out for that.

Thank you to everyone who chimed in on Rick’s “Trial Trackers: We need you” thread. There were some excellent ideas that we will be considering in the coming days.

Feel free to keep the suggestions coming in the comment thread on this post. We really enjoy hearing from you!

55 Comments January 27, 2010

The burning question: Who was the worst witness?

By Julia Rosen

Brian thought that he had the question of the day “This is a Witness for the Defense?”, but that was a little too rhetorical.

I’ve got a better one. Who was the worst witness for the defense, Dr. Kenneth Miller or David Blankenhorn? Which one did the most damage to their case. Or put another way, which one was the most helpful for our side?

I know, it’s a tough call. I’m sure we can all agree the real winner was David Boies and the plaintiffs.

Go vote!

[polldaddy poll=2604296]

This won’t be the last poll we put up. After all, there is a lot of time to kill between now and February 26th. If you have ideas for future polls you want to see run on the Trial Tracker, please chime in the comments.

174 Comments January 27, 2010

This is a Witness for the Defense?

by Brian Leubitz

Well, it looks like testimony has been all wrapped up. But David Boies’ demolition of David Blankenhorn — the defense’s second, and final, “expert” witness — will continue to reverberate through the record as this case proceeds forward. Was Blankenhorn an actual expert, well, let’s let him answer that:

DB: “I’m simply repeating things that they say.”
DB: “These are not my own conclusions.”
DB: “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”

And even those conclusions don’t actually support what the defense was going for with this witness. I’m pretty certain they weren’t looking for these choice nuggets:

“Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”

“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

Keep in mind, these were the words of the defense expert. Honestly, I can’t wait to see how Andy Pugno tries to tie together the mess that was the defense’s two expert witnesses. Honestly, I figured that after Boies got through with Prof. Miller, that he couldn’t top that performance. I was wrong. Blankenhorn was an absolute disaster for the defense. He had no credibility with the Judge, and his continued failure to answer questions won’t look good on a written record either.

Also, if you missed this link in the comments, one of our amazing Trial Trackers spotted this video of a gay marriage debate between Evan Wolfson, of Freedom to Marry, and Mr. Blankenhorn. If you’d like to see what Rick was talking about with Blankenhorn’s demeanor, check it out. But keep in mind, Wolfson wasn’t cross examining him, and Boies was nowhere in site.

111 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.


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 12: Part III

By Rick Jacobs

The epic cross of Mr. Blankenhorn by the masterful David Boies continues.

DB: Badgett is someone whose articles I have read, but not sure of this particular article.

BO: Offer as evidence.

Cooper: No objection.

DB: I’ve read several of her articles and I appreciate the integrity of those articles. She’s obviously taken a position opposite of my own on almost every question, but she’s a good thinker.

Judge Walker: You got your answer.

BO: Amato article, move it in?

Judge Walker: Yes.

BO: This is an article in which Amato investigates how children in households with both bio parents differ with children from someone else.

DB: You are reading that from a summary.

BO: You’ve read the whole thing? (more…)

151 Comments January 27, 2010

Next page Previous page