Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Prop 8 proponents throw fit over video of Walker’s court proceedings

Prop 8 trial Videos

By Adam Bink

For those who missed it in the comments yesterday, the Prop 8 proponents are throwing a fit over Judge Walker playing a clip at his Arizona State address. I wrote about it awhile back. He argued for televised court proceedings.

The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban want the now-retired federal judge who declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional to surrender videotapes of the trial that led to his ruling.

Lawyers for supporters of the voter-approved ban also asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday to prohibit former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker from playing the recordings for anyone else.

The motion came in response to a talk Walker gave in February at the University of Arizona and rebroadcast on C-Span.

During his presentation, the judge showed a clip from the trial.

The lawyers say that violated a U.S. Supreme Court order and assurances from Walker.

They’re so afraid the public will see what a disaster it was for them, and will see real live testimony about how gay and lesbian couples are discriminated against. It makes me kinda sick that they want to hide the truth.

An excerpt:

On February 18, 2011, Judge Walker delivered a speech at the University of Arizona in which he played a portion of the video recording of the cross- examination of one of Proponents’ expert witnesses in the trial of this case. The speech was video taped by C-SPAN, and it was subsequently broadcast on C- SPAN several times beginning on March 22 … The speech is available for viewing on C-SPAN’s website.

By publicly displaying the video recording of a portion of the trial testimony, Judge Walker (1) violated his own order placing the video recording of the trial under seal; (2) ignored the clear terms of the district court’s Local Rule 77-1-3, which prohibits the broadcast or other transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse”; (3) contravened the longstanding policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of this Court prohibiting public broadcast of trial proceedings; and (4) defied the United States Supreme Court’s prior decision in this case ruling that an earlier attempt by then- Chief Judge Walker to publicly broadcast the trial proceedings “complied neither with existing rules or policies nor the required procedures for amending them.”

The motion is here on Scribd:

[scribd id=52946291 key=key-1vapus0qu33z3epvl195 mode=list]

89 Comments

  • 1. JoeRH  |  April 13, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    Why did he do it? It seems to me that he did break the rules or regulations or whatever. Sure, by trying to prevent the video from being seen would help the proponents, but this isn't about that. I just don't understand why he'd do it.

  • 2. Carl  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:18 am

    If he had played a tape from the trial that did NOT appear on C-SPAN he might have broken the law…since this did appear nationally I suspect it is common property, and he broke no rule showing it…

  • 3. fiona64  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:09 am

    What Carl said.

  • 4. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:44 am

    It only appeared on C-SPAN because he showed it during his talk.

  • 5. Michelle Evans  |  April 14, 2011 at 4:17 am

    It seems to me that we are somehow missing the context of what happened. Has there been any explanation as to why Walker showed the tape in the first place?

    It would seem that the prudent thing to do would be to air on the side of caution and not show the tape in a public forum, especially if he knew it would be recorded and shown on CSPAN.

    I want to see these tapes as much as anyone (see my post concerning the FOIA), but if he did defy the court order, then this will do nothing but have a negative impact on the case, and could, in the worst case scenario, get the whole thing thrown out of court and we would have to start over at square one.

  • 6. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 4:52 am

    If you go to the C-Span link you can see his talk. It was on the general issue of cameras in the courtroom. He gives some historical perspective – why there's so much hesitation and major cases that have influenced the courts' attitudes about the issue.

    He then goes on to show the difference between letting the information get out there based on media reports, re-enactments, etc., vs. what it's actually like. At that point he shows an approx. 3 minutes clip – part of Boies's cross-examination of Kenneth Miller and asks the question: Which is it best that the public learn from? (or something like that).

  • 7. AnonyGrl  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:48 am

    Yes. He was pointing out that the reason cameras were banned originally is that when first used, the results were overly sensationalized (including, I think, that lawyers were performing for the cameras, not doing their jobs), but showing that this is no longer the way things work. He used the clip in question to point out that in real life, court cases can be quite dull to watch, but if we want the public to really KNOW how they work, that is the best thing to show, rather than a re-enactment which might be dramaticized. He also showed a clip of Prop 8, The Musical to point out that it would be better to have the public getting the reality rather than the interpretations.

  • 8. Michelle Evans  |  April 14, 2011 at 8:06 am

    That's fine that he was making a point, but if he went against a court order to not allow the video to be seen outside of his court, then he violated the law, and this can hurt us. I think he should have a better explanation about why he believed this was a legal thing to do based on the ruling.

    I would certainly hope that this is not a problem, but you know the other side will rant and rave, and may actually have a right to do so in this case without full legal justification from Walker of what he did and why he thought it was okay.

    Cases have been thrown out on smaller technicalities before. I don't want to start over in our fight for equality.

  • 9. Michelle Evans  |  April 14, 2011 at 8:16 am

    And just after I finished typing my last reply, checked my email again, and there was exactly the letter I was talking about from Brian!

  • 10. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    I don't think there's any chance that playing a clip from the trial tape is going to result in throwing out his ruling. For one, he's now a private citizen. He might personally get in trouble for using the tapes, but I can't see how that's going to affect the main case. I would guess he knows what the parameters are for retired judges using "their papers" after they are no longer on the bench (I found that kind of interesting in his letter, that judges take copies of their judicial papers with them) and he may have been deliberately pushing the envelope to make his point. I guess it's possible he could be sanctioned for that in some way, but I'm not too worried about it. Anyway, the Court will chime in about it soon, I'm sure.

  • 11. Sagesse  |  April 15, 2011 at 12:28 am

    @Elizabeth Oakes

    Ever wonder what was going on in the mind of the person who was collecting Judge Walker's 'judicial papers' to put on the CD :)?

    To my mind there is a subtle difference between live broadcast of a trial, and subsequent use of the tape in an academic context after there is a complete transcript. By then, it is on the public record that Kenneth Miller testified, and what he said. Also, the C-SPAN video was from such a distance that you couldn't identify anyone on the tape from it.

    The debate in judicial circles that Walker is advancing needs to be had. Retired SC justice O'Conner has raised issues about the judiciary that are important to her since retiring.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  April 14, 2011 at 8:59 am

    I think Judges Walker and Kozinski (of the CA supreme court) favour cameras in the courtroom, although the US Supreme Court does not. It's not surprising that Judge Walker is speaking in support. Using the clip is provocative, but I guess he thought it was worth it to make the point. The words are in the transcript.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Kozinski is federal – 9th Circuit.

  • 14. Sagesse  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Yes of course… mind not functioning. But they are of similar mind on televising court proceedings.

  • 15. Kathleen  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:02 pm

  • 16. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    subs

  • 17. JohanfromNL  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:08 am

    sub

  • 18. JohanfromNL  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:09 am

    sub + checkbox

  • 19. Ann S.  |  April 14, 2011 at 3:22 am

    §

  • 20. JonT  |  April 14, 2011 at 10:06 am

  • 21. eddie  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Good for him. This is bigger than any silly rules or decisions. Wikileaks should finish the job.

  • 22. Menergy  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    Curious, and I"m hoping for a good explanation/justification and legal interpretation.

  • 23. Marlene  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Well, he only played an portion of the trial. Furthermore, I don't think the ruling from the Supreme Court mentioned *anything* about banning any portion being shown… it only mentioned the trial itself being broadcast.

    The bigots are grasping at straws and trying to find any flimsy excuse in order to keep screaming "We need your money to continue to protect marriage!".

  • 24. Don in Texas  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:16 am

    I agree. There was no order prohibiting playing an excerpt of the trial before a live audience. The order forbade BROADCASTING the trial itself.

  • 25. Hank (NYC)  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    This is really one of those cases where the Truth would open a few eyes to the lies, animus and sheer stupidity of their side.

  • 26. plainmike  |  April 13, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    is the video online anywhere? if it was, I'm sure it's down now if so.

  • 27. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:06 am

    It's part of a talk Walker gave; video of the talk is available here. The clip started around 33:40. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Vaugh

    You can't really see the trial clip very well. It's projected on a screen in the background.

  • 28. bJason  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:06 am

    Kathleen's Scribd Doc. has the exhibits included if anyone is interested.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52945974/CA9Doc-338

  • 29. Alan E  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Reading later

  • 30. Linda  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Isn't this fun? Seriously! What does NOM (BB specifically) think; that Judge Walker is going to blantantly break the law? I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops. Go ahead NOM, take on Judge Walker. That will put the whole prop 8 trial front and center on the mainstream news. Perfect!

  • 31. Ronnie  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:57 am

    " It makes me kinda sick that they want to hide the truth."

    i concur, but I'm not surprised that they would….I wouldn't expect anything less from those Na….I mean Fascist's.

    <3…Ronnie

  • 32. JoeRH  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:23 am

    I don't remember the original order, but if the accusations here are true, he did agree not to broadcast it to the public, yet it was broadcasted to the public. People can see it on C-SPAN. Was the "outside the courtroom" statement something that was said during that ruling prohibiting exhibition of the court proceedings? If it was, then that is another rule that was broken. Did C-SPAN get ahold of that video behind Walker's back, or did he provide it? He did show it in AZ apparently, which still suggests he broke the order to not exhibit the video to the public. I guess I'm probably being held back because of my knowledge of the original SC order.

  • 33. JoeRH  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:23 am

    And please know that I'm not "standing up" for the opposition, but am seriously concerned about the situation.

  • 34. eddie  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:37 am

    I understand what you're saying and agree to a point. But should Rosa Parks have sat her ass in the back of the bus because that was the rule? I doubt Walker was trying to make some similar social protest by displaying part of the videotaped trial on a screen behind him, but it's about time *someone* does. These tapes need to be leaked somehow….

  • 35. JoeRH  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:47 am

    The situation with Rosa Parks isn't even similar to what happened here. She was fighting for herself. What happened here is that someone went around a SC ruling, not to make a statement, but either because of negligence or was a move he didn't expect to come to the surface.

    I agree this whole damn trial should have been shown to the public. Especially that one Asian guy. Was it Dr. Tan or something? Anyway, I fully support the public seeing the video, but if there was a court order to keep this within the court, the order was broken. As happy I am that video was able to get out, the fact is that it wasn't supposed to happen based on a SC order.

    Aside from personal feelings on what has happened and what it means for the footage to meet the public, is what he did something that is legal? Again, this isn't to take sides but to seriously know if what he did did in fact break an order that can come with penalties or anything?

  • 36. eddie  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Agreed. If he does get in trouble for this then maybe he can be made a martyr or something. But seeing as he is now retired, I'm not sure what they could really do to him. The positive in all of this is that the tapes (and what is in them) will only get more coverage.

  • 37. Alexodia Thanatos  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Those tapes should be released to FOIA requests. That trial determined the fate of peoples rights. It should be shown to the nation.

  • 38. Michelle Evans  |  April 14, 2011 at 4:14 am

    Actually you bring up an excellent point. Has anyone ever tried to have the tapes of the Prop 8 trial released using the Freedom of Information Act? If the material exists, as we all know it does, then the only reason it is supposedly be withheld under the FOIA would be under national security regulations–which this would hardly fall under.

    I think people here, such as Kathleen or Adam, or anyone else for that matter should start filing these FOIA requests as soon as possible.

  • 39. Bruce McRoberts  |  April 14, 2011 at 4:49 am

    Unfortunately, the FOIA relates only to executive branch agencies; the judicial branch is beyond its scope, as I understand it.

  • 40. Michelle Evans  |  April 14, 2011 at 8:06 am

    Still seems worth the effort to fond out for absolutely sure.

  • 41. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Courts are not subject to the FOIA. You can read more about it here: http://www.justice.gov/oip/procereq.htm#entities

  • 42. be4marriage  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:11 am

    I hope these videos mysteriously show up on you-tube soon.

  • 43. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:44 am

    !!

  • 44. BK  |  April 14, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    *jaws theme song*

  • 45. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:19 am

    Too bad he didn't show more of it, then, if the tape was contraband. Letting more of those trial memes out of the box could have helped a lot.

    Still, we have the appeal hearing available and that has some pretty good moment. As most of you know, I'm obsessed with the "Where's Dolores?" scene and still hoping it will be spun off into a sit-com about the wacky world of marriage equality court proceedings.

  • 46. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 14, 2011 at 2:20 am

    *moments*, sorry, and edit button please.

  • 47. Carpool Cookie  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:39 am

    "I’m obsessed with the “Where’s Dolores?” scene and still hoping it will be spun off into a sit-com about the wacky world of marriage equality court proceedings.

    Or at least it can be spliced into a dance mix of some type?

    Boom chucka BOOM chucka BOOM boom BOOM
    "Where's Dolores?"
    Boom chucka BOOM chucka BOOM boom BOOM
    "Where's Dolores?"

  • 48. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:43 am

    With a chorus of
    "We don't NEED evidence!"

  • 49. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:47 am

    OMG OMG! And the refrain: "What harm would legalizing same-sex marriage do?" "I DON'T KNOW."

    And then the Boies soundbite from the trial clip played by V. Walker: "THERE YA GO!"

    Aw man. Now I wish I had turntable talent.

  • 50. fiona64  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:52 am

    Don't forget, we need occasional interjections of "Good god, man!"

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 51. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:56 am

    YES! Lotta good sound bytes to play with here. Anyone want to come up with the dance mix for our online party?

  • 52. Carpool Cookie  |  April 14, 2011 at 8:18 am

    I posted this in honor of Louis opening up, earlier today.

    Dear god, I must learn how to layer all the sound bytes into this…

    Fly Robin Fly
    Where's Dolores??
    Fly Robin Fly….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc67d9jOfGI

  • 53. Carpool Cookie  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:36 am

    I'm fine with him returning the tapes….as long as they're copied and leaked onto the web, first.

    I wish I still fit in my cat burglar suit and ninja night goggles…

  • 54. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 10:01 am

    UPDATE: Perry

    Vaughn R. Walker letter to Molly Dwyer, Clerk of the Court, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to Proponents’ motion to compel return of trial recordings. http://www.scribd.com/doc/53041973

  • 55. Menergy  |  April 14, 2011 at 10:19 am

    seems that document has been deleted!

  • 56. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Scribd malfunction. Here's a new link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53043053

  • 57. Kathleen  |  April 14, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Something strange is happening at Scribd tonight. I'm told this upload to Google Docs is working: http://bit.ly/hJdsjf

  • 58. Rhonda  |  April 14, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Thanks
    😀
    Rhonda

  • 59. Michelle Evans  |  April 14, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    That's what I've been hoping to see, the explanation directly from Walker of why he used the recordings. Thanks Kathleen for providing the link to his letter.

  • 60. Michael Ejercito  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Someone explain this to me.

    Why were there no similar complaints against U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon, who had struck down Nebraska's Measure 416 as unconstitutional?

    Why were there no similar complaints against Texas Familty District Court Judge Tena Callahan, who had struck down Texas's Proposition 2 as unconstitutional?

    Why were there no similar complaints against U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, who had struck down DOMA as unconstitutional?

    Could it be that Judge Walker engaged in a pattern of misconduct, while the other judges did not?

  • 61. Ronnie  |  April 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    You're the realtor who pretends to be a lawyer….figure out for yourself, TROLL…. > I ….Ronnie

  • 62. Michael Ejercito  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    I already answered it. Walker engaged in a pattern of egregious misconduct; Bataillon, Callahan, and Tauro did not.

  • 63. Ronnie  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    No he didn't…MAUDE!!!!…. > I …Ronnie

  • 64. Ronnie  |  April 14, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    & p.s. no you didn't….. > I …..Ronnie

  • 65. AnonyGrl  |  April 14, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Egregious misconduct? Do, oh DO go into details. Please. I would LOVE to hear this.

    P.S. For those brown coats with lexophiliac tendencies in the audience, keep in mind that egregious can mean either "flagrantly bad" or "outstandingly distinguished". And as far as misconduct, in the words of Malcolm Reynolds, "I aim to misbehave."

  • 66. Sagesse  |  April 15, 2011 at 12:15 am

    If this misconduct has a serious penalty, Proponents would not be asking that as punishment, Walker return all copies of the video and be instructed not to use them again.

  • 67. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Put your money where your mouth is, then. There are legal procedures for censuring rogue judges. You can slander him all you want online (unless he decides to go after you for defamation); you know as well as we do the ProtectMarriage lawyers will be laughed out of court–AGAIN–if they try to allege misconduct by Walker in front of a competent authority.

    So bring it. You're awful brave on an unmoderated bulletin board; let's see and hear you say it in a court of law, or before the State board on judicial conduct.

    And I'm sure I'm not the only one here who notes the irony of YOU accusing other people of misconduct. That's pretty rich.

  • 68. AnonyGrl  |  April 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    To answer your last question first, no.

    As to the rest of your questions, asking why something DIDN'T happen is rather silly, and you are asking the wrong people, anyway. As far as WE are concerned, it didn't happen because WE don't go around smearing judges who don't rule in our favor.

    Why don't you go ask the religious right, who are responsible for the smear campaign against Judge Walker, why they aren't out smearing those other judges too. After all, they are rather known for it… just ask the three judges in Iowa. Ask Judge Reinhardt from the 9th Circuit who was asked recuse himself, and then look at the stupidly shaky reasoning behind that request. Ask judges who have been threatened publicly with similar treatment.

    So, the explanation is that Judge Walker is most certainly being targeted with a boatload of nonsense in an failing effort by the right to salvage what they can from the losing situation they find themselves in.

  • 69. Michael Ejercito  |  April 15, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Ed Whelan explains <a> Walker's misconduct .

    Note that he never wrote a similar article concerning Joseph Bataillon, Tena Callahan, or Joseph Tauro, even though they made merits rulings substantially similar to Walker's.

  • 70. Ronnie  |  April 15, 2011 at 1:00 am

    Nope…no misconduct….sorry….ROFL….& what part of, You anti-American, inhuman, soulless, homophobic Fascists have been on a smear campaign towards Judge Walker since day one do you not understand?

    Oh that's right BIGOTS like you follow this one way of life:

    Anything that is said by someone who is openly gay, let alone an Equality supporter, goes in one ear, bounces around in that empty benighted skull of yours then goes out your nose because your other ear is covered with your hand while you go "LA LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you…Hey Mr. Jesus throw a hymnal on I want to pray with my gray cat…LA LA LA LA"

    GO AWAY TROLL!!!!!!!!….. > I …Ronnie

  • 71. Ronnie  |  April 15, 2011 at 1:28 am

    oh & p.s: Ed Whelan…bwaaaaaaaa….FAIL!!!…MAUDE!!!.. XP…Ronnie

  • 72. Ronnie  |  April 15, 2011 at 1:48 am

    p.s.s.: Do you ever have an original thought, Ejercito? Or do you always just c&p & repeat everything you read & hear as if it was your own statement that you thought of & put together all by your itty-bitty little self?…Oh what am I saying, of course you do, Molly the sheep…baaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

    (rolls eyes)…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 73. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 15, 2011 at 2:34 am

    He's just working on getting his NOM incentive toaster oven by posting their trollish-but-too-cowardly-to-do-it-themselves nonsense on bulletin boards (props to Louis Marinelli for outing their astroturfing scheme, btw.)

    But poor Michael doesn't understand that his little toaster oven–just like everything else NOM puts out–ultimately won't work. But do let him collect his green stamps and paste them in his little NOM prize book if it helps him get some jollies…..he has little else of substance to do, apparently.

  • 74. AnonyGrl  |  April 15, 2011 at 3:14 am

    Elizabeth, I have to ask, does the NOM toaster burn the face of Jesus on to every slice?

    🙂

  • 75. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 15, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    AnonyGrl: it just spews forth a lot of fire and brimstone and ultimately is a waste of good bread.

    I'm sure whatever divine being judges the members of the Knights of Columbus will take into account that they put one million dollars into hurting gay people rather than feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, as per the instruction book. A waste of good bread.

  • 76. Michael Ejercito  |  April 16, 2011 at 12:28 am

    I’m sure whatever divine being judges the members of the Knights of Columbus will take into account that they put one million dollars into hurting gay people rather than feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, as per the instruction book. A waste of good bread.

    Here is what they do

    See also United In Charity .

  • 77. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Obvious Troll Is Obviously Ejercito….Go away Naz…I mean Fascist…. >I …Ronnie

  • 78. Ann S.  |  April 16, 2011 at 2:44 am

    Why don't they do more of that and less persecution of LGBT people?

  • 79. Michael Ejercito  |  April 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Why don’t they do more of that and less persecution of LGBT people?

    Read the page.

    Five and a half million for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone . There is then the one hundred fifty one million dollars for charitable needs and projects raised last year.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Oh well I guess that justifies them spending over a mill$ to force their anti-American Religious based Dictatorship on us & their selfish desire to control the personal lives of LGBT tax paying American citizens….. > I …Ronnie

    p.s. that wasn't an answer to the question you benighted troglodyte. Learn how to read TROLL!!!

  • 81. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Oh & we should definitely trust an organization that idolizes (which is a sin) a man that enslaved the indigenous peoples of these lands, forced them to convert to his religion, murdered & tortured them & was a major contributor to the extinction of the Arawaks which eventually led to every other tribe in the America's being brought nearly to extinction by disease, religion, superiority, & greed of the "white Christian man". But Hey, I guess it is all good as long as it was done in the name of "God", yeah?….(barf)… :-& ….Ronnie

  • 82. Michael Ejercito  |  April 17, 2011 at 12:39 am

    Oh well I guess that justifies them spending over a mill$ to force their anti-American Religious based Dictatorship on us & their selfish desire to control the personal lives of LGBT tax paying American citizens….. > I …Ronnie

    p.s. that wasn’t an answer to the question you benighted troglodyte. Learn how to read TROLL!!!

    It was the replty to this statement.

    I’m sure whatever divine being judges the members of the Knights of Columbus will take into account that they put one million dollars into hurting gay people rather than feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, as per the instruction book.

    they spent five times that much on the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone , and one hundredf fifty times as much to "feeding the hungry and caring for the sick".

  • 83. Ronnie  |  April 17, 2011 at 1:04 am

    Still wasn't an answer to the question you uneducated FOOL!!!!….. > I ….Ronnie

  • 84. Ronnie  |  April 17, 2011 at 1:26 am

    & like I said we should "totally" (sarcasm) trust the ulterior motives of an organization that advocates violating the Constitution & Federal Law by demanding that ALL Americans be forced to follow their religion…but what would I expect from an organization that idolizes a mass murderer & slave driver who forced innocent people to convert to his religion……

    Everything from the KOB comes with a price & that is "worship us…..I mean our 'God'…who cares what the first amendment says…as long as you worship us…I mean our "God"….you will be all good…unless you go against us…I mean our "God" then we will treat you as inferior & not worthy of any respect & decent human kindness."

    Oh & I should definitely trust an organization that idolizes a known & proven Nazi such as the Pope who spends millions of dollars covering up scandal upon scandal.

    Please, GTF over yourself you frakin sheep who, might I add, denies his ancestral heritage. "White Christian Men" weren't always so nice, loving, & accepting of asians either. But hey, It's all good as long as it is done in the name of "God", yeah?…… (rolls eyes) 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 85. AnonyGrl  |  April 15, 2011 at 3:13 am

    If I'd been interested in hearing why Ed Whelan felt that there was judicial misconduct (which, by the way, he doesn't actually list any of, despite his penchant for hyperbole) then I would have asked Ed Whelan, who seems to be the Glenn Beck of National Review (not a compliment, by the way).

    I asked YOU, Michael, since you are the one here making the accusation. You could at least take a STAB at paraphrasing it so it SEEMS like you know what the heck you are on about.

    And again, asking us to explain why Ed Whelan does anything one way or the other is nonsensical. You might send a note to ED and ask him why he didn't attack those judges. Please, if you do find out, keep it to yourself, because I don't think we care at all here.

  • 86. book in tracy  |  April 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    I'm trying to catch up on this thread. In reading the decision of the SC on whether to allow broadcast, I see only that they said no to broadcasting to the major courthouses acros the US. They seemed to stop short of restricting webcasting, as that wasn't an initial request. SO. . . .

    I also note that the 9th District was denied in major part because they did not follow the perscribed 'noticification and response' articles of the judicial process in regards to the broadcast.

    If that is not what I read, Kathleen/others, please let me know. I've learned so much on court procedure here (and from you), but reading on my own often isn't the same as having someone 'in the know' explain the way it is. TX

  • 87. Jim  |  April 15, 2011 at 7:45 am

    I know it can be fun responding to people like Michael Ejercito, but in these cases it would be better to ignore him and his comments. That would frustrate him more, than just feeding his bigotry.

  • 88. Ann S.  |  April 15, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Here is a very interesting article from Westlaw News & Insight on the tape issue.

    Walker's 42-minute lecture in Arizona included footage from the Lindbergh kidnapping trial and other trials where cameras were allowed in the courtroom. At the end of the lecture, Walker played a three-minute clip from the Prop 8 trial — a cross-examination by David Boies, who represented gay-marriage supporters.

    The gay-marriage opponents' motion raises an interesting First Amendment question, Professor Wilson Huhn of the University of Akron School of Law said in an interview. "Does the public have a right to this information," Huhn said, "even though there is a court order against disseminating this?"

    The coalition representing supporters of gay marriage the legal question in terms of public access. "Why should the public be denied the opportunity to see and hear what happened in a public trial in a public courtroom in a case involving the constitutional rights of millions of people?" said Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, another lawyer for gay-marriage supporters.

    Walker declined to comment to Reuters Legal.

  • 89. Rhie  |  April 18, 2011 at 4:04 am

    Watchin to read later

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