Note: I’m the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign

UPDATE: Judge Karlton denied the TRO request and makes it sound like he is not likely to rule against us on the lawsuit either.

Original post begins here:

Since we launched last Monday, the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker has become a leading source for information about the trial in Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom, since ProtectMarriage.com got the Supreme Court to block plans to televise the trial. We’ve had over 800,000 views and over 6,400 comments since we launched, a sign of how popular our liveblogging has become.

But there’s one group out there that isn’t a fan, and that’s ProtectMarriage.com. Last Friday they sent Courage Campaign a cease and desist letter regarding our parody of the “Yes on 8” logo that we use on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Late yesterday, we learned that ProtectMarriage.com filed suit in US district court seeking a temporary restraining order asking a federal judge to order us to take our logo down.

Our lawyers’ response: no way. As our lawyer said, our logo is a “sassy” parody of their logo.

We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.

My colleague Julia Rosen posted the complaint and our response over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. We don’t know yet whether Judge Lawrence K. Karlton will grant, deny, or ask for a hearing on the TRO.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, had this to say in our press release:

The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to focus our energy on this historic trial and the rights and protections at stake for loving, committed same-sex couples. ProtectMarriage.com can continue to expend time, energy and resources on a logo. Frankly, I think that says a lot about our respective priorities.

We thought that our response laying out the tremendous legal precedent in cases like this would be the end of this silliness. But we are more than happy to defend our case if Prop 8 supporters continue to argue that the difference between their logo and ours is “substantially indistinguishable,” given that their logo features a father and mother and our logo features two mothers.

This is yet another attempt by Prop 8 supporters to distract from the facts being brought forth at this trial that are demonstrating quite clearly both the discrimination same-sex couples face and the need and benefit to society of equal treatment under the law.

We’re confident that the law and precedent are on our side. Our logo is an obvious parody of the ProtectMarriage.com logo. More importantly, ProtectMarriage.com is essentially claiming that there isn’t a difference between a family headed by a man and a woman and a family headed by two women. Wouldn’t it be nice if they argued that in Judge Walker’s courtroom? As one of the commenters on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker argued:

I just really want to hear [Rachel Maddow] say “Protectmarriage.com is suing Courage Campaign, saying a lesbian couple is indistinguishable from a heterosexual one. In other news, protectmarriage.com continues to argue that homosexuals are too different from heterosexuals to deserve equal protection under the law.”

You can see the logos for yourself:

We’ll be sure to keep you updated as to how this turns out. We’re not going to let the opponents of equality silence us.

As Democrats and progressives take stock of the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, some eyes are beginning to turn toward California, another state that has been reliably blue in its national voting intentions for some time but has a history of picking Republicans for other key statewide offices, including governor. Does Obama’s and Coakley’s loss last night suggest the same thing is going to happen to Barbara Boxer this fall?

The three Republican candidates running against her would certainly like us to think so, according to Carla Marinucci:

The upset victory of Republican Scott Brown Tuesday in the Massachusetts Senate race had an immediate effect in California, where GOP U.S. Senate Republican candidates wasted no time going on offense — vowing that Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is on tap next.

Former South Bay Rep. Tom Campbell made the first move, issuing a jab at Boxer — along a claim that he will now take her on and address “the suicidal direction Congress and the President are taking our economy.”

The combative statement from the ususally low-key Campbell hint at the pumped-up themes — and energy — to come from the GOP side in the 2010 CA U.S. Senate race against Boxer, where former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine are already raring to go. And GOP state officials were positively bubbly in their reaction to Tuesday’s election results in the Bay State, where Brown handily beat Democrat Martha Coakley.

The statements themselves almost all make reference to the economy, to taxes, and spending. In other words, all three believe the way to beat Boxer is to show she’s some kind of big government, big spender and that such policies are bad for the economy.

This is absolute nonsense. Californians don’t want to gut federal spending, they want more of it. But Barack Obama’s decision to prop up the banks and to push through a too-small stimulus has produced economic and political disaster that Coakley couldn’t overcome, and that Boxer will have a difficult time dealing with.

At the same time, Boxer is no Martha Coakley. Boxer knows how to win close elections, and has been preparing for this race for some time. Still, recent polls show Boxer’s lead is narrow over all three Republican challengers. Clearly, good preparation isn’t enough. She has to turn around the narrative.

The evidence from Massachusetts suggests some places to start. A poll done by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee shows that Obama voters who voted for Brown or stayed home – who determined the outcome in favor of Brown – all feel the health care bill doesn’t go far enough, overwhelmingly support the public option, and want Democrats to be bolder. This fits with the overall analysis of the election that it was another vote for change, and that sadly (for us) voters were beginning to believe Democrats were incapable of or unwilling to deliver that change.

The key shift seems to have been in December, when Obama cut a deal with Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to abandon the public option and tax employee health benefits instead of the wealthy. That deal soured the public on the health care bill, making it look like more of the same instead of the kind of bold change that begins to move health care away from dependence on insurance companies that everyone hates. Lieberman and Nelson are also very unpopular with the Democratic base, and many Democrats and independents simply could not understand why Obama was siding with them instead of standing up for the people who put Obama in office. As a result, Dems and independents are less supportive of Obama and his health care performance, according to the latest Field Poll.

Calbuzz argues that Boxer will likely begin bashing the bankers and espousing a strong populism. She definitely ought to start doing that right now, coming out for a 50% or more tax on bank bonuses and full reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, opposition to Bernanke reconfirmation, and other things.

But Boxer needs to start with health care. She needs to call for using reconciliation to restore a strong public option, eliminate the excise tax in favor of the House’s tax on the wealthy, and say she expects this to get done by the end of the month if possible. Boxer would be seen as the leader that California progressives have been looking for, and the polls suggest this would play well with independents too.

It would also help Boxer with another albatross around her neck, and that is growing public anger at the failure of the US Senate as an institution. Boxer needs to also come out strongly for the abolition of the cloture rule, or at least changing it to require only 51 votes to end debate. It would be a sign that Boxer is a force for change, for making government work for the people. What Lieberman and Nelson were allowed to do last month caused significant damage to the Senate Democrats, and the rules must be changed to prevent it from happening again.

Some might argue that Boxer needs to be cautious here, and the rest of the caucus might want to protect the silly “traditions of the Senate.” Boxer should reject this entirely and realize that her reelection is more important than preserving a failed set of practices. She doesn’t want to repeat Harry Reid’s mistake.

Finally, progressives have a real ally in Barbara Boxer. In recent posts I’ve seen some criticism of her from progressives in the comments, which is fine. But unlike Dianne Feinstein, Boxer has generally been a good Senator and someone who has been there when we needed her. Not only does she deserve re-election over any of her 3 Republican opponents, she deserves active support from the progressive base.

If people were willing to go to bat and make last-minute calls for Martha Coakley, then California progressives ought to be doing this to a much greater degree over the course of 2010 for someone who is an ally, and who continues to respect them. Barbara Boxer has a fight on her hands, but she also is prepared to win that fight. Campbell, Fiorina and DeVore will have a much tougher hill to climb than they think.

UPDATE: In fact, Boxer has been out in front on this already. She voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, and is a cosponsor of the Maria Cantwell bill to restore Glass-Steagall. Expect to hear more about this in the weeks and months to come.

Arnold Schwarzenegger made a big splash with his budget earlier this month, calling on the federal government to deliver $7 billion to the state or else the kids get hit. As if hostage tactics weren’t enough to piss off the feds, Arnold went around claiming that California’s Democratic congressional delegation had failed to bring home its share of the federal bacon. One might assume that pissing off Democrats facing re-election battles, including those facing off against Arnold’s former finance director, would be a poor way to make your case, but it didn’t stop Arnold.

Instead of giving into his temper tantrum, Senator Barbara Boxer pointed out that in fact CA got a lot more money from the feds in 2009 than we gave in tax dollars, suggesting she’s actually done a pretty damn good job of getting federal aid for her state.

In fact, as the California Budget Project points out, Boxer understated the case:

Never one to accept someone else’s data without question, we reviewed the data and assumptions behind the data. Our own analysis suggests that California actually receives $1.50 back for each dollar in taxes paid, a figure slightly higher than the Senator’s.

The irony is compounded when you consider that Arnold prefers to replace Barbara Boxer with Tom Campbell, who would immediately vote to slash federal spending and join a GOP caucus determined to finish what Bush started and destroy government’s ability to fund its services – a GOP caucus that would have not authorized a dime of the $787 billion stimulus a year ago that’s kept California afloat, and certainly won’t do so again.

Already Arnold’s temper tantrum has cost the state more funds. By calling out Ben Nelson’s Medicare deal, Arnold ensured that the deal was tacitly abandoned by the White House in negotiations with Congress, instead of extended to all 50 states. And the louder Arnold complains and demands a special deal for California, the less likely it is that he’ll get one.

As Jean Ross wrote, California and the other 49 states most certainly deserve and need federal aid:

We strongly believe that there’s a case to be made for federal aid to all states, not just California. With most states facing serious budget shortfalls, there’s reason to fear that another round of state and local government budget cuts could push the nation back into recession or, at a minimum, delay what is already anticipated to be a weak recovery. We hope the Governor will change his tune, join with his fellow governors, and call on Congress and the President to build on the success of the ARRA by providing states additional funds to blunt the impact of budget-balancing efforts.

But Arnold, in typical fashion, prefers to bluster on TV to actually doing the hard work of lining up support and votes for federal aid to the states, and prefers to try and screw Democrats in order to advance the electoral goals of his fellow Republicans.

Worst. Governor. Ever.

The flashes of lightning and loud thunderclaps that woke me up at 5 this morning were just a few of the reminders – along with the constant pouring rain – that El Niño has returned to California after a 12-year absence. And just like its 1992-93 appearance, it could be what the state needs to break the 3-year drought we’ve experienced since 2007.

Of course, it could be too much of what we need. California desperately needs rain, but we don’t need it to fall in huge amounts all at once. But that looks to be exactly what we’re about to get, as this remarkable forecast the USGS sent out to local governments on the Central Coast this morning explains:

Currently, the strong El Nino is reaching its peak in the Eastern Pacific, and now finally appears to be exerting an influence on our weather…Between this Sunday and the following Sunday, I expect categorical statewide rainfall totals in excess of 3-4 inches. That is likely to be a huge underestimate for most areas. Much of NorCal is likely to see 5-10 inches in the lowlands, with 10-20 inches in orographically-favored areas. Most of SoCal will see 3-6 inches at lower elevations, with perhaps triple that amount in favored areas.

This is where things get even more interesting, though. The models are virtually unanimous in “reloading” the powerful jet stream and forming an additional persistent kink 2000-3000 miles to our southwest after next Sunday. This is a truly ominous pattern, because it implies the potential for a strong Pineapple-type connection to develop. Indeed, the 12z GFS now shows copious warm rains falling between days 12 and 16 across the entire state. Normally, such as scenario out beyond day seven would be dubious at best. Since the models are in such truly remarkable agreement, however, and because of the extremely high potential impact of such an event, it’s worth mentioning now. Since there will be a massive volume of freshly-fallen snow (even at relatively low elevations between 3000-5000 feet), even a moderately warm storm event would cause very serious flooding. This situation will have to monitored closely. Even if the tropical connection does not develop, expected rains in the coming 7-10 days will likely be sufficient to cause flooding in and of themselves (even in spite of dry antecedent conditions).

In addition to very heavy precipitation, powerful winds may result from very steep pressure gradients associated with the large and deep low pressure centers expected to begin approaching the coast by early next week. Though it’s not clear at the moment just how powerful these winds may be, there is certainly the potential for a widespread damaging wind event at some point, and the high Sierra peaks are likely to see gusts in the 100-200 mph range (since the 200kt jet at 200-300 mb will essentially run directly into the mountains at some point). The details of this will have to be hashed out as the event(s) draw closer.

In short, the next 2-3 weeks (at least) are likely to be more active across California than any other 2-3 week period in recent memory. The potential exists for a dangerous flood scenario to arise at some point during this interval, especially with the possibility of a heavy rain-on-snow event during late week 2. In some parts of Southern California, a whole season’s worth of rain could fall over the course of 5-10 days. This is likely to be a rather memorable event. Stay tuned.

This forecast is particularly ominous for two groups of people in particular: Central Valley farmers and hillside dwellers living near areas that suffered major fires during the last 2 or 3 years. The 1997 El Niño brought severe flooding to the San Joaquin Valley, and if the model the USGS describes above comes to pass, then there could be significant flooding in the Delta in the near future, putting the levees to the test.

In addition, areas that were hit by big fires in 2008 and 2009, such as Big Sur and the hills in the Angeles National Forest where last year’s Station Fire burned hundreds of thousands of acres, are nervously watching and hoping the mudslides aren’t too damaging.

As we might remember from the 1998 El Niño event, it’s not just burn areas that have reason to be worried. Several homes in Laguna Niguel fell down the hillsides as poor quality construction and grading left the soils vulnerable to collapse in heavy rains.

If anything, this boom-and-bust water cycle shows how important proper maintenance of infrastructure really is. What it means for the $11 billion water bond this fall is less clear – will voters want to fund Delta levee work if they see big floods there in the coming weeks? Or will they believe the drought is over and thus no need to spend the money on new storage?

Calbuzz has a holiday exclusive on the previously secret agreement reached between PXP, the company promoting the Tranquillon Ridge offshore drilling project, and Environmental Defense Center, which made the agreement with PXP in support of their drilling plan back in 2008. While the “exclusive” doesn’t reveal much more than we already knew about a year ago, and while it would be particularly useful if Calbuzz would post the agreement in its entirety for the rest of us to peruse, it does have some interesting elements, including the amount EDC is going to get paid by PXP as part of the deal:

EDC legally represents in the matter two other Santa Barbara non-profits, Citizens Planning Association (CPA) and Get Oil Out! (GOO). Amid the bitter debate within California’s environmental community, one of the charges leveled by T-Ridge foes is the suggestion that the non-profit EDC benefits financially from the agreement, and from its public support of PXP.

On this point, Section 1.6 of the agreement (“Reimbursement of Expenses of Environmental Parties”) states that:

Upon all Parties’ execution of this Agreement, PXP shall pay $50,000, and upon the State Lands Commission’ approval and PXP’s written acceptance of all the leases necessary for the Tranquillon Ridge Project, PXP shall pay an additional $50,000, for a total of $100,000, to the Environmental Defense Center, as reasonable compensation for work performed by EDC on behalf of GOO! and CPA pertaining to the environmental and permitting review for the Tranquillon Ridge Project, and the negotiations leading up to and implementation of this Agreement.…

The company further agreed to a pay a maximum of $298,507, at a rate of $20 per ton, to offset any new greenhouse gas commissions from the T-Ridge project, to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. PXP also promised to pay the air quality district $1.5 million, over 14 years, to “administer a transit bus technology program” within the county to help reduce greenhouse emissions.

PXP’s potential royalty payments to the state are estimated at several billion dollars, according to Winters, who said the county of Santa Barbara could receive several hundred million in property tax revenue on oil produced from new T-Ridge operations.

In exchange for this money, EDC promises to support the Tranquillon Ridge deal, and PXP promises to end drilling by the early 2020s. But is that promise legally enforceable? That’s been one of the key questions in this whole deal, and according to Calbuzz, the answer appears to be “not really”. John Chiang explained a year ago that the state can’t interfere in an agreement between PXP and the feds. While EDC claims that provisions in the deal with PXP that would have PXP forfeit 100% of post-2022 profits, and that onshore processing facilities would be undone, there would remain big loopholes. And ultimately, the only way this deal could be enforced is if EDC takes PXP to court over the terms of this deal.

Calbuzz’s article leaves me with more questions than answers. Why exactly did EDC cut this deal? It’s hard to escape the conclusion their support was bought, and there remains plenty of reason to believe the deal isn’t watertight. So why should Californians support it?

In particular, the timing is quite concerning. The right-wing “drill baby drill” push did not begin until the summer of 2008. Yet this deal was signed in April 2008, and was presumably being negotiated for some time before then. While EDC could defend itself by saying that offshore drilling was going to happen anyway any they were making the best of it, not only were they in fact ahead of the right-wing effort, but now face the fact that the Obama Administration has indicated it’s not interested in offshore drilling. “Drill baby drill” doesn’t have much political power these days.

So what justifies EDC’s deal? As far as I can tell, it’s money. EDC is implicitly saying to California that offshore drilling is OK, if it comes at the right price. In 2009 Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck DeVore drove a truck through that loophole, coming oh-so-close to getting Tranquillon Ridge approved, only to be blocked by Pedro Nava, Bill Monning, and others in the Assembly who refused to play along.

California is indeed hard up for money. But that doesn’t mean we should do stupid things to get that money. “Like a junkie looking for veins in his toes so he can get one last fix,” as Al Gore described it here in Monterey last year, offshore drilling is a reckless way to fund our schools and health care needs. We ought to instead levy an oil severance tax on the drilling already taking place in the state, but continue to resist opening the door to new drilling, especially offshore, where the environmental and economic costs of a spill would far outstrip whatever money PXP pays to state and local governments.

More importantly, EDC is setting a precedent that absolutely will lead to widespread drilling on the coast. Instead of maintaining a strict opposition to offshore drilling on the merits, they’ve indicated that such opposition has a price, and once met, opposition will go away. If Tranquillon Ridge is approved, what’s to stop others who want to drill to show up at county Board of Supervisors’ meetings and the state capitol with suitcases full of money – for public programs of course, not for politicians – and demand to get approval for their own projects?

Oil prices are going to rise above $100/bbl before long, and when they do, the wingnut “drill baby drill” chant will start again. We can beat that back again, as we did in 2008-9. But if they see that environmentalists are willing to sell their opposition, it discredits the entire effort and the entire coastal protection movement, and makes it much more difficult to maintain the longtime offshore drilling ban.

Carla Marinucci got her hands on a very interesting memo from the California Republican Party’s chairman Ron Nehring today laying out their 2010 strategy. In it, they call Democrats Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer “lazy” – perhaps because Republicans have forgotten what it’s like to have a full-time job:

This week Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, both of whom have clear shots at their party’s nomination and therefore no primary campaign, have experienced first hand what happens when your campaign gets lethargic.

Is laziness a campaign strategy?  Brown has not yet bothered to formally declare himself a candidate for Governor, and national Democrats are so concerned about his ‘campaign’ that the Democratic Governors Association is planning an independent expenditure campaign to bail him out.

What Nehring doesn’t mention is that Brown is the sitting Attorney General and Barbara Boxer is in the middle of some of the most important legislation considered by the Senate in some time (health care and climate change). So they do have other obligations.

Now that being said, Brown IS stupid to wait so long to launch his campaign, both formally and in practice. Meg Whitman has a ton of money to spend blanketing the state with ads; you’d think Brown would want to start introducing himself to a new generation of Californians, including my peers who were born during his last time in office, and espouse his vision for California’s future. Boxer, on the other hand, has been campaigning hard for her re-election for years now, so Nehring is just spewing bullshit there.

Nehring’s email does raise some of the questions we’ve been discussing here at Calitics for a few months now. As we see further and extremely alarming signs of anger and lack of motivation from Democratic voters, such as the stunning fact the special election to replace Ted Kennedy is a toss-up, California Democrats do need to take very seriously the possibility that their base may not show up in sufficient numbers this November.

Both Brown and Boxer will run very energetic campaigns. And Boxer, for her part, knows how to win in close elections in California, and has nearly 20 years of experience showing progressives that she is one of their most important allies. Boxer and activists alike will have to work hard to win, but I doubt there will be any problem getting that work to happen.

Brown has the much bigger problem with base motivation, as we’ve explained repeatedly here at Calitics. Right now, Brown doesn’t offer anything obvious to progressive voters to get them very excited about his campaign. As we’re witnessing in Massachusetts, or last November in New Jersey and Virginia, fear of a right-winger can only do so much to motivate the base to work to win. To put a Democrat over the top, both the activist base and the infrequent voters that were vital to Obama’s big 2008 win have to see something compelling in the candidate. Right now, Brown isn’t offering that. (And no, pictures of you when you were a kid in the 1940s don’t count.)

The Democrat who best deals with the growing frustration and alienation of the voters they need to win will be the Democrat to prove Nehring wrong.

Tom Campbell made it official today – he’s leaving the governor’s race and jumping into the US Senate race, where he only has to face one self-funder instead of two. Campbell plans to run against government spending, showing his reputation as a “moderate” is undeserved. The LA Times even mentioned something I never knew, which is that Campbell’s PhD advisor was none other than Milton Friedman:

Calling the nation’s fiscal path “suicidal,” Campbell said his economic background makes him the ideal candidate to rein in federal spending and growth.

“Our country is at a very perilous point in economic terms, and in terms of the size and intrusiveness of government” he said. “I believe I can help to restore our nation’s economic health, and spirit of independence.”

Campbell has a doctorate in economics and his faculty advisor was the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. Campbell was also the last person to serve as California’s budget director who oversaw a balanced state budget.

I’ve heard rumors that Campbell has internal polling showing him with a lead over both Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. As Calbuzz reported, the Field Poll is currently out in the field polling the 3-way race, so we should know soon just how this impacts the GOP primary race.

For her part, Carly Fiorina is fighting back, with just a hint of desperation. Her emails are calling Campbell a “flip flopper,” which is I guess what you say to deflect attention from your own flip-flopping on whether you’ll self-fund (Fiorina has given her campaign $2.5 million):

Today Tom Campbell kicked off yet another campaign for yet another office in his never ending quest to get elected again – but using his electoral history as a guide, his kick off tour is more likely to be a farewell tour. Tom’s unending quest for statewide office has nothing to do with serving the people of California, rather it’s about satisfying Tom Campbell’s quixotic personal ambition and the false premise that he will be acceptable to Republican primary voters.  California Republicans won’t vote for a proponent of higher taxes and more government; they’re smarter than Tom Campbell gives them credit for.

I’m guessing these attacks won’t play well. Campbell has a reputation as a nice guy, and Fiorina’s attacks fall flat given that perception.

In any case, trying to read the California GOP base is like deciphering hieroglyphics without a guide. It’s an unpredictable movement that could throw its weight behind a wealthy fool (Fiorina), a well-liked loser who at least has enough credentials on economics but some non-wingnut social views (Campbell) or the teabagger darling (DeVore).

No matter what, I’m hoping for an expensive and bruising primary battle that leaves the winner poorer and less able to mount an effective challenge to Barbara Boxer, who will win re-election on her own merits anyway.

Ruling about an hour ago, the US Supreme Court offered beleaguered Prop 8 supporters a lifeline by indefinitely staying Judge Walker’s and the 9th Circuit’s decision to allow cameras to film the Prop 8 trial:

In an unsigned opinion Wednesday, the court criticized Walker for attempting to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

While the court set no time limit in its ruling, any further proceedings at high court likely would come after the trial was over….

In a dissent written by Breyer, they said the high court should have stayed out of the issue.

Breyer said “the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

Breyer’s dissent also made mention of the enormous amount of public comment asking for the trial to be televised, including the 138,242 signatures on a Courage Campaign and CREDO petition that we delivered to Judge Walker last Friday:

Then, on December 31, the Court revised its public notice to ask for comments directly. By January 8, 2010, the Court had received 138,574 comments, all but 32 of which favored transmitting the proceedings.

There was also sufficient “opportunity for comment.” The parties, the intervenors, other judges, the public-all had an opportunity to comment. The parties were specifically invited by Chief Judge Walker to comment on the possibility of broadcast as early as September. And the entire public was invited by the District Court to submit comments after the rule change was announced, right up to the eve of trial. As I said, the court received 138,574 comments during that time. How much more “opportunity for comment” does the Court believe necessary, particularly when the statutes themselves authorize the local court to put a new rule into effect “without” receiving any “comments” before doing so when that local “court determines that there is an immediate need” to do so (and to receive comments later)? And more importantly, what is the legal source of the Court’s demand for additional comment time in respect to a rule change to conform to Judicial Council policy?

Of course, this isn’t about the rules of the federal courts, but about the desire of Prop 8 defenders to keep the trial hidden from public view as much as possible, in order to prevent the public from knowing just how crazy and insane their position is. Just today the court broadcast an explosive video from the deposition of William Tam, one of the official proponents of Prop 8, who said things like:

They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children…

We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.

No wonder they want this stuff hidden from the public. The TV messaging from the Prop 8 backers, crafted by Schubert/Flint and used in Maine last fall to roll back marriage equality there, is very different than this. The campaign messaging involves vague notions of “protecting children” that appeals to anti-gay sentiment by blowing a dogwhistle instead of using a blunt and obvious statement.

In the absence of video coverage, liveblogging becomes all the more important for public access to this trial. The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to operate our successful liveblog, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, which has received over 250,000 visits since we launched on Monday. Paul Hogarth of Beyond Chron is guestblogging for us today. Other liveblogs include Firedoglake.

Note: I am the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign