{"id":13569,"date":"2011-06-14T03:26:29","date_gmt":"2011-06-14T03:26:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-06-14T03:26:29","modified_gmt":"2011-06-14T03:26:29","slug":"prop-8-proceedings-left-a-stench-in-the-air","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/2011\/06\/14\/prop-8-proceedings-left-a-stench-in-the-air\/","title":{"rendered":"Prop 8 Proceedings Left a Stench in the Air"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/farm5.static.flickr.com\/4093\/4869508593_6c2df193d3.jpg\" width=250 align=right>I suppose I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised by anything in the Prop 8 trial anymore, but to be honest, I really thought that the attorneys for the proponents were better than this. \u00a0No, I&#8217;m not imputing any skills to Andy Pugno other than self-aggrandizement, but despite their backward ideals, some of the attorneys on the pro-8 team weren&#8217;t all that bad. \u00a0Sure, they were given a pretty bad case and told to make some lemonade out of rotten lemons, but the lemonade was only half as rancid as it could have been.<\/p>\n<p>I was unable to make it to the courthouse like I had hoped to <a href=\"http:\/\/latimesblogs.latimes.com\/lanow\/2011\/06\/judge-says-no-evidence-gay-judge-proposition-8-case-wished-to-marry-his-partner.html?lanow\">cover the hearings today<\/a>, but thanks to both <a href=\"http:\/\/www.prop8trialtracker.com\/2011\/06\/13\/live-thread-todays-june-13th-prop-8-trial-hearing\/\">Arisha and Rick at P8TT<\/a> and the good folks on the <a href=\"http:\/\/http:\/\/twitter.com\/#!\/AFER\">AFER twitter feed<\/a>, I was able to keep pretty good tabs on the argument. \u00a0In short, the proponents wanted to wipe out the first trial because Judge Walker was in a long-term same-sex relationship and &#8220;might want to get married.&#8221; &nbsp;They also discussed the question of who controls the video tape from the trial. &nbsp;And as I was reading the information coming in minute by minute, on both the video and the motion to vacate, one idea came to mind:<\/p>\n<p>Hail Mary.<\/p>\n<p>Before the hearing today, if you asked most any attorney of note, bringing up the old &#8220;he&#8217;s gay!&#8221; argument was something of a sign of discomfort with the way they put on the original case. \u00a0Pugno and friends essentially acknowledged that perhaps they could have done it better.<\/p>\n<p>If you look at it legally, they still have a lot of appellate options remaining. \u00a0And much of the case boils down to &#8220;questions of law&#8221; to which appellate courts review de novo, that is they look at them completely fresh. \u00a0Judge Walker&#8217;s determinations are essentially given no deference there. \u00a0However, Judge Walker also listed a slew of &#8220;findings of fact.&#8221; \u00a0These are not reviewed fresh, but are only overturned if they are &#8220;clearly erroneous.&#8221; \u00a0(I&#8217;ll leave the question about whether those are really findings of fact for another day.)<\/p>\n<p>So, if you take that his findings of fact are really that, then sure, you&#8217;d really, really want a new trial. \u00a0But there are several very important questions of law that much of the case turns upon in Judge Walker&#8217;s decision. \u00a0Those are reviewed fresh, and Team Prop 8 doesn&#8217;t seem to like their hand on that one.<\/p>\n<p>So, they brought this motion to vacate, hoping to get a do-over for that rancid lemonade they made last year. \u00a0Who knows what their rationale was, but it all stunk of desperation.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Ware&#8217;s questioning cut right to the heart of the issue. \u00a0What is a judge really obligated to disclose, and what are they allowed to take upon themselves to determine their own bias (or lack thereof)? \u00a0Judge Ware brought up a series of hypotheticals that really put the lie to the Prop 8 team&#8217;s argument. \u00a0I&#8217;ll let you go back to the live-blogging this morning to catch those, but suffice it to say, Mr. Cooper was not in an enviable position.<\/p>\n<p>Surely the Prop 8 attorneys thought this through enough to figure out that this wasn&#8217;t going anywhere. \u00a0After all, vacating that decision would have had profound impacts on cases going far beyond the issue of LGBT rights. \u00a0It was, at best, a long shot. \u00a0But perhaps a long shot with rewards that were worth the risk for them.<\/p>\n<p>In theory, perception shouldn&#8217;t really make a difference in a legal proceeding. \u00a0That is extraneous, and shouldn&#8217;t be taken into account by the jurists reviewing the case. \u00a0And I have confidence in our judiciary that it won&#8217;t be. \u00a0But, I&#8217;m pretty sure if you were able to ask the participants in the Scopes Monkey Trial if perception matters, you would get a very different response. In cases of historical import, perception matters, and I can&#8217;t imagine that today did anything for those who wish to hold back the arc of history as it wends its way toward justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/farm5.static.flickr.com\/4093\/4869508593_6c2df193d3.jpg\" width=250 align=right>I suppose I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised by anything in the Prop 8 trial anymore, but to be honest, I really thought that the attorneys for the proponents were better than this. \u00a0No, I&#8217;m not imputing any skills to Andy Pugno other than self-aggrandizement, but despite their backward ideals, some of the attorneys on the pro-8 team weren&#8217;t all that bad. \u00a0Sure, they were given a pretty bad case and told to make some lemonade out of rotten lemons, but the lemonade was only half as rancid as it could have been.<\/p>\n<p>I was unable to make it to the courthouse like I had hoped to <a href=\"http:\/\/latimesblogs.latimes.com\/lanow\/2011\/06\/judge-says-no-evidence-gay-judge-proposition-8-case-wished-to-marry-his-partner.html?lanow\">cover the hearings today<\/a>, but thanks to both <a href=\"http:\/\/www.prop8trialtracker.com\/2011\/06\/13\/live-thread-todays-june-13th-prop-8-trial-hearing\/\">Arisha and Rick at P8TT<\/a> and the good folks on the <a href=\"http:\/\/http:\/\/twitter.com\/#!\/AFER\">AFER twitter feed<\/a>, I was able to keep pretty good tabs on the argument. \u00a0In short, the proponents wanted to wipe out the first trial because Judge Walker was in a long-term same-sex relationship and &#8220;might want to get married.&#8221; &nbsp;They also discussed the question of who controls the video tape from the trial. &nbsp;And as I was reading the information coming in minute by minute, on both the video and the motion to vacate, one idea came to mind:<\/p>\n<p>Hail Mary.<\/p>\n<p>Before the hearing today, if you asked most any attorney of note, bringing up the old &#8220;he&#8217;s gay!&#8221; argument was something of a sign of discomfort with the way they put on the original case. \u00a0Pugno and friends essentially acknowledged that perhaps they could have done it better.<\/p>\n<p>If you look at it legally, they still have a lot of appellate options remaining. \u00a0And much of the case boils down to &#8220;questions of law&#8221; to which appellate courts review de novo, that is they look at them completely fresh. \u00a0Judge Walker&#8217;s determinations are essentially given no deference there. \u00a0However, Judge Walker also listed a slew of &#8220;findings of fact.&#8221; \u00a0These are not reviewed fresh, but are only overturned if they are &#8220;clearly erroneous.&#8221; \u00a0(I&#8217;ll leave the question about whether those are really findings of fact for another day.)<\/p>\n<p>So, if you take that his findings of fact are really that, then sure, you&#8217;d really, really want a new trial. \u00a0But there are several very important questions of law that much of the case turns upon in Judge Walker&#8217;s decision. \u00a0Those are reviewed fresh, and Team Prop 8 doesn&#8217;t seem to like their hand on that one.<\/p>\n<p>So, they brought this motion to vacate, hoping to get a do-over for that rancid lemonade they made last year. \u00a0Who knows what their rationale was, but it all stunk of desperation.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Ware&#8217;s questioning cut right to the heart of the issue. \u00a0What is a judge really obligated to disclose, and what are they allowed to take upon themselves to determine their own bias (or lack thereof)? \u00a0Judge Ware brought up a series of hypotheticals that really put the lie to the Prop 8 team&#8217;s argument. \u00a0I&#8217;ll let you go back to the live-blogging this morning to catch those, but suffice it to say, Mr. Cooper was not in an enviable position.<\/p>\n<p>Surely the Prop 8 attorneys thought this through enough to figure out that this wasn&#8217;t going anywhere. \u00a0After all, vacating that decision would have had profound impacts on cases going far beyond the issue of LGBT rights. \u00a0It was, at best, a long shot. \u00a0But perhaps a long shot with rewards that were worth the risk for them.<\/p>\n<p>In theory, perception shouldn&#8217;t really make a difference in a legal proceeding. \u00a0That is extraneous, and shouldn&#8217;t be taken into account by the jurists reviewing the case. \u00a0And I have confidence in our judiciary that it won&#8217;t be. \u00a0But, I&#8217;m pretty sure if you were able to ask the participants in the Scopes Monkey Trial if perception matters, you would get a very different response. In cases of historical import, perception matters, and I can&#8217;t imagine that today did anything for those who wish to hold back the arc of history as it wends its way toward justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1608],"tags":[5576],"class_list":["post-13569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1608","tag-5576"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pvhz-3wR","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13569","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}