Homework for the Prop 8 Hearing Tomorrow

If you want to do a little homework to prepare for the Prop 8 hearing tomorrow, I recommend that you have a look at the papers filed by the Olson-Boies team and the proponents of Prop 8. I’m providing links below to the three key filings from AFER’s website. (AFER is the organization sponsoring the federal challenge.) The filings are probably too lengthy to read in their entirety, but you can get a gist of the arguments by reading the introductions and some of the summaries. I’ve indicated the page numbers for those sections below. Here are the briefs:

Prop 8 Proponents Opening Brief The defenders of prop 8 are looking to establish that (1) they have standing to pursue an appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger; (2) Imperial County (a county in Southern California east of San Diego) also has standing to pursue the appeal; and (3) Prop 8 should be upheld. The Introduction (pp. 1-8) and Summary of Argument (16-18) provide a good outline of what they are arguing.

Main Response Brief filed by the Olson-Boies team In this brief, our people are asking the court (1) to deny standing to the proponents of Prop 8 and (2) to strike down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Pages 1-28 encompass the Introduction, the Statement of Facts and the Summary of Argument. If you only have time to read one thing, read this.

Response regarding Imperial County filed by the Olson-Boies team. This is the response to the argument that Imperial County should be permitted to pursue appeal. You might want to look at pages 1-2. They contain the Introduction and Statement of the Issues.

Although not strictly necessary for understanding what’s going on tomorrow, you should also read Judge Walker’s ruling when you can.

As a reminder, the hearings will be televised on C-SPAN at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time (1 p.m Eastern). We’ll be live-blogging them here. USC Constitutional Law scholar David Cruz will be joining us. Don’t miss it!


—  admin

Movie Monday: ‘Secretariat’ in wide release

Son of ‘Seabiscuit:’ ‘Secretariat’ is old-fashioned, formulaic

Contrary to rumors, one of America’s great race horses did not get his name when an ungrammatical executive looked around the office and said, “Where’s my secretary at?” That is, however, how the title was chosen for the Disney movie about that horse. It was only coincidental that the horse, and hence the movie, were named Secretariat.

Secretariat takes place between 1969 and 1973. Had it been made at that time, it would still have seemed old-fashioned. But formulas are repeated because they work. Take a good story, apply the formula, and with the right skills in every department you can make a good movie. Director Randall Wallace brings most of those skills but is too obvious in his reliance on the formula. Secretariat is the son of Seabiscuit — not the horse, but the film: Well-bred, but not in the same league. Again it’s less about the horse than the people around him.

Diane Lane stars as Penny Chenery Tweedy, who inherits guardianship of the horse she calls Big Red, but will race as Secretariat. Penny games Ogden Phipps (James Cromwell), “the richest man in America,” into letting her keep Big Red: She’s done her homework and predicts his genealogy will lead to a winning mix of speed and stamina.

—  Rich Lopez

Judge sends NOM to study hall to clean up their homework

Can you say embarrassing?  A federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit NOM filed to challenge Rhode Island’s campaign finance laws because their briefs were incomprehensible garbage.

U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi said that the lawsuit from the National Organization for Marriage is disorganized, vague and poorly constructed. The judge said the relevant allegations were “buried” in the lawsuit.

Lisi dismissed the lawsuit, but said the group has the option to refile it by Wednesday.

Up to its usual tricks, NOM is attempting to run political ads against pro-equality candidates without having to play by the rules like everyone else.  Namely, they refuse to report expenditures and mind the spending limits set by law for political action committees.  Just another example of how the anti-family crowd is trying to remodel the Klan hood into a 21st century configuration.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright