Live from Uni !
A little post, live from a corridor in my university, waiting for my next class (I do have 1h30 of break between two lessons, I suck at making my won timetable, I know :D)
Right now, before I start compiling my links from Prop 8, I'm reading the liveblogging of Day 11 on prop8trialtracker and oh God o_O ! How come the experts from the defendants are experts ? Ken Miller did not know anything about LGBTQs ! He kept on answering 'I don't know' ; 'I did not investigate' 'I don't recall'. He was even bitchslapped metaphorically by the Judge (This Judge is awesome *w* And so is David Boies. Oh, justice crushes ! *w*) :
M: In California, there is no opportunity to amend unless they pull it back.
B: How often has that happened in California?
M: Not infrequently.
B: When was last time?
M: I guess.
B: I’m not asking you to guess. I’m asking you to tell me the last time.
M: Many times it’s pulled back.
B: When was last time in CA that signatures were gathered and then proponents pulled back to make compromise?
M: Discussed in 2005 special, but did not happen.
B: Give me last time in California?
M: I can give you example in Colorado.
B: We’re talking about Ca. You wanted to talk about CA.
T: Objection, He’s badgering the witness.
Judge Walker: Overruled. This is cross-examination.
B: Good God man.
M: I don’t know.
----
Judge Walker: Can AG do more than provide a neutral title and summary for the initiative?
M: Different in different in states?
Judge Walker: We’re talking about California. The question is can the AG do more?
M: AG can take public position.
Judge Walker: That’s not my question. You don’t know? Is that your answer?
M: Yes, I do not know.
T: Did you review all 427 documents in appendix?
M: I tried to.
-------
I'm going to have fun reading the trial transcriptsfor the defendants' witnesses (and I'll educate myself with the plaintiffs' witnesses) ! The second expert for the defense isn't any better, did not do proper research, keep citing other scholars instead of showing that he is an expert. And he is not a scholar either.
Srly. The trial was alreadu looking good with the brilliant testimonies of the plaintiffs, especially with the experts (Lamb !). When the plaintiffs put Bill Tam on the stand, the effect was a bombshell, showing the prop 8 rhetoric really was : vitriolic, unsubstantiated. Tam use the slippery slope fallacy when talking about gay marriage (you know the 'gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality and incest' slippery slope), by saying to peoplen that the Netherlands had legalised incestuous and polygamous marriage. His source ? Someone on the internet. He did not even bother to check (simple check on wikipedia show nothing of the sort).And he says that in a courtroom ! He was really close to perjury sometimes when he kept saying that he did not remember things and Boies (*w*) would prove him that he was indeed involved seconds later. After Tam, peoplie might have thought that the defendants had no legal stand. It was a bit premature. But now that we had most of the defendants' witnesses' testimonies (last witness will be finished tomorrow morning , California time), it's almost looks too good to be true.
The defendants have no compellling case, their witnesses have been destroyed by the plaintiffs (mainly Boies :D), I don't see how they could win. I don't see the strategy of putting weak and bordeline incompetent (Miller -_-) witnesses on the stand. Maybe because they know that the case will be appealed anyway ? I don't know, even an appelate court relies on the testimonies and evidence entered in the original trial IIRC.
Still. The testimonies might end tomorrow but not the trial. Closing statements have to be made and then we'll have to wait for the judge ruling (and that's going to take some time).
Until then, let's hope American can not be even more backwards and stupid that it already is.
ETA : I'm torn between laughing my ass off or be appalled >_