Leave a Comment Sagesse
138,542 public comments: Televise the trial
January 12, 2010
By Julia Rosen
On Friday the Courage Campaign Institute delivered 140,671 signatures on a letter to Judge Walker, per his request for public comments on airing the trial. 138,248 were on paper, the rest of the letters urging him to televise the trial were delivered electronically.
It turns out that we accounted for nearly every single comment Judge Walker received. Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV:
Walker then said that he received “a substantial number of comments by 5:00pm Friday – 138,574” with the “overwhelming majority in favor of the rule change; there were 32 comments opposed. People laughed. He said uproar, however, was “very helpful” – noting that it is “highly unfortunate” that the courts have not dealt with the issue of public access in the past. “Finally, after some 20 years, we’ll get some sensible movement forward,” Walker said.
It seems Walker just counted the paper signatures, meaning that ours and CREDO’s members accounted for 138,248 of total submitted, thus 326 came from other sources. Those 326 dwarf the laughable total submitted by the opposition and brings into question, just how concerned they are about the videotaping of the trial, if they were unable to muster up much energy among their supporters.
Ed Wheland over at the right-wing NRO is attempting to twist this all against Judge Walker and call into question the legitimacy of our member’s comments:
Walker’s eagerness to play circus master is also reflected in his announcement yesterday, predictably eliciting guffaws in the courtroom audience, that he had received 138,542 responses in favor of his purported revision to Local Rule 77-3 and 32 responses opposed. Walker didn’t see fit to note that 138,248 of the supportive responses were signatures solicited by an activist group called the Courage Campaign that launched a petition drive urging its supporters to sign their names to a letter to Walker that “insist[s] that the trial of Proposition 8 be televised.”
Um no Ed, the laughter was amusement at the paltry total of comments those opposing the airing of the trial, as compared to the tens of thousands in support of his action to increase the transparency by televising the trial.
Why would Walker note where the public comments were collected? I assume Wheland wanted Walker to undercut their legitimacy. Just because our members did not put a stamp on their messages, that does not make them any less legitimate.
P.S. It’s the Courage Campaign Institute
P.P.S. They added their name to a letter. It was not a petition.
Now we wait for the Supreme Court to issue its ruling, which will come on Wednesday. I was listening to NPR this morning and they were noting that while Souter and Rehnquist were generally opposed to cameras in the courtroom, their replacements Roberts and Sotomayor are thought as been more friendly on the issue. They seem to be taking this opportunity as a chance to weigh in on the issue.
Obviously, we are hoping they actually go further than Walker did and allow the entire trial to be filmed live. But SCOTUS should at least resume the simulcasting to other federal courthouses and YouTube posting.
There is a lot of interest in this trial. Our hundreds of commentors and tens of thousands of visitors are just one indicator of demand for access to this trial. This is the most important civil rights trial in a generation and will affect millions of Americans. We have the opportunity to either keep the doors closed on this case or open up this trial to the public so Americans can witness history.
Filed under: Televising
13 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
jstueart | January 12, 2010 at 6:35 am
Amen, Julia! Well said.
2.
Patrick Regan | January 12, 2010 at 6:37 am
Agreed. This trial is important to the whole country. Let us see our Justice system at work.
3.
Dieter M. | January 12, 2010 at 6:44 am
has the case resumed form lunch yet?
4.
Stephanie | January 12, 2010 at 6:49 am
It is an important education for all of us!
5.
Patrick Regan | January 12, 2010 at 6:52 am
just came back.
6.
Jim W | January 12, 2010 at 6:53 am
#3 trial is back from lunch
Knowing that the Judiciary is somewhat backward when it comes to technology, I forked over $40 to have my comments (on real paper) overnighted.
Hopefully, it will get better soon…
7.
Eden James, Courage | January 12, 2010 at 7:17 am
Yes, the trial is back on. Rick's new thread just got posted:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/12/liveblogg…
Eden w/ Courage
8.
Linda Gray | January 12, 2010 at 7:40 am
Keeping my fingers crossed for tele or YouTube, but will either mean no more liveblogging? If so, that's sad for me–it takes my computer about 4 hours to upload a 2-minute YouTube video, which makes it impractical for me. Sob.
9.
Alec | January 12, 2010 at 8:23 am
Thank you for the updates. This is extremely important to me… all the way back on the east coast in SC.
10.
Jess | January 12, 2010 at 8:25 am
See, that's when I'd invade a friend's house and commandeer their computer. This case is too important historically to miss out on!
I really do hope they put it up on youtube, I totally wanna see thus Ted Olsen guy in action
11.
jim belcher | January 12, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I think it is now time to start outing Republican Congressmen and Women. I also think that there are probably members of the radical right and the NRO who could do with a little outing.
This politics thing is a contact sport. Out a few of these folks and they will see what real harassment looks like.
12.
James | January 12, 2010 at 8:28 pm
…not just important to Americans,
I am in Sydney, Australia and am following this case with intense interest.
Thank you to the people who are doing a brilliant job of making the goings-on of this important trial available through this forum.
13.
James Sweet | January 13, 2010 at 12:45 am
Maybe… but remember that the vast majority of the people who oppose gay marriage don't know they are being bamboozled…. It's a pretty easy sell to stand up on the pulpit and say, "Vote Yes on Prop 8, or else your children will be turned teh gay!" It's a much tougher sell to stand up on the pulpit and say, "We're worried that if you hear the actual arguments for and against gay marriage, you'll change your mind — so sign this letter opposing courtroom videotaping, or else you'll be allowed to decide for yourself!"
Well, obviously the leaders of the anti-gay marriage movement would never be that honest. But still, I can't think of any lies you could tell your run-of-the-mill gay marriage opponent (i.e. not one of the activists, just an average yes-voter on Prop
that would convince him or her that simulcasting the trial was some sort of terrible thing.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.