Two developments in the 9th Circuit appeal of Judge Walker’s decision finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional:
1. The Court granted both C-Span’s and KGO-TV’s motions to live televise and record for later broadcast the hearing. Remember, Judge Walker granted a motion to televise the trial but was overruled by the Supreme Court.
2. The Perry plaintiffs, through their counsel Ted Olson, have objected to the allocation of time for the arguments – arguing that the plaintiffs have been allotted insufficient time, particularly in light of the amount of time granted to Imperial County (a public entity that seeks to defend the constitutionality of Prop 8 since the State of California is refusing to do so). Olson proposes to the court that the argument on standing and the merits arguments (on the lower court’s finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional) be merged into one argument.
While the question of allocation of time seems like something only lawyers would take an interest in, in fact it’s quite important. The way the argument is now structured, the plaintiffs will have very little time to persuade the court that Judge Walker was correct on the underlying constitutional questions. In fact, the standing issue doesn’t really need argument – it could easily be resolved “on the papers” as we say in the law. The constitutionality of Prop 8, however, deserves ample airing, both in briefs and in oral argument, before the court decides whether to affirm or reverse the lower court.
Olson’s letter motion is here.
Two New Issues in Perry Case – This Revolution Will be Televised & Plaintiffs Object to Time Given to Argue http://wp.me/ploC4-MB