 I'm here with Theodore Petrus of Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, who so eloquently argued for the plaintiffs in today's case. I just want to say one thing. The intervening defendants, homophobic and bigoted motion, I think will prove to be a real low point in American civil rights history. But it's our hope that Judge Weir's opinion and the ultimate decision in the issue before us today will end up proving to be a positive turning point and erase this dark spot that was put upon us by the intervening defendants today. I also think it's important to remember that the lawyers simply represent clients. The proponents in this case led a campaign that we saw throughout trial that was incredibly bigoted, homophobic and filled with animus. They attempted to hide that during the trial and their motion that was argued today I think really brought to light and brought to the federal court system the homophobic and bigoted views of those. And just to remind you, the reason that we're here and the intervening defendants in this case, Mr. Tam, Mark Janssen, Martin Gutierrez, Gail Knight and Dennis Hollingsworth are the actual proponents in this case and I think it's important to remember their views and to remember the clients that are represented by the lawyers that you heard speak here today. And with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Butres and then we'll open it up for questions. Thank you. Thank you Chad. Hello everyone. Today we argued this motion and this motion is a frivolous, offensive motion deeply unfortunate that the proponents decided to file this motion in some way so it's not surprising because throughout the civil rights history of our country when judges from the minority group have sat on a case where there was equal protection claim or some issue that related to the rights of that minority group litigants have tried this trick. They've tried to knock the judge off the case because of their status as a minority and each and every time throughout our history the courts have rejected those attempts. We're very hopeful that Chief Judge Ware will do that in denying this motion. You heard today again it echoed a bit of a trial where Chief Judge Ware asked Mr. Cooper for the evidence to support their claim. He asked him several times and Mr. Cooper was not able to provide the answer and as Chief Judge Ware said, Mr. Cooper left some of the key questions, the key question unanswered concerning the evidence they have here for this motion. And as we talked about in court today in our briefs, courts in race cases, gender cases, religious cases have rejected these arguments where litigants try to bounce a judge off a case when they're unhappy with the result because the judge is from a minority group and here the proponents argue well it's not because of the judge's sexual orientation, it's these other factors in the point to the fact that the judge has a relationship which is not exactly breaking news that someone might have a relationship but this poi has been used throughout history in civil rights cases when litigants tried to disqualify black judges from sitting on cases involving equal protection and desegregation and other cases of that nature. The argument would be well we're not arguing it's because of your race, it's something else and same with women and same in terms of religion and as Judge Mukasey from New York once put it no matter how you try to hide it it's the same rancid wine but in a different bottle and that's what I think this motion is very surprised it was ever filed on the positive side because this has been a pattern throughout our history where these kinds of motions have been filed in civil rights cases this is an opportunity to show that the same principles that have applied from day one in civil rights cases in our federal judges will apply here and we're hopeful that Chief Judge Werner will make clear that gay judges just like all other judges are fair and impartial and adhere to their oaths we know Judge Walker did he had an extraordinarily fair proceeding gave the proponents every chance to put on any evidence they wanted invited them to put on evidence but they couldn't do it because their claims in support of Proposition A are baseless they had no evidence that's why they filed this motion this is a desperate Hail Mary pass they're throwing because they think they're gonna lose and they should lose because they're the efforts to support Proposition A are without any merit based in there totally baseless thank you and happy to answer any questions what does it tell you that the judge thinks he can rule within 24 hours I'm not not going to speculate on that I felt that he read the judge really clearly had focused on these issues he was extremely well prepared he asked excellent questions of both sides and I guess this isn't speculating it tells me he's spent a lot of time preparing for today's hearing he's read the briefs he listened to the arguments so beyond that I'm not going to go into comment but I do think he was extremely well prepared and taking this very seriously and as I said it's a serious issue when someone comes in the court and tries to disqualify a federal judge based on their their sexual orientation we hope the judge is going to reject that attempt Were you surprised at Judge Werner and knowledge that he had presided both over the changing of the gavel and that's right I did not know that I was not surprised but I thought he did it with some irony given the standards that the proponents are advocating here for recusal of disqualification of judges if the Proposition A proponent standard was adopted we'd have federal judges having to disclose all the personal details of their life it seems so I thought it was interesting and you know but it didn't surprise me and I think it was it was totally appropriate and fine there wouldn't have been anything inappropriate about Judge Walker disclosing anything the question is what is required by the law and our view is that first of all the proponents are asking for this sweeping standard that would be extraordinarily intrusive of the federal courts it would undermine the integrity and the authority of the federal courts and it's a very very dangerous precedent they're asking for that would sweep way beyond this case way beyond cases involving gay judges that's really the point here it's it's not that anything is should is is inappropriate or appropriate is what's required by the law and for the proponents to have waited this long to raise these issues I think is proof positive they they know these arguments are baseless and they file them for some other reason than trying to win Is there a mechanism by which the proponents of Prop 8 could have raised this issue once they had seen something short of which those that were made in April within the context of the trial was there a way that they could have gone to the judge and said hey what you know because if they thought it was so important is there a legal way that they could have raised it without having relied on you know a news report that they didn't know what it was true absolutely they could have raised it what often happens if some fact is publicly reported and they and they never suggested they didn't believe the reports were were correct and they and they could have gone to the judge and asked said your honor this was reported you want to raise the issue you want to make sure it doesn't raise any any questions that's how these things usually play out a litigant learns of some fact through public sources and and and often times raises it with the judge that's what they should have done instead they they they hidden the weeds waited until they are there that appears there they are going to lose and then they they they brought at this last debt ditch attempt to shore up the the case and I think it's it's very common to have issues brought up in that way and they didn't do it it's very unfair to the judge waiting until he's gone that's why I think this motion is really frankly outrageous Did you ever consider doing that going to the judge and asking to bring it up or disclose or just to keep this from happening lately? No no we we did not think it was an issue the cases are so clear that in this circumstance that someone's status their sexual orientation their gender who they are is not a basis for disqualifying the judge once you go down that road it's it would be a terrible thing for our system we trust judges to decide cases based on the law and the facts here the law and the facts overwhelmingly supported our side the plaintiff side and Judge Walker's opinion ruling in our favor and this is a case where the proponents didn't put on any evidence that supported their claim now they're in here arguing that it wasn't that feeling it was something else it's just really kind of a classic disgruntled litigant coming into court attacking the court because they failed improving their case that's what's going on here it's very disappointing that they took this approach but I think on a positive side you can get this issue resolved to make clear that gay men and lesbians who serve on our federal courts are entitled all the presumptions of impartiality and fairness that we give to the judges throughout the country in the federal court system I know you don't like to make predictions but how confident are you that 24 hours from now or maybe two days from now if you're going to look at this one put this aside we think that our argument is extraordinarily strong and that the other side's argument is frivolous so we're hopeful the judge is going to deny this motion and do it in a way that makes clear that gay men and lesbians are entitled to all the protections and presumptions of impartiality and fairness that other judges are in our system so we're very hopeful that that'll happen and it'll come soon Is that ruling, if you weren't sure the rule, in your favor, is that ruling available? And can you also talk about what is the status of the appeal of the judge's office ruling? First, it's difficult to know whether the proponents would have standing in the repellent court would be back to the standings so they'll all come together at some point In terms of the status right now of the main appeals the case in the California Supreme Court is basically fully briefed I think there might be some amicus brief filings that are still happening and then according to the court's order it's likely to be argued no later than September and then once we get a Ninth Circuit or excuse me a California Supreme Court ruling I think the Ninth Circuit would be able to move quickly in responding to that and we'll be off to the races again Any other questions? Mark? Yes? Which comments by the judge today are you referring to the rule that the judge is doing? I have a rule and when I go into an argument I say don't get happy don't get sad based on what the judge says and so I applied that rule today so I can't tell you the answer to that question Are there any indications you think the judge gave? I personally never do that just because I don't want to jinx myself I felt that went really well with the judge focused in on the key issues the fact that the judge focused in on the fact that the proponents don't have any evidence for their main arguments put aside all their other arguments but their main arguments about Judge Walker they don't have any evidence they're completely speculating and that is inappropriate when you bring a motion arguing that a judge should be disqualified there is a very high standard for you to prove it's not because of their status and the proponents here completely failed to meet that standard lawyers have been sanctioned for this kind of motion where they don't have evidence and the fact that they could not point to any evidence in the record supporting them on what seemed to be the key premise of their motion seemed to me to be the very positive development You think they should be sanctioned for bringing them up? We thought about bringing this anxious motion but decided it wasn't worth the distraction here that we'd be better off just focusing on the law and the facts here and getting a ruling that makes clear this kind of motion isn't appropriate Thank you very much The judge had said once he ruled on the narrower issue today he would then set another hearing for that So we'll be coming back one more time on that Okay, thank you all