Pro Prop. 8 Attorney Cooper: You Can't Destroy Bigotry By Erasing Tapes

The lead defense attorney in the Prop 8 case has asked the judge in the case to destroy the video tapes of the proceedings so far.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The lead defense attorney in the Prop 8 case, Charles Cooper, the lawyer that should actually know that this violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution yet still defends inequality, has asked the judge in the case to destroy the video tapes of the proceedings so far. The U.S. Supreme Court, signaling how it will vote, in a 5-4 move blocked the airing of the proceedings; proceedings We, The People, wanted to see, but they -- the judges -- have said "No!"

Cooper's rationale is an extension of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that if the tapes get out the witnesses defending Prop 8, defending inequality in contract law based on gender, will be unduly harassed and less apt to testify in future proceedings. In other words, the rights of those who would amend the Constitution of the State of California and of the United States, their right to not be harassed must supersede the First Amendment of the Constitution. So, exactly how much trampling on the Constitution is going to go on? The First Amendment has been disregarded, the XIV has been completely broken and ignored and the ones that must be protected are those that would oppress tax paying Americans based on religious dogma, thus violating the Church/State separation as well. Might as well make Constitutional door mats so everyone can walk on them like the Justices, Proponents of Prop 8, Cooper and the rest. And the ones who are being denied equal rights are offered no protection, no recourse, no remedy except to plod onward.

Their fear over their bigotry, hatred, their uneducated, non-factual arguments based in religion and not law being one day exposed speaks volumes. It means even they know how wrong, how beyond-the-pale their arguments are; they don't want the world to see them for what they really are, hear them how they really sound under oath, watch their condemnation of people whose only crime is they want to enter a legal contract that others in their state enjoy and not be discriminated against based on gender. Because if people were to actually see it, hear it, watch it in depth, they would be able to see it for what it really, truly is. And those that defend Prop 8 have spent millions to make sure people don't understand what it really, truly is: Religious ideology codified as civil law.

And everyone sits back and accepts it; takes it. On my syndicated talk show January 14, 2010, the mood of every caller from San Francisco ( was resigned that the U.S. Supreme would uphold Prop 8 5-4 just as they did the camera ruling. And when or if that happens, it will be accepted by many. But not all.

The U.S. Supreme Court's charter is to make sure that all laws pass Constitutional muster. That's it. Period. The XIV Amendment is very clear, and a fourth grader could see that Prop 8 clearly violates it. It would be a breach of ethics to uphold it, and ethic breaches can, in fact, be punished.

It is true no Justice of the Supreme Court has ever been removed through the impeachment process, it can be done. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House but the Senate failed to confirm. Justice Abe Fortas resigned, as the threat of impeachment loomed in 1969. It's time again.

It's the same process as for a President. We should be familiar, right? After all, we sat by and let a seated House and Senate impeach a seated President over lying about sex and then watched as they sat idly by while a war criminal launched an illegal occupation and destroyed the nation. A Supreme Court Justice can be removed for failing to do their job or for following some other code than the Constitution, like the Bible, or Partisan politics. How? This should excite those that love the Constitution.

It takes a supermajority, really, like the one voters gave the Democrats in 2008. First the House draws up the articles of impeachment. Then a majority passes them (Democrats, who claim to be for equal rights, have a majority). Then, the Senate, by 2/3 vote, which progressives allegedly have, confirms the impeachment and votes to remove the Justice.

They did it for a President whose only crime was lying about sex. Why can't liberals do it to seed a court with those that love the very document they are sworn to protect more than their seemingly antiquated ideologies? Each of the five that voted to bar the cameras, who spat on our First Amendment, should be put on notice: Ignore the Constitution again, and We, the People will do what document demands in that case.

Can't be done? Five years ago convince America they'd elect an African American named Barrack Hussein Obama. 30 Years ago tell America they'd impeach a President for oral sex. Or that the Supreme Court would rule outside their purview and hand the Presidency to a cabal of neocons. Stranger things have indeed, happened. 100 years ago tell people that the body would give Blacks the right to vote and be equal.

But it won't be done because true progressives, true liberals are not in power. Lovers of the Constitution, those that love or loved it enough to die for it, are far and few between in today's political landscape. If following the document causes any type of negativity that could lead to a loss of votes, then document be damned, we need the votes.

The people spoke in 2008, they wanted to move forward, to progress. No matter who is elected, the nation cannot progress if the highest court in the land is populated with those whose interpretation of the very document they are sworn to defend is skewed by conservative religious social morays. The document is neither conservative nor liberal, it is plain in its language and as the T-shirt I designed in honor of this fight says, "Equal = Equal" and that says it all. When looking at any case, the first question should be does it meet that muster, does equal = equal or not?

The 47-year-old gay man that I am doesn't see the U.S. Supreme making marriage contract equality a reality in the near future. Nor for a moment do I believe any politician in office would even dare bring up the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is moving far away from the very document they protect by a majority of one and that the country cannot wait until one dies or retires to get issues like equality of all Americans right.

Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for ignoring the First Amendment and shame on most of of the Court for what appears to be them trying to insulate themselves. The five of them know how they are going to vote, and it would appear by their ruling they don't want the testimony seen by the public on which they will base that decision. Why? Maybe because it will show how bigoted and antiquated such views are as well.

But know this: I am an American. So are many others and we know the process to remove a justice and it can, in fact, be done. And as for Charles Cooper, shame on you. Shame. As an educated man you should know in the depths of your intellect that this is an equal protection contract law issue, and has nothing to do with marriage. The right afforded by the contract of marriage is not the issue, the exclusion from that contract is. And what else but shame could lead you, Mr. Cooper, or anyone on such a quest to destroy tapes of such a historical trial?

Visit Karel at his website and hear him Monday Through Friday, 3pm to 6pm Live on Green 960 KKGN San Francisco, KRXA 540 Monterey and KUDO Anchorage as well as online an in iTunes.

Popular in the Community