“Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes,” the New York Times reported. Boies and Olson are challenging California’s ban on gay marriage, which the California Supreme Court upheld this week. The former rivals are arguing that Proposition 8 violates the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
35 Comments
Seems to me like the people of California have spoken. Prop 8 passed. It also passed the state supreme court muster. The gays need to just leave that one alone.
I don’t think that I would place too much weight on which side a lawyer is on. Lawyers defend murderers too.
It doesn’t mean they believe in the cause. It means they are getting paid.
Gore v. Bush attorneys?
Everyone knows that attorneys sell to the highest bidder or at least the most press sensitive cases.
With that said, it will be interesting to watch what portion of the Constitution they use to challenge proportion 8 and the recent Hollyfornia Supreme Court case.
In my own opinion, I pointed to the 14th amendment and its general application of ‘equal protection’ clause.
We shall see.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.
TED OLSON no less.
That has to smart for the cons.
Outlander tries to feel better with:
“I don’t think that I would place too much weight on which side a lawyer is on. Lawyers defend murderers too.”
I THINK you just told us that Ted Olson is a wh—. His love is for sale? You might want to be more clear?
““Your comment is awaiting moderation.
TED OLSON no less.
That has to smart for the cons.
Outlander tries to feel better with:
“I don’t think that I would place too much weight on which side a lawyer is on. Lawyers defend murderers too.”
I THINK you just told us that Ted Olson is for sale? You might want to be more clear?
Sometimes humor points out the truth.
“According to this ad, gay marriage has two effects on our families. One: our children might become aware of the existence of gay people, and the fact that they want to get married!
But, “it’s not just kids who face consequences,” the ad warns! As NOM says, “The rights of people who believe marriage is between a man or a woman will no longer matter.”
Rudy Giuliani framed his own thinking in similar terms: “Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman.” (In Giuliani’s case, he means a man and one woman at a time, though some romantic overlap may be unavoidable.)”
http://tinyurl.com/l4osw7
“I THINK you just told us that Ted Olson is for sale? You might want to be more clear?”
Welcome to the real world. Attorneys are like prostitutes. THey do what their clients pay them for. Except htey make a lot more money
“. Attorneys are like prostitutes. THey do what their clients pay them for.”
Oh I’m sure that is true of SOME attorneys of the con persuasion.
I don’t THINK you’d see David Boies signing up on the other side of this issue.
And Ted Olson certainly aint hurting for money.
What is MORE likely here is that Olson wants to be on the cutting edge of American jurisprudence. He wants his name attached to something that is gonna stand and survive long after he is dead and gone.
Good Morning Linda!! LTNS!!
I read the CA Prop 8 decision, and IF I read it right, the Court didnt rule on the efficacy of gay marriage at all… It ruled on whether Prop 8 had the right to be on the Ballot. That said, Olson and Boise seem ready to take it to the SCOTUS… And I have heard something about them basing their challenge on not just 14th Amendment, but also 1st Amendment.
Their case should be interesting to watch.
Read the linked article in the header. Here’s a sample.
“The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court. While neither man claimed any special connection to the gay community — they are working “partially pro-bono,” Mr. Olson said — both said they had been touched by the stories of the same-sex couples unable to marry in California.
“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.
“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back.
Guess it aint about money huh?
Told ya.
And they are going to use equal protection.
Told ya THAT all along.
I don’t want to ascribe too much nobility to Ted Olson. In his case, I suspect it has more to do with ego.
“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.
“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back.
Guess it aint about money huh?
————
Chuckle… So you believe them BJ? That’s what I’d say if I were representing gay groups.
I looked into Mr. Smith eyes and I just know in my heart that my client couldn’t have done the triple murder he is accused of.
In all fairness., maybe they do believe in the cause this time. But you will never know. Hell, you will never know if they believed the positions they argued in Gore v Bush.
don’t these people realize that “the appeals court .. that is where policy is made” ?? .. ooops!! did I just say that ?? ( laugh laugh ) .. well then .. how about this one: .. screw the will of the people
— – - – - – - – - – - – - — — – - – - – - – - – - – - — — – - – - – - – - – - – - —
22 Then he [ Jesus ] said to his disciples, The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.
23 Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them.
24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulphur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed
. . . . Luke 17
But WHY has Olson agreed to represent “gay groups” outlander?
We can be pretty sure it is not the money. Certainly, it’s not a winner for him politically. Particularly with the folks he has spent most of his life calling friends. I’ve already stipulated to it aint out of nobility or any real sympathy for gay people.
No I think Olson just sees a speeding train and already knows the destination. He wants to get credit as one of the engineers.
“According to this ad, gay marriage has two effects on our families. One: our children might become aware of the existence of gay people, and the fact that they want to get married!”
Let’s not forget that gay people won’t quit having sex just because they can’t get married. So of you’re against gay marriage, aren’t you in endorsing sex outside of marriage?
PS–I believe NOTHING a lawyer says when they have a client in hand. And little of what they say when they don’t.
#
BlueJay
Posted May 29, 2009 at 11:07 am | Permalink
But WHY has Olson agreed to represent “gay groups” outlander?
We can be pretty sure it is not the money. Certainly, it’s not a winner for him politically. Particularly with the folks he has spent most of his life calling friends. I’ve already stipulated to it aint out of nobility or any real sympathy for gay people.
No I think Olson just sees a speeding train and already knows the destination. He wants to get credit as one of the engineers.
===========================
No Ted Olson has always been a craftsman to his trade. I imagine his philosophy may have changed a bit when his wife died in Flight 77 (pentagon crash) on 9/11.
BlueJay-
Knowing attorneys across the state, and not knowing you, I will take their word for it. THeir bread and butter is doing what their client asks and needs. . ANd besides, many if not most attorneys I know have a considerable liberal slant to their politics.
Attorneys do on occasion take something that either they (1) are willing to carry water for because they believe in the cause–so they work pro bono or reduced fee or (2) THink that they will gain a name for themselves and feed their egos. In order of precedence it will be (1) Money
(2) ego (3) cause. SO you can say all you want about con attorneys, yad yada yada. I guess you get partial credit for thinking other than money in this case might be involved, but like partial employment, partial credit doesn’t doesn;t pay the bills.
by the way, ego stroking and name recognition, for professionals, equates to more money in the end
“No Ted Olson has always been a craftsman to his trade. I imagine his philosophy may have changed a bit when his wife died in Flight 77 (pentagon crash) on 9/11.”
Although I detest Ted Olson generally, (and Barbara for that matter) I do have enormous sympathy for him for the tragic loss of his wife.
That having been said, perhaps Mr. Olson sees the world through different colored glasses these days.
I cannot imagine what was going through the minds of Barbara and Ted Olson as they spoke on the phone while her plane was approaching the Pentagon on 9/11, but having recently spoken via phone to a dying relative in his last hour, I can only think that it must have been the most wrenching moment of his life, not to mention hers.
Even though I do not care for the man, I hope he has found some peace since 9/11.
Ted Olson finally discovered (HORRORS!!!) empathy.
Related:
A mandatory pro-sodomy indoctrination program, officially titled “LGBT Lesson #9″ was approved May 26 by the Alameda County Board of Education in Californicatia, by a vote of 3-2. Students from kindergarten through fifth grade will learn about “tolerance” for sodomites and their various vile perversions beginning next year.
Parents will not be allowed to opt their children out of this taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign.
“parkay” bemoans –
“…“tolerance” for sodomites and their various vile perversions….”
How is this a whit different from Phred Felps’ rhetoric?
It’s fun to see all the “we love bigotry” apologistas calling all lawyers “liars.” Let’s do this: Since you think all attorneys are lying to keep their clients out of jail, let’s admit that the Bush admin lawyers who said “oh no, that’s not torture!” were lying.
“How is this a whit different from Phred Felps’ rhetoric?”
Phred doesn’t dress as a cockroach when he protests.
Point taken, “Agnatha” –
That’s the only reason I read WE Blog; to get educated.
thomaswitt
Posted May 29, 2009 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
It’s fun to see all the “we love bigotry” apologistas calling all lawyers “liars.” Let’s do this: Since you think all attorneys are lying to keep their clients out of jail, let’s admit that the Bush admin lawyers who said “oh no, that’s not torture!” were lying.
I don;t know if you were talking about me, or what. I didn’t say they were liars. I said they were like prostitutes, they do their clients bidding. In fact, it is their job, and their obligation to present the best case possible for their client, should they choose to accept them. They can be disbarred for NOT doing so. They are not liars, they are creators of alternate truth, or possibilities. THey are challengers of “facts” presented by the other side. They are their clients representative, and must present their clients position, not their own.
Littlejohn,
What’s more degrading – calling an attorney a liar, or calling an attorney a prostitute?
In either case, my question about the Bush admin torture lawyers remains. If all attorneys are lying (or twisting the truth, or whatever) to protect their clients, then if follows that the lawyers making excuses for torture were lying to protect Bush/Cheney/etc. Or, let’s try this: Sometimes, as human beings, attorneys will stand up for a cause they believe is fair and just and necessary.
thomaswitt
Posted May 30, 2009 at 8:29 am
Sometimes, as human beings, attorneys will stand up for a cause they believe is fair and just and necessary.
====================
Unless it involves prayer meetings in one’s home, then the importance of what happens in one’s living room, doesn’t have equity to what happens in someone’s bedroom. :)
THIS has to be the least posted same sex marriage thread in the history of WE Blog.
I don’t wonder why.
Nobody cares…
“Nobody cares…”
No, that’s not it. If that were the case there wouldn’t be all the folks with nose trouble trying to pass amendments to “protect” marriage. Indeed, just a day before THIS story broke, the cons got the bit of “good news” that the California Supreme court had upheld one of their little fortress marriage votes.
No what we have HERE is news you cons don’t know quite what to do with. Do you string Ted Olson up or pretend he doesn’t exist?
“Regular,”
the importance of what happens in one’s living room, doesn’t have equity to what happens in someone’s bedroom
Huh? Since when, and why would the government try to regulate “prayer meetings” held in people’s homes? If you can show me where this is the policy of any government entity in the United States (as opposed to some local yahoo going off on his own), I challenge you to post it.
Ted Olsen I would presume doesnt need money, So it would seem logical that if he was an ardently opposed to same sex marriage he wouldnt be taking this case. Another question conservatives generally claim to oppose government intrusion in people’s lives, if that philosophy is true then why do they care who is marring who?
It appears that our quest for equality, under the law, is a force that is greater than we are. We always have forces raging against our cause, but this is a new, and welcome weapon that we should cautiously support! Now, we’re attracting people who are willing to fight for us, in their own special way.
There’s simply no rational reason to oppose marriage gender equality.
All ya get is CON-speak. Which is basically self-righteous religiosity and homophobia.
It’s just another sorry example of CONs committing political suicide.
Okay, not that sorry.