Former Bush Administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson Files Suit To Overturn Proposition 8

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    May 27, 2009 6:29 AM GMT
    Byron York

    Ted Olson goes to court on behalf of gay marriage

    Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson is part of a team that has filed suit in federal court in California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and re-establish the right of same-sex couples to marry.

    The suit argues that the state's marriage ban, upheld Tuesday by the California Supreme Court, violates the federal constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. The complaint was filed Friday, and Olson and co-counsel David Boies -- who argued against Olson in the Bush v. Gore case -- will hold a news conference in Los Angeles Wednesday to explain the case. The conference will feature the two same-sex couples on whose behalf Olson filed suit.

    The suit also asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue an injunction that would stop enforcement of Proposition 8 and allow same-sex couples to marry while the case is being decided.

    "I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night. "I thought their cause was just."

    I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

    Technically, the suit Olson has filed is against the governor, attorney general, and other officials of the state of California. Ultimately, Olson said, it's a question that will be decided in Washington, by the Supreme Court. "This is an issue that will get to the Supreme Court, and I think it could well be this case," he said.








    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ted-Olson-goes-to--46137917.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2009 9:12 AM GMT
    Now for my dissent. I wouldn't bet on it getting to the Supreme Court this year, but it is a start. I only hope the case can stand against the current law and go forward.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 27, 2009 9:39 AM GMT
    It will take the US Supreme Court years to first take and then get to this case
    If there was ever a case that needs to be reviewed there it is this one

    But don't get your hopes up
    This is EXACTLY why having lunatics like George Bush for President leave a lasting legacy
    because the Roberts Supreme Court will still likely uphold it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2009 3:46 PM GMT
    I think he is taking the case as a way to write his name into history again. But I dont care, if he wins for us ... icon_wink.gif
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 27, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
    What other laws and propositions should we have the courts overturn?
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 27, 2009 7:21 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    Timberoo saidWhat other laws and propositions should we have the courts overturn?

    Jaywalking. If I want to cross the street in the middle of the block, why shouldn't I be allowed to?


    you're just a rebel
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14390

    May 27, 2009 9:42 PM GMT
    Because jaywalking is not only wrong, it also obstructs the flow of traffic. Pedestrians should be compelled by law to use marked crosswalks, it is for their own good.
    Now back to the relevant subject. A former Bush administrator is filing against the California Supreme Court's ruling on proposition 8 in federal court. This is a pleasant but shocking surprise. I thought the Bush administration only had right wingers working in it. I knew that the federal courts would eventually get involved with this controversial issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2009 10:21 PM GMT
    The shocking and amazing thing is that Olsen is doing this. It is a further legitimization and main-streaming of the whole gay rights issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2009 1:38 AM GMT
    I think the split of the No on 8 by the California Supreme Court and the yes on those already married during the short "legal" period will be a big factor in presentation to the US Supreme Court. I think having two different "classes" of people, those who can have benefits and those who can not may play in our favor to get a permanent ruling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2009 2:08 AM GMT
    Timberoo saidWhat other laws and propositions should we have the courts overturn?

    One of the ironic facts of history is that it was arch-Federalist and conservative John Marshall who established judicial review of laws. It's not in the Constitution. And Antonin Scalia, arch-conservative of the current court, agrees that this is a legitimate function of the Judicial Branch of government.
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    May 28, 2009 2:10 AM GMT
    A slew of equality and LGBT groups think this is a bad idea. They say taking the issue to the courts so quickly is risky and could set us back. They argue it's better to wait to take it to California voters again next year.
    http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/olson-and-boies-hold-presser-on-federal-challenge-to-prop-8-freedom-to-marry-issues-warning.html

    I don't know how I feel about this argument.

    I watched the whole press conference with the two lawyers, and was happy and proud of what they were saying, not getting worried. I understand the risk, but the potential benefit is huge, and not just for California, but the entire country. And if this were to reach the Supreme Court, and they would decide in favor of equality for LGBT people, surely we could then argue that it's a fundamental right of Americans to be parents, adoptive or not. And so on and so forth. This could be huge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 10:08 AM GMT
    History does not favor the timid. Go full guns blazing. Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead. So what if it sends us back 20 years? Isn't that pretty much where we are now?

    Take it to the Supreme Court now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 6:19 PM GMT
    Interview with Ted Olson (Repub) and David Boies (Democrat) who have teamed up on this suit

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30989050
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 6:50 PM GMT
    Olsen and Boies are attorneys with great reputations. They are not Bush or Gore guys. They don't need either ( nor would either be much help since neither is ever going to run for election again). They are big league. I am not sure why they are taking this case but I am all for it. The poor attorney that argued against Prop 8 in front of the CA Supreme Court looked like me on a college exam day. Not prepared, timid, a bit cowed by the process.
    (If you are the attorney and you read this blog I apologize. Just call em as I see em). We have been fighting with .22's. We need .44 Magnums. These guys are .44 Magnums. Big hitters used to the big leagues. I will end before I mangle anymore metaphors. Guns, baseball, courts.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2009 7:03 PM GMT
    the main fear by LGBT groups is that this will be the Plessy v Ferguson of the gay world instead of the Brown v Board... and it is a legitimate concern. That said, they are dragging their feet and sucking up to a president who obviously has no desire to further gay rights.

    If they were smart, someone would have taken DOMA to court already... it violates the full faith and credit clause...

    "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

    NOONE is arguing this because the congress essentially screwed everyone... DOMA says legislation of anti-gay states is more important than legislation in pro-gay states.
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Jun 10, 2009 6:21 AM GMT



    [QUOTE]



    Right now, there seems to be two solid votes on the high court against gay marriage. In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to uphold a Texas law that made gay sex a felony. But how the two other conservative justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote is less certain. Roberts, in particular, may be attracted by Olson's equal-protection argument, because he is a staunch opponent of discrimination. And as for the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, gay rights supporters have to be heartened by the fact that he authored the majority decision in Lawrence. And that he sided with the four liberal justices and wrote the majority opinion in another gay rights case, Romer v. Evans, in 1996.



    [/QUOTE]



    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_war_over_gay_marriage/Content?oid=1000991&showFullText=true

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Jun 26, 2009 7:13 AM GMT
    [QUOTE]



    Several of the leading LGBT legal organizations slightly changed their tune on Thursday, filing a brief (pdf) tonight supporting the Proposition 8 challenge brought in federal court by mega-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the new organization, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), whose news release on the development is available below the jump.



    The Olson/Boies lawsuit is a challenge to Proposition 8 that ultimately attacks the opposition to marriage equality at its base. It claims that both Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution prohibit Proposition 8 from prohibiting same-sex couples to marry in California. This goes past DOMA, assuming its invalidity, by arguing that even an individual state doesn’t have the ability to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

    After initial, full-force opposition by every national LGBT group, the group behind the Olson/Boies challenge announced this evening that “ACLU, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights support AFER lawsuit in newly filed court documents!“


    The groups argued to the court that Proposition 8 “is uniquely transparent in its unconstitutionality” and that, even under the lowest, rational basis, level of court review, Proposition 8 is invalid because it “d[id] not advance a legitimate government purpose.” They do attempt to limit the argument for the Olson/Boies suit in their amicus brief. The groups write:



    [/QUOTE]



    Brief:

    http://lawdork.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/aclubrief.pdf





    Story

    http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/olsonboies-suit-gets-major-boost/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2009 7:52 AM GMT
    I like a fight. Even if it is a losing fight I prefer a fight. I do not sit around and say that in two years we will be stronger or whatnaught and then we will be in a better position to fight. Fight now. Scuff them up a little, make them show their defense, and then fight against those defenses. Every MMA guy knows this. Learn how they defend against you, learn to beat those defenses. Let them show a defense and you know how to define your offense. We gays always fight defense. We rarely fight offense. If we can fight offense, we can win. These two lawyers know how to fight offense. Not asking, telling. Not begging, demanding. I do not ask for rights. They are mine. Obama and et al are keeping my rights from me. I do not ask for him to GIVE them to me. They are mine. Inherently. He is keeping them FROM me. Read the Constitution. Rights are Inherent. Rights are not given by any government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2009 10:11 AM GMT
    SundanceKid said We gays always fight defense. We rarely fight offense. If we can fight offense, we can win.


    QFT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2009 11:11 AM GMT
    QFT, One Eye? I am not even sure what that means? Is that a compliment or an argument? Agree or disagree?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2009 11:15 AM GMT
    SundanceKid saidQFT, One Eye? I am not even sure what that means? Is that a compliment or an argument? Agree or disagree?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=qft
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2009 11:17 AM GMT
    A Digital Immigrant I see. icon_lol.gif Ok, here's lesson one on internet lingo:

    QFT = Quoted For Truth

    Basically "I agree so much I had to say it again."
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 26, 2009 12:34 PM GMT
    Caslon11000 saidI think he is taking the case as a way to write his name into history again. But I dont care, if he wins for us ... icon_wink.gif



    Ding Ding Ding! That's exactly how I'm framing my letters of concern over gay rights to elected officials. "What side of history are you going to be on?"
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 26, 2009 12:36 PM GMT
    Caslon11000 said
    Timberoo saidWhat other laws and propositions should we have the courts overturn?

    One of the ironic facts of history is that it was arch-Federalist and conservative John Marshall who established judicial review of laws. It's not in the Constitution. And Antonin Scalia, arch-conservative of the current court, agrees that this is a legitimate function of the Judicial Branch of government.




    De ja vu! We're studying that right now in my US Political Thought class.
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Aug 20, 2009 1:46 AM GMT
    We have a trial date in California of January 11th, 2010


    January Trial Date Set For Prop. 8 Case
    http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.trial.2.1135403.html




    Ted Olson’s Supreme Court Adventure

    http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/ted-olsons-supreme-court-adventure/