Former Bush lawyer sues to overturn Prop 8

[annabanana]

Source: Salon.com

Same-sex marriage makes strange bedfellows. Like Theodore Olson and David Boies, whose most famous encounter to date is Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 election. Olson was on the winning side, and went on to become solicitor general under the man he helped make president of the United States. Now the two men are on the same side of the law as counsel for plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn California's Proposition 8. The suit appears intended to get Olson and Boies back before the U.S. Supreme Court, this time to argue that restrictions on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Along with other attorneys from their respective firms, Olson and Boies are representing two California couples -- one made up of two men, the other of two women -- who are suing state officials. They were enlisted for the effort by a new organization called the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is holding a press conference on Wednesday to officially announce the suit.

So far, the group is keeping mostly mum on the case, waiting until after the press conference, but the Associated Press reports that Olson hopes it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judging from the complaint, which can be downloaded in PDF form here, it appears that means the suit is intended to get the high court to rule on the constitutionality of restrictions on same-sex marriage around the country. (The suit itself is specifically about California and Prop 8, but the U.S. District Court in which it was filed only has jurisdiction in California; the case will have to get to a higher level before its resolution will have a broader impact.)


Read more: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/26/boies_olson/index.html?source=newsletter

---

This would make every State fight moot, right?

[shadowknows69]

1. I think, but this might be a dangerous strategy with the current court

I just think it could go either way and getting a negative SCOTUS ruling on this could produce a precedent that will be even harder to fight. I'm anxious to see our GLBT members chime in on this. It was bullshit for the CA supreme court to pass this buck to the federal level though.

[MADem]

2. Olson hopes it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court???????

Why does he "hope" that, so fervently?

I gotta question his motives. I just don't trust that guy.

Does anyone trust this Supreme Court to overturn California? Or is it more likely that they'd uphold California, and call the entire initial effort "Judicial Activism?" With 8 being the "appropriate" reaction of "The People" to said activism?

I'd rather see a ballot initiative overturn this mess in overwhelming and decisive numbers. That would "validate" the California Court's "We, The People" argument and take away their rather narrow objections.

I dunno if it would make every state fight moot, though, if the court did rule against the CA decision. It would depend on how the decision was worded. I'm no expert on this ruling, but it appeared to me was that the objection was to the courts making decisions that the people hadn't decided on--it didn't directly address gay marriage--so I don't see how that would "translate" to making state fights moot.

That's just my understanding and I could well be mistaken.

I'd love to hear a few lawyers here jump in and give us all the Romper Room, simply-worded version of events.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Are the two couples actually gay or lesbian?

I don't trust anything when it comes to Olson or any other Bush attorney. And I don't trust David Boies even though he was a Gore attorney during the 2000 election. That's why I don't trust him. He did a piss poor job arguing the case. I watched the damn idiot.

And the part about hoping it will go before the Supreme Court might be well and good. BUT, how soon do they want this to happen? Before the new justice is seated? Or do they know something about the new justice from the time when they vetted her under GHW Bush?

[MADem]

5. Yes, see the second paragraph of the OP.

It's apparently an organized effort.

I'm with you though--I trust Ted Olsen, pal of BushCo, the guy who argued the government's cases before the Supremes for GWB, as far as I could throw him.

One justice isn't going to make the difference on the Bush court, no matter what. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito...they only need one more and they're home free.

In any event, as I said, I don't think the case is about "gay rights to equality" as much as it is about "the people have the right to decide what is law in their state, not the courts." At least, that's the way I see it (and I will take correction if I am misreading what the court said). There's a sentence in that ruling that says that they're not saying the policy (of not letting gays have equality) is "sound," but it's all about "the people."

The scary bit is this: if the Supremes agree that "the people" are the ones who should change the law by referendum, and not the courts, by "judicial activism," then dummies who don't hear what is actually being said might think that the Supremes ruled against something other than what they ruled against....and it could put a bucket of cold water on the equality effort.

If the ruling goes the wrong way, that organization funding this effort had better be ready with some serious PR to counteract that impression.

[marshall]

6. They don't have to be gay or lesbian to want to marry each other, do they?

They could have purely financial reasons. Many heterosexual couples enter marriages of convenience--same sex couples should be afforded the same right. It's not the government's business whether they're shtupping each other.

[NorthCarolina]

4. I am very wary of this action

I think these "couples" should be interviewed at length by HRC or some other gay rights org to see how they came to be involved with these particular attorneys. This entire effort could be contrived as a ruse to take the issue to the Supreme Court with the specific intent to "LOSE".

Having considered the issue, the court would not hear further arguments on the subject for possibly decades. This could prove to be a major setback to the equality movement for the LGBT community, which could be the planned outcome.