Ted Olson: I don't know what is going through the administrations thought process (re: DADT)

[WillParkinson]

Quote Of The Day - Ted Olson

"It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law. I don't know what is going through the administration's thought process on 'don't ask, don't tell.' It would be appropriate for them to say 'the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'" - Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/quote-of-day-ted-olson.html

[donco6]

1. Ted, let me introduce you to the underside of the bus.

It's nice here. We have cookies.

[xchrom]

3. And milk. Teh Gays never forget the nice little things

That make it a real homo.

[ArcticFox]

2. It would be a great "October Surprise"

if Obama would just all of a sudden decide to not appeal.

[Smashcut]

4. But Ted Olson is wrong according to DU legal experts

:eyes:

[xchrom]

5. Tee-hee! Nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Yes, because the comments of litigating attorneys commenting on their own cases is always gospel.

Are you that naive?

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Is the quote factual or not?

That is, can the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., confess error or decline to defend a law? That's the crux of the matter.

[Unvanguard]

12. The DOJ can decline to defend federal law, yes.

In a limited set of exceptional cases where it thinks it can mount no reasonable legal defense. The breadth to which you interpret this exception is somewhat up to interpretation, as the disagreements among legal experts indicate. Ted Olson seems to think that a judgment of unconstitutionality from a single court is sufficient; I think this is probably too broad, because it would allow the executive branch to undermine laws about which there is any significant legal controversy at all.

[northzax]

14. indeed

I have yet to find a case in which this administration refused to appeal a decision from an individual judge. an entire circuit, yes, but not one judge.

do you know of any?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Is anything in law that straightforward?

Lawyers make a lot of money for a reason.

[elleng]

27. No, little in law is straightforward,

and yes, lawyers may make a lot of money because it takes 2 to disagree. We can also be busy trying to resolve disagreements, without making a lot of money.

Its our system, 'One nation, under law.'

[Smashcut]

13. Ted Olson is not part of the DADT litigation.

His case has to do with Prop 8.

Are you that ignorant?

Why don't you inform yourself before commenting next time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Because the two are in no way related. (nt)

[Unvanguard]

18. I wonder a bit about that aspect of this.

If nothing else, the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger have benefited from the refusal of California's government to defend Prop. 8, so it would hardly be politically wise of Ted Olson to assert that such refusal is a bad thing.

[Smashcut]

21. Actually, no, they aren't.

Other than that they both pertain to gay rights.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. Ted Olson's opinion is GOOD now! Progress!

Once a snake, always a snake. Seems like intellectual sabotage.

[Unvanguard]

10. Ted Olson is not the only "legal expert" with an opinion.

And http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?_r=1&ref=opinion">not all of them agree with him.

[joeybee12]

11. The quesiton is NOT whether Obama has to appeal...he doesn't...is whether he

should...and anyone who says he has to is lying.

[Unvanguard]

16. The problem here is the meaning of "has to."

There is never a legal requirement to appeal, no. That does not mean it is a matter of absolute discretion; it does not mean, that is, that any reason at all will serve as a legitimate reason not to appeal. Otherwise, a politically-motivated administration could simply ignore Congressional statutes the moment any single district court ruling invalidated them--even if that ruling was isolated (as this one is.)

[struggle4progress]

30. Thanks. That's an excellent link!

[madmax]

8. k& r

For my gay brothers and sisters. :grouphug:

[global1]

19. If The DOJ Didn't Appeal What Would Have Been The Next Move By Those That Are For DADT?....

Really - if the Obama DOJ didn't appeal this ruling on DADT and let it be declared unconstitutional - what would have been the next move by the other side that doesn't want DADT ended? Could they have taken it to SCOTUS or would it have been completely dead in the water?

[yodermon]

20. what would happen to this lawsuit if it was not appealed by the administration?

could a future administration appeal it later? is there a statute of limitations on appealing a lawsuit?
And, just because a lower court declares law X unconstitutional, is it stricken from the US code?

honest questions, haven't seen them asked, i apologize if this has been asked & answered.

[struggle4progress]

29. Yes, there are time limits for appealing Federal Court decisions; so, No, a later administration

would not be able to appeal; that, however, does not mean that the issue would be dead dead dead, because there are other avenues by which opponents of equality could revive the issue in other Districts or Circuits

[ProfessorGAC]

22. If Ted Olson Disagrees WIth The Administration. . .

. . .it suggests that they may be on to something. As bad as it may be for our GLBT brothers and sisters in the near term, if this conservabot tool disagrees with their thinking, i have to reserve further judgment.

I wouldn't let this guy write instructions on changing a tire, let alone listen to him on consitutional law.
GAC

[WillParkinson]

23. This 'tool' is the one leading the gay marriage arguments...

I trust him a lot more than I trust a lot of our so-called allies when it comes to knowledge of the law.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. To Each His Own

He is a conservabot pretending to be libertarian and has been for years. His support of gay marriage is rooted in libertarianism, but i don't trust Hazletians to say what they really mean.
GAC

[WillParkinson]

26. He's done more...

Than our 'fierce' advocate. At least he believes we have the right to be with who we love.

[donheld]

28. +1000

[struggle4progress]

32. The first Ted Olson scandal

Monday, May 14, 2001 15:00 ET
The first Ted Olson scandal

It didn't begin with the Clinton-smearing Arkansas Project. The solicitor general nominee's pattern of ruthlessness and deception began during his tenure in the Reagan administration.

By David Neiwert

... In the mid-1980s, he became the focus of an independent counsel's investigation for much the same thing: giving misleading testimony to Congress -- some charged it was perjury -- that was intended to cover up his own misbehavior ...

A careful examination of that episode raises serious questions about not merely his integrity but the legendary legal prowess to which even his critics defer. Indeed, the last time Olson served as a top presidential legal counselor, he left behind a political disaster area strewn with bad legal advice, wrecked careers and lingering scandals.

As assistant attorney general to President Reagan from 1981 to 1983, Olson advised the president to claim executive privilege to block an investigation by congressional Democrats into the scandal-plagued Superfund program, based on assertions that later proved fatally false -- largely because Olson, apparently eager to force a political fight with Congress, failed to double-check key information.

Olson's blunders eventually caused the resignation of Reagan's lightning-rod Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Anne Gorsuch Burford ...

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2001/05/14/independent_counsel

[laughingliberal]

25. K & R nt

[TriMera]

31. Kick and rec. n/t