Ted Olson on Prop. 8 decision: That's why we have judges

[jefferson_dem]

Olson on Prop. 8 decision: That's why we have judges
By Shane D'Aprile - 08/08/10 09:16 AM ET

Former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, a part of the legal team who fought to overturn California's gay marriage ban, said Sunday the decision by a federal judge ruling Prop. 8 unconstitutional was not an example of judicial activism.

"That's why we have judges and that's why we have an independent judiciary," Olson said on "Fox News Sunday."

"It is not judicial activism, it is judicial responsibility in its most classic sense," he said.

Back in January, Olson made waves in conservative circles by signing onto the lawsuit to overturn the ban and penning an op-ed he labeled "the conservative case for gay marriage."

Pressed on whether a single judge can overrule the will of some seven million California voters, Olson called it the proper role of the federal judiciary to "make sure that when we vote for something we're not denying minorities their constitutional rights."

Without separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, Olson said citizens in California or any other state would be empowered to "take away my rights or your rights."

Olson continued: "We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote." He noted that 41 states outlawed interracial marriage at one time. Had that been allowed to stand, "the president's parents could not have been married," he said.

<SNIP>

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/113185-olson-on-prop-8-decision-thats-why-we-have-judges

Olson presented a dynamite defense of marriage equality today and annihilated the "judicial activism" smear ... right there on FauxNewsSunday. I "live tweeted" here - http://twitter.com/jeffersondewitt Catch a replay or video if you can.

[elleng]

1. Excellent; he speaks clearly. IF 'they' are ever to understand, its now, from him.

Those who don't won't, EVER.

[racaulk]

2. K&R!

[treestar]

3. Of course they can overrule the will of the voters

That protects us in case the majority decide they want something like an official state religion. Holy cow, these journalists are ignorant. Helping to keep the voters even more ignorant.

[bullwinkle428]

4. K&R. Olson probably just got blacklisted from the Faux Snooze guest list!

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The will of 7 million voters?

Very editorial way of saying that about half a million more people voted for than against H8. 52.24% for and 47.76% against. Not a difference of 7 Million, not even a difference of 700K.

[indepat]

15. Good catch: the disingenuous will always attempt to deceive, usually weaving in a bit of

mendacity, sanctimony, and hypocrisy as lagniappe. :P

[jefferson_dem]

6. VIDEO here -

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38878

[ibegurpard]

7. Ted Olson should be no hero to progressives

if he's on the right side of this issue there's an ulterior motive.

[MH1]

8. the motive is probably that he sees the GOP is on the wrong side of this issue

kind of like pissing off the hispanic vote.

For long term achievement of conservative goals, they might not want to keep pissing off (by pissing on) a large segment of voters.

In this case it's not just voters. Big corporations really would rather not be bothered with this stuff. They want the people working for them who will make them the most money. They don't want supervisors playing favorites based on shit that has nothing to do with the bottom line.

Corporations are responsible for a lot of ugliness in our society but this is one case when their self-interest happens to be aligned with what's right.

[ruggerson]

10. OK then we'll wait for you to secure marriage equality for all of us

n/t

[stevenleser]

14. He's definitely no Progressive hero, but he is right here and should be supported for it

I happen to think he is discovering that he is more of a Libertarian than a Republican. I'll take it. I think we should support more Republicans making that change. Sure, we still disagree with the Libertarians on economic issues as such, but it gives us a win on personal liberties and LGBT issues. Its not everything, but I will gladly take it.

[Unvanguard]

16. Why must there be an ulterior motive?

Sure, he supports lots of absolutely terrible people and things, but that just means that he is deeply wrong about many things, not that he is never right.

[rasputin1952]

9. I find it interesting that there are only "activist" judges...

when something Progressive happens.

Far more often, Conservatives hook up w/the "activist" judges, (the "patriot act", corporations viewed as people, corporations having unlimited cash reserves to toss into an election and a host of other poor decisions), are never seen as "activist".

Scalia has been the most "activist" SC judge in decades, I certainly can't call him Progressive.

Sickening the way the neo-cons frame things, and we don't slap it right back in their faces.

[ruggerson]

11. Olson said basically the same thing

A judge is an "activist" judge if you don't like his/her decision.

[rasputin1952]

12. Precisely...

just depends on which side of the aisle you're on.

[stevenleser]

13. Olson gets nothing but praise from me on this one

I'm perfectly willing to kick his ass when he is a jerk, but if he does the right thing, I'm willing to say so.

I love that he has seen the light on LGBT issues and marriage.

[Inuca]

17. Saw it & it was truly impressive

I add my recommendation to yours, people should try to watch this, definitely worth it.