As predicted, the fight over Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage drags on. This morning media reported former Solicitor General Ted Olson has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. ABC’s White House Correspondent Jake Tapper blogs about the lawsuit here. It’s interesting that two former legal adversaries have found unity on such a divisive issue: Olson is joined by David Boies, his opponent in the historic Bush v. Gore case.
The two lawyers contend that the Supreme Court’s upholding of Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. Read the complaint here. The suit requests an immediate injunction so that Proposition 8 cannot be enforced. My latest Townhall.com article examines the Proposition 8 case and how this issue will be making headlines for years to come.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
First Doug Kmiec and now Ted Olson. Unbelievable Alice in Wonderland moment. When I first read about this last night I thought it was satire.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I think there is a motive where on a LGBT left leaning blog the motive for this federal lawsuit would be this:
Is this a “forcing of the issue” to the SCOTUS by the hard right while they have a stronger chance of winning marriage inequality and before Obama has a chance to alter the court’s balance while at the same time having an insider on the plaintiffs’ team? It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but that’s exactly how Karl Rove and gang play ball. They could have a two-fold agenda with this; one is as already stated to force the issue while things are in their favor, and two is to raise the culture war to the federal level and out of the states rights arena where they are losing ground. States like Texas for instance are fine with Vermont (and the like) granting marriage equality as long they don’t have to recognize it in their state. But put to a federal court and the possibility of it being “shoved down their throats” could very possibly stir up the anti-LGBTQ hysterics to previous levels. – Pam Spaulding
Perhaps Ted Olson wants to make sure the issue of same sex marriage gets shut down for the next generation by participating in the lawsuit.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
The dweebs sponsoring Prop 8 discrimination have more than met their match. Ted Olson & David Boies are excellent attorneys and will beat whatever the biblethumpers can scrape up for counsel. (And I imagine the tax-exempt status of Mormon church could come into play ;)
This is a perfect example of how CA Republicans have lost their focus on irrelevancies: instead of worrying about who’s married to whom, they could maybe instead focus on getting Scott Baugh off his arse and holding the fire to Orange County Sheriff Hutchins – vote of ‘no confidence’ for her anti-gun stance and revocation of CCW permits. Instead, his benign tolerance of her amounts to Chamberlainesque surrender.
California gun owners are suffering because of the religious focus (perceived or otherwise) of CA Republican leadership – and they assume we gunnies will “come along for the ride” in future elections.
Maybe not. We’re tired of being taken for granted and need to see some concrete pro-gun actions fromt the state party: carrying useful legislation (instead of hiding from it), driving pro-CCW sheriffs, and creating electable candidates that avoid Pyrrhic wins in the primary and who are electable statewide.
Far better to kick the “religious right” in the teeth, they’re a much smaller body than CA gun owners.
Plus you just might get back some of those “educated suburban homeowners” that used to vote Republican – before the state party got taken over by “min Falwells” and went off the rails.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
May 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I recall Rudy Giuliani supporters insisting that having Ted Olson as his chief legal adviser ensured that Giuliani would name judges espousing a philosophy of judicial restraint to the federal bench.
I guess we now know how credible these claims were…
May 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Rohit,
“Judicial restraint” does not mean tolerating unequal protection.
Remember, the justices in the Heller decision were accused of being “activist” for finding “new meaning” in the Second Amendment – a right that most of us innately seemed to have understood for ages.
Of course, CA Republicans haven’t seemed terribly pro-gun lately or they’d get off their arse – look at Scott Baugh’s tolerance of Orange county Sherriff Hutchins and her crazed CCW policy reversal.
The only folks supporting Prop 8 are religious bigots or people just voting against something they’re irrationally uncomfortable with.
I don’t like people with Birketstocks, either but I won’t vote to take away their right to wear ’em.
It’s all about freedom.
Someday the CA R’s will remember that and might start getting elected again.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
May 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
So, according to Bill, 52% of voters in the last election were either religious bigots or irrational. I’m having trouble swallowing that one.
Bill, unfortunately for you, the same judges who will take away the right of the people to define “marriage” will also take away the right of you “gunnies” to bear arms. It is the “irrational” conservative judges, who respect the rule of law and the right of the people to make that law, who will also respect your right to own and carry a gun. So, be careful who you “throw in” with.