As I mentioned in an earlier post, lawyer Ted Olson, who mapped the legal strategy, got exactly what he aimed to get out of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Yesterday Judge Vaughn Walker issued an opinion declaring gay marriage to be a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. Many gay activists were skeptical of even filing such a lawsuit, fearful of the legal repercussions if the case was lost.
Analysis of Judge Walker’s decision is ongoing today, and I’ve offered mine. However, I want to offer a slightly different analysis here, because I think the probabilities are that the Proposition 8 decision had as much to do with "inside baseball" and relationships between people as it did with the facts and law.
Let’s examine what Ted Olson, the architect of the legal victory, and Judge Walker have in common: 1) the both were born in Illinois in the early 1940s; 2) they both went to law school in the San Francisco Bay Area (Walker, Stanford; Olson, Berkeley); 3) after law school they both went to work for major California law firms (Walker: Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro; Olson: Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher); 4) they both were appointees in the Reagan Administartion, Walker in a stalled appointment to the bench, (ironically opposed by Nancy Pelosi, over a lawsuit he filed against the "gay Olympics" for what amounts to trademark infringement); and Olson as Assistant Attorney General. Both appointments would have been handled by the same personnel officials at the Reagan White House; 5) they both received successful appointments in the George H.W. Bush Administration (Walker, Federal Judge; Olson, Solicitor General) meaning their clearance processes were handled by exactly the same White House personnel.
Olson is well-known for his libertarian leanings. According to Wired magazine, Walker has libertarian leanings. As Solicitor General, Olson argued a case against Federal sentencing guidelines. The San Francisco Chronicle once reported that Walker has an "aversion to harsh sentences for well-educated, well-heeled criminals and in particular, perpetrators of securities fraud."
I think it is fair to say that there are so many intersections in their personal and professional lives, that Walker and Olson must know each other, perhaps very well, and for all the rest of us know, they have been drinking buddies at some point.
Now, here is the most important intersection: Walker, who is publicly gay, is the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the North District of California, which sits in San Francisco. The Chief Judge sits and hears cases just as a normal judge, however, the Chief judge "rules the roost." He is the administrative leader of that Court, is understood to participate in the assignment of cases, presides over so called "en banc" session of the court, and manages the court’s affairs. A Chief Judge has a seven year term. Walker became Chief Judge on September 1, 2004.
I’ve always wondered what really caused Olson’s epiphany to get involved in the gay marriage issue. I read a great story about it, in either the New Yorker or the Atlantic, one of those East Coast magazines, that said there was a Hollywood connection to it all. Of course the article didn’t mention anything about a schmousy relationship with any critical Federal judges. But putting together all the facts, after Proposition 8 passed, Olson would have known Walker, and would have understood he was the Chief Judge in San Francisco and could assign a Federal lawsuit against the initiative to himself if he wanted to. He would know that Walker was gay. He would know that his own presence in the courtroom would likely be well-received by what should be his long-term acquaintance, even comrade. He would know that he might be in a special position to use "inside baseball" to influence the outcome of the case.
I don’t have any information about illegal and immoral extra-judicial contacts between Walker and Olson and/or anyone acting in their behest. I’m certainly speculating here. But my experience in life, law and politics clues me that the Proposition 8 decision in San Francisco was pretty much signed, sealed and delivered when the name "Ted Olson" came into the picture.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Sonny, what part of the 14th Amendment don’t you understand?
Maybe Ted Olson and David Boies just wanna be on the right side of freedom.
The things that protect freedom by bringing down Prop 8 also support freedom by supporting the individual-rights reading of the 2nd Amendment as incorporated under the 14th.
Any support of Prop 8 invalidates rational support of the 2nd Amendment.
And we already know CA Republican party is weak-kneed when it comes to supporting the 2nd so I guess this Prop 8 support should also be expected.
Freedom means having to tolerate some things you don’t like.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
August 5th, 2010 at 12:00 am
You need to REMOVE the current Republican leadership to make the point that they do not speak for the party. If you do not, then YOU are part of the problem. You must do more than complain, otherwise, this monster is going to take life.
August 6th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Jim, Thanks for this very insightful article. To me, this once again proves that it is not a justice system, but rather a legal system. When injustice becomes law- resistance becomes necesary as one of founding fathers said.
The entire situation of declining morals in our State and Nation are a direct result of removing a very important voice at the table. When the war against prayer in school was lost, we quickly began to disentegrate into a morass of debauchery and “if it feels good- do it” mindset. Now being free from any restrictions related to the acknowledgement of God in our lives, we can throw our moral compass in the trash and trash those who do not want to their’s away.
When God is removed from Government – Government will become God.
That is how I see it anyway. Our founding fathers did not forsee the day that we would toss our creator out with the trash and then pretend that we are smarter than He is.
We once could express thankfulness to God for his mercy, grace, diection and providence.
Wise men still do. Wise Men still seek Him.
The article here by Lacy does not make any condemnation of homosexuality and only describes the background of some of the players in this lawsuit. Any good lawyer knows the foundation of success is to take your case to a judge who will rule in favor of your arguments no matter how weak or unpopular they are. While Olson and Walker may have temporarily manipulated the legal system in the favor of their issue,setting aside the will and voice of the people – Seven Million people in California do not approve.
August 6th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Ken…
Seven million people in CA do not
have the right to define away freedom from others.
Your logic is exactly the same as the logic the gun control ilk use regarding another fundamental right.
And leave God out of it.
August 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Sorry Mr. Wiese, but YOU don’t have the right to tell religious believers
to SHUT UP and move to the back of the Bus.
We’re Here, We’re not Queer. Get used to it.
August 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
James Sills,
You’re free to feel and speak what you want. But the moment you try to take action on those feelings and pass illegal laws, you get the US Supreme Ct (with ultimate backing from Federal marshals) to put you back in your corner. That’s why your ilk’s rear was handed to you in court, and why it will be on appeal. (Hiring nutjob lawyers to go against Ted Olson & Dave Boies didn’t do much good either.)
Yes, Americans DO have the right to tell the religious to keep their religion away from civil rights.
Oh BTW – last time I checked CA Republicans weren’t winning any elections, due to issues like these This explains why our taxes are high and we have gun control in CA due to an unelectable CA R party that can barely get more than 1/3 seats in Assy/Senate.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
August 10th, 2010 at 12:00 am
As I read this post and several of the comments, I wonder if the people making the post and the comments have actually read the Walker Prop 8 decision. It seems to me that the post and comments are based on newspaper accounts and not on a close reading and analysis of the decision. First, read the decision (it’s on line) and then, if you can find any error in the facts or law quoted please let us know what they are.