Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush vs. Gore Attorneys Team up to Fight Prop 8 in Federal Court
http://laist.com ^ | May 26, 2009 | By Zach Behrens

Posted on 05/26/2009 6:12:50 PM PDT by Maelstorm

Two top attorneys who argued Bush v. Gore on opposite sides have now joined forces to strike down Prop 8 in federal court, filing for a preliminary injunction against same-sex marriage ban until the case is resolved, which would immediately reinstate the right for all Californians to marry. Theodore B. Olson and David will officially announce their case tomorrow morning in downtown, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Olson, a former U.S. Solicitor General represented President Bush, against Al Gore, who was represented by Boies. The pair is representing two gay men and two gay women who were denied marriages licenses because of Prop 8.

(Excerpt) Read more at laist.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: boies; bushvgore; caglbt; dont; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; lawyers; prop8; protectmarriage; samesexmarriage; stop; tedolson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Does anyone know if this is true. This could back fire really badly for homosexuals. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to overturn the state constitution of California on this issue.
1 posted on 05/26/2009 6:12:50 PM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
There is no federal issue involved. I don't see it going anywhere.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

2 posted on 05/26/2009 6:14:16 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Too bad there aren’t pitbulls fighting Roe v Wade like this. The left never gives up till they get their way, then it’s “the law of the land”.


3 posted on 05/26/2009 6:15:18 PM PDT by mrsmel (Put the Gitmo terrorists near Capitol Hill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Ted Olson’s wife must be spinning in her martyred grave.


4 posted on 05/26/2009 6:18:34 PM PDT by Ingtar (Americans have truly let America down. A sad day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

While I agree, it could backfire. These two must think they can win.


5 posted on 05/26/2009 6:20:06 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

These two are lawyers. They know they’ll get publicity and glowing lib press.


6 posted on 05/26/2009 6:23:11 PM PDT by joejm65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

What is Olson doing???


7 posted on 05/26/2009 6:24:27 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I sure don’t see a federal issue because this whole case involved California law and the California state constitution amendment process only.

Also, as of today, right now, federal law defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. How could a federal judge somehow overturn Prop. 8 since it defines marriage exactly the same way as the federal government does?

Are they looking to overturn federal marriage law with this case? I’m no attorney, but it seems to me there could be a case if federal law and state law were in conflict on the marriage question. But since the federal and state laws agree, where’s the basis for a lawsuit?

I know liberal judges can do anything. I just can’t believe they have a federal case. Unless the “fix” is in.


8 posted on 05/26/2009 6:26:28 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
What is Olson doing???

I believe he's lost his mind.............RIP BKO.

9 posted on 05/26/2009 6:26:53 PM PDT by MamaLucci (It's Mourning In America........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
No way will the USSC even hear the case.

Michigan banned queer marriage and queer partnerships, anything similar, and benefits for queer partners.
That law was ruled OK.

10 posted on 05/26/2009 6:27:08 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Very sad. She was a very nice lady. Maybe he might want to take a BC case to the Supreme Court. Lawyers are always hired guns but a few have the morality to turn cases down.


11 posted on 05/26/2009 6:31:14 PM PDT by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

WTH???!!


12 posted on 05/26/2009 6:39:49 PM PDT by Irishgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Ted, Ted, Ted.

What ON EARTH are you doing in bed with these unholy fools?

I can hear Barbara now.


13 posted on 05/26/2009 6:42:35 PM PDT by moodyskeptic (the counterculture votes R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Why, do these people turn to courts to win the fights that can't win in the court of public opinion? Oragon voted against gay marriage for heavans sake! Every time gay marriage goes for a vote it loses. Gay marriage only wins in the Senates of states and in the courts, never in the will of the people....
14 posted on 05/26/2009 6:48:07 PM PDT by carcraft (Pray for our Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

What could Olsen be thinking? Even as a ‘conservative’ not opposed to gay marriage, I would think you would still believe in states rights. ??

Very disappointing. Guess it is a good thing Olsen was not one of Bush’s ‘Supreme’ picks. We may have dodged a bullet on that one.


15 posted on 05/26/2009 6:48:08 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Something doesn’t smell right here.


16 posted on 05/26/2009 6:51:42 PM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I'll miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

You said — Does anyone know if this is true. This could back fire really badly for homosexuals. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to overturn the state constitution of California on this issue.

Ummm..., they possibly could, if the Supreme Court gets out their magnifying glasses to search for some hidden “gay right” in the Constitution and finds that the State of California Constitution is “unconstitutional” according to the U.S. Constitution (having “found” that “gay right” in the Constitution, doncha know... LOL...).

I mean, the Supreme Court found some relation of privacy to abortion, which weighed even more heavily than the primary “right to life” in the Constitution, in order to give the right to abortion, through this “round-about” way...


17 posted on 05/26/2009 6:52:59 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You said — There is no federal issue involved. I don’t see it going anywhere.

There would be a federal issue if the matter as put forth in Proposition 8 is “unconstitutional” (and by that I mean unconstitutional by way of some justices saying so, and not whether you think it should be or not...).


18 posted on 05/26/2009 6:54:45 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

hes arguing “equal protection”

it’s kinda like people can’t vote on a proposition to ban interracial marriage, for example

not saying I agree with him but I think that’s what his angle is


19 posted on 05/26/2009 6:57:18 PM PDT by GreatDaggar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

You said — I sure don’t see a federal issue because this whole case involved California law and the California state constitution amendment process only.

Well, such things become federal issues when it is something that is unconstitutional.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

And then you said — Also, as of today, right now, federal law defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. How could a federal judge somehow overturn Prop. 8 since it defines marriage exactly the same way as the federal government does?

Well, federal law is not a Supreme Court decision. Those are two different things and they are two different branches of government. The Supreme Court does not have to agree with federal law.


20 posted on 05/26/2009 6:57:48 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: joejm65; Dilbert San Diego; Beagle8U

I think it also might demonstrate how much gays have made inroads into the Republican administration. My guess is these two are not disinterested lawyers just doing their clients bidding. I bet they are very sympathetic to the gay agenda.


21 posted on 05/26/2009 6:58:08 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: carcraft

You asked — Why, do these people turn to courts to win the fights that can’t win in the court of public opinion?

Ummm..., because it works...


22 posted on 05/26/2009 6:59:40 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

I find it hard to see how a federal court could stay the amendment pending appeal when the California supreme court itself didn’t stay the amendment.


23 posted on 05/26/2009 7:02:34 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weight-lifting sessions each week and...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
}Bush vs. Gore Attorneys Team up to Fight Prop 8 in Federal Court"


24 posted on 05/26/2009 7:03:32 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see a REAL C.O.L.B. BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel
True. But they if pursue it, the US Supreme Court might not rule their way and set back the same marriage crusade for a generation. I think bringing up federal constitutional arguments might ending up backfiring on the gay rights crowd. There's a reason they pursued only state and not federal issues related to Proposition 8.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

25 posted on 05/26/2009 7:08:01 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: carcraft
The want it judged by a hand full of liberals in black robes, that is the only way queers can win.
26 posted on 05/26/2009 7:12:29 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
There is no federal issue involved. I don't see it going anywhere.

Sort of like Prop 187 back in the 90s?

27 posted on 05/26/2009 7:14:01 PM PDT by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GreatDaggar

Thanks for the opinion. It makes sense I guess(not that I agree with it either.) It just shocks the system to see Olsen doing this at all.


28 posted on 05/26/2009 7:16:15 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

I think this is futile just like the hope that the State Supreme court would throw out something as unconstitutional that is specifically defined as constitutional. Let them waste their time.


29 posted on 05/26/2009 7:17:28 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Those that have nothing to hide welcome debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunStar

“Sort of like Prop 187 back in the 90s?”

What is/was prop 187?


30 posted on 05/26/2009 7:18:38 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Rest easy, Dilbert. State marriage amendments have been challenged several times and appealed to federal appellate courts, and none have ruled to strike down state laws yet, setting a good body of precedent for this practice. Nebraska, in particular, comes to mind.


31 posted on 05/26/2009 7:30:55 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Olsen was remarried to a young CA rich blond chick.

I would imagine he is another Republican that wants to drop the “abortion and gay” stuff, and dump the Christians.


32 posted on 05/26/2009 7:31:12 PM PDT by roses of sharon (NOTRE DAMIAN: ABORTION, YES WE CAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: musicman

Excellent. Where do you find those cartoons?


33 posted on 05/26/2009 7:32:31 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

They won’t even the homosexuals don’t think that is possible. They are a lot of things but not stupid.


34 posted on 05/26/2009 7:33:56 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Those that have nothing to hide welcome debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

I don’t see how this ban can be upheld when you now have thousands of gays in CA who are and will remain legally married. Now, you do have discrimination. I dunno, what am I missing?


35 posted on 05/26/2009 7:43:48 PM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BKO

Look what your husband is trying to do to our nation. May you still rest in peace.

Just goes to show that there is not really anyone that we can trust anymore.


36 posted on 05/26/2009 7:50:46 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

Very sad, but happy he is not sitting on the Supreme Court. I use to think he would be a ‘good pick’ for Bush! Boy was I wrong!!


37 posted on 05/26/2009 7:53:54 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

This is no different than any other law that is implemented and it has a precedent in the way that law has been changed before. Those contracts that fell under the old law remain valid but no more contracts of that type are granted. How can it be discrimination when no one is allowed to enter into that type of contract in this case a same sex marriage? It would be discrimination if some homosexuals were granted marriage licenses after the law changed and others were not. I hope that clears things up. Homosexuals also have an extremely high divorce rate in relationship to Heterosexuals so the issue will quickly become moot.

“A survey of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden showed that. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.”

http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html


38 posted on 05/26/2009 7:59:07 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Those that have nothing to hide welcome debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Just goes to show that there is not really anyone that we can trust anymore.

Maybe not Revel.....these are the old Republicans..beaten and tired of fighting the MSM/Hollywood/Academia/DNC war room. And who can blame them? That kind of power over reputations and livelihoods is frightening.

We must simply step over their bloodied bodies on the battlefield, and press on. Leaders will emerge in the toughest of times and strangest of places.
39 posted on 05/26/2009 8:03:35 PM PDT by roses of sharon (NOTRE DAMIAN: ABORTION, YES WE CAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Olsen was remarried to a young CA rich blond chick.

Aha! I hadn't known that.

Perhaps the Barry Goldwater Syndrome again, eh? Rich old widowed conservative man marries hot young liberal thing, and all of a sudden their politics change, very late in life.

40 posted on 05/26/2009 8:35:21 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (If my kids make a mistake in the voting booth, I don't want them punished with a community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Thanks for your reply. I’ve no doubt about the divorce rates you quote and suspect it’s one of the reasons many/most lawyers seem to be in favor of them being allowed to marry. ;)


41 posted on 05/26/2009 8:42:43 PM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Dunno about Olsen, but I believe the hiring of Boies was due to a misunderstanding.

The fatcat gay billionaires holding their anti-Prop 8 planning meeting at the exclusive SF bathhouse ordered that "boys" be hired for the weekend, but their sycophantic underlings misinterpreted the order.

42 posted on 05/26/2009 8:45:46 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (If my kids make a mistake in the voting booth, I don't want them punished with a community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

They were “married” before the constituion was changed, legally, by the people. Constituional changes are not retroactive...they can not change what happened in the past. I wish they could! Slavery would have disappeared from history!

What will happen is gays will use the married gay couples as an example of why all should be allowed to marry. That will work only if no one keeps track of the divorce statistics which will be very high.


43 posted on 05/26/2009 8:58:15 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; pookie18
"Where do you find those cartoons?"

FReeper "pookie18" posts them, and I "borrow" them!! I pinged Pookie to this post so pookie can Freepmail you to let you know where to see pookie18's great (and very hard) work is posted Mon-Fri.

Thanks for your reply to my post!

44 posted on 05/26/2009 9:09:40 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see a REAL C.O.L.B. BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12453628

(snip)

Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is a federal question,” Olson said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.”

He said that he and Boies, who have become close friends in the years since Bush v. Gore, decided to collaborate on the issue.

“We wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans,” Olson said.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Friday, before the California Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday upholding the state’s voter-approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.

The lawsuit argues that Proposition 8 creates a category of “second-class citizens” in violation of the U.S. Constitution. It seeks a preliminary injunction against imposition of the amendment until the lawsuit is resolved, immediately reinstating marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The lawsuit names six California officials as defendants, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown. It cites numerous precedents including the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage. It cites language in that decision that holds “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

The lawyers said that by relegating same-sex unions to “the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership,” California is violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection for all.

They cite numerous alleged violations of the federal amendment including singling out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status and discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

“We believe this is the kind of matter where Americans must come together and recognize the rights of all citizens,” Olson said.

(snip)


45 posted on 05/26/2009 9:38:53 PM PDT by calcowgirl (RECALL Abel Maldonado!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Prop 187 prohibited illegal immigrants from using public healthcare and public education in California.

It was found to be unconstitutional by a federal court, according to Wikipedia.


46 posted on 05/26/2009 9:48:14 PM PDT by fgoodwin (Fundamentalist, right-wing nut and proud father of a Life Scout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Wow. Ted Olsen... who knew?
Ted and his boyfriend make quite a pair. It will be interesting to see if their gambit works.


47 posted on 05/26/2009 9:51:40 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fgoodwin

No, you are incorrect.
It was a single scumbag, one activist liberal judge, who proclaimed Prop 187 unconstitutional, and the cowards of the California GOP simply let the issue die.


48 posted on 05/26/2009 9:55:00 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
“marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Um, maybe someone should explain to Ted that homosexual marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival" and if that was the only type of marriage there was, man would not survive.

49 posted on 05/26/2009 10:01:48 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_187

"California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, and public education in the U.S. State of California. It was initially passed by the voters but later found unconstitutional by a federal court."

Proposition 187 included the following key elements[1]:

  1. All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
  2. Local governments are prohibited from doing anything to impair the fulfillment of this requirement.
  3. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
  4. No one may receive public benefits until they have proven their legal right to reside in the country.
  5. If government agents suspected anyone applying for benefits of being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
  6. Emergency medical care is exempted, as required by federal law, but all other medical benefits have the requirements stated above.
  7. Primary and secondary education is explicitly included.

Basically, the voters passed the above with nearly 60% of the vote, and a single Jimmy Carter-appointed Federal judge overruled the will of the people. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson appealed it to the 9th Circuit, but his replacement, DemocRAT bastard Gray Davis, killed the appeal. Come to think of it, this may have been the point in which the speed of our country's unraveling began to increase (and the moment when I truly began to despise DemocRATs). "Unconstitutional" to keep illegal aliens from receiving government benefits - imagine that!
50 posted on 05/26/2009 11:15:44 PM PDT by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson