Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gay Rights Groups to Ted Olson: Thanks, but No Thanks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 09:58 AM
Original message
Gay Rights Groups to Ted Olson: Thanks, but No Thanks
Gay Rights Groups to Ted Olson: Thanks, but No Thanks
Why gay-marriage backers don’t want the conservative lawyer to challenge Prop 8.
—By Stephanie Mencimer


Former solicitor general and ultraconservative lawyer Ted Olson is a rock star of the US Supreme Court bar. He’s argued more than 50 cases before the high court during his career and won more than three-fourths of them. So on Wednesday, when he signed on to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, he looked like the great white hope for a cause that’s had only mixed success in the nation’s courts. If anyone could prevail in this case, Olson could. So gay rights groups must be thrilled that he’s thrown his significant legal weight and conservative bona fides behind their cause, right? But they’re not—not at all.

The country’s major legal groups defending gay rights, including the ACLU and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, don’t think Olson is doing them much of a favor. They are upset about the lawsuit, in large part because they think it will fail. A loss could be a major setback not just to the gay marriage movement but to other established gay rights governing adoption and foster care, employment discrimination, and other matters. Pushing the case to the Supreme Court, they contend, could do serious harm.

When the lawsuit was announced Wednesday, some at the press conference raised these concerns and asked whether the lawsuit might be premature, a question that prompted one of the more mind-boggling scenes in civil rights history. In response, Olson—Ted Olson!—argued that justice delayed is justice denied. This put him to the left of the ACLU on one of the nation’s most contentious social issues of the day. He acknowledged that some may disagree about the timing of the suit. But he explained that when gay people came to him and said that their constitutional rights were being violated, that they wanted to be married and have the same rights as other Californians, he could not, as a lawyer, say, “Why don’t you just wait another 10 years, 15 years?” He added: “We think they’re right. We think their constitutional rights are being denied, and we’re going to help them achieve that equality.” Basing his arguments on those that prevailed in the famous Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia, which overturned a ban on interracial marriage, he contended passionately that the time for this case had come, despite what ACLU attorneys might think.

A spokesman for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is funding the lawsuit, wouldn’t say who recruited Olson for the effort. But it’s clear that whoever is backing the effort put up a boatload of money. The spokesman said that Olson and his co-counsel, David Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election litigation, are handling the case through a mix of paid and pro bono work donated by their firms. Rumor in Washington legal circles is that Olson commands upwards of $1,000 an hour for his Supreme Court work, meaning that even if some of his work is pro bono, his time on this case will cost a small fortune. While Olson and company have so far refused to disclose who’s paying for their work, the PR firm running the media operation, Griffin | Schake, has close ties to Hollywood liberals like Rob Reiner and Jerry Zucker. Nor will the foundation make public all of its board members. Chad Griffin, one of the partners in the PR firm and so far the only disclosed board member of the foundation spearheading the lawsuit, worked in the Clinton White House. It sure looks like the work of the liberal elite.

But conspiracy theorists on the Web—where else?—are already postulating that Olson has signed on so that he can take the case to the Supreme Court and lose, thus wrecking already well-established gay rights everywhere. But at the press conference, Olson disputed the notion that he was a saboteur. “I hope that people don’t suspect my motives. I feel very strongly that this is the right position,” he said.

Still, you can understand why some liberals might be suspicious. Olson is the godfather of the conservative legal movement, having been in the room for the founding of the influential conservative group the Federalist Society. His former law partner is one-time independent counsel Ken Starr, who argued in favor of upholding Proposition 8 before the California Supreme Court in March. Olson represented Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra investigation. A prominent Clinton-basher during the 1990s, Olson helped prep Paula Jones’ lawyers for their Supreme Court appearance that resulted in her sexual harassment lawsuit proceeding against a sitting president—and that ultimately led to the whole Monica Lewinsky debacle. Olson was heavily involved in the "Arkansas Project," Pittsburgh billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife’s effort to funnel nearly $2 million through the American Spectator magazine to pay private investigators to dig up dirt on the Clintons. (The project was launched from Olson’s law firm.)

more...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/gay-rights-groups-ted-olson-thanks-no-thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. I sure as hell don't trust Olsen....
His whole history has been consistently very, very conservative and I have yet to see a quote from him regarding his support for gay rights prior to his taking this case. I think the gay rights groups are right to be very suspicious of this move. This is a man who served on the board of directors for the American Spectator magazine, a rabid right wing smear machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm with you, I don't trust him any further than I can dropkick the Pentagon.
He's up to something...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Here's a similar take I posted last night. Some people think they're
both grandstanding.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/boiesolson-laws...

The Boies/Olson Lawsuit
The Anonymous Liberal


Bill Araiza at PrawfsBlawg has a interesting post about the Boies/Olson gay marriage lawsuit that was filed in California yesterday. He echoes my thinking on the subject. Though Boies and Olson received a lot of favorable press yesterday, it's not at all clear to me that they're acting either wisely or altruistically in filing this lawsuit.

The groups that have been tirelessly fighting for marriage equality over the last decade have deliberately avoided filing federal lawsuits. They reason, correctly I believe, that the groundwork has not yet been laid for victory at the federal level. They know that the odds of the Supreme Court issuing a Loving v. Virginia type of opinion with respect to gay marriage will be greatly enhanced if, at the time the case is heard, gay marriage is legal in a majority of states and supported by a majority of the population. If the Court rules on the issue before that happens, there's a real risk that it will issue an opinion that sets the cause back, maybe for decades.

So instead of filing federal lawsuits, marriage equality advocates have been patiently pursuing a state-by-state strategy, a strategy that has recently begun to pay real dividends.

By filing this lawsuit, Boies and Olson are throwing a wrench into that strategy. They're taking a very big risk. Some have even suggested that this lawsuit is a cynical ploy to have this issue litigated at the federal level before the time is right. I don't think that's the case. I think Boies and Olson are sincere in their beliefs and want to win. I do think, however, that they are knowingly taking a big risk because they want to be the lawyers whose names are forever attached to the landmark opinion creating marriage equality. They want to be the Thurgood Marshalls of this particular civil rights issue, even though they are latecomers to the cause. In other words, they are grandstanding.

My best guess is that they're gambling that we are nearing a tipping point on gay marriage and they want to be the first lawyers to get their case all the way to the Supreme Court. They're gambling that by the time that happens, the political environment will be ripe for a Loving v. Virginia type of decision. I don't know if that's true. I've written here before that I think we'll see such a decision within ten years. But within 2 to 4? I don't know.

As Professor Araiza puts it, Boies and Olson have "grabbed a baby out of someone else's hands and are running pretty fast with it. I really hope they don't drop it."

UPDATE: In Boies and Olson's defense, they likely also believe that, given their own reputations and skill as Supreme Court advocates--as well as their reputations within the political world--a suit brought by them would stand a better chance of succeeding than one brought by the interest groups that have long been linked to this particular cause. I think that's true, and when this issue eventually does make its way to the Supreme Court, this would be the team I'd want representing the marriage equality side. I just question whether now is the right time to start this train rolling. Like I said, this is a big gamble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. If it is, indeed, grandstanding I have less concern than if it is a deliberate move...
to short-circuit the movement going state by state and, instead, bringing it to the USSC too soon for it to be successful which, as has already been said, would set the cause back decades.

If Olson and Boies are grandstanding then they would be looking to win and how they really feel about gay rights is moot but, given Olson's background, I remain very suspicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. Do you trust David Boise?
I detest Ted Olson and will never forgive him for his behavior both during the Clinton administration and during Bush v Gore. That said, I don't think Mr. Boise (I'm not sure I'm getting the spelling of that correct) would be working with someone looking to satotage the case. Perhaps Mr. Olson realizes that someone like himself, who is on his 4th wife, has any right to be telling anyone who they can marry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. No, not really...
Boies is a mixed bag at best. He was the President of the Young Republicans at Redlands. He is currently representing Conrad Black and also represented Andrew Fastow of Enron.

He is also representing Michael Moore regarding a Treasury Department investigation into Moore's trip to Cuba while filming for Sicko.

As I said, a mixed bag, imo. I also don't believe his representation of Gore in Bush v Gore was at all stellar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. He's a lawyer
A very, very good lawyer. Any lawyer of that caliber can argue both sides of any argument with no problem. I don't think he would sign onto anything that would destroy that reputation. I know a lot of conservatives (more libertarian types) who think it's ridiculous that heteros can marry 10 times but it's the gays that will destroy the covenant of marriage. I think it's clearly a 14th amendment case and it's time for it to be decided rather than waiting for 50 states to get their heads out of their ass to declare gay marriage legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I think it will be decided by the Supreme Court, it a question of....
timing. I think the concern being voiced by gay rights groups on the timing of this case going to the Supreme Court is valid. I very much hope I am wrong and they win their case. If they do not, it WILL set back the cause for a very long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gawd, another conspiracy theory
This should be moved to the dungeon where all such theories go.
This board must be cleansed and kept pure!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. what conspiracy theory? Lawyers and advocacy groups think that this is
the wrong time for this appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusH Donating Member (162 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. Gay Person to Gay Rights Groups: Thanks, but No Thanks
The way you f*$%ed it up in California and elsewhere, I'll put my eggs in Olson and Boies' basket now, thank you very much.

I live in one of the many states that has voted against my rights and put their bigotry in the constitution, so it's very clear to me that this state-to-state approach is not working. The only place we will get equal federal rights is at the FEDERAL level. It's not rocket science.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Question for you!
I support gay marriage rights, but I don't think it matters if it's called marriage or civil union or whatever. The name is simply semantics, if you get the same rights as married couples and marriage ends up being defined as a union between a man and a women and a marriage between same sex couples ends up being called a 'civil union' or whatever and the rights are exactly the same what is the issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusH Donating Member (162 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. It's an old argument. Theoretically if all marriages were just called civil unions, fine.
But once you tell a group of people that THEY cannot have the same rights (or even the same term), then it's not equal. The difference between civil unions and marriage right now is absolutely NOT just semantics. There are over 1,000 federal benefits that are denied gay couples who are in civil unions in the states that allow them. Therefore, not semantics at all... pure inequality.

You see? The issue is not that we care about the word, we care about our rights. Further, even IF the federal government were to rewrite all its existing laws that pertain to the term "Marriage" to include "Civil union" then we would still be drinking out of the gay only "civil union" water fountain. Separate but equal is not equal.

IF and ONLY if, the federal government were to rewrite all its current laws to pertain ONLY to civil unions and ignore the term of marriage entirely, and would apply those current laws, rights and benefits equally to same-gender and different-gender couples, THEN the term "marriage" would mean nothing, and I wouldn't care about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I understand where you are coming from with regards to equal rights
and agree that gay marriages should be treated the same under the law as heterosexual marriages. I don't think the name should be a big deal as long as it doesn't have a negative connotation and as long as the rights are the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusH Donating Member (162 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. But, just by virtue of it being different, it has a negative connotation.
Gays here: Civil Union
Straights here: Marriage

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. I'm not gay, but I'm seeing things your way right now. I think
Boies and Olsen should proceed. It seems to me that they have the best shot at getting something done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. its very hard to know what is going on here. i dont trust olson but gay leadership has been shitty
in California. Disjointed etc. I trust the ACLU though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I just hope these guys don't set the movement back.
I also hope they're not in it solely for their self-interests, but am wary of them, Olsen especially.

And yes, I trust the ACLU, so do wonder why they're so skeptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Ditto. Ted Olson is filthy and I hope they shame him out of it
Edited on Fri May-29-09 11:44 AM by EFerrari
if they can find any shame to address, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irishonly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. I don't know what to think
When I first heard Olsen was one of the lawyers my retch instinct went into over drive. I had read an email saying the fight was on the state level and then all of a sudden there is a federal law suit. My concern is that the law suit will fail and set gay civil rights back twenty years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. John Dean was on Keith night before last and said the worst thing
would be to take this to the Supremes. I'm so glad the group said no thanks. When the time does come to make some legal decisions, somebody let me know so I can contribute. This is a matter of civil rights, close to my heart. Olson doesn't even look like a guy to be trusted, a shallow remark, I know. But there's a smarminess about him that is very very off-putting. This was a great decision. I'm thinking some great civil rights lawyers is the way to go. What do I know?.....LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PopSixSquish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. I Honestly Don't Know What to Think About Ted Here
but the hair on the back of my neck is standing up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Question: does anyone know anything about who "hired" Ted Olson?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. It's a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights
according to this, but I think I recall reading they're representing specific couples. Don't quote me on that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/bush-v-gore-rivals-challenge-prop-8-in-federal-court.html


In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I found a filing for the four plaintiffs in CA here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/prop-8-injujnx-motion-5-27-09.pdf

And looking at the website of the AFER (that I've never heard of before) it looks like this is the first case for this group, which looks like it's new:

http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Here's more info about them from another thread...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. That's really helpful! Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Spot the LIE: Follow the MONEY.
Although I do recall reading he was hired by someone with bona fides in the Gay Community. In ANY case I would NEVER put it past Herr Olsen to betray. Consider the fate of his wife...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. A very good question that needs to be answered, imo...
There are BIG bucks going to be shelled out for this and, unless it is very clear who is paying them, it shouldn't be trusted at all, imo.

Olson was very much involved with the American Spectator and it's sponsors were the scum of the earth who consistently hid who was getting their money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
30. Tho I was originally suspicious,
I have come to the conclusion that there should be no let up on the offensive. NO WAITING for the laggard Admin. Fight to the last man standing. All possible fronts should be engaged and in the words of Bob Dylan "get out of the way if you can't lend a hand...". Gay leadership in particular should heed that warning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
31. My wife and I distrust Olson, and we're not sure about Boies (though he may be OK)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC