Skip to comments.Bush vs. Gore Attorneys Team up to Fight Prop 8 in Federal Court
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 ...
"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
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”.
Ted Olson’s wife must be spinning in her martyred grave.
While I agree, it could backfire. These two must think they can win.
These two are lawyers. They know they’ll get publicity and glowing lib press.
What is Olson doing???
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.
I believe he's lost his mind.............RIP BKO.
Michigan banned queer marriage and queer partnerships, anything similar, and benefits for queer partners.
That law was ruled OK.
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.
Ted, Ted, Ted.
What ON EARTH are you doing in bed with these unholy fools?
I can hear Barbara now.
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.
Something doesn’t smell right here.
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...
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...).
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
You said — I sure dont 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.