Ted Olson goes to court on behalf of gay marriage | Washington Examiner
Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson is part of a team that has filed suit in federal court in California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and re-establish the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The suit argues that the state’s marriage ban, upheld Tuesday by the California Supreme Court, violates the federal constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. The complaint was filed Friday, and Olson and co-counsel David Boies — who argued against Olson in the Bush v. Gore case — will hold a news conference in Los Angeles Wednesday to explain the case. The conference will feature the two same-sex couples on whose behalf Olson filed suit.
The suit also asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue an injunction that would stop enforcement of Proposition 8 and allow same-sex couples to marry while the case is being decided.
“I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions,” Olson told me Tuesday night. “I thought their cause was just.”
Now watch all the conservatives who venerated Olson while he was defending the Bush victory against Gore’s assault turn on him like wild hyenas.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Constitutional right? Yeah, it is written…oh, wait, can’t find it.
So it is a CONSERVATIVE position to find new rights in the Constitution?
And…. Right on cue! K-Lo at National Review gets the ball rolling with this woeful post:
Drew M. at AoSHQ is incredulous:
Uh hmmm. Yeah. Break out the popcorn. The contortionists are about to take the stage…
Should be an interesting morning in the blogosphere…
I would be interested in hearing what they think the textual basis of a “constitutional right” to gay marriage is, and what model of constitutional interpretation they’re using. Whether something should be a constitutionally-protected right and whether something actually is are two separate questions. Twisting the contents of the constitution to obtain the right policy result is exactly the sort of thing we rightly chastise the left for doing.
Probably equal protection and/or due process. Same thing that the SCOTUS ruled protected the right for mixed race folks to marry.
Interesting quotes:
From the anti-mixed race marriage crowd:
And from the court that overturned the prohibition:
And…
And though bigots (who probably opposed letting mixed-race folks marry also) may scream that the cases are different, no, sorry, they really aren’t.
Of course, for bigots, any excuse will do to if it helps them to continue to impose their bigotry on everybody else.
Read the comments. Olson is now officially a hated turncoat turd, and the bigots are in full cry.
How about “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”?
(Ducks, runs)
He’s a lawyer and he needs clients. How many other high profile cases are there headed for the Supremes?
He’s worked for a President and been before the Supremes, this makes him a good choice for any case going all the way. Taking this case proves he’s not Bush’s lapdog and broadens his potential client base.
Genes, even before he defended the Bush victory, Ted Olson was one of a very few SCOTUS “super-lawyers” in the country. That’s why the Bush team picked him to head up their legal defenses. He doesn’t need any advertising, or any “being divorced from Bush.” Players big enough to afford him know exactly who he is, and where to find him.
Why not just take him at his word? He thinks a grave injustice is being done, and so he is going to use his legal talents to rectify that injustice?
Ooops I should have checked his record from before the Bush thing. I don’t usually pay attention to the names of the lawyers, just the arguments(if I can follow them) and the outcomes.
I guess there’s no reason not to accept his word on why he took the case.
So in political words; Pending evidence to the contrary, I will accept his statement as true.