AMERICAblog: Ted Olson, better known as the devil, is now better than our president on gay marriage
JJ Bowes
· 6 months ago
Barack Obama is a politician that ran a LUCKY, good,inclusive,on-message Show-Biz campaign, against a very weak, confused GOP campaign with a weak ticket, after 8 YEARS of horrendous failures & a 9/11 ATTACK carried out under the very watch of incompetent knuckleheads Bush/Cheney. Obamarama made many glorious preaches/speeches directly to gay American citizens,promising to revoke nuremberg-like laws as in DOMA & Don't Ask Don't Tell,& anti-gay "citizens"propositions, ((as if democracy were something where a majority votes against,tyranizes & devalues the constitutional rights guaranteed to every man & woman, a fellow class of U.S. Citizens.)) But he is now proving himself to be a two-faced opportunist,keeping over 125 Bush policies, & Bush Pentagon leaders. Obama just used a gay downtrodden minority for $ support,than dumped them. at inauguration with a fundamentalist preacher. Fork-tongued,hypocritical,opportunism. Like any cynical POL.
Gary SF
· 6 months ago
I am so pissed about this. Obama hasn't said anything about today's ruling. Obviously, he doesn't 'feel our pain.'
Don't give any money to Obama, any Democrats, the DNC, etc. until Obama begins to fulfill his promises to the LGBT community. We need to pressure him to do the right thing.
Every time you get a solicitation for money, just say "Not One Nickel."
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Obama's administration is fully of Clinton administration folks, so it's no surprise that he's throwing us gays under the bus just like Clinton did.
Judas Peckerwood
· 6 months ago
Yup, the same old pseudo-progressive scum saying "where else you gonna go, huh?" If every person who truly believes in civil liberties judged the Democratic Party on its performance (rather than its words) and decided that it was time to form a political party that actually walked the walk, the Dems would curl up and die like the Whigs did when Abe Lincoln and every other Whig worth a damn abandoned ship.
TampaZeke
· 6 months ago
You're not in the least bit concerned that TED OLSON is taking a gay marriage case to FEDERAL COURT with the current makeup of the Supreme Court?
Can you not see the potential for disaster and can you not see the potential for some really seedy dealings, like intentionally leading us into a SCOTUS defeat that would set us back decades?
I STILL don't trust this scumbag!
SportinLife
· 6 months ago
Of course not! Zeke, you're right in seeing this as a clusterfuck from a mile away. NO WAY is Ted Olson's intention to get a favorable precedent from the Supreme Court.
Good God, Aravosis! What are you thinking? The urge to highlight Obama's (truly despicable) lack of integrity on LGBT issues has warped your thinking here.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
Well, I've never been a great fan of conspiracy theories. Sorry :-)
SportinLife
· 6 months ago
No conspiracy necessary, really. It's too simple. Lock in an unfavorable ruling against equal protection for gay and lesbian people now--while they still own the Court.
What arguments can Olson possibly employ on behalf of these plaintiffs? He's spent his entire career undermining the very possibility of an expansive interpretation of the Constitution. Read his statement of his own judicial philosophy--it's got all the buzzwords.
The plaintiffs are being used, savagely. Boies may or may not be. I don't know much about him, other than that he's a corporate lawyer who not well known at all for litigating civil rights, equal protection, or due process cases.
Alan Katz
· 6 months ago
David Boies is one of the most respected attorneys in America. I've seen him in courtrooms and on TV commentary and the man is amazing -- and, I can safely say, very liberal.
If this is an Olson conspiracy, there's no way David Boies could be part of it.
Abelard
· 6 months ago
It would only set us back for the length of the current make up of the court.... on this issue.
This case will not stop Prop 8 from being repealed in California nor will it prevent gay marriage in Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa no matter how the SCOTUS decides.
This is one issue: does Prop. 8 violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution? Outside that, the SCOTUS can't stop the states from allowing gay marriage.
Only an amendment to the U.S. constitution can do that.
DJXinFL
· 6 months ago
Abelard, I'm not concerned about the states that have passed marriage equality already suddenly losing it. Those states seem pretty safe to me.
What's more important here are what happens to the states that have constitutional bans, and a Supreme Court ruling not in our favor would basically be saying that all of these state constitutional amendments do not violate the federal Constitution. A Supreme Court ruling could strike down each and every state constitutional ban in one fell swoop if the makeup of the court is right. And that's the only way many states (especially in the South) will ever recognize or perform a same-sex marriage.
So: to reiterate my point, it's not about the Supreme Court stopping the states from allowing gay marriage, it's about the Court disallowing the states from banning it.
Rob Mule
· 6 months ago
Some realpolitik Iago has our President's ear. He's clearly convinced Obama that gays are the third rail
Honestly...
chrisnyc
· 6 months ago
John -
I like Obama, i defend him where appropriate against the nutters, but as an original Hillary fan, I'm sorry, Obama was never leading the way on our rights. McClutchen, changing his public senate run stance, etc. You generally overlooked it cause you hated the clintons, but Obama was never a vocal leader for gay equality.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
Actually I was quite probably the only top blogger, and this was the only top blog, to root for Hillary for most of the primary. So spare me the sob song. People can disagree with you without being Clinton haters.
Gary SF
· 6 months ago
And Hillary was somewhat weaker than Obama on LGBT issues - he supported getting rid of DOMA altogether but Hillary only wanted to get rid of parts of DOMA, perserving state's rights to deny us our rights.
pacnwjay
· 6 months ago
BS. You were just as anti-Hillary as the rest of the lefty blogs. I even had an email exchange with you about that fact.... you claimed her campaign was rude and difficult to communicate with, and she could go down in flames for all you cared.
The fact of the matter is, the blogosphere hated Hillary and saw Obama as the best chance to defeat her in the primaries. Well congrats! Obama won! Enjoy him! But don't try to paper over the recent past.
Historian
· 6 months ago
Try reviewing your archives for a more accurate recollection of your posts during the Democratic primary. Your blogging was full of intense despite for Clinton and such irrational support for Obama (after you got over the McClurkin incident) that one would have thought you were on the payroll of the Obama campaign.
Dubiosity
· 6 months ago
This is how much I trust Ted Olsen: I tend to believe he took the case so he could bungle it. At the same time, he can appear to be less "demonic" than he actually is.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
No. Not to mention, he could lose his license for a stunt like that. I don't believe for a minute that this is part of some evil plan.
angst
· 6 months ago
His joined with David Boies (john, didn't see that in your post).
This is a very serious challenge and as a law junkie - one I will follow if just for the players.
Mike S
· 6 months ago
His actions during the Clinton/Jones thing should have gotten him disbarred.
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
Pigs are flying and Hell has officially frozen over. I don't know what to think. I don't trust Ted Olson. I just don't... he has a lot to prove. I'm taking a wait and see approach. Again, I just can't wrap my mind around this one.
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
cowboy, i'd say ditto, but limpballs has ruined that word forever.
me too.
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
I worry we're jumping in too soon. Considering the current makeup of the court, Obama's nebulous position on marriage-equallity, his centrism, and his likely inability to sway the political ideology of the court even with a second term, I'm afraid it's likely we'll end up with the gay equivalent of Dredd Scott and set ourselves back decades.
theo
· 6 months ago
That's what I've been reading on other blogs. Despite what John says, it's possible that Ted Olsen jumped in on this with the intent to push it through so fast that we end up with the situation you describe.
angst
· 6 months ago
June is Gay Pride Month it would be interesting to see what Obama does. What symbolic gesture he bestows on us.
i too was Hillary supporter - because I felt Obama was only providing lip service on gay rights - for me his actions spoke volumes. At least Hillary marched in a gay parade and when i met her and questioned her on gay rights - I felt like she got it. But this is no longer about Hillary or why i felt she was better on gay rights. And who knows what she would had done.
I supported Obama and while his silence on gay issues anger me - I wonder if he doesn't have a plan regarding gay rights. I say this because I have notice that Obama moves at his own speed and timeline. Some Clinton's supporters felt he dogged her by not offering the VP and yet patience she is now SOS a much better position for her. There are other examples i could cite.
So I'm holding out some hope and trying not to angry or feel betrayed. I willing to give him time - I just wonder when my patience will run out.
Gridlock
· 6 months ago
"At least Hillary marched in a gay parade and when i met her and questioned her on gay rights - I felt like she got it. "
LOL yeah. Who else did that? Oh right, Giuilani. Did Hillary get up in drag? Well Giuliani did! That means he's more pro gay than Hillary, by your measure.
God. Walked in a parade and answered questions. Boy howdy, if only we could take people at their word or believe they'd see things our way once dolled up like Dame Edna, then we'd be peachy!
*facepalm*
Grey
· 6 months ago
Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. After all, June is not only gay pride month, it will mark the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots and the advent of the modern LGBT movement. I'm hoping, praying, that Obama's silence is to lay the groundwork to suddenly announce sweeping, omnibus LGBT civil rights legislation.
I'm not assuming it, but I am hoping...
pricknick
· 6 months ago
Nice try John, but I trust none until they show their true meaning. I believe he's doing it as a jest only.
angst
· 6 months ago
you should read the la times article on this.
sherifffruitfly
· 6 months ago
"As I've written on this blog many a time: Don't write people off, and don't mock people who reach out to the enemy"
Irony alert.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
Why irony? I'll blast the Republicans, and the Democrats, when they do wrong, but it doesn't mean I won't talk to them if they want to reach out and talk. And I've been criticized to reaching a hand out to nasty Rs before (aka Katherine Harris). I've seen it work, first hand (not with her, but with others).
mamazboy
· 6 months ago
Well, and for gosh sakes, people DO change. What about Arianna Huffington? And David Whatizname from Media Matters? Let's hope Olsen is being honest here; and that they drag the case out long enough for Sotomayer to get in.
angst
· 6 months ago
do we trust David Boies or do we hate him too?
Can we give this a week before we dismiss this?
Chris From Maine
· 6 months ago
Seems simple to me. Obama just doesnt think gay rights are a priority. He will give it lip service to get votes, but he really doesnt care one way or the other.
As for Ted Olsen, seems to me hes probably doing it for the money and to get attention then actually caring about gay rights. But I could be wrong I suppose.
Look.. Ted Olsen helped Bush launch his coup and did it happily and willingly. Doing one good thing doesnt wash away that stain, and it shouldnt.
offspring
· 6 months ago
nothing compares to bush era style media blackout as i am pretty much seeing he stole the day so he wouldnt have to deal with it bravo, thanks for screwing us.
1of18000
· 6 months ago
I had just skimmed that article before clicking over here--and I had totally misread it--I thought it was saying Olsen and Boies were on OPPOSITE sides--I rolled my eyes and clicked through! Thanks for posting this.
angst
· 6 months ago
thank you thank you thank you.
Mike S
· 6 months ago
I'm not sure I trust Olsen here. The man has no ethics at all. It would not surprise me if he was taking this case to lose it in the Supreme Court so that Prop 8 becomes precedented law.
Mike S
Abelard
· 6 months ago
How so? If this goes to the SCOTUS and they reject Olsen's claim that Prop. 8 violates the 14th Amendment, then we are no worse off than we are today.
Regardless of how the SCOTUS decides the case when it reaches them, Prop. 8 doesn't magically appear on the books of all other 49 states. The only decision will be if Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
We are worse off if that happens. Our legal system runs on precedent. If we get a ruling like that, we're set back decades.
Abelard
· 6 months ago
Again, how so?
If the SCOTUS says Prop. 8 doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, how does that prevent the CA voters from repealing Prop. 8 and allowing gay marriage.
How does that ruling stop any other state from allowing gay marriage?
It simply doesn't.
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
It will put a massive delay on getting an across the board appeal of the bans from the federal court.
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
i think i'll only be able to believe in this if the wingnuts freak out over it...til then, i don't trust Olsen.
jamesnimmo
· 6 months ago
If this case gets to the US Supremes with its current faith-based, Catholic conservative majority (even with Sonomajor, who's also Catholic) we can kiss our gay/lesbian future a fond farewell.
I'd like to know some more details about the plaintiffs, their funding, and their legitimacy in filing this case.
These two lawyers are not cheap and to think of them combined as a team? Is this an April Fool's joke that missed the calendar?
Is there a rivalry between Olson and Kenneth Starr who argued for the winning side of Prop-Hate which was upheld today by the Calfornia Supremes?
angst
· 6 months ago
does anyone think this goes before the supremes before 2010 vote? I don't.
1) I don't reach a hand out to a proven enemy EVER, especially one that will chop that hand right off and smile at you while doing it. Reach out? Fuck that. You sneak up behind them and slam a shiv between their ribs and cover their mouths so they can't bleat out a warning to others.
Reach out .. *chuckles*... yeah. Let's just reach out to the fundamentalist nutjobs who've been gunning for us for 2000 years. Maybe if we play nice, sit down to tea, and ask ever so prettily if we can have equal rights, they'll give them to us!
2) Don't trust that fuckbag Olson. Not one bit. There are 2 possibilities: he's in it for the fame, or he's in it to fuck up our progress. Given his past proclivities, the chance that it's the former is vanishingly small.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, or perhaps I'm brutally realist. I know where I stand at least.
Joneses
· 6 months ago
I don't know, but since Pres. Obama got into office there have been many good leanings towards, gay marriage in this country, something that probably would have never happened if McCain was elected.
I hope that Mr. Olsen truly believes in his client and his or her cause, but the whole world will be watching, and I just don't think he's truly in it for the cause but instead for the show.
I'm disappointed with the decision about no marriages after the passage of prop. 8 (which I truly dislike props anyway), and happy with the decision about marriages still legal before prop 8 passage. And I think, maybe in several years or earlier that same sex marriages will be legal (probably another prop), but still hopeful.
Sometime working behind the scenes is more fruitfull, but that's my opinion.
gayrightsmatter
· 6 months ago
No conspiracy going on. This is for real. Looks like this was the plan all along. They couldnt risk taking this to Supreme court while Bush was in office in so they had to wait until Obama or another Democrat got in. If you notice from the article below Olson was approached several mnths ago. This is going all the way to the supreme court and they're going to use Loving vs Virginia/14th amendment. Once the Supreme court rules, it will become law of the land. Under Bush or any potential Republican Prez, too risky to start the process.
"Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a high-profile trial lawyer who argued on behalf of former vice president Al Gore, filed the suit May 22 in U.S. district court on behalf of two California gay couples.
The attorneys argue that relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnerships instead of granting them full marriage rights is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Olson said he was contacted several months ago by representatives of an association called the American Foundation for Equal Rights about his willingness to represent the two couples named in the suit. “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson said in an interview with The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”
When pressed about his service with the Bush administration, which in 2004 endorsed an amendment to the U.S. constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage, Olson said he was personally against the amendment at the time, though he made no public statements on the matter.
As for the timing of the suit, Olson said that recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court “make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. I’m reasonably confident that this is the right time for these [injustices] to be vindicated.”
Olson, Boies, and other attorneys working on the suit are being compensated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson said his law firm and others also are contributing resources pro bono. As of press time, no website could be found for the newly formed organization. Olson and his representatives declined to specify who was funding the campaign.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley, Calif., and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Burbank, Calif
mamazboy
· 6 months ago
What IS the deal? Do I really have to start getting used to NOT hating Ted Olsen after so many years? I'm not sure I can handle it.
fredndallas
· 6 months ago
You are so right -- forget about the politics for a moment, because honestly I don't think President Obama's change & reticence IS about politics.
Barack Obama has a deep personal, emotional problem with GLBT people and leading the way for our equality (or just getting in step with the rest of progressives.) He pandered to us during the election not so much in political pursuit of OUR support, but because to do otherwise would have revealed and betrayed his "positioning" as a progressive -- plus perhaps would have hit a little close to self-revealing homophobia home.
That Ted Olson, for whom I also have had an enormous dislike, to be unconcerned about advocating for our rights really does illustrate that Barack Obama has a personal problem for not doing so.
Look at the record -- BO can only eek out a token here and a token there, probably psychologically motivated to cloak his homophobia. And no sooner than he does, he consistently does something to lash back at us. It's not healthy behavior.
Somehow our community must shame Barack Obama personally about his homophobia which severely conflicts with his intellect. Our future equality could well depend on it.
Ideas?
shell
· 6 months ago
Olson wouldn't do this if he wasn't getting paid -- and, I suspect, quite handsomely. Is he getting a lot of money? I'd bet on it. Would the other side give him money? Yes, but probably not as much.
I suspect it all comes down to money. Is Olson already rich? Sure. But Bush and Cheney are, too -- these sickos can never get enough money.
There is also an outside chance that Olson fell in love with a man. Or a woman who had gay family members.
Jim Olson
· 6 months ago
Please spell our family name correctly and consistently. It is Olson, with two o's. They are not interchangeable with one O and one E. Please fix this post.
Thank you.
Fifi
· 6 months ago
Obama should dispatch DADT the same way he terminated the stem cell idiocy, a seven paragraphs executive order and minimal fuss, no if, no but, no discussion.
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
He can't. DADT is a LAW that was passed by congress.
yawn
· 6 months ago
except that he can suspend, while waiting for congress to do the work
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
Yes, that's the most he can do.
GOPeagle
· 6 months ago
"You'd be surprised what sometimes happens when you treat even bad guys with a modicum of decency."
You shouldn't just assume that Olson has been treated disrespectfully by liberals and now some lone hero has reached out with decency. What evidence do you have of such a patronizing claim?
GOPeagle
· 6 months ago
From the article: "Legal scholars have observed that proponents of gay marriage have avoided taking the issue to federal court so far because of the dominance of conservative judges and justices on the federal bench after the eight-year tenure of President George W. Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court has what usually results in a 5-4 majority against extending rights to gays by recognizing sexual orientation as a vulnerable class of citizens in need of protection."
BINGO! Ted Olson is not as stupid as we think. He knows damn well what he is doing. He knows the Supreme Court will rule against us and he wants it set in stone before Obama has a chance to change the balance of the Court. Olson is a genius!
ryan
· 6 months ago
That's what you get when you put your faith in politicians. If anything, Obama has officially soured me on politics. Too bad. Never forget, first and foremost, he is a politician. Not your lawyer.
George
· 6 months ago
I am shocked. I wouldn't trust Olson if you paid me--he is an ultra-conservative and his views will never change. Anyone who was in movie with Bing Crosby, yes check it out, is just like the rest of these conservatives protect their right and screw the rest. I doubt Olson is doing this because he wants to defend the rights to gay marriage. Like the adulterer Mel Gibson espousing his homophobic views Olson is a phony. Walking down a dark ally with Olson protecting your back can be dangerous
Paul
· 6 months ago
Might be worth remembering that Ted Olson knows what it's like to be denied a marriage.
His wife, Barbara, was killed in one of the planes on 9/11.
Alan Katz
· 6 months ago
Unfortunately, you are so right.
Obama will not spend $.02 of his political capital on us. Not even to making sure his spokespeople confirm that DADT will be repealed. Now they're saying "I don't know".
Bull. I supported him, I helped fund him, I invested my energy and soul in this man and he doesn't appear to give a damn about GLBT Americans except as to how he can keep us quiet and docile.
Shame on him. Shame on me for falling for this once again.
We need to keep his feet to the fire, full time.
cheetos
· 6 months ago
Not that it has anything to do with this, but Ted's wife Nancy was on one of the 911 hijacked planes...happened on his birthday. I remember him talking about it on CNN.
cheetos
· 6 months ago
Oops, Barbara, not Nancy.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 6 months ago
Mister Obama...the civil union vs gay marriage is like telling black people that the front of the bus gets there at the same time as the back of the bus in 1960 in Birmingham.
kfoster
· 6 months ago
Obama is going to be a one-termer...
That's what happens when a President ditches 15-20% of his base after lying through his teeth to them during the campaign.
Obama is also throwing away what could have been 50 years of Democratic rule. Once again, the Democratic party will find a way to snatch defeat from the claws of victory....
PATHETIC!
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
Maybe, maybe not. Many of us are not willing to give Bush 2.0 a chance to get into office.
graymatter
· 6 months ago
test
Tim
· 6 months ago
Hilary's state department is supporting gay rights. I still say Hilary was the better choice.
Matthew Rettenmund
· 6 months ago
Say what you will about Obama—I'm disappointed with him on gay rights, too. But Hillary's State Department is Obama's State Department. She's not running a shadow government. She works for the guy.
SouthernYankee
· 6 months ago
John, Don't you believe Teddy Boy. Just because he is defending a gay couple I wouldn't let my guard down. Ted Olson is a hack for the republican party and for Ted it's all about the money.
Ben Dover
· 6 months ago
General rule of thumb: Never, ever trust a republican for anything or any reason at any time.
Olson is no friend, never has been, never will be. He will play us in ways Barry hasn't even thought of yet.
Kevinsf
· 6 months ago
Some realpolitik Iago=Rham
Losungen
· 6 months ago
Ted's interest is furthering his own agenda, not gay marriage. The trick was seizing an issue to hot to handle for the Dems. Your new "spokesmodel" Ted will prove invaluable in dividing Obama's supposed "base," not exactly the consensus you need to move forward here. I'm rather surprised you don't see this, John.
Mutt Like Me
· 6 months ago
By that same fucked up logic, Jewish lawyers who represent Neo-Nazis are in favor of advancing the Aryan Race. GTFOHWTBS.
Pender
· 6 months ago
An Iago? You mean a Rahm?
Salem Sage
· 6 months ago
Olsen is no friend. He wants to bring the issue brfore the US Supreme Court because he knows there is a majority against marriage equality.
Jay
· 6 months ago
I feel that more of the stories around Prop8 are more focused on Ted Olson than the actual decision. Does that mean people are not that worried about the results? This video shows the different arguments in the news today, but many sites are just holding out until 2010: http://www.newsy.com/videos/california_decision...
Chaka Nawe
· 6 months ago
AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO SMELLS A HUGE RAT HERE???? Olson will rush this to the CURRENT Supreme Courty - which is heavily conservative - AND IT WILL LOSE!
THIS IS A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!!!! I do not trust Olson to suddenly be "getting it" on the side of equality.
I SMELL A RAT!!!!!
Guest
· 6 months ago
Why do people assume Olson's being disingenuous here? First off, he's doing it pro bono and throwing in the considerable resources of his law firm, and he's joined up with David Boies.
The idea that Olson is doing it to sabotage the effort is silly. Boies and other attorneys are going to sign off on any briefs that are filed. Also, the earliest this case could go to the Supreme Court is the fall session--by which time Sotomayor or some other Obama pick will be in place. Actually, it probably won't go up in the coming session because they'll likely have to sue in a lower court first. I'm guessing 2010 is the earliest it can come up for review, and the court composition isn't going to change in the meantime regardless.
Finally, is it impossible to imagine that someone like Olson is sympathetic to gay issues? The guy works in circles that are full of prominent gays, and he likely knows and is friends with more than a few homosexuals.
william kraal
· 6 months ago
dude olson was on tonites larry king show at cnn and he did not mention that he was working gratis (pro bono).
william kraal
· 6 months ago
perhaps dude olson is trying to sabotage us gays by taking it to the supremes who might not be ready for us????
al
· 6 months ago
Yes, and the moon is made of green cheese too. What better way for trying to ban all gay marriages than to get it to the Supremes.....then poof, all gone in all states. DO NOT TRUST THAT MAN, evil does not change......
joe
· 6 months ago
what a hypocrit
HV Clair
· 6 months ago
You are a total dumbell!!! Ted Shithead Olsen is doing this ON PURPOSE! If they push this right now - in its weakened state - to the Supreme Court, it will almost certainly LOSE, and then get codified for years to come. And it will take years, if not decades, to reverse. We need to alert Olsen's hoodwinked clients who are either PAWNS or getting paid off, and tell them to back out NOW. NEVER DO BUSINESS WITH THE DEVIL.
All Comments
Obamarama made many glorious preaches/speeches directly to gay American citizens,promising to revoke nuremberg-like laws as in DOMA & Don't Ask Don't Tell,& anti-gay "citizens"propositions, ((as if democracy were something where a majority votes against,tyranizes & devalues the constitutional rights guaranteed to every man & woman, a fellow class of U.S. Citizens.))
But he is now proving himself to be a two-faced opportunist,keeping over 125 Bush policies, & Bush Pentagon leaders. Obama just used a gay downtrodden minority for $ support,than dumped them. at inauguration with a fundamentalist preacher. Fork-tongued,hypocritical,opportunism. Like any cynical POL.
Don't give any money to Obama, any Democrats, the DNC, etc. until Obama begins to fulfill his promises to the LGBT community. We need to pressure him to do the right thing.
Every time you get a solicitation for money, just say "Not One Nickel."
http://notonenickel.blogspot.com/
Can you not see the potential for disaster and can you not see the potential for some really seedy dealings, like intentionally leading us into a SCOTUS defeat that would set us back decades?
I STILL don't trust this scumbag!
Good God, Aravosis! What are you thinking? The urge to highlight Obama's (truly despicable) lack of integrity on LGBT issues has warped your thinking here.
What arguments can Olson possibly employ on behalf of these plaintiffs? He's spent his entire career undermining the very possibility of an expansive interpretation of the Constitution. Read his statement of his own judicial philosophy--it's got all the buzzwords.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ViNzlkZW...
The plaintiffs are being used, savagely. Boies may or may not be. I don't know much about him, other than that he's a corporate lawyer who not well known at all for litigating civil rights, equal protection, or due process cases.
If this is an Olson conspiracy, there's no way David Boies could be part of it.
This case will not stop Prop 8 from being repealed in California nor will it prevent gay marriage in Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa no matter how the SCOTUS decides.
This is one issue: does Prop. 8 violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution? Outside that, the SCOTUS can't stop the states from allowing gay marriage.
Only an amendment to the U.S. constitution can do that.
What's more important here are what happens to the states that have constitutional bans, and a Supreme Court ruling not in our favor would basically be saying that all of these state constitutional amendments do not violate the federal Constitution. A Supreme Court ruling could strike down each and every state constitutional ban in one fell swoop if the makeup of the court is right. And that's the only way many states (especially in the South) will ever recognize or perform a same-sex marriage.
So: to reiterate my point, it's not about the Supreme Court stopping the states from allowing gay marriage, it's about the Court disallowing the states from banning it.
Honestly...
I like Obama, i defend him where appropriate against the nutters, but as an original Hillary fan, I'm sorry, Obama was never leading the way on our rights. McClutchen, changing his public senate run stance, etc. You generally overlooked it cause you hated the clintons, but Obama was never a vocal leader for gay equality.
The fact of the matter is, the blogosphere hated Hillary and saw Obama as the best chance to defeat her in the primaries. Well congrats! Obama won! Enjoy him! But don't try to paper over the recent past.
This is a very serious challenge and as a law junkie - one I will follow if just for the players.
me too.
i too was Hillary supporter - because I felt Obama was only providing lip service on gay rights - for me his actions spoke volumes. At least Hillary marched in a gay parade and when i met her and questioned her on gay rights - I felt like she got it. But this is no longer about Hillary or why i felt she was better on gay rights. And who knows what she would had done.
I supported Obama and while his silence on gay issues anger me - I wonder if he doesn't have a plan regarding gay rights. I say this because I have notice that Obama moves at his own speed and timeline. Some Clinton's supporters felt he dogged her by not offering the VP and yet patience she is now SOS a much better position for her. There are other examples i could cite.
So I'm holding out some hope and trying not to angry or feel betrayed. I willing to give him time - I just wonder when my patience will run out.
LOL yeah. Who else did that? Oh right, Giuilani. Did Hillary get up in drag? Well Giuliani did! That means he's more pro gay than Hillary, by your measure.
God. Walked in a parade and answered questions. Boy howdy, if only we could take people at their word or believe they'd see things our way once dolled up like Dame Edna, then we'd be peachy!
*facepalm*
I'm not assuming it, but I am hoping...
Irony alert.
Can we give this a week before we dismiss this?
As for Ted Olsen, seems to me hes probably doing it for the money and to get attention then actually caring about gay rights. But I could be wrong I suppose.
Look.. Ted Olsen helped Bush launch his coup and did it happily and willingly. Doing one good thing doesnt wash away that stain, and it shouldnt.
Mike S
Regardless of how the SCOTUS decides the case when it reaches them, Prop. 8 doesn't magically appear on the books of all other 49 states. The only decision will be if Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
If the SCOTUS says Prop. 8 doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, how does that prevent the CA voters from repealing Prop. 8 and allowing gay marriage.
How does that ruling stop any other state from allowing gay marriage?
It simply doesn't.
I'd like to know some more details about the plaintiffs, their funding, and their legitimacy in filing this case.
These two lawyers are not cheap and to think of them combined as a team? Is this an April Fool's joke that missed the calendar?
Is there a rivalry between Olson and Kenneth Starr who argued for the winning side of Prop-Hate which was upheld today by the Calfornia Supremes?
I don't.
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18161
Reach out .. *chuckles*... yeah. Let's just reach out to the fundamentalist nutjobs who've been gunning for us for 2000 years. Maybe if we play nice, sit down to tea, and ask ever so prettily if we can have equal rights, they'll give them to us!
2) Don't trust that fuckbag Olson. Not one bit. There are 2 possibilities: he's in it for the fame, or he's in it to fuck up our progress. Given his past proclivities, the chance that it's the former is vanishingly small.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, or perhaps I'm brutally realist. I know where I stand at least.
I hope that Mr. Olsen truly believes in his client and his or her cause, but the whole world will be watching, and I just don't think he's truly in it for the cause but instead for the show.
I'm disappointed with the decision about no marriages after the passage of prop. 8 (which I truly dislike props anyway), and happy with the decision about marriages still legal before prop 8 passage. And I think, maybe in several years or earlier that same sex marriages will be legal (probably another prop), but still hopeful.
Sometime working behind the scenes is more fruitfull, but that's my opinion.
Looks like this was the plan all along. They couldnt risk taking this to Supreme court while Bush was in office in so they had to wait until Obama or another Democrat got in. If you notice from the article below Olson was approached several mnths ago. This is going all the way to the supreme court and they're going to use Loving vs Virginia/14th amendment. Once the Supreme court rules, it will become law of the land. Under Bush or any potential Republican Prez, too risky to start the process.
"Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a high-profile trial lawyer who argued on behalf of former vice president Al Gore, filed the suit May 22 in U.S. district
court on behalf of two California gay couples.
The attorneys argue that relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnerships instead of granting them full marriage rights is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Olson said he was contacted several months ago by representatives of an association called the American Foundation for Equal Rights about his willingness to represent the two couples named in the suit. “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for
people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson said in an interview with The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those
rights.”
When pressed about his service with the Bush administration, which in 2004
endorsed an amendment to the U.S. constitution that would prohibit same-sex
marriage, Olson said he was personally against the amendment at the time, though
he made no public statements on the matter.
As for the timing of the suit, Olson said that recent decisions by the U.S.
Supreme Court “make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally
under the Constitution. I’m reasonably confident that this is the right time for
these [injustices] to be vindicated.”
Olson, Boies, and other attorneys working on the suit are being compensated by
the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson said his law firm and others
also are contributing resources pro bono. As of press time, no website could be
found for the newly formed organization. Olson and his representatives declined to specify who was funding the campaign.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley, Calif., and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Burbank, Calif
Barack Obama has a deep personal, emotional problem with GLBT people and leading the way for our equality (or just getting in step with the rest of progressives.) He pandered to us during the election not so much in political pursuit of OUR support, but because to do otherwise would have revealed and betrayed his "positioning" as a progressive -- plus perhaps would have hit a little close to self-revealing homophobia home.
That Ted Olson, for whom I also have had an enormous dislike, to be unconcerned about advocating for our rights really does illustrate that Barack Obama has a personal problem for not doing so.
Look at the record -- BO can only eek out a token here and a token there, probably psychologically motivated to cloak his homophobia. And no sooner than he does, he consistently does something to lash back at us. It's not healthy behavior.
Somehow our community must shame Barack Obama personally about his homophobia which severely conflicts with his intellect. Our future equality could well depend on it.
Ideas?
I suspect it all comes down to money. Is Olson already rich? Sure. But Bush and Cheney are, too -- these sickos can never get enough money.
There is also an outside chance that Olson fell in love with a man. Or a woman who had gay family members.
Thank you.
You shouldn't just assume that Olson has been treated disrespectfully by liberals and now some lone hero has reached out with decency. What evidence do you have of such a patronizing claim?
BINGO! Ted Olson is not as stupid as we think. He knows damn well what he is doing. He knows the Supreme Court will rule against us and he wants it set in stone before Obama has a chance to change the balance of the Court. Olson is a genius!
His wife, Barbara, was killed in one of the planes on 9/11.
Obama will not spend $.02 of his political capital on us. Not even to making sure his spokespeople confirm that DADT will be repealed. Now they're saying "I don't know".
Bull. I supported him, I helped fund him, I invested my energy and soul in this man and he doesn't appear to give a damn about GLBT Americans except as to how he can keep us quiet and docile.
Shame on him. Shame on me for falling for this once again.
We need to keep his feet to the fire, full time.
That's what happens when a President ditches 15-20% of his base after lying through his teeth to them during the campaign.
Obama is also throwing away what could have been 50 years of Democratic rule. Once again, the Democratic party will find a way to snatch defeat from the claws of victory....
PATHETIC!
Olson is no friend, never has been, never will be. He will play us in ways Barry hasn't even thought of yet.
THIS IS A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!!!!
I do not trust Olson to suddenly be "getting it" on the side of equality.
I SMELL A RAT!!!!!
The idea that Olson is doing it to sabotage the effort is silly. Boies and other attorneys are going to sign off on any briefs that are filed. Also, the earliest this case could go to the Supreme Court is the fall session--by which time Sotomayor or some other Obama pick will be in place. Actually, it probably won't go up in the coming session because they'll likely have to sue in a lower court first. I'm guessing 2010 is the earliest it can come up for review, and the court composition isn't going to change in the meantime regardless.
Finally, is it impossible to imagine that someone like Olson is sympathetic to gay issues? The guy works in circles that are full of prominent gays, and he likely knows and is friends with more than a few homosexuals.