Why Does Bush's Top Florida 2000 Election Lawyer Want to Lead Gay Marriage Fight to Supreme Court?

Why Does Bush's Top Florida 2000 Election Lawyer Want to Lead Gay Marriage Fight to Supreme Court?

Al ternet.org.org

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.

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.

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.

As one of the nation's preeminent litigators, Olson has used his formidable skills to defend (unsuccessfully) the Virginia Military Institute's decision to exclude women and to undo affirmative action policies in publicly funded law schools. And of course, he represented George W. Bush during the 2000 election fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court. This history makes his presence in the anti-Prop 8 litigation all the more curious.

I have to agree that when I heard on NPR that Olson was going to be leading the fight to the supreme court FOR gay marriage rights I was dumbfounded. Then I saw this article and it made me realize that I am obviously not the only one.

I would like for this discussion not to be about the issue of gay rights; there are other threads for that. I would like to discuss whether or not Olson really is in this in order to sabotage any chance gays across the country have to be given the same rights as heterosexuals.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this issue has gotten to the Federal Supreme Court; it's only been on the state level. If the Fed. Supreme court rules that banning gay marriage is not unconstitutional, isn't that the end all be all to the argument?

If that is true, then yes, I strongly question this man's motives. It makes no sense that a man who's been staunchly conservative is suddenly the frontrunner to the fight for gay rights and is taking it all the way to the top before even gay rights activists are ready for it.

Interesting. Maybe he just owes Cheney's daughter a favor.

reply to post by Moonsouljah


I'll admit your comment was pretty funny. Unfortunately, it didn't really add to the discussion. Care to elaborate?

Might it have something to do with an elemental change in the application of the Constitution, and constitutional rights, vital to the furtherence of "Neo-con" goals and agendas?


Here is what the sole dissenter, Justice Carlos Moreno, of the California Supreme Court said :


"is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution." (emphasis mine)



As reflected on these boards, and too often in public debate, the essence of the "Gay Right to Marriage" question is not whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, genetic or by choice, or even moral or sinful; the essence of the question is whether or not ANY otherwise law-abiding group within our society can be singled out and denied equal protection under the law.


As I see it, it is intrinsic to the Totalitarian Utopia envisioned by the neocon movement the establishment as lawful fact that not all persons, even though they may be for the moment identified as "citizens", are entitled to equal, and by extension, "Fair", treatment under the law.


The law must be made to serve the elite, ruling class, and the sub-classes must have little or no legal recourse to challenge the status quo.

This is not possible under a system of laws wherein everybody is, ostensibly, "Equal".



If by losing the arguement that gays, like everyone else, have the right to marry, it can then be confluted that gays do not have the right to equal treatment under the law, simply because they are gay.


This would then establish, as all important legal precedence the fact that any other identifiable social (or ethnic, or religious) group could similaly be denied such protection.