Ted “I got my freak on stealing the election for Dubya” Olson is doing something I never thought possible. He’s making me applaud him today, because he’s teaming up with David Boies, his legal adversary in Bush v. Gore, to file a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition Hate, er 8, the California constitutional amendment approved by referendum (after massive infusions of cash by the Mormon Church and other religious homophobes to fund an anti-gay marriage ad campaign) which banned gay marriage in California last year. Color me shocked, but also grateful.
Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.
Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.
“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”
The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. […]
“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.
“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back. […]
“Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Mr. Olson, who served as solicitor general under Mr. Bush. “The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.”
I know some people (I’m talking to you, ACLU) are afraid to make a federal case about this, but if not now, when? Ten years from now? Twenty? Fifty? I say there is never a good time to fight for equal protection for American citizens who are being discriminated against under our laws. You think the lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education thought they had a slam dunk back in 1954? You think the majority of the population supported integrated schools in the fifties, and integrated workplaces, movie theaters, buses, restaurants, and so forth? Hell no, brothers and sisters. But thanks to Thurgood Marshall they took the chance that the courts would do the right thing, and I think Boies and Olson are doing the right thing fifty-five years later. A dyed in the wool liberal and a radical conservative who agree that civil liberties should mean something in this country, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people should mean all the people, even people that homophobic bigots despise and denigrate.
So I for one support them. Godspeed, David and Ted. Doing the right thing is never easy. But if no one ever took that chance, where would we be? Still a country which countenanced slavery, child labor, lynching and the denial of basic human rights. Still a country of “sundown towns” and restrictive racial covenants. Still a country in which I would not have been allowed to marry my wife because she is a the daughter of Japanese immigrants, and I the descendant of English, Irish and German ones. After eight years of seeing our Constitution trampled on by men of low character, its good to see someone with the courage to say, that our ideals, our “freedoms” mean more than just the freedom by majorities to condemn other people, to hold them down and oppress them. More than just the freedom to hate. Liberty is either for all of our people, or it’s for no one.
So thanks Ted. Thank you very much. I’ll probably disagree with you on everything else you ever do in your political and professional career, but this time you deserve my gratitude.
Update [2009-5-28 11:35:54 by Steven D]: Here is the take of Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend on the Boies/Olson lawsuit for your consideration:
OK, now there is another reason why it can be argued that a federal case has merit at this time, and it needs discussion. Regardless of the timing of the case, part of what is going on here is by filing at the federal level it is a direct challenge to this White House. The Obama admin has tried mightily (and ridiculously) to keep this a states’ rights issue — to the point of believing there’s no reason to even have to publicly recognize the progress and setbacks.
In my opinion, this is also a part of the motivation behind the Olsen/Boies lawsuit. After all — how can you have a President of the United States who is a constitutional scholar out there saying “God is in the mix” and tossing off “it’s an issue best left to the states”? After all, his parents’ relationship was illegal in many states, and Loving v. Virginia was needed to nullify all of those state bans.
Again, this is a political problem of candidate and President Obama’s own making that is now blowing up in his administration’s face. I’m not surprised that this is happening; I am kind of surprised it’s happening so soon — but we, the LGBT orgs, and the big brains at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue do not have the ability to shut down the constant equality questions being bombarded at Robert Gibbs or a lawsuit like this.
I’m not arguing that Boies and Olson are pursuing the right strategic path, mind you, but I understand the sentiment and frustration behind it — I’m just tossing this out there as a discussion point, since we are all tired of the disingenuous BS coming out of the Obama White House through the clownish, embarrassing dodges of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs nearly every day. Also, we don’t see any of the LGBT orgs criticizing the non-answers and evasive maneuvers coming out in the name of our “fierce advocate” at these pressers — do you think this silence would have occurred under Bush? […]
And about all of the questions about who’s funding the Boies/Olson case. I’ve heard that it’s prominent wealthy progressives bankrolling the American Foundation for Equal Rights, so that would deep-six the Olson right wing conspiracy stories.
As they say in the trade, go read the whole thing. Pam lays out all the arguments for and against the lawsuit with equanimity and her usual thoroughness.
Going to federal court to change a state court ruling on a law that isn’t federally protected is a dubious strategy and many in the gay community think that this in an intentional sabotaging of the case. I’m suspicious too. When Ted Olson leaves the house count the silverware.
I respectfully disagree. I trust Boies enough to know if he’s being hornswoggled or not. I think Olson’s involvement also sends a powerful message that gay marriage is not a Right vs. Left issue, its a civil rights vs. prejudiced bigots issue.
Like he was by SCO?
I’m willing to bet that both Boies and Olson are working in good faith here, but only because the alternative is just a little too paranoid for me to take seriously, not because Boies hasn’t made some spectacularly dumb decisions in the past.
That said, although he’s not infallible, Boies is a superb attorney, as is Olson, so it’s definitely good news that they’re on our side this time.
Did I forget to mention the time Boies got expelled from law school for having an affair with his professor’s wife?
What’s the word for that? Ah, yes, zany madcap hijinks. Just like the old Disney live action movies. I’ll bet his briefs are made of flubber.
Sorry, I’ll go back to being serious now. 😉
If she was hot enough…. can’t condemn it. You do something, you deal with the consequences.
True enough. I wasn’t offering a moral objection, incidentally, just pointing out that Boies’ famed talent for planning several moves ahead has been known to be short-circuited from time to time. 😉
Said professor’s wife because Boies’ second wife. He’s on his third wife now.
Don’t get me wrong — I like and admire Boies, but because I’ve been watching his cases (and his personal foibles) for so long, I’m aware of his sometimes rather extravagant flaws, too.
From page 2 of the article:
i suspect that he has a gay relative or close friend. it seems that all the conservatives who are reasonable about gay rights issue happen to have a close friend/relative who is gay.
I hear you.
Maybe he actually has some empathy. Gosh, what a concept, employing empathy as a legitimate basis for deciding cases.
Yes, it is good news that some of the “legal superstars” are willing to work for this cause.
But I don’t know if I want to evaluate Ted’s motives. Don’t underestimate the power of a drama Queen to see an issue where he can swoop in and be a hero (regardless of how he views that issue).
But I agree that pushing the envelope has been THE FACTOR in changing public opinion so quickly the last few years. The Centrist Dems should learn this lesson. In, what?, 2003 many where saying Gavin Newsom shouldn’t push the gay rights issue (in such a politically sensitive time–like it always is for centrist Dems) because people weren’t ready for it and predicted a “backlash”. Well, now even the Iowa Supreme Court is convinced and there are huge swaths of people that have been convinced. And all this has been without the support of the mainstream Democratic party–they’ve ran away from the issue like cowards from a pillow fight. Imagine if the party decided to fight on this issue.
Imagine if the party decided to fight on this issue.
Yes, imagine if we had a truly progressive, liberal party in America. I’m not being sarcastic here (well, maybe a tad), I’m stating the truth. The Democratic Party is not a liberal party. It has a liberal/progressive faction within it, but at best, it’s dominated by a faction of politicians who most closely resemble “Rockefeller Republicans.”
Yeah. Which is why I thought Gavin Newsom was brilliant in 2003 when he decided to take a stand. He had just barely won a bruising Mayoral race against the Green party candidate and was politically weak when he took office. But his principled stand galvanized the City behind him and his popularity shot up . . . . so much so that he’s now considered a candidate for higher office and of course that means he’s back to listening to the nervous nellies in the Democratic party that are constantly worrying about the “backlash” from standing up for civil rights and other core liberal beliefs and is tacking back to the center.
Gavin just shot himself in the foot in my opinion (by tacking to the center) because America is hungry for a politician that stands up for his or her beliefs–not another waffler centrist (sure Bill Clinton and Obama, thus far, have pulled it off–but what’s the victory in that?). That’s why I think someone like Bill Maher would be a great candidate–he’s not frightened silly of his own beliefs.
Apart from the merits of a progressive party I just don’t understand how politicians can’t see the benefit from leading the charge on liberal causes. Really, all it takes is a high profile guy like Gavin to take a principled stand and that convinces a lot of people. I consider Ted Olson to be a lagging indicator btw, not a leading indicator, so now it’s a no-brainer for Democrats . . . let’s see if they have brains.
I see Newsom exactly the other way. He’s a business centrist who took a stand that he knew would be extremely popular in SF, would solidify the GLBT community on his side and safeguard his left flank. It was the right thing to do, but it was also carefully calculated politics.
Actually, I agree with you. Maybe I wrote the wrong word: principled. Gavin took a stand and it ended up helping him politically–who knows how much he really believes in it.
But my point is that it wasn’t a slam dunk smart move at the time. The conventional wisdom, even in San Francisco, was that gay rights was a loser issue for liberals and Gavin did indeed take a chance when he chose to make it an issue. Sure, San Franciscans agreed with the merits but at the time we had a lot of “Nervous Nellies” saying they agreed with the end goal but it was smarter politically not to create a fuss. It turns out it was a smart move to go on the offensive.
good points. it turned out to have been a popular move, but you’re right that it wasn’t so obvious then. There were a lot of comments from conservative dems that Gavin had hurt his political future. In fact, he successfully moved the “overton window” on this subject.
Right on. We wouldn’t have ended up with Dubya if it had not been for thirty or more years of relentless pressure on all fronts by the various conservative factions.
Sure, sometimes you do have to wait for an opportune time, but for the most part, in politics as in every other area of life, change is created by hard work, not just sniping at targets of opportunity.
For all of his many flaws, Barack Obama is the kind of man who became a politician to effect change, and so he pushes the limits in the areas he cares most about. (Unfortunately, and possibly for private religious reasons, gay rights is not an issue he cares about, but I digress.) Centrists, on the other hand, became politicians to be politicians and then to keep being reelected. It’s always a sensitive time for them because their goal is not to effect change, much less sacrifice themselves for it; their goal is just to keep a cushy job with lots of opportunities for deals on the side.
In short, centrism isn’t an ideological stance, it’s a racket.
hey- maybe Olson is gay????
Who knew??
From this morning’s San Francisco Chronicle:
Gay rights advocates Wednesday blasted two veteran attorneys for filing a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, saying the move is premature and could be disastrous for the marriage movement.
While they knew of the objections, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies – who opposed each other during the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election case – filed the suit Friday in San Francisco on behalf of two same-sex couples who wanted to be married but were denied because of Prop. 8.
“The suit claims the voter-approved measure, which the California Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday, denies same-sex couples the basic liberties and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It asks for a preliminary injunction against Prop. 8 until the case is decided…
“The advocates say it took 17 years to undo a 1986 Supreme Court decision that upheld Georgia’s sodomy law. An Arkansas court used that law as justification to deny a lesbian mother custody of her children, said Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group.”
Setting precedent with a very weak federal case is not a good idea. As for it being paranoid to think that a man who helped steal a Presidential election and bring on the most lawless regime in the history of our country might be disingenuous in his motives, that everyone’s choice as to whom they want to trust. Olson was Dubya’s Solicitor General, he defended Reagan during Iran-contra. Would you trust Ted Olson with Social Security reform, investigating torture, protecting the environment? Think of all the venues in which you wouldn’t trust Olson and then explain again why you trust him here.
If Obama has been ducking this then it makes sense that Olson would want to put it front-and-center – not for the sake of the plaintiffs but for the sake of making Obama deal with it. Obama has nothing to gain by throwing his support behind the effort and he has nothing to gain by trying to block the effort. He will lose the left in its entirety if he opposes the measure and he stands to lose a measure of support if he endorses it.
Point being, Obama doesn’t want to touch this right now because its not what he campaigned on and promised to deliver, and it is exactly what the GOP needs to get some kind of wind behind their culture issues – economics and foreign policy are pretty clearly off the table for them right now. The best thing for the GOP would be for this lawsuit to prevail – that also happens to be in the interest of a segment of the left.
Politics –> Strange bedfellows.