The Case Against Ted Olson
Here’s something relating to Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse’s big article, also on this blog.
The Case Against Ted Olson [Maggie Gallagher]
In the NYT, Ed Meese strikes back hard against the idea there’s anything conservative about using the federal courts to overturn the free and fair election that produced Prop 8.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse writes:
I happened to know about this because I received a subpoena from Boies’ office. I was a consultant to the Prop 8 campaign. I have not the slightest concern that anyone will find any evidence of hatred hidden in my correspondence. My views are all over the internet. It is the pettiness of Olsen and Boies I find revolting. . . . No court in the land should have the authority to look over the shoulders of campaign managers and voters to see if their motives pass some ideological litmus test.
The motives of the seven million Californians who voted Yes on 8 are irrelevant. The election was about adding 14 words to the California Constitution. The entire state of California knew perfectly well what those words were. The point of the campaign was to discuss the likely impact of those words. Olsen and Boies don’t like what the voters decided. Sorry. Self-government is about abiding by the results of lawful elections, whether you like the outcome or not.
(Full disclosure, the Ruth Institute is affiliated with NOM, which I run).
Even Margaret Talbot in The New Yorker calls it “a peculiar situation: while gay-rights activists advocate judicial restraint, solicitude for the popular will, and a gradual, state-centric approach, Ted Olson argues, in the urgent language of civil rights, for a sweeping, federal solution on their behalf.”
From National Review.
Loading ...
Hi Betsy,
Here is a blogpost in which prominent pro-SSM legal professors are quoted as being skeptical about the US Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to SSM.
Low expectations of success for Olson challenge to CA marriage amendment .
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/low-expectations-of-success-for-olson.html
The Opine Editorials is a small group blogsite and we are blogging about this case regularly this week.
Cheers,
Chairm
Who is opposing Olsen & Boies in this courtroom?
Hi Marty,
Charles Cooper is the lead defense counsel. He succeeded Olson as the Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration. At his side is Andrew Pugno who is leading the contingent of lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund. Pugno is described by the ADF as an ADF-allied attorney. The ADF has contributed a respectable contingent of lawyers to assist on this case. They have trial experience on some of the key subtopics that are slated to be brought up in testimony.
Cooper presented opening arguments in defense of the marriage amendment and he has examined those giving testimony on the first day.
California’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has not shown up (just like during the case before the state court) but, due to politics more than legal principles, his representative is present and, like a potted plant, is not defending the state’s constitution.
A guy named Charles Cooper. He is also a high-powered attorney.
Linked to your post from California Prop 8 to make headlines again.
I was both awake and of sober mind during the Prop 8 campaign. I recall clearly the hate and vandalism coming from the “h8te” campaign. If their side is using the court to fish for hate then couldn’t the pro-prop 8 side expose the criminal activities from this group? “Stand firm, then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist…” – (Ephesians 6:14)
Wayne
I remember this as well. It is one of the astonishing features of this case, isn’t it? I plan to write about this disparity, and others in teh coming weeks. stay tuned.