Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
*Boies (counsel against Prop 8) on Charlie Rose tonight. (Original Post) elleng Apr 2013 OP
Is that the same Boies that defended Bush v Gore in the SCOTUS? Fumesucker Apr 2013 #1
No comment on Bugliosi. elleng Apr 2013 #2
I said he acted like an idiot, not quite the same thing Fumesucker Apr 2013 #3
I suggest you listen to Boies discussion of the equal protection issue, elleng Apr 2013 #4
Better late than never, eh? Fumesucker Apr 2013 #5

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
1. Is that the same Boies that defended Bush v Gore in the SCOTUS?
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:16 PM
Apr 2013

Because he acted like an idiot at that time, at least according to Vincent Bugliosi.

http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason#

elleng

(130,773 posts)
2. No comment on Bugliosi.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:26 PM
Apr 2013

David Boies certainly isn't an idiot.

Its the same David Boies that represented V.P. Gore in bush v. gore.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
3. I said he acted like an idiot, not quite the same thing
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:36 PM
Apr 2013

This is the paragraph that I read ten years or more ago and it stuck with me until today.

Gore's lawyer, David Boies, never argued either of the above points to the Court. Also, since Boies already knew (from language in the December 9 emergency order of the Court) that Justice Scalia, the Court's right-wing ideologue; his Pavlovian puppet, Clarence Thomas, who doesn't even try to create the impression that he's thinking; and three other conservatives on the Court (William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) intended to deodorize their foul intent by hanging their hat on the anemic equal protection argument, wouldn't you think that he and his people would have come up with at least three or four strong arguments to expose it for what it was--a legal gimmick that the brazen, shameless majority intended to invoke to perpetrate a judicial hijacking in broad daylight? And made sure that he got into the record of his oral argument all of these points? Yet, remarkably, Boies only managed to make one good equal protection argument, and that one near the very end of his presentation, and then only because Justice Rehnquist (not at Boies's request, I might add) granted him an extra two minutes. If Rehnquist hadn't given him the additional two minutes, Boies would have sat down without getting even one good equal protection argument into the record.

elleng

(130,773 posts)
4. I suggest you listen to Boies discussion of the equal protection issue,
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:44 PM
Apr 2013

in the Charlie Rose interview.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
5. Better late than never, eh?
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 12:19 AM
Apr 2013

Hopefully Boies will be a little more on the ball this time than he was the last time.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*Boies (counsel against P...