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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 964 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
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
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)1. Is that the same Boies that defended Bush v Gore in the SCOTUS?
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.
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
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,
in the Charlie Rose interview.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)5. Better late than never, eh?
Hopefully Boies will be a little more on the ball this time than he was the last time.