My head is going to explode

[Sky Masterson]

"My Enemies' Enemy Is My Friend"




Still pissed about Bush v Gore but fucking good for him and them!

[Duer 157099]

1. Be careful with that "enemy of enemy = friend" thinking

It almost never works out well in the long run.

Remember how our CIA supported the Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union, using that logic?

Boy didn't that one come back to bite us in the butt!

So watch out for this one too. It may not be what you think.

[Sky Masterson]

2. I'm not fawning over the guy

I was just surprised by it.

[rateyes]

7. It might not have if, after we helped them win the war against the Soviets

we appropriated funds to rebuild the country. Instead, we left a vacuum and the Taliban was happy to fill it.

[Wabbajack_]

3. Wanna explain?

Ted Olsen did what?

[Sky Masterson]

4. This

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/27/2009-05-27_theodore_olson_and_david_boies_lawyers_on_opposing_sides_of_bush_v_gore_teams_up.html

LOS ANGELES - The legal eagles who fought on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore want to walk down the aisle together in federal court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.

Theodore Olson, the ex-Solicitor General who represented George Bush in the 2000 ballot battle, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore, announced their partnership Wednesday, declaring Prop. 8 denies gay couples a "fundamental right" afforded in the federal Constitution.

[Duer 157099]

5. I can't help but think this is a calculated strategy

They want to get it before the SCOTUS before the SCOTUS can be significantly changed by Obama. They are probably thinking that it's more likely that the court will be moving towards the left in the future, so if they want to get this heard, then now is better than later.

That's my naive but cynical take on it.

[MADem]

6. You trust those guys? Pam's House Blend has a very mature discussion on this issue.

It is worth reading. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11185/olson-and-boies-go-on-media-rounds-to-discuss-the-federal-marriage-lawsuit

There's also a cogent "guest analysis" of the whole lawsuit issue that Pam posted from a prof who emailed her...a snip, but the whole thing is an interesting road map of sorts:

What does all of this mean for the Olson / Boies lawsuit? Insofar as their lawsuit argues that marriage equality for everyone is required under the U.S. Constitution, there is a strong argument that the lower federal courts should simply dismiss and decline to hear the case because they are bound by Baker v. Nelson. If that happens, then the Supreme Court itself is the only one that could overrule its earlier precedent and actually decide the case on the merits.

This is an important fact to understand for a number of reasons. First, as a simple matter of predicting what will happen, it's entirely possible that the Olson / Boies lawsuit will be dismissed very quickly by the lower federal courts. Second, it reinforces the point made by the LGBT groups about the importance of laying a solid groundwork before we get our one shot at litigating this issue before the Supreme Court (and, realistically, we will likely get only one shot). Baker v. Nelson prevents the lower federal courts from engaging in the ordinary process of wrestling with a contentious issue in a series of cases before the Supreme Court finally weighs in. It is therefore all the more important to develop a solid foundation of precedent in the state courts, because we may not have the opportunity to do that in the federal courts. And, with all due respect to Olson and Boies and despite my whole-hearted agreement that we should not have to wait to enjoy the rights that we deserve, the fact is that the Civil Rights Movement was the most strategic, careful and patient litigation effort that this country had ever seen, waiting decades to bring the school desegregation and anti-miscegenation cases until they knew that they had laid a sufficient groundwork to achieve a victory before the Supreme Court. I am thrilled at the outrage that these two men feel on our behalf and I welcome their input and their efforts. But they do need to learn their history.

Two more quick points. This kind of "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is not a good way to decide cases, and there is a strong argument that it should always be construed narrowly. So, for example, in the challenge to the federal portions of DOMA that GLAD has brought in Massachusetts federal court, Baker v. Nelson should not pose any obstacle. GLAD is raising a very different kind of claim -- that the federal government can't discriminate against couples who have already been validly married by their home state. The lower federal courts are free to decide that issue on its merits.

By the same token, if Olson and Boies had brought a much narrower challenge to Proposition 8 -- if they had argued that the particular sequence of events in California raised a unique constitutional problem because Prop 8 took marriage away from a group of people who already enjoyed equal rights under state law -- then matters would be different. Baker v. Nelson probably would not control a more carefully drafted lawsuit like that, and the dangers associated with such a lawsuit might be somewhat more contained (though there would still be serious questions about whether it represents the right approach). There are hints of that more narrow argument in the Olson / Boies complaint, but only hints -- in the end, they do not make the more careful argument but instead just go for broke.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Something doesn't smell right.

Olson didn't just argue Gore v. Bush.....He was nominated to the Office of Solicitor General by President Bush on February 14, 2001.

Olson was present at the first meeting of the Federalist Society.
He has served on the board of directors of American Spectator magazine.

Olson was a prominent critic of Bill Clinton's presidency, and he helped prepare the attorneys of Paula Jones prior to their Supreme Court appearance.

Olson served Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign as judicial committee chairman.

Prior to President Bush's nomination of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts, Olson was considered a potential nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's post. Following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination for that post, and prior to the nomination of Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito, Olson's name was again mentioned as a possible nominee.

In September 2007, Olson was considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. However, the Democratic response was so strongly negative that Bush chose to nominate Michael Mukasey instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson