Federal lawsuit over Prop 8 filed

[FreeState]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12453649

Lawsuit seeks federal ruling on gay marriage

By Linda Deutsch
Associated Press
Posted: 05/26/2009 04:23:34 PM PDT
Updated: 05/26/2009 04:28:16 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES — Two of the nation's top litigators who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore election challenge in 2000 have joined forces to seek federal court intervention in California's gay marriage controversy.

Theodore B. Olson and David Boies have filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

Olson said today that he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against California's Proposition 8 until the case is resolved.

[BuyingThyme]

1. It's only fair if everybody gets an injunction.

Equal treatment under the law.

[musette_sf]

2. TED OLSON??????

wow, he must really feel like he needs to repent, and big time too.

now if only we could have a new 9/11 investigation, maybe he'll still feel a need to get even more evil off of his conscience....

[konnichi wa]

3. This must be a different Ted Olson.

:eyes: :wtf:

[musette_sf]

5. no, it's the same one

but new wifey is a Dem, and they now live in Napa. maybe the Beltway Kool-Aid has worn off by now.

[depakid]

4. Now that's an interesting tack

[Patsy Stone]

6. Excellent!

K&R

[Hepburn]

7. Holy fucking shit....

...TED OLSON????

Well, maybe the loss of Barbara on 9-11 changed his views to the better.

[SeattleGirl]

8. Wow!

Who'da thunk it?

I hope they are successful!

[LakeSamish706]

9. Holy Crap... Two Repugs... Who would have thought it? n/t

[Divine Discontent]

10. they're both repugs? I don't like hearing that, it makes me think they took up the fight only to do

it half-assed so it wouldn't be argued rightfully as it should be. I hope I'm horribly wrong.

[glitch]

18. Boies is a repug? That explains his performance in Bush v. Gore.

Half-assed has precedence with him. :hide: (sorry, still mad over that).
Who knows, maybe both Olson and Boies seek redemption. It's a start.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. This is my suspicion as well.

I don't trust the superstitous.

[Hepburn]

11. I like the prelim injunction:

"Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/bush-v-gore-rivals-challenge-prop-8-in-federal-court.html

[armyowalgreens]

12. This is not the right time to bring gay rights to the USSC.

waaaay to conservative. This could set us back years and years.

[ruggerson]

16. Do a head count. It is my belief that we have five votes.

Sotomayor (hopefully), GInsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy.

Kennedy wrote the majority decision in BOTH Romer and Lawrence. He has essentially laid the groundwork for a sweeping marriage decision that would not only wipe out Prop 8, but DOMA as well.

Read Lawrence very carefully.

[dflprincess]

23. Won't it have to go through the appellate court first?

That will take some time so the Supreme Court's make up could change more before it gets there. Also, as this started in California, wouldn't it go to the 9th Circuit?

[armyowalgreens]

26. They filed directly with the USSC right? It will be reviewed by the USSC

and they will either accept it or they will reject it and make suggestions no how to handle the legal question in a lower court or how the question could be reworded to make them want to take it one.

But the USSC accepts less than 1 percent of cases presented for review.

[dflprincess]

33. The OP says it was filed in Federal District Court

it will take a while to get to the Supremes.

[armyowalgreens]

36. oh okay I misread I thought it went to the USSC.

[Starry Messenger]

13. Excellent news. k&r

[ruggerson]

14. Holy shit. TED FUCKING OLSEN is now better on marriage equality than our Democratic President

How pathetic and embarrassing.

[Hepburn]

15. Exactly...

...G. Bush's motherfucking attorney beats out Obama on equal rights.

:wow:

[LWolf]

43. Pathetic and embarrassing: yes.

Also not surprising.

I don't understand why anyone thought Obama would support marriage equality.

Donnie McClurkin.

[flvegan]

17. That's great...unless they're taking a dive on it.

I don't trust them, but if they're legit, I wish them all the luck and success in the world.

[stopbush]

19. Now, THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!

[Massacure]

21. I think Equal Protections is the wrong avenue to take.

I would love to see states with gay marriage bans be forced to recognize gay marriages from states that do accept them under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I think Full Faith and Credit is a much more convincing argument than Equal Protections.

[ruggerson]

25. The Supremes can decide it any way they wish

Trust me, Olsen and Boies know exactly what they're doing. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think they had the votes on the court.

[Enrique]

22. I smell a rat

it's pretty damn unusual these days for an organization to be this mysterious. Maybe there's a reason, who knows...

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid86253.asp

(...)

Olson said he was contacted several months ago by representatives of an association called the American Foundation for Equal Rights about his willingness to represent the two couples named in the suit.

“For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson said in an interview with The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”

When pressed about his service with the Bush administration, which in 2004 endorsed an amendment to the U.S. constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage, Olson said he was personally against the amendment at the time, though he made no public statements on the matter.

As for the timing of the suit, Olson said that recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court “make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. I’m reasonably confident that this is the right time for these to be vindicated.”

Olson, Boies, and other attorneys working on the suit are being compensated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson said his law firm and others also are contributing resources pro bono. As of press time, no website could be found for the newly formed organization. Olson and his representatives declined to specify who was funding the campaign.

[ColbertWatcher]

27. Me. too. I'd rather see the ACLU take this on. n/t

[merh]

24. OMG - Ted Olson

I never thought I would find myself cheering him on.

Thank god that this case has been filed.

:thumbsup:

[Towlie]

28. How could a federal court legalize gay marriage in California without including the entire country?

[ruggerson]

29. they couldn't

think Loving.

[t0dd]

30. If a gay marriage case reached the SCOTUS right now, would we absolutely lose?

After all, wouldn't Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and.. Souter/Sotomayor support it?

[ruggerson]

32. read what I wrote upthread

I fully agree with you

[t0dd]

34. Yeah.. nice observation

a gay marriage decision could be the next Roe v. Wade. Why is everyone so against going that far? I bet we do have the five votes. I know Kennedy is often considered the swing vote, but he wrote the majority opinion in Romer and Lawrence, as you said.

[ruggerson]

35. I also think he would author the decision in the marriage case

he's already laid the groundwork for it in his two other opinions.

[t0dd]

37. How long would this take

to get to the USSC? Any idea?

[ruggerson]

40. Dunno

I think it depends on how they filed it. They may have tried to take it directly to the USSC. If not, if it's just an injunction sought by a Federal Court, it could take months/years to wind its way up.

[merh]

44. which may well be why Olson et al have no problem

fighting this fight

It gives the neo-cons another judicial land mark to rally against and a reason to reject the dems and their activist judges.

[Canuckistanian]

31. Ted Olson and David Boies?

What teh FUCK?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

38. Barbara Olson was very nasty to Hillary as I remember.

:wtf:


Eventually the Feds will have to rule that a gay couple validly married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, will move to a state that does not recognize it, and some bureaucrat will tell them their marriage is invalid. And they will sue in Federal Court.

It's called the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[Wednesdays]

39. K&R

:kick:

[ShadowLiberal]

41. Bad idea with this court, it might just tempt the neocons on it to overturn all gay marriage

Really bad idea, no matter who's bringing it.

Until we get 5 usually reliable liberal votes on the court, or have strong reason to believe that 5 or more judges would be sympathetic enough for our cause to vote our way, there's just no point in this. Especially since we can just keep on putting a repeal to prop 8 on the ballot again and again until it passes in a few years as opposition to gay marriage continues to fade with time.

[t0dd]

42. We already have five.

Have you read the above posts? The Lawrence v. Texas majority (minus O'Connor) is still there. Sotomayor would most likely vote the same way as Souter