Yay for the ruling, of course. But there are good reasons to think this whole lawsuit might be counterproductive, as my friend Scott discusses here. Remember, this lawsuit is the result of the two mega-egos of David Boies and Ted Olsen rushing to the rescue of the gay rights movement, which obviously has no lawyers or legal strategy of its own.
“Remember, this lawsuit is the result of the two mega-egos of David Boies and Ted Olsen rushing to the rescue of the gay rights movement, which obviously has no lawyers or legal strategy of its own.”
Well, they certainly did a hell of a job. i was a doubter about Olson, but after hearing him speak over the last year or so about the issue, I believe he really, truly sees this as a core civil rights issue. Is he a “mega-ego” because he wants to be the one to argue and win it? Maybe so. But what he’s done is pretty phenomenal, IMO.
Winning in district court was easy. It is not the whole game; it’ s just one early move, and what matters is the final appellate decision, probably at the Supreme Court level, which would set a precedent that’s binding not just in CA but for the whole country. Worst case, they lose at the Supreme Court with a ruling that sets back constitutional protections for gay rights (not just marriage rights) in every state (not just California) for years to come. There are four justices who would happily make this worst case come to pass; everything hinges on Kennedy, or on one of the seemingly healthy conservatives having to retire from the court before this case gets there. A long shot.
I used to doubt Olson’s good intentions. I don’t anymore. But good intentions don’t substitute for a solid litigation strategy, and most of the lawyers who have dedicated their careers to fighting for gay rights think that this is the wrong case at the wrong time. Maybe Olson can read Kennedy’s mind (Olson was of course Solicitor General under Bush II and is an expert SC advocate), but seriously, who does he think he is to play the white knight?
D’oh! They immediately announced a stay, so no marriages yet. The asterisk stands.
Phooey. But Yay!
Sort of yay.
Yay for the ruling, of course. But there are good reasons to think this whole lawsuit might be counterproductive, as my friend Scott discusses here. Remember, this lawsuit is the result of the two mega-egos of David Boies and Ted Olsen rushing to the rescue of the gay rights movement, which obviously has no lawyers or legal strategy of its own.
Dave, could you please hurry and get your law degree and straighten (or un-straighten) this whole mess out??
“Remember, this lawsuit is the result of the two mega-egos of David Boies and Ted Olsen rushing to the rescue of the gay rights movement, which obviously has no lawyers or legal strategy of its own.”
Well, they certainly did a hell of a job. i was a doubter about Olson, but after hearing him speak over the last year or so about the issue, I believe he really, truly sees this as a core civil rights issue. Is he a “mega-ego” because he wants to be the one to argue and win it? Maybe so. But what he’s done is pretty phenomenal, IMO.
Winning in district court was easy. It is not the whole game; it’ s just one early move, and what matters is the final appellate decision, probably at the Supreme Court level, which would set a precedent that’s binding not just in CA but for the whole country. Worst case, they lose at the Supreme Court with a ruling that sets back constitutional protections for gay rights (not just marriage rights) in every state (not just California) for years to come. There are four justices who would happily make this worst case come to pass; everything hinges on Kennedy, or on one of the seemingly healthy conservatives having to retire from the court before this case gets there. A long shot.
I used to doubt Olson’s good intentions. I don’t anymore. But good intentions don’t substitute for a solid litigation strategy, and most of the lawyers who have dedicated their careers to fighting for gay rights think that this is the wrong case at the wrong time. Maybe Olson can read Kennedy’s mind (Olson was of course Solicitor General under Bush II and is an expert SC advocate), but seriously, who does he think he is to play the white knight?