Olson: Time is right to bring gay marriage before Supreme Court

Dec 20, 2012 Full story: www.dailyreportonline.com 80

Theodore ("Ted") Olson has argued 59 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, but his 60th argument before the justices has the potential to be the one for which the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner will be most remembered.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Jan 08

Portland, OR

#1 Dec 20, 2012
Excellent article. Please take the time to read it.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#2 Dec 20, 2012
Ted Olson for President !

David Boies for Secretary Of Gays !

:)

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#3 Dec 20, 2012
Nice find Rick. I love it when conservatives adopt MLK standards.

No matter how this case comes out, the arguments these two make are going to be fully used to get us past many an obstacle.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Dec 21, 2012
I can hardly wait!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Dec 21, 2012
We'll see if Olson was right or not. I still have my doubts that any sweeping ruling is going to come from this, but you never know.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#6 Dec 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
We'll see if Olson was right or not. I still have my doubts that any sweeping ruling is going to come from this, but you never know.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping", but I presume it refers to Marriage Equality nationwide. I'm in no way versed in law, but my guess is that is not going to happen. I'd be satisfied with just ruling that you can't take away rights already granted, and CA resumes with marriages. Once that happens, no other state that has Marriage Equality will be able to rescind it. Other states will follow in due time. JMHO.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Dec 21, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping", but I presume it refers to Marriage Equality nationwide. I'm in no way versed in law, but my guess is that is not going to happen. I'd be satisfied with just ruling that you can't take away rights already granted, and CA resumes with marriages. Once that happens, no other state that has Marriage Equality will be able to rescind it. Other states will follow in due time. JMHO.
I tend to agree.

This will most likely be a limited decision (overturning DOMA & Prop 8 just in CA), and the states will be left to work this out themselves for a few more years. We have IL, RI, DE, and possibly HI looking to pass marriage equality bills this year, and ballot votes likely in OR, OH, CO, MI, NV etc over the next 2-4 years.

I expect a final court decision overturning the remaining state bans sometime around 2020, depending of course on the makeup of the SCOTUS.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#8 Dec 21, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping", but I presume it refers to Marriage Equality nationwide. I'm in no way versed in law, but my guess is that is not going to happen. I'd be satisfied with just ruling that you can't take away rights already granted, and CA resumes with marriages. Once that happens, no other state that has Marriage Equality will be able to rescind it. Other states will follow in due time. JMHO.
I agree. I know that Michigan is going to be a tough nut to crack because there are so many terrified right-wingers here, but I would be over-the-moon happy if the Federal DOMA was overturned. I only hope that would mean that we would be able to access the Federal benefits of civil marriage now.

I've heard speculation that it's possible that the court would overturn the Federal DOMA, but only in the states that allow marriage equality (i.e. our New York marriage license would only give us Federal benefits if we were living in New York, but not as long as we live in Michigan). I find that really hard to accept, though. Wouldn't a Federal law that treats different people differently based on where they live be pretty much the definition of unequal treatment by the government?
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#9 Dec 21, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I know that Michigan is going to be a tough nut to crack because there are so many terrified right-wingers here, but I would be over-the-moon happy if the Federal DOMA was overturned. I only hope that would mean that we would be able to access the Federal benefits of civil marriage now.
I've heard speculation that it's possible that the court would overturn the Federal DOMA, but only in the states that allow marriage equality (i.e. our New York marriage license would only give us Federal benefits if we were living in New York, but not as long as we live in Michigan). I find that really hard to accept, though. Wouldn't a Federal law that treats different people differently based on where they live be pretty much the definition of unequal treatment by the government?
Um, it's called "The court is scared." They don't have the backbone to issue a sweeping ruling, which they SHOULD do. There are literal -- literal!-- threats from "conservatives" in the U.S. that such a sweeping ruling would create an uproar close to anarchy and mutiny, and while that to me is *ZERO* reason to withhold such a ruling -- you call in the military whenever and wherever needed, PERIOD -- I strongly, intractably at this point in fact, believe the court is too afraid to issue such a ruling. My god, at least one of their members said the abortion ruling in the 1970s went too far even though it was the right thing to do and uproar makes not a whit of difference.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#10 Dec 21, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeping", but I presume it refers to Marriage Equality nationwide. I'm in no way versed in law, but my guess is that is not going to happen. I'd be satisfied with just ruling that you can't take away rights already granted, and CA resumes with marriages. Once that happens, no other state that has Marriage Equality will be able to rescind it. Other states will follow in due time. JMHO.
they didn't need to take the case for that since that is already the ruling...
DOMA case will find its a state's right to decide and the Prop 8 case will confirm it...
you know its true...

please recall that the marriages granted due tot he court fiat was then corrected buy a vote of the people...
the marriages are thus voidable to remove any equal protection issue?
YES!!!'

IF its not a fundamental right(and you know the court is not going to find it to be one), they can pull your license like they can pull the drivers license of a 75 year old...

this is going to go badly for you...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#11 Dec 21, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
went too far even though it was the right thing to do and uproar makes not a whit of difference.
one thing you guys will never understand is that ends and means are different things...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#12 Dec 21, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
they didn't need to take the case for that since that is already the ruling...
DOMA case will find its a state's right to decide and the Prop 8 case will confirm it...
you know its true...
please recall that the marriages granted due tot he court fiat was then corrected buy a vote of the people...
the marriages are thus voidable to remove any equal protection issue?
YES!!!'
IF its not a fundamental right(and you know the court is not going to find it to be one), they can pull your license like they can pull the drivers license of a 75 year old...
this is going to go badly for you...
At least the rest of us have the decency to admit that we do not know the mind of the court. Your pronouncements on how they will decide are strictly guesses. I have read enough of your posts to realize your input on legal matters has even less weight than my own. And I am not one to make such pronouncements, as I know my limits on the subject. You should do the same.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#13 Dec 21, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least the rest of us have the decency to admit that we do not know the mind of the court. Your pronouncements on how they will decide are strictly guesses. I have read enough of your posts to realize your input on legal matters has even less weight than my own. And I am not one to make such pronouncements, as I know my limits on the subject. You should do the same.
Read a few more of my posts....I have admitted many times its up in the air...

I put as much weight into your attempted critique of me as you do in my opinion...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#14 Dec 21, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Read a few more of my posts....I have admitted many times its up in the air...
I put as much weight into your attempted critique of me as you do in my opinion...
The problem is, you "opinion" should be stated as thus, not fact.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#15 Dec 21, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I know that Michigan is going to be a tough nut to crack because there are so many terrified right-wingers here, but I would be over-the-moon happy if the Federal DOMA was overturned. I only hope that would mean that we would be able to access the Federal benefits of civil marriage now.
I've heard speculation that it's possible that the court would overturn the Federal DOMA, but only in the states that allow marriage equality (i.e. our New York marriage license would only give us Federal benefits if we were living in New York, but not as long as we live in Michigan). I find that really hard to accept, though. Wouldn't a Federal law that treats different people differently based on where they live be pretty much the definition of unequal treatment by the government?
How would that work with people living in a state without Marriage Equality, but married in one that had it? Quite a knot to unravel I would imagine.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#16 Dec 21, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I know that Michigan is going to be a tough nut to crack because there are so many terrified right-wingers here, but I would be over-the-moon happy if the Federal DOMA was overturned. I only hope that would mean that we would be able to access the Federal benefits of civil marriage now.
I've heard speculation that it's possible that the court would overturn the Federal DOMA, but only in the states that allow marriage equality (i.e. our New York marriage license would only give us Federal benefits if we were living in New York, but not as long as we live in Michigan). I find that really hard to accept, though. Wouldn't a Federal law that treats different people differently based on where they live be pretty much the definition of unequal treatment by the government?
Your post is nonsense.

WHEN DOMA IS OVERTURNED BY SCOTUS, ALL STATES WILL HAVE TO LEGALLY RECONIZE ALL THE MARRIAGES OF ALL OTHER STATES, GAY OR STR8. Try reading the U.S. Constitution. The states cannot pick and choose which marriages to legally recognize and which ones not to, because of the "full faih and credit" clause in the U.S. Constitution. I know a lot of posters here don't like me to say that, nor do they believe it apples, but it DOES.

Some states permit marriage between first cousins, others do not. Some states allow marriages between uncles & nieces, and aunts & hephews, others do now. Some states allow 14 year olds to marry, others do not. But ALL states legally recognize those marriages which were performed in the states that allow them, BECAUSE OF the "full faith and credit clause". Nobody fights and argues and sues in court because of those marriages. States are NOT permitted to pick and choose which marriages to legally recognize and which marriages they won't legally recognize. It's as simple as that.
Anonymous

Phoenix, AZ

#17 Dec 21, 2012
Ok. Sotomayor, Kegan, Breyer, Ginsberg - all going to support equal rights for gay couples.
Scalia, Thomas, Alito are going to vote against gay equality.
Roberts is PROBABLY going to vote against equality.
Who thinks Kennedy is going to vote against gay equality? I don't. Not in either case.
So where is Jane getting her smug attitude? If I were her, Kennedy would make me nervous.
Anonymous

Phoenix, AZ

#18 Dec 21, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post is nonsense.
WHEN DOMA IS OVERTURNED BY SCOTUS, ALL STATES WILL HAVE TO LEGALLY RECONIZE ALL THE MARRIAGES OF ALL OTHER STATES, GAY OR STR8. Try reading the U.S. Constitution. The states cannot pick and choose which marriages to legally recognize and which ones not to, because of the "full faih and credit" clause in the U.S. Constitution. I know a lot of posters here don't like me to say that, nor do they believe it apples, but it DOES.
Some states permit marriage between first cousins, others do not. Some states allow marriages between uncles & nieces, and aunts & hephews, others do now. Some states allow 14 year olds to marry, others do not. But ALL states legally recognize those marriages which were performed in the states that allow them, BECAUSE OF the "full faith and credit clause". Nobody fights and argues and sues in court because of those marriages. States are NOT permitted to pick and choose which marriages to legally recognize and which marriages they won't legally recognize. It's as simple as that.
The states do, but they don't have to. The full faith and credit act has never been used to enforce marriages as contracts. Could it? Sure, but it's never been decided by the court.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#19 Dec 21, 2012
AdamAZ wrote:
Ok. Sotomayor, Kegan, Breyer, Ginsberg - all going to support equal rights for gay couples.
Scalia, Thomas, Alito are going to vote against gay equality.
Roberts is PROBABLY going to vote against equality.
Who thinks Kennedy is going to vote against gay equality? I don't. Not in either case.
So where is Jane getting her smug attitude? If I were her, Kennedy would make me nervous.
I think your analysis is correct.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Dec 21, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I know that Michigan is going to be a tough nut to crack because there are so many terrified right-wingers here, but I would be over-the-moon happy if the Federal DOMA was overturned. I only hope that would mean that we would be able to access the Federal benefits of civil marriage now.
I've heard speculation that it's possible that the court would overturn the Federal DOMA, but only in the states that allow marriage equality (i.e. our New York marriage license would only give us Federal benefits if we were living in New York, but not as long as we live in Michigan). I find that really hard to accept, though. Wouldn't a Federal law that treats different people differently based on where they live be pretty much the definition of unequal treatment by the government?
It would also be a logistical nightmare for the military. Servicemembers would be married at one duty station and then unmarried at the next. Would they have to get re-married at their 3rd duty station? A dependent spouse & child would have medical benefits & housing & base access at one duty station and then be denied at the next?

NO, if DOMA is overturned the federal govt will go back to how they have always treated marriages- they are recognized as long as they were legally entered into, regardless of current residency.

Unless the SCOTUS specifically includes that in their ruling, any such ambiguity would be left to the AG to instruct federal agencies how to ocmply with the court's ruling.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Antonin Scalia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: 'Breaking In' a deft professional bio o... Oct 3 Raoul Thibodeaux 1
Gay couples still fighting for equality with th... Aug '14 Sick of Bigots an... 6
Did You Know That Antonin Scalia's Son Is Sabot... Aug '14 Helen from Huston... 2
High Court: Justices get another shot at gerrym... Aug '14 Le Jimbo 1
The Flawed Progressive Scheme to 'Reclaim the C... Jul '14 ptbw forever 1
A Big Day for Religious Liberty in Hobby Lobby ... Jun '14 Diabetic Hypocricy 1
High court voids 35-foot abortion clinic buffer Jun '14 godless by choice 3

Antonin Scalia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE