DU: Prop 8 Ruling Moves to Federal Court

[Lord Undies]

Ean David  (1000+ posts)          Wed May-27-09 01:54 PM
Original message
Prop 8 Ruling Moves to Federal Court   
   
Prop 8 Ruling Moves to Federal Court
Today at 9:55am

Hours after California’s top court upheld Proposition 8, the voter approved ban on same-sex marriage, a federal lawsuit was filed arguing that Prop 8 violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

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

The suit was filed by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.

Olson and Boies are two of the top litigators in the country, but in 2000 they were on opposite sites in the Bush v. Gore election challenge.

More:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=106424578941&_...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x134110

Kerrytravelers   (1000+ posts)          Wed May-27-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Ted Olsen, as in the widower of Barbara Olsen, that Conservative Ted Olsen???
   Excuse me while my head is spinning.

Kerrytravelers   (1000+ posts)          Wed May-27-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'm thinking that they're going to pull something. I just don't know what it is yet.
   I sure hope I'm wrong.

MADem  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-27-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That's the feeling I get, too--and look downthread.
   The lawyers at Pam's House Blend smell a rat, too, apparently.

MineralMan  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-27-09 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Seems like poor time to go to the SCOTUS for a ruling
   on gay marriage. I'd much rather see this proceed for a while longer on a state-by-state basis than have the equality issue shot down by the SCOTUS. That would set things back for years, and would give the creepo wingers another piece of ammunition in their fight against equality.

Ian David  (1000+ posts)          Wed May-27-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Possibly correct... LGBT Orgs: don't file lawsuits leading to SCOTUS now   
   Edited on Wed May-27-09 02:04 PM by Ian David
LGBT Orgs: don't file lawsuits leading to SCOTUS now

LGBT Organizations Warn that Lawsuits Could Set Back Progress on Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

New York, May 27, 2009 - In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back. The groups released a new publication, "Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California." This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.

"Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California" is available at http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/why_the_ballot_box.p...

"Make Change, Not Lawsuits" is available at (PDF) http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/make_change_not_laws... (PDF)

<snip>

I smell something very very fishy. Why is Theodore Olson representing gay and lesbian couples in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case? According to Wikipedia, Olson belongs to the Federalist Society. Wikipedia also says "The (Federalist) society was begun by a group including Edwin Meese, Robert Bork, Ted Olson and Steven Calabresi, and its members have included Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito. All of these individuals are conservatives, and nearly all have served in Republican administrations." (Bold by Little Goon)

More:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11174/lgbt-orgs-don...

The theory is Olsen & Gang are trying to rush this to the USSC to take advantage of the current "climate".  The Little Goons of the nation thinks this is "dirty pool".  For some reason, it is the most underhanded thing in the world for the conservative normal people to use timing as a strategy while it is sheer brilliance for the Lettuce Greasy Bacon & Tomato crowd to wait until what they think will be better timing in the future. 

It's all about striking when the iron is hot, but for some (lack of) reason, the fact that the conservative normal iron is hot now and the Lettuce Greasy Bacon & Tomato iron is still resting in ice water, makes striking while the iron is hot a currently dastardly and nasty thing to do.  But it will be brilliant and perfect acceptable in the future.

[thundley4]

If I understand correctly, they are using the "equal protection" clause, because the courts ruling let stand the marriages that had already taken place.  Supposedly the courts couldn't undo them because of "ex-post facto" considerations.  However, there is precedent for this type of law.

Various laws have been passed with "grandfathering' clauses written into them. Laws ranging from zoning regulations to gun laws that restrict ownership of various types of "machine guns", have had grandfather clauses.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hey DUmmies,

Wasn't Mr Olson's wife Barbara on that plane that never crashed into the Pentagon?

[BadCat]

You know, for being about 2% of the population, those faggots sure do cause a lot of trouble.

[thundley4]

Hey DUmmies,

Wasn't Mr Olson's wife Barbara on that plane that never crashed into the Pentagon?

And the DUmmies celebrated her death, I'll bet.

[The Village Idiot]

Maybe it will go to Judge DodoMayer

[BannedFromDU]

And the DUmmies celebrated her death, I'll bet.

Ask and ye shall be pissed:

KAZ  (1000+ posts)     Tue Jul-18-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. R. I. P. ? How about B. I. H. B.
   
As in burn in hell...

Feel the love

[The Village Idiot]

If I understand correctly, they are using the "equal protection" clause, because the courts ruling let stand the marriages that had already taken place.  Supposedly the courts couldn't undo them because of "ex-post facto" considerations.  However, there is precedent for this type of law.

Various laws have been passed with "grandfathering' clauses written into them. Laws ranging from zoning regulations to gun laws that restrict ownership of various types of "machine guns", have had grandfather clauses.

if you can retroactively raise taxes, then you can annul weddings

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And the DUmmies celebrated her death, I'll bet.

But she didn't die, because it was a missile, not her plane that hit the Pentagon.

Mrs Olson and the rest of the passengers were shuttled to an undisclosed location where they were given an opportunity to assume new identities or be "Wellstoned".

I'M TOTALLY SERIAL, PEOPLE!!!!

[thundley4]

Ask and ye shall be pissed:


Feel the love

They are some sick  over there.

[thundley4]

if you can retroactively raise taxes, then you can annul weddings

We've seen the retroactive taxes under this administration.  I was saying though, that I think Olsen and Boies may argue this under "equal protection" since some people were allowed to be married, but other's can't now.

Wouldn't it be funny if the USSC accepted their argument, then the gun laws were taken to court in the same manner?

[Lord Undies]

We've seen the retroactive taxes under this administration.  I was saying though, that I think Olsen and Boies may argue this under "equal protection" since some people were allowed to be married, but other's can't now.

Wouldn't it be funny if the USSC accepted their argument, then the gun laws were taken to court in the same manner?

Or if the USSC took the "equal protection" the other way and voided all the illegal "marriages".

[miskie]

huh..  Either The Primitives read this site or I think like a DUmmy ( which scares me to death    ) -- I said that they really don't want this to go to the USSC yesterday.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,29107.msg307076.html#msg307076

[RobJohnson]

9. I'm thinking that they're going to pull something.

I love it when they talk dirty. 

[Duchess]

If I understand correctly, they are using the "equal protection" clause, because the courts ruling let stand the marriages that had already taken place.  Supposedly the courts couldn't undo them because of "ex-post facto" considerations.  However, there is precedent for this type of law.

Various laws have been passed with "grandfathering' clauses written into them. Laws ranging from zoning regulations to gun laws that restrict ownership of various types of "machine guns", have had grandfather clauses.

So much for states' rights (but we've known that). Didn't the queer lobby in Michigan get shot down when they tried this? I'm only asking, legal technicalities are not my forte.

[Duke Nukum]

And the DUmmies celebrated her death, I'll bet.

They did, it was sickening.

There is the myth that the world came together after 9/11 and supported America but that never happened in DUmmie Land.