Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Subby never thought she'd see the day when Ted Olson defends same-sex marriage   (articles.latimes.com) divider line 101
    More: Cool, Ted Olson, Theodore B. Olson, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriages, Ronald Reagan, human beings, Paula Jones, Barbara Olson  
•       •       •

2463 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Mar 2013 at 9:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 09:23:33 AM  
We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.
 
2013-03-26 09:24:30 AM  
Any small government conservative should be right there with him.
/Not really sure if they exist any more though...
 
2013-03-26 09:25:34 AM  
His wife died on one of the 9/11 planes.
 
2013-03-26 09:25:58 AM  
He is a lawyer they are mercenaries, gladly working for who ever pays them.

/like the Second Sons or Stormcrows
 
2013-03-26 09:26:01 AM  
Who?
 
2013-03-26 09:26:37 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.


Yup, looks like it.
 
2013-03-26 09:26:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.


s3.vidimg.popscreen.com

/THIS
//Ally
 
2013-03-26 09:28:20 AM  

make me some tea: Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.

Yup, looks like it.


Reading the article I feel like I already knew this.  But, whatever.  Definitely seems like momentum is picking up in a good way.

/you hear that, SCOTUS?
 
2013-03-26 09:30:02 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.

This
pablochiste.files.wordpress.com
This
pablochiste.files.wordpress.com
and This
pablochiste.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-26 09:31:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.


There aren't even any reliable Fark trolls arguing the other side anymore, and around here you can usually find a nut to dig in on any damn thing.
 
2013-03-26 09:33:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.


Yeah.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to give a giant "fark you" to everyone who is on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-03-26 09:33:47 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: make me some tea: Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.

Yup, looks like it.

Reading the article I feel like I already knew this.  But, whatever.  Definitely seems like momentum is picking up in a good way.

/you hear that, SCOTUS?


Ted Olson has been saying this for at least three years now.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-ca se -for-gay-marriage.html

/and good for him
 
2013-03-26 09:34:24 AM  
That's how you know this thing is over, the conservative side has stopped paying people to shill and troll on the topic.  They're all in the gun threads now.
 
2013-03-26 09:34:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage.


Next thing we'll see are people marrying trees.

Hot!

farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2013-03-26 09:35:24 AM  
I am loving all the last-minute lawmaker epiphanies. It's like Jesus came to them in a dream.
 
2013-03-26 09:35:42 AM  
Oh delicious irony. If the LDS never lobbied so hard to get prop 8 passed in the first place the SCOTUS wouldn't be in a position to strike it down and push America further down the road to equal rights for all.
 
2013-03-26 09:37:46 AM  
I remember seeing a TV show about a year ago that Mr. Olson and Mr. David Boies (Gore's lawyer for the Bush v. Gore case) were going to team up together and argue to the Supreme Court to allow gay marriage. Both were very confident that they will win the case.
 
2013-03-26 09:37:53 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: make me some tea: Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.

Yup, looks like it.

Reading the article I feel like I already knew this.  But, whatever.  Definitely seems like momentum is picking up in a good way.

/you hear that, SCOTUS?


Still no cure for Scalia.
 
2013-03-26 09:38:19 AM  

sammyk: Oh delicious irony. If the LDS never lobbied so hard to get prop 8 passed in the first place the SCOTUS wouldn't be in a position to strike it down and push America further down the road to equal rights for all.


Meh, the Religious right has been playing "Stop hitting yourself." For the last few years now. They aren't done pushing the country towards a socialist agenda.
 
2013-03-26 09:38:36 AM  

Muta: Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage.

Next thing we'll see are people marrying trees.

Hot!

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 180x240]


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/604014/tree-marriage
 
2013-03-26 09:38:43 AM  

BalugaJoe: His wife died on one of the 9/11 planes.


If only a different person had been president at the time, there's a chance that wouldn't have happened. But, it's not like Ted Olson played any role in that.
 
2013-03-26 09:39:22 AM  

Muta: Next thing we'll see are people marrying trees.

Hot!


Trees aren't capable of entering into any sort of legal agreement.

Although... if we could make trees legally responsible for things, we could, in theory, make a tree CEO of a corporation, do lots of illegal things that make us lots of money, and then let the tree take the fall.
 
2013-03-26 09:41:07 AM  

Cheron: He is a lawyer they are mercenaries, gladly working for who ever pays them.


While true of some, it's not of all, and definitely not of Olson. One, he doesn't need the money.  Two, he has been a pretty reliable conservative.

theknuckler_33: Who?


The most influential and effective appellate lawyer of his generation.  He was the attorney of record in Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and 56 other Supreme Court cases.  And he has won the vast majority of the cases he has taken to the Supreme Court.

http://www.superlawyers.com/washington-dc/article/QandA-Ted-Olson/f9 f4 23d9-a608-4dc4-a329-a0e85aa7c8a4.html
 
2013-03-26 09:42:25 AM  

Polyhazard: I am loving all the last-minute lawmaker epiphanies. It's like Jesus came to on them in a dream.


ftfy
 
2013-03-26 09:43:16 AM  
After he married Bracher, Olson joined the board of the American Spectator, which had received millions of dollars from a Pittsburgh billionaire determined to bring down the Clintons.

That has to be one of the worst investments in history.
 
2013-03-26 09:44:04 AM  
But the case "has changed my life a lot because I think this is so enormously important to so many people. When I talk about it I get very emotional.... I found out that some people I never guessed were gay. Lawyers came up to me and disclosed that about themselves."

Right and wrong on this issue shouldn't be predicated on knowing a someone.  And don't pat yourself on the back for not being an intrusive, judgmental prick.  Live and let live is the way life is supposed to be.
 
2013-03-26 09:44:58 AM  
Was Olson ever anti-gay? I thought he was always an ally if also an asshole in other areas.
 
2013-03-26 09:45:10 AM  

Talondel: Cheron: He is a lawyer they are mercenaries, gladly working for who ever pays them.

While true of some, it's not of all, and definitely not of Olson. One, he doesn't need the money.  Two, he has been a pretty reliable conservative.

theknuckler_33: Who?

The most influential and effective appellate lawyer of his generation.  He was the attorney of record in Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and 56 other Supreme Court cases.  And he has won the vast majority of the cases he has taken to the Supreme Court.

http://www.superlawyers.com/washington-dc/article/QandA-Ted-Olson/f9 f4 23d9-a608-4dc4-a329-a0e85aa7c8a4.html


Basically the best guy for the job.   If he can't do it, who can?
 
2013-03-26 09:45:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: After he married Bracher, Olson joined the board of the American Spectator, which had received millions of dollars from a Pittsburgh billionaire determined to bring down the Clintons.

That has to be one of the worst investments in history.


americancrossroadswatch.org
 
2013-03-26 09:46:30 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.

Yeah.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to give a giant "fark you" to everyone who is on the wrong side of history.


Don't worry. You will still have many many chances to say that to them. They will just find something else to be on the wrong side of history with.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 09:47:37 AM  
The right is embracing gays so fast it's almost like they've had a secret affection for them all along.
 
2013-03-26 09:47:51 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: But the case "has changed my life a lot because I think this is so enormously important to so many people. When I talk about it I get very emotional.... I found out that some people I never guessed were gay. Lawyers came up to me and disclosed that about themselves."

Right and wrong on this issue shouldn't be predicated on knowing a someone.  And don't pat yourself on the back for not being an intrusive, judgmental prick.  Live and let live is the way life is supposed to be.


In fairness, it's not clear from that quote that finding out about those people is what caused him to join the cause of marriage equality. It seems more an anecdote to reinforce the idea that the issue "is so enormously important to so many people "
 
2013-03-26 09:49:47 AM  

Talondel: Cheron: He is a lawyer they are mercenaries, gladly working for who ever pays them.

While true of some, it's not of all, and definitely not of Olson. One, he doesn't need the money.  Two, he has been a pretty reliable conservative.

theknuckler_33: Who?

The most influential and effective appellate lawyer of his generation.  He was the attorney of record in Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and 56 other Supreme Court cases.  And he has won the vast majority of the cases he has taken to the Supreme Court.

http://www.superlawyers.com/washington-dc/article/QandA-Ted-Olson/f9 f4 23d9-a608-4dc4-a329-a0e85aa7c8a4.html


Good read. Thanks.
 
2013-03-26 09:49:52 AM  
Where were all of these conservatives during the Romney campaign......why didn't they speak up then?
 
2013-03-26 09:50:11 AM  

NeverDrunk23: KiwDaWabbit: Philip Francis Queeg: We do seem to have crossed the tipping point on support for gay marriage. About damned time too.

Yeah.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to give a giant "fark you" to everyone who is on the wrong side of history.

Don't worry. You will still have many many chances to say that to them. They will just find something else to be on the wrong side of history with.


That's very true. At least they're starting to realize they need to start pretending to like brown people if they want to get elected.
 
2013-03-26 09:55:06 AM  

hugram: I remember seeing a TV show about a year ago that Mr. Olson and Mr. David Boies (Gore's lawyer for the Bush v. Gore case) were going to team up together and argue to the Supreme Court to allow gay marriage. Both were very confident that they will win the case.


Seriously, they've been working together on this case since May 2009. It came before district court Judge Vaughn Walker, who struck it down in August 2010. That trial was even made into a play a good year and a half ago.

static.rcgroups.net
 
2013-03-26 09:55:15 AM  
This is an excellent strategy really.  There are certain justices whose opinions on equality rights are less in question, but by having one of the Conservative superstar lawyers arguing the case, he is likely to make arguments in a manner and from an angle that might sway the more conservative justices.
 
2013-03-26 09:55:57 AM  
I'll make this prediction here, same as I made it when the Supreme Court took the cases:

Prop 8: 6-3 ruling in favor of the 9th Circuit's interpretation, which is that states cannot grant marriage rights to same-sex couples and then take it away. This is a narrow holding that does not address the larger issues of gay marriage in America. Dissent is Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Decision is written by Kennedy and adheres almost exactly to the contours of  Romer. Scalia or Thomas write lead dissent on grounds that states have a right to choose who they allow to marry. Sotomayor or Ginsburg write concurrence arguing that the right to same-sex marriage should exist nationwide.

DOMA: 7-2 ruling overturning the specific section of DOMA which sets a federal definition of marriage, on the grounds that marriage has traditionally been defined by the states, and the federal government cannot have a separate definition. Dissent is Thomas and Scalia. Decision is written by Roberts. Scalia dissents on the grounds that the federal government should be able to determine who they pay out benefits to. Kagan or Sotomayor write concurrence arguing that the entirety of DOMA is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
 
2013-03-26 09:57:00 AM  

theknuckler_33: Zeb Hesselgresser: But the case "has changed my life a lot because I think this is so enormously important to so many people. When I talk about it I get very emotional.... I found out that some people I never guessed were gay. Lawyers came up to me and disclosed that about themselves."

Right and wrong on this issue shouldn't be predicated on knowing a someone.  And don't pat yourself on the back for not being an intrusive, judgmental prick.  Live and let live is the way life is supposed to be.

In fairness, it's not clear from that quote that finding out about those people is what caused him to join the cause of marriage equality. It seems more an anecdote to reinforce the idea that the issue "is so enormously important to so many people "


Why it's almost as if he took the case before people came out to him. Hrmmm...
 
2013-03-26 09:58:35 AM  
Close relative comes out in 3.....2.....1.....
 
2013-03-26 10:00:32 AM  
Wow. I'm starting to think that this might be the issue which finally splits the GOP's sinking ship down the middle and drags it under once and for all.

Nothin' to do now but grab a glass of brandy and watch those f*ckers drown.

(Oh, and vote against them at every possible opportunity, obviously.)
 
2013-03-26 10:00:32 AM  

theknuckler_33: Zeb Hesselgresser: But the case "has changed my life a lot because I think this is so enormously important to so many people. When I talk about it I get very emotional.... I found out that some people I never guessed were gay. Lawyers came up to me and disclosed that about themselves."

Right and wrong on this issue shouldn't be predicated on knowing a someone.  And don't pat yourself on the back for not being an intrusive, judgmental prick.  Live and let live is the way life is supposed to be.

In fairness, it's not clear from that quote that finding out about those people is what caused him to join the cause of marriage equality. It seems more an anecdote to reinforce the idea that the issue "is so enormously important to so many people "


Maybe.  Raised in California, graduated from Berkley and it took him 60 some years to get there.
 
2013-03-26 10:02:30 AM  

Rincewind53: I'll make this prediction here, same as I made it when the Supreme Court took the cases:

Prop 8: 6-3 ruling in favor of the 9th Circuit's interpretation, which is that states cannot grant marriage rights to same-sex couples and then take it away. This is a narrow holding that does not address the larger issues of gay marriage in America. Dissent is Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Decision is written by Kennedy and adheres almost exactly to the contours of  Romer. Scalia or Thomas write lead dissent on grounds that states have a right to choose who they allow to marry. Sotomayor or Ginsburg write concurrence arguing that the right to same-sex marriage should exist nationwide.

DOMA: 7-2 ruling overturning the specific section of DOMA which sets a federal definition of marriage, on the grounds that marriage has traditionally been defined by the states, and the federal government cannot have a separate definition. Dissent is Thomas and Scalia. Decision is written by Roberts. Scalia dissents on the grounds that the federal government should be able to determine who they pay out benefits to. Kagan or Sotomayor write concurrence arguing that the entirety of DOMA is unconstitutional and should be overturned.


Bingo! Well done!
 
2013-03-26 10:04:08 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: But the case "has changed my life a lot because I think this is so enormously important to so many people. When I talk about it I get very emotional.... I found out that some people I never guessed were gay. Lawyers came up to me and disclosed that about themselves."

Right and wrong on this issue shouldn't be predicated on knowing a someone.  And don't pat yourself on the back for not being an intrusive, judgmental prick.  Live and let live is the way life is supposed to be.


Quite true.  Much like when Portman came around the other week.  I was glad that he did but it was only because his son came to him & told him he was gay.  While still being wrong I would have had more respect for him if he hadn't instantly changed positions only because someone close to him was impacted.

But yes, the tipping point seems to have finally arrived.
 
2013-03-26 10:06:23 AM  

Citrate1007: Where were all of these conservatives during the Romney campaign......why didn't they speak up then?


Silly, conservatives are more concerned with their team winning than with any sort of moral consistency.
 
2013-03-26 10:08:31 AM  

Rincewind53: I'll make this prediction here, same as I made it when the Supreme Court took the cases:

Prop 8: 6-3 ruling in favor of the 9th Circuit's interpretation, which is that states cannot grant marriage rights to same-sex couples and then take it away. This is a narrow holding that does not address the larger issues of gay marriage in America. Dissent is Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Decision is written by Kennedy and adheres almost exactly to the contours of  Romer. Scalia or Thomas write lead dissent on grounds that states have a right to choose who they allow to marry. Sotomayor or Ginsburg write concurrence arguing that the right to same-sex marriage should exist nationwide.

DOMA: 7-2 ruling overturning the specific section of DOMA which sets a federal definition of marriage, on the grounds that marriage has traditionally been defined by the states, and the federal government cannot have a separate definition. Dissent is Thomas and Scalia. Decision is written by Roberts. Scalia dissents on the grounds that the federal government should be able to determine who they pay out benefits to. Kagan or Sotomayor write concurrence arguing that the entirety of DOMA is unconstitutional and should be overturned.


Wow...almost exactly as I was calling it yesterday to a friend (I left out the detail).  I think you are right on the money.  And progress takes one step forward.
 
2013-03-26 10:09:50 AM  

BalugaJoe: His wife died on one of the 9/11 planes.


And that was just about the only positive thing to come out of 9/11.
 
2013-03-26 10:11:31 AM  

Spaced Lion: Wow. I'm starting to think that this might be the issue which finally splits the GOP's sinking ship down the middle and drags it under once and for all.

Nothin' to do now but grab a glass of brandy and watch those f*ckers drown.



Unfortunately, I can see this very statement coming from someone back in '67 before the Loving case. There will be bigots always, they just move the goalposts when they lose.
 
2013-03-26 10:12:48 AM  

Rincewind53: I'll make this prediction here, same as I made it when the Supreme Court took the cases:

Prop 8: 6-3 ruling in favor of the 9th Circuit's interpretation, which is that states cannot grant marriage rights to same-sex couples and then take it away. This is a narrow holding that does not address the larger issues of gay marriage in America. Dissent is Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Decision is written by Kennedy and adheres almost exactly to the contours of  Romer. Scalia or Thomas write lead dissent on grounds that states have a right to choose who they allow to marry. Sotomayor or Ginsburg write concurrence arguing that the right to same-sex marriage should exist nationwide.

DOMA: 7-2 ruling overturning the specific section of DOMA which sets a federal definition of marriage, on the grounds that marriage has traditionally been defined by the states, and the federal government cannot have a separate definition. Dissent is Thomas and Scalia. Decision is written by Roberts. Scalia dissents on the grounds that the federal government should be able to determine who they pay out benefits to. Kagan or Sotomayor write concurrence arguing that the entirety of DOMA is unconstitutional and should be overturned.


Ah but what about the part of the two cases that will have actual future legal effect, and are not duh moral questions.

You know, the exciting bits about standing?

/not joking, frankly the standing issues are far more legally exciting than "we already did this is Romer" and "um . . . federalism, biatches?"
 
2013-03-26 10:13:02 AM  
Why is Bree Olson tagged for this story?

/Made you look
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report