1. TampaZeke says

    Never in a million years would I have thought that Ted Olson would become one of the greatest champions for, and a hero of, the gay rights movement.

    Many blessing and many thanks to both of these wonderful men; our champions, my heroes.

  2. wisebear says

    Corey Johnson is getting better at these interviews, but I must say it was jarring to hear him call his interviewees “Ted” and “David.” I don’t know that Ted Olson gets to forever be referred to as Mr. Solicitor General, but Attorney Olson or Mr. Boies might have been more respectful.

  3. TCW says

    @Gabriel: “partly” pro bono? How is that? Something is either done for monetary benefit or it isn’t, no?

  4. Ryan D says

    Sorry, I know this is off topic and may be considered innapropriate but does anyone else want to jump Corey Johnson’s bones… just sayin’

  5. MT says

    @Wisebear: I’ve met Ted Olson, and the first thing he asked me was to be called Ted. I’m sure he asked Corey to do the same.

    @TCW: I understand they are discounting their regular rates on this job – and the same goes for all of the other Gibson Dunn and Boies Schiller & Flexner lawyers and staff. But no, they’re not working for free.

    Both of them are incredible lawyers – we couldn’t ask for better advocates.

  6. says

    Bien fait ! He asked all the hard-hitting questions that most wanted to ask. The only potential falsehood is the notion that California marriages are in limbo, which are not because their status was decided.

  7. Rodney says

    Sorry to diverge from the topic at hand, but how do I get one of those neat little hyperlinked usernames? Anyone know?

  8. Bruce says

    One possibility no one is discussing is that the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case, whatever the outcome in the 9th Circuit court of appeals. In this way, the court will avoid setting a national precedent; the court has taken tis course in theearly days of civil rights struggles.

    What does this mean for Gay people?

    In the case the 9th circuit decides for Marriage equality, it means the decision applies in the specific case being contested in California. Prop 8 would be reversed, but no obligation would imposed upon other states to make marriage laws conform to the decision.

    If the 9th circuit decides against marriage equality, Prop 8 will stand, but, one might say, we live to fight another day.

    Both of these scenarios would be comfortable for a divided court unwilling to be “ahead” of public opinion, especially a court leaning toward a “states rights” resolution to the issue of Marriage equality.

    It would be interesting to hear Boles and Olson give their opinion of this possible outcome, some day.