Maggie Gallagher must really be struggling in her search for good news. She posted this yesterday:
Gay marriage advocates are now hoping for a technical knockout — for the 9th Circuit to rule that the voters of California have no standing to challenge Walker’s ruling. This may be a sign they understand how extreme and weak Walker’s ruling actually is, how unable it is to withstand substantive review by higher courts. Ted Olson goes on TV claiming he has proved there’s no possible case for opposing gay marriage. Now he’s in court trying to block any higher court from reviewing his handiwork.
Does that sound like the behavior of people with an airtight logical case to you?
Actually, Maggie, it sounds like the behavior of a lawyer who won a spectacular victory against your side, achieving everything he wanted (and more), and who would love for the decision to stand exactly as is. Seriously, Maggie, have ever heard of a lawyer who wanted his complete and utter demolition of his opponent to go on to appeal?
Here’s an old piece of advice Maggie should keep in mind next time she’s tempted to write a column: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Oh, I’m afraid that option is no longer available to Mags, unless she chooses to spend time only with people who’ve never heard of her.
Aside from the fact that no lawyer who’d just won a case would want to appeal it, Olson and Boies are also preparing to ask Protect Marriage to pay their court costs.
The losing side doesn’t get to ask the winners to pay their fees.
It also sounds like a lawyer who, while having argued an airtight case, would still prefer to avoid investing the time and money necessary to rehash the whole thing during an appeal. We human beings are well known for taking an easier path when possible. It should not be surprising that even a lawyer with an airtight case would choose to do likewise. It strikes me as a perfectly logical and normal course of action to me.
I saw that yesterday too and my first thought was that this is an utterance of pure desperation on poor Maggie’s part.
The most charitable assesment is that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not show up in court with competent counsel and an argument and witnesses prepared for the trial. Their failure is not necessarily a victory of extremism as it was a victory that we have a rational judicial system.
When you are reduced to citing theater (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News etc), to support your case you have toknow that you are in trouble.
If she remains silent, she can’t ask for more money.
Is she under the impression that Mr. Olson invented the rules for “legal standing”. Does she know that he would be disbarred if he asked the 9th Circuit to grant the proponants standing? Does she know that the 9th Circuit wouldn’t care if Mr. Olson wanted the proponants to have standing…as their opinion on the matter is subject to review, as well, and they can’t just do whatever they want?