Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Olson & Boies May Ask Court To Force Protect Marriage To Pay Their Fees

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:17 PM
Original message
Olson & Boies May Ask Court To Force Protect Marriage To Pay Their Fees
Olson & Boies May Ask Court To Force Protect Marriage To Pay Their Fees

In the event that Judge Vaughn Walker's overturn of Prop 8 is upheld by the Ninth Circuit, attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies are prepared to demand that Protect Marriage pay their fees. Via Advocate:

In court filings this week, the attorneys requested extended time to consider fees and court costs but have also asked Prop. 8 supporters for an expedited response in the matterwhich they opposed in a Wednesday filing. "Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorneys fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum wrote. "Such a burden shift is unwarranted."

The amount that may be requested has not be disclosed, but you can bet that Olson and Boies do not come cheap.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/olson-boies-ask-may-court-to-force.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hey--Maybe Olson & Boies will end up owning
the Mormon Tabernacle.

WooHoo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. I would totally disagree with this
Legal fees should only be given in cases where the Constitutional violation is obvious and clear. I don't think, as much as we might like it to be, that this is a clear enough violation of Constitutional rights. These marriage amendments have been passed in dozens of states with no one even challenging them on a federal level until very recently. I am glad we won but to get legal fees I think would be a bit much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dickthegrouch Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'm shocked at your response, DSC
The Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all by the State.
What clearer violation of it could you ask for?

The very fact that there's an amendment to add such an obvious class as Women as voters is a mark of shame on this country's historical lack of understanding about what equality means.
The denial of equality to same-sex couples is no less embarrassing.
The continued hysterical gyrations of a few fanatics should cause sanctions to be issued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. the standard for getting legal fees should be very high
and I don't think this meets it. There is literally no history of gays being covered by the 14th amendment and thus no real expectation that this would be federally unconsitional like a similar ban on interracial marriage would have. I don't think legal fees should be awarded unless the violation is something that the state should have known going in. In this case, the state didn't even defend the law so I am not even sure why they should be paying the fees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. "I don't think legal fees should be awarded unless the violation is something that the state
should have known."

They're not the state. They're private intervenors. Olsen and Boies would be asking for fees from Protect Marriage, not from the state of CA.

Secondly, while you are getting at the correct standard, i.e., bad faith, for awarding attorney fees in federal court, I think a strong argument can be made that by appealing the decision Protect Marriage is acting with malice, i.e., strictly for oppressive reasons - particularly, as you point out, since the state has declined to pursue the case further. Plus, there are a bunch of statutory provisions for fee-shifting that may apply here.

So no, I don't think Olsen and Boies are out of line to ask for fees and I hope they bleed the bigots dry wherever possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Precisely. They're talking about a third party to the case.
One which wasn't at all obligated to go in and mount a defense. They chose to do so, they lost, and so I don't see it as at all unreasonable that they pay the legal fees given that the case would not have been contested without them, regardless of any other condition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Attorneys Fees and Costs ~~ basis: Either by Statute or Contract
There are only two grounds upon which attorneys fees and costs can be awarded by the court: Either there is a statutory basis...or the parties have entered into a contract which provides for the same.

In the instant matter, the winning party is entitled to fees by statute. It is not an issue of whether or not something is or is not constitutional ~~ it is an issue of whether or not there is a statutory basis for the award. The first duty of an attorney is to his/her client. If there was not a request for an award of fees where the client is entitled to seek this form of monetary compensation, the attorney would not be protecting his/her client. So, it's NOT the importance of the subject matter, but the duty which the attorney owes and this imposes a duty to seek fees and costs for the client when and where this may be obtained from the opposing side of a case.

JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. I disagree.
bigots have ALWAYS tried to justify bigotry by appealing to the opinions of the majority, and it has taken the courts to defend the rights of the minority against the majority. This is just as obvious as it has ever been in the past.

I think they have Every Right to get their court costs paid for. Prop 8 was a waste of everyone's money. To say that it is only right for the LGBT community to pay for the costs of the Prop 8 case is to say that it's right for us to have to pay to defend ourselves from every bigoted attack that bigots can throw at us.

I think that if the bigots want to throw frivolous and legally baseless attacks at our community then THEY should be the ones to pay for it. Not us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. AFAIK Boies and Olson are actually doing the case pro bono
But I understand their strategy. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Pro Bono
When we went to court over a person who refused to rent to us our lawyer was doing the case Pro Bono, but when we won she got the judge to agree to have the people pay her fees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 23rd 2022, 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC