Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  lump sums

Will The Gays Get Prop 8′s Supporters to Pay Ted Olson + David Boies’ Bills?

What do you think Ted Olson and David Boies have been charging to try the Prop 8 case? $500 an hour? $750? Throw in all the junior associates proofing their work for $300 an hour and it probably costs the American Foundation for Equal Rights about $1,000 every time they pick up the phone. And now the Perry plaintiffs are considering asking the court to have the defendants pick up their tab (it’s gotta be seven figures) if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling.

By:           Max Simon
On:           Aug 20, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 27 Comments
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      I thought that the reason we were supposed to trust the Bush lawyer who stopped the Florida recount was because he WANTED to take prop 8 to trial because it is the right thing to do.

      So let me get this straight, the man who convinced a less conservative Supreme Court to appoint the worst president in history now wants all our money so that he can bring gay marriage to a more conservative Supreme Court full of Bush judges???

      hmmm…

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jon
      jon

      the right thing to do and recouping costs are not mutually exclusive concepts. remember, boies and olsen aren’t the plaintiffs in this case, they’re the attorneys representing gay couples at no cost to the couples.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Chuck: said…

      I thought that the reason we were supposed to trust the Bush lawyer who stopped the Florida recount was because he WANTED to take prop 8 to trial because it is the right thing to do.
      ___________________________

      So because they are lawyers they shouldn’t get paid for their work? NOM’s lawyers aren’t working for free, and this guy just won a huge victory in court. As a former solicitor General his plate would be full, he didn’t have to take this case, he did, he’s done a good job so far, and his conservative credentials have shut people up on the right from the usual foaming at the mouth attacks. Personally I Love the idea that NOM and the other anti-gay bigots might have to end up paying for their own loss.

      And lastly, considering HRC’s buget for the last 10 years has been around 40 million a year, and we haven’t had much movement in the way of gay rights until now, I have no problem with the attorneys, associates, and administrative staff who just won us a gigantic victory getting paid a fraction of what HRC spends in a year on Dinner parties.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chuck:

      You’re a douche bag.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      @Cam: Oh pardon me if I thought an already rich man who did uncalculable damage to this county with Bush v. Gore might want to redeem himself by fighting for a worthy cause pro bono.

      If you really think the reactionary Roberts court is pro-gay, then that’s pretty scary. Since the only thing left of their legacy, currently, is the Supreme Court, I think you’d be an idiot not to be concerned about that. Now, if Obama replaces one of the conservative judges, then I’d be on board.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      @Mike: Okay Mike, glad to know you feel so secure putting the future of marriage forever in the hands of Bush appointees, setting future generations back decades, instead of waiting the inevitable 10 years till one of the reactionary judges is replaced.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chuck:

      You make it seem as if he was obligated to take on this case. He didn’t have to do anything. He is an excellent lawyer and I am glad that he was kind enough to take on this case. We should be greatful. Stop being such a whiny B*tch.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      I really question why conservatives seem to monitory Queerty. I faced the same reactionary mentality when I dared to say that HIV meds should be free in this country like they are in many other countries. I will never understand you people, but fine, have at it again and convince everybody reading this site that Bush appointees have our interests at heart. I’m just and honest voice, your well funded cubicles need something to occupy your time before lunch.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chuck:

      Your reasoning is flawed. What if a conservative Republican is elected in 2012? What if he appoints a conservative justice in the place of a liberal justice? What makes you so sure that a liberal justice is going to be next? Sorry, but this lawsuit was the right thing to do.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      @Mike: nobody asked him to, pardon me if I don’t jump to the support of a member of a party dedicated to destroying all minorities and especially gay people. You have such a short memory. A fool is doomed to repeat his mistakes.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      @Mike: after the way THIS VERY LAWYER stole the election for Bush, even if a conservative is the next pres, I don’t think the public will be dumb enough to let them get away with all that Bush did because that would take another 911.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chuck:

      Why on earth should HIV meds be free? You clearly have radical beliefs not shared by most people. Thankfully.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      Have fun at the Log Cabin meeting. Oh wait, you’ll be the ones picketing with obscure bible references.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      You guys are missing the point on this one. Funding for the legal team fighting Prop. 8 is the American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of Perry, et al. What amount, if any, that Bois/Olson have contributed pro bono has not been disclosed nor the amount paid so far by AFER.

      Getting the other side to pay the legal fees is a great maneuver to cut off funding other efforts the bad guys have to deny marriage equality across the country. The several million dollars in fees would deplete several millions from efforts fighting marriage equality in Iowa, Maine, DC and elsewhere.

      From a legal standpoint, I am unsure whether California law provides legal fees in cases involving constitutional rights issues — sure hope so.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      @Mike: Yeah I know, it is inhuman of me to want to save people’s lives, when there’s a good war we could be fighting. Cheney needs our money.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      Ultimately, I agree that it’s good to have the pro-H8 people pay for it if possible. I just don’t think gay people should be bilked by a suit that is a real long shot right now. Later, if we had a liberal court, then yes, every one of us should donate.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chuck:

      Ok, I’m done with you. You seem to be stuck in 2004.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chuck:

      One last thing. Noone is asking you to donate to the case or anything. I highly doubt any of your money is going toward this case. You have no reason to be bit)hing. Instead, you can donate to GLAAD so they can use it to put on a nice, expensive award show with lots of celebrities!

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • davii
      davii

      @Chuck

      STFU. Please.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jon
      jon

      @chuck:

      it’s not necessarily a long shot…in fact, it’s as good a time as any. the court is pretty evenly split on gay rights issues, with kennedy as the swing vote. even then, the reasoning of judge walker’s decision and the arguments put forth by the attorneys are directed at convincing kennedy by using his own words in previous cases.
      second, as of right now, there are just as many bush appointees as obama appointees on the court, so while i agree this court is generally more conservative than some courts in the past, it is by no means “bush’s court”.

      @Mike in Asheville, nee “in Brooklyn:
      i believe federal law permits a successful plaintiff to recover costs from the defendant when constitutional rights have been violated. interestingly, it’s what the attorneys for the boys scouts are doing in philadelphia right now.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Chuck: said..

      @Cam: Oh pardon me if I thought an already rich man who did uncalculable damage to this county with Bush v. Gore might want to redeem himself by fighting for a worthy cause pro bono.

      If you really think the reactionary Roberts court is pro-gay, then that’s pretty scary. Since the only thing left of their legacy, currently, is the Supreme Court, I think you’d be an idiot not to be concerned about that. Now, if Obama replaces one of the conservative judges, then I’d be on board.

      And

      I really question why conservatives seem to monitory Queerty. I faced the same reactionary mentality when I dared to say that HIV meds should be free in this country like they are in many other countries.
      ________________________

      Chuck, Let me just explain to you why you’re an idiot.

      1. Nobody has to do anything to redeem themselves, you seem to be of the opinion, that anything you agree with, should be done for free. So now you are attacking one of the lawyers who have just won the biggest case court case for gay rights in Lawrence v. Texas. Additionally his appearences on FOX slamming down the conservative hosts with logic has been a huge boon to the cause of gay rights.

      2. Your suggestion that HIV meds should be free in the U.S. like they are in other countries. You of course neglected to name the other countries, but let me just pretend that what you said is accurate.

      The countries where they are free, have them for free because they are donated by the conpanies that manufacture them. Why do the companies do that? Because other countries like the U.S. pay for the medication. If all of these medications were always given out for free the companies would have never bothered to develop them. Why spend 50 million researching a medication that you will never make money on? Additionally, why just HIV medications? If you give them out for free, then you will have to expalin to the cancer and diabitis patients why you aren’t also given out anti-cancer drugs, and insulin for free. What about other medications? Why just HIV?

      Your problem is, that you come up with an idea, you get very excited about it, then you run around screaming it out and get shocked when people point out that you haven’t thought it through.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 12:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      Chcuk, there are some major flaws in your posts:

      1. Judge Walker, the man who struck down Prop 8 with very shrewd legal reasoning, was first nominated to the bench by President Reagan, not affirmed by the Democrats, then re-nominated by George HW Bush and confirmed unanimously. Both Presidents to nominate him were Republican. His worst offense was that he defended the USOC versus the Gay Games over the use of the word “Olympics”, and yet here we are 30 years later and he handed California couples a huge victory. Walker is not unusual in that regard. There have been many nominees to the Circuit Courts as well as the USSCt who came from the Republicans and have been quite friendly to the GLBT community.

      2. When did Boies and Olson ever state they were doing this pro bono? Do you know how much these trials and appeals cost? To get to the USSCt costs, on average, about $15,000 (that’s just to go from Appeals Court to USSCt, not counting the costs at the lower court). It’s cheaper to go to the lower courts, but not by much. Do you really expect that this team will work for free on a case which could cost several hundred thousand dollars (or more) just because one of the two lead attorneys represented Bush? Your misplaced sense of entitlement is pathetic.

      3. We don’t know *how* the USSCt will rule right now, and your rantings indicate to me you don’t know much about the law or the Justices sitting on the bench, to be frank. We know we have Breyer, Ginsburg, and will most likely get Kennedy in some form. Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are probably going to vote against us. Sotomayor has had a pretty good track record on Con Law issues, and Kagan is supposed to be some big Con Law expert. We got a shot. Worst case, I think we get a bench which says “here’s the holding, but it applies only to California”, but that paves the way for a lot of lawsuits if the Court agrees the amendment was based on animus towards the GLBT community and holds that’s a bad thing. Even if it doesn’t and the holding is so narrow it only applies to CA because it gave gays the rights that folks then used the ballot box to take away, you seem to fail to understand the enormity of that decision.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott
      Scott

      Pay these fine, intelligent, eloquent lawyers with an appointment to the Supreme Court.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TommyOC
      TommyOC

      These guys – and their staffs (who ARE NOT rich or independently wealthy, btw) – are fighting for your freedoms and liberties and you have the gall to haggle with them on its price?

      There is no price too high for equality.

      Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

      (Olsen + Boies: Just tell me how much my share of the equality price is. I figure it’s a reasonable amount if it’s split amongst the number of gays who will benefit from your services.)

      Aug 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gary B.
      Gary B.

      Man, wouldn’t that be awesome if Walker’s ruling stood AND the yes on 8 people had to shell out millions of dollars? Sweet justice…

      Aug 21, 2010 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      I don’t recall reading that either Olsen or Boies is working pro-bono. Even if Olsen and Boies themselves are independently wealthy and don’t need to earn a living, the dozens of junior partners and staff attorneys do. The total probably comes to something in the neighborhood of $300/hour x about 50 people x about a year, so far. That’s some serious payroll.

      I do recall reading that American Foundation for Equal Rights (AMFER) is the organization that hired them, and is funding the case. You can see who to thank at,
      http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/about/leadership/
      Notice the ‘donate’ button in the upper right corner of that page. I’m sure they would appreciate some help.

      Aug 21, 2010 at 3:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 13 ยท Mike in Asheville, nee “in Brooklyn” … one minor quibble: when Mike said, “I am unsure whether California law provides legal fees in cases involving constitutional rights issues,” he forgot that California law does not apply – this is being argued in a federal court.

      I hope they do recover legal fees from the defendants – remember that these defendants were voluntary defendants as the state of California refused to defend the law (the Attorney General believed Prop 8 was in fact unconstitutional, as opposed to a bad law that was constitutional).

      Too bad the defendants can’t also be required to compensate all
      gay couples financially for having their marriages delayed.

      Aug 23, 2010 at 5:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.