how many attorneys can convince the current SCOTUS to back gay marriage? not many, but this one very unlikely proponent is one of them. Take a look at how well he does in Olson vs Fox news.

"Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson said Sunday he expects the Supreme Court to address the issue of same-sex marriage — and that he will deliver to the justices a strong case that gays have a right to marry under the Constitution.

"The other side really produced no evidence at all," said Olson, the prominent conservative lawyer who is leading the legal battle against the California ban on gay marriage. "This is an overwhelming record that supports the fact that individuals are being hurt ... and that California has no rational basis for continuing the discrimination.

"When that gets to the Supreme Court, I think that will be persuasive to all of the justices on the Supreme Court," Olson said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I think that will be persuasive to all of the justices on the Supreme Court," Olson said on "Fox News Sunday."

Yeah, right. Based on their prior decisions, there are 4 solid votes against extending equal protection to gays as a class.

Kennedy, who was the deciding vote in Lawrence v. Texas, specificately stated in his majority opinion that the Court was not addressing the issue of gay marriage. This case hangs on whether or not he now thinks that marriage is a step further than he is willing to go.

Nobody has any idea what the makeup of the court will be by the time this gets to them.

the makeup of the court

For some reason, that phrase in this context has me envisioning all the justices filing onto the bench in lipstick and eye liner.

Why do you think they don't allow cameras in the Supreme Court.

The way the sessions really work is that the justices come out in full make up and there is a a giant tub of brine in front of the bench. The justices then drip the blood of the newest member of the court into the brine and watch as is dissipates. Then, they use ancient texts passed down by the Mason God to interpret what the shapes mean - and that's how they come to a decision in the case at hand.

For some reason, that phrase in this context has me envisioning all the justices filing onto the bench in lipstick and eye liner.

How disillusioning. No chicken entrails.

But imagine the quantity of lard that can one day be rendered from Scalia.

I really liked this article by Ted Olson on January 9, 2010

"The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Why same-sex marriage is an American value."

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

This is highly recommended to share with your conservative friends who remain on the fence on this issue.

For some reason, that phrase in this context has me envisioning all the justices filing onto the bench in lipstick and eye liner.

Maybe they'll do it up like the actual Supremes.

There is an unwritten rule that whenever they are split on a decision they play W.A.S.P.'s "Kill. Fuck. Die." album backwards and it gives them the answer they need.