Continued commentary on Perry v. Schwarzenneger

In Perry v. Schwarzenneger, the federal challenge to Prop. 8, Judge Walker dismissed motions to intervene by would-be plaintiffs and defendants, and scheduled the case for trial on January 11th. Here is a roundup of continued commentary on the case.

08/23/09 hunter of justice, by law professor Nan Hunter:

Professor Hunter asks these questions:

1. "What will the ramifications (if any) be of placing the control of one of the biggest ever lgbt rights lawsuits in the completely private, non-transparent realm of big firms?"

2. "[W] ill the Perry case ultimately be only about California, litigated in a way that its only possible impact will ever be on California?" (Litigating the case this way, I think, represented the legal strategy of the three gay rights groups that tried to intervene on behalf of proposed plaintiffs.)

3. "[W]hat will the impact be of Perry on the effort to repeal Prop 8?"

08/22/09 Seattle University Law School Cases and Commentary:

Law professor Julie Shapiro also focuses on the question of control:

Boies and Olson answer only to a (presumably) hand-picked board of directors that is far less representative than any of the LGBT legal groups might be. Even if Boies and Olson are well-meaning, is there any reason for confidence that they will make their choices in a manner that will be generally beneficial to LGBT people? Or that, given their lack of experience in this regard, they will even think the choices through critically?