The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Theodore Olson (1940-2024)
A fond memory of the student leadership reception at Ted's palatial estate.
I am deeply saddened by the passing of Theodore Olson. Ted, as he was known, was a giant in the conservative legal movement. Generations of law students will study his defeat in Morrison v. Olson, as well as his victories in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. But Federalist Society members, in particular, owe Ted a special debt. He was instrumental in the flourishing of our society. Here, I will relay one small anecdote, that I'm sure many will share.
For years, the Federalist Society has held the student leadership conference every July. In more recent years, the reception has been held at the United States Supreme Court. But in the 2000s, the reception was held at Ted Olson's home in Northern Virginia.
I was fortunate enough to attend the gathering in July 2008, after my second year of law school at George Mason. As I recall, we instructed to park our car at a nearby church, and ride a shuttle bus to Ted's home. (I sat next to a student from Harvard named Sarah Isgur.)
Entering the Olson estate was like walking into Disneyland. There was a huge backyard with an enormous swimming pool. There was something that looked like a robot cleaning the bottom of the pool. Such a gadget may be common nowadays, but it was beyond futuristic sixteen years ago. I remember just walking around in awe at the luminaries I saw. I walked onto the back porch and Judge Robert Bork was sitting there, drinking Iced Tea. The year before, Bork was injured in a fall at the Yale Club in New York. Bork was complaining about his leg, which was still bothering him. I was tempted to ask Bork about the Ninth Amendment and the "inkblot" comment, but I figured I would come across as a smartass, so I didn't. In hindsight, I am grateful I just sat and listened to him chat about whatever was on his mind.
I walked around the ground and saw Justice Samuel Alito. He was wearing a polo shirt. I was star struck. We chatted for a few moments, and I sheepishly asked for a picture. I also asked the then-Junior Justice to sign my pocket Constitution, which he did. I continued to walk around and I found the host of the party Ted Olson. I don't remember exactly what I said, but I recall thanking him for hosting us at his palatial home. He was very gracious. I asked Olson if he too would sign my pocket Constitution. Olson gladly did. And, for good measure, I saw Judge Dave Sentelle. He too signed that Constitution. That Constitution now hangs on the wall in my office, alongside another Constitution that is signed by Justices Thomas and Scalia. These are among my most prized possessions.
Last year, I chatted with Ted after the 2023 Olson Lecture. I relayed to him this story about my experience at his home, and I shared how meaningful it was to me and countless other FedSoc members. He beamed with pride. It was an exchange I will not forget.
Ted will be deeply and profoundly missed. The 2024 Federalist Society Convention will not be the same without his presence.
Here is the photo of me with Justice Alito in July 2008. This is what Ted's backyard looked like!
And here is a photograph of my signed pocket Constitutions.
I'm sorry I don't have a better photographs to share. I am on the road, staying in the soulless Washington Hilton this evening. I'll share my longing for the Mayflower in another post.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am honestly not sure whether this is a genuine tribute to Ted Olsen, or a weird excuse for Josh to post pictures of himself of with Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia. I'm sorry, but Josh keeps giving me psychopath vibes.
It makes me almost proud of the fact that I’ve never had even a passing acquaintance with anyone of any prominence in the legal field, or indeed any other field.
How did you manage that? I'm personally acquainted with several famous figures, (Just counting personal friends, not meeting at an event.) and I didn't even have to try, I just sort of stumbled into it.
Have you never attended legal or scientific conferences, maybe?
I’ve attended conferences, and a couple with “big” names, and I might have gotten to briefly shake their hands, but we didn’t exchange names and they wouldn’t know me from a can of paint.
I did meet Robert Bork once, at an event in law school. My girlfriend at the time was one of the students on a panel asking questions (she was the only black female in her class so she got invited a lot) and she took me along at a pre-event dinner. Bork, overweight, smoking, was stuffing in another pig-in-a-blanket and I mentioned that he should quit smoking and eat less. He shrugged. Thomas Sowell was there, pressing some ideological point on him, and Bork was trying to swat him away.
Perhaps OT: I had a couple of very good teachers in law school, but in my practice I’ve never met anyone who impressed me with any degree of brilliance. In general, the bright ones were lazy, and the hard-working ones were pretty dull.
To name one, just because he's dead now, I used to know Robert Ettinger. I guess he counts as prominent, he has his own Wikipedia entry. Had dinner at his house a few times. That's because I was involved in cryonics, and lived in South-East Michigan, and the number of people involved in cryonics is small enough that if you're active in it, you'll likely meet all the bigwigs in time, and become friends with any who live near you.
Didn't occur to me at the time to have him autograph my copy of The Prospect of Immortality, though, darn it.
"In general, the bright ones were lazy, and the hard-working ones were pretty dull."
It's a general problem in our educational system that bright students aren't adequately challenged, and since they can do the work without much effort, have a tendency to end up lazy. When somebody is bright you need to put a lot of work into keeping them challenged so that they grow up with diligence, too, and actually achieve what they're capable of, instead of just getting by.
We waste a lot of potential in this country by not tracking students properly.
He sounds a bit like a crackpot, from the wikipedia article. I don’t understand why someone would be interested in eternal youth. I assume he was more balanced than the article sets forth. Cryonics must involve more that.
You are correct about the educational system falling short with gifted children. I was a gifted child myself, in a school system with no allowance for the gifted (not that they had much for “slow” children either). I got straight A’s with little effort. Most of the book-learning I got was on my own.
Perhaps that is less a problem now with the internet. There were several subjects that fascinated me but I lost interest because I had read all there was to read about them in the local library. Nowadays, I could have used the “information superhighway” and gone further.
People are interested in eternal youth because they enjoy life, know it was more pleasant when they were youthful, and why would you not want more of something that you enjoy? Do you think, "I really enjoy hamburgers, so I'll settle for just eating fifty, and then never eat any more, so that I don't have to risk getting tired of them. And I especially like them with pickles, so don't put any on my remaining burgers."?
The better question is why anybody isn't interested in eternal youth. For an explanation of that, read Alan Harrington's The Immortalist. He thought it was, basically, sour grapes: People don't think eternal youth is a real prospect, so they put it down so as to avoid thinking they're cheated out of something very valuable.
What's going on right now, (A pity Alan didn't live long enough to see it.) is that some people with real money have looked at the matter and decided that, hey, it IS a real prospect now, and so they're throwing at it the resources necessary to achieve it.
Might not get it in time for me, but I wish them all the luck in the world, maybe my son will benefit.
What if you go for it and your children don't? You will see them die before you. I wouldn't want that.
Ah, why would they not go for it? I've been young, and I'm now old, and I'll tell you straight out, being young is better.
If aging did not exist, and tomorrow a virus swept the world and caused it, we would spend any amount of resources finding a cure, aging is that horrible. Don't let the fact that it's been here all along blind you to how awful it is.
You're just demonstrating the sour grapes. Trying to imagine reasons why abolishing aging would be bad, because you don't want to think you're probably not getting something that would actually be incredibly good.
Ever see “Cocoon”? The Jack Gilford character. He should have gotten an Oscar for that performance. (It went to Don Ameche, who deserved it too.)
Yes, good movie.
A German general named Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord supposedly said that all military officers are either clever or stupid and either diligent or lazy. Clever, lazy officers make the best leaders because they can actually decide. Clever, diligent officers are suited for staff duties supporting the leaders. Stupid, lazy officers (the vast majority in von Hammerstein-Equord's estimation) can handle routine duties. Stupid, diligent officers must be ruthlessly eliminated because they only cause problems!
A lot of successful lawyers I know are dull and diligent. It’s actually more important to be organized than it is to be smart.
One must also have bureaucratic skill. For years I worked for a smart lawyer who was lazy, disorganized, professionally irresponsible. How do you cover for your boss’s mistakes (so that his client continues to think he's a hot-shot attorney)?
1. Fix it right away so that your client never finds out about it.
2. If you can’t fix it, invent a rationale. “Um . . . we didn’t meet the deadline for summary judgment because it would have provoked a cross-motion that . . . [blah blah blah]”.
3. Make it clear to your boss, as gently as possible, that he made a mistake and you fixed it. (As he told me once, “Blame flows downhill.” You have to counter that.)
4. #3 is trickier if he doesn’t realize it was a mistake. You have to do some educating, along the lines of “as you know . . .”
You left out the one that makes you indispensable - anticipate the mistakes and don't let them happen.
"Hey boss -- the deadline for that response is coming up in a week. Do you want me to go ahead and draft it for your signature?"
Yes, that’s important.
I was good at that . . . but being indispensable actually hurts you. It was a long time before I could get trial work, because they always needed me around the office. I've met other lawyers who have never gotten trial work, despite being lawyers for years and years, for the same reason.
Fascinating potted bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
I remember being shocked by a late 50s friend who said she not only didn't know anyone well-known, she'd never even met anyone well-known until just that week - which is how it came up - when she'd done some local TV fitness thing with Ralph Macchio.
Actually, I don't know anyone who knows anyone who is well known. I'm kind of double-landlocked.
Or at least, if they do know someone, I'm not aware of it.
Twenty five degrees of Kevin Bacon?
Blackman's commentary is much easier to understand once you realize that every post is just an excuse to use the word "I" as much as possible.
Olsen was a rare breed...a prominent thinker, a conservative, but as filled with integrity as any public figure you were likely to meet. On the many cable news shows he was on, I frequently heard him speak out against the conservative position(s). He actually had the honor to call balls and strikes as he saw them. A rare trait. A loss indeed.
Never realized we'd met before. I was probably standing 10 yards away when that photo of you and Alito was taken.
You were in the presence of greatness, you just didn't know it
RIP.
May his memory be as a blessing.
And that of his late wife, Barbara Olson, killed by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.
Yes, the true tragedy is what the two of them could have been together.
Mr. Olson and David Boies did a masterful job of trying the lawsuit which invalidated California's Proposition Hate regarding same sex marriage.
They got a favorable opinion from a San Fran homosexual judge, but then lost 5-4 before the US Supreme Court.
Why Blackman, look at all the hobnobbing you've done. Good for you, little man...good for you.
"Ted Olson, who died recently, was involved in a few prominent legal cases like Bush v. Gore, but was best known as an acquaintance of eminent legal scholar Josh Blackman".
Nobody on his deathbed ever said, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office," but Olson did reportedly cry out, "I wish I had spent more time with Josh Blackman."
So Josh turns an obituary for Olson into a list of famous people he encountered at a reception at Olson's home, complete with selfies.
Wow.
So, he's like Obama, the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral? Only without the sharp crease in his pants to excuse it?
Look, I've attended more funerals than I like. The pictures you see there always have somebody in them besides the deceased, the stories told always feature the storyteller too, not just the deceased. We remember people by our interactions with them.
Leave it to Brett to work Obama into this.
Leave it to Brett to accidentally compare Obama to a banger of a President like Teddy Roosevelt.
Lousy whataboutery, Brett.
The pictures you see there always have somebody in them besides the deceased,
First, there’s no pictures of Olson, just Blackman’s ego-boosting selfies with various people he wants to suck up to.
the stories told always feature the storyteller too, not just the deceased.
There are no personal stories about Olson – kind things he did, useful advice he dispensed, etc. Just a list of people Josh greeted, and some autograph gathering. What does Bork’s hurt leg have to do with Olson?
HaHaHa!!!!
LOL David
I met Robert Bork once at the American Enterprise Institute. Among other things, he said that "we" should have banned Chuck Berry back in the fifties, in order to prevent sexual abuse of children. So I guess if Bob had made it onto the Supreme Court, you couldn't listen to "Johnny B. Goode". The man definitely had an unusual brand of "libertarianism".
Was he drinking Iced Tea, or just plain iced tea?
I'm reminded of Salvador Dali's comment, the difference between me and the Surrealists is that I'm a Surrealist.
"But enough about Ted Olson, let's talk about me and who I met at a party he hosted."
I attended a similar event in law school several years earlier, and I agree that Ted was gracious and welcoming to foolish and eager young law students. RIP.
Ah, but you didn't warrant a mention in Ted Olson's obituary...
“I'll share my longing for the Mayflower”
I would have taken you more for a Willard guy
An entire legacy ruined by Obergefell
I mean, really, who wants gays to be happy anyway
Everybody?
Yet the constitution is silent on "happiness."
It's also silent on marriage
Setting aside why you think it would have ruined his legacy, you might want to note that Olson had nothing to do with Obergefell. It was Perry v. Schwarzenegger, later called Hollingsworth v. Perry, that Olson litigated.
I’m sorry, but Ted Olsen’s participation in Obergfel ruined his legacy for me. Not only did he pervert the institution of marriage, he refused to consider the ramifications of his actions. I remember watching him on a program after the decision when he was asked what the limiting principle was: If two men or women could marry, why not three or four; how can age limitations be legal; how can a state outlaw prostitution? He refused to address any of them. He was just another whore himself.
"The life of the law is not logic, but experience."
It's been 15 years and none of those horribles has come to pass. Nor did they seem likely to those of us who know long-term gay couples.
To be fair, gay marriage was on the parade of horribles when Bowers was argued, and when Lawrence was argued.
Once Lawrence came out, the result in Obergefell was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how long it would take, Given Loving, there was really no intellectually honest way to uphold a ban on gay marriage.
Olson (not "Olsen") did not participate in Obergefell (not "Obergfel.")
Bro, I'm totally down with this logic. Like, if we allowed a man and a woman to marry each other, then what's to stop a woman from marrying two men! Allowing a man and woman to marry each other would lead to heterodoxy!
The argument against gay marriage actually cut in favor of allowing polygamy, at least so long as the "sister-wives" got it on only with the husband, not with each other.
he refused to consider the ramifications of his actions.
Or maybe he did and considered that they would be positive. Maybe he disagreed with what you thought the ramifications would be.
That's actually honesty. If you're going to alter the definition of "marriage" to include options besides opposite sex couples, at that point you have no basis for opposing any combination of entities capable of consent. Indeed, the case for legalizing polyamorous relationships is actually better than for SSM, because they ARE traditional forms of marriage, widely practiced around the world. The first country in the entire world to legalize it was Netherlands, in 2001, that's how little social precedent it had.
"That’s actually honesty. If you’re going to alter the definition of 'marriage' to include options besides opposite sex couples, at that point you have no basis for opposing any combination of entities capable of consent."
No, Brett. Where a state's regulation of marriage is challenged on due process or equal protection grounds -- no matter whether the restriction involves age, race, consanguinity, prohibition of polygamy, childbearing capability or the absence thereof, intellectual capacity or what not -- that challenge must be litigated at trial or on summary judgment, based on an evidentiary record.
Constitutional law does not operate in a vacuum. A court must consider whether any restriction on the plaintiffs' liberty to enter into a marriage is outweighed by the interest(s) asserted by the state in support of the restriction. And the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law must be based on evidence appearing in the record.
Suppose a brother and two sisters are hot for one another and wish to marry in a state that prohibits incestuous or polygamous marriages. They are free to trot down to the courthouse, pay the filing fee and challenge the state's restrictions. The plaintiffs would bear the initial burdens of production of evidence and persuasion. The defendant state officials would have the opportunity to controvert the plaintiffs' proof and to offer their own evidence as to what governmental interests are advanced by the challenged restrictions. That involves more than speculating about a parade of horribles on the slippery slopes.
"I’m sorry, but Ted Olsen’s [sic] participation in Obergfel [sic] ruined his legacy for me. Not only did he pervert the institution of marriage, he refused to consider the ramifications of his actions."
Ted Olson did not participate in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was originally litigated in each of the four states comprising the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals consolidated the four lawsuits on appeal. Mr. Olson and David Boies had earlier worked together to challenge California's Proposition Hate in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd sub nom Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).
The District Court in Perry issued a broad and sweeping decision ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on every issue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, but much more narrowly, relying primarily on Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
The Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), did not analyze or rely upon either Perry or Romer. Messrs. Olson and Boies did a commendable job of litigating Perry, but their contribution to Obergefell was nil.
The Washington Post obit covered his opposition to Trump:
With the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016, Mr. Olson found himself increasingly at odds with the Republican Party. In 2019, he persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse the Trump Justice Department’s decision to shut down the program that shielded from deportation about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants, known as dreamers, who had been brought to the United States as children.
also ...
Mr. Olson twice rejected Trump’s entreaties to represent him in criminal investigations, and he wrote with Boies an op-ed piece for The Washington Post denouncing Trump’s baseless attempt to reverse the result of the 2020 election.
Clearly, the fault of his last wife, a life long Democrat!
Didn't finish the article but pool-cleaning robots were cheap and common in the mid-80s, available at any pool supply store.
Early 70’s for that matter…