Celebrity Friday: Roderick Ireland

MA Gov. Deval Patrick (left) with Chief Justice-designate Roderick L. Ireland

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, the only Black governor in the country, has nominated Roderick Ireland to be the first Black Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Patrick was re-elected to a second final term as Governor on Tuesday November 3rd, and announced the nomination of Ireland to replace retiring Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. Marshall is well-known for writing the 4-3 majority opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which ended the state's prohibition on same-sex couples from marrying, the first state Supreme Court to do so in the United States in 2003.

Ireland voted with the majority and Patrick is also a strong supporter of marriage equality and LGBT rights. His teenaged daughter came out as a lesbian while he was governor and he marched with her in a gay rights parade.

White House Issues Statement on DADT Appeal

The White House has just issued a statement about the Department of Justice filing an appeal in federal court today in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, the case in which a federal judge recently struck down the military's anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as unconstitutional.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 23, 2010

Statement by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Justice Department filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.  This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy.   The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold.  The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal.   And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal.  The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

###

Scalia Claims Sex and Sexual Orientation Bias Not Banned By Constitution

Adm Golub / The Chronicle

Antonin Scalia, the 74-year-old Associate Justice of the Supreme Court gave a speech at University of California Hastings on the 24th anniversary of his unanimous approval by the United States Senate on Friday.
Scalia, the notoriously homophobic head of the conservative wing of the Court told the audience that he is convinced that the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment's declaration of "equal protection of the laws" does not apply to women or gays and lesbians.

"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures," Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

[...]

The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."

The court has not applied the same exacting standard to discrimination based on sexual orientation, an issue it could reach in several cases now in lower courts, including the dispute over California's ban on same-sex marriage.

But when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against "a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

It's interesting that Scalia will say in public that "gender bias 'shouldn't exist'" but he is on record in a published opinion of the Court declaring the homosexual "lifestyle" to be "immoral and destructive."

Perhaps he should recuse himself from future cases involving sex discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination before the Court?

CA Sup Ct Refuses To Force State To Appeal Prop 8

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to force the state of California, as represented by the Governor and Attorney General of the state, to act as defendants in the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.


As I blogged about earlier in the week, the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General on Monday to attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected their argument. Now the state's highest court has also rejected their legal argument.

The court did not explain why it rejected the emergency petition filed by the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute had argued that the attorney general and governor were required to uphold all laws, including initiatives passed by voters.

Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger filed letters with the court maintaining state officers have authority to choose which laws they challenge or defend in court.

"The governor, like any litigant, has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or not to appeal an order," counsel Andrew Stroud wrote for Schwarzenegger. "Here, the governor exercised his discretion and decided not to file an appeal."

[...]

Schwarzenegger, who has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to appeal Walker's decision, has said he supports the judge's verdict. Brown, who is the Democratic nominee to succeed Schwarzenegger as governor, has said he cannot defend Proposition 8 because he agrees it is unconstitutional.

"Although it is not every day that the attorney general declines to defend a state law, the state Constitution or an initiative, he may do so because his oath requires him (to) support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the law," Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter wrote on Brown's behalf Wednesday.

The coalition of conservative and religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens, they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The 9th Circuit has said that is one of the issues it will take up when it hears oral arguments in early December.

If the federal appeals court dismisses the appeal because the ban's proponents lack legal standing,  Walker's ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.

All people interested in marriage equality will be watching the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguments very closely in this case. It would sort of be unfortunate f the case was decided on a relatively abstruse legal point like standing, instead of the very importantfederal constitutional issues raised in Walker's District Court opinion of August 4.

Appellate Court Rejects Attempt To Force Prop 8 Appeal

Recall that earlier this week heterosexual supremacists from the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General claiming that they were trying to avoid a "constitutional crisis" by forcing these elected officials to appeal Proposition 8 in federal court, even though both men have declared their belief that the measure violates the U.S. constitution.

On Thursday came word that their lawsuit was summarily rejected. by the 3rd District Court of Appeals:

The institute said it would file an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a reversal by Sept. 11, the deadline for state action in the Prop. 8 case.

"When the people peacefully enact a constitutional provision and the attorney general refuses to give them meaningful review in the federal judiciary, then you have a veto by the executive branch," said the institute's lawyer, Kevin Snider. "That is a constitutional crisis, usurping the power of the people."

The reason why this legal skirmish is important is that there is a very live question of who has "standing" (or legal authority) to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 violates the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal the week of December 6th.

Governator Nominates API Woman To Head CA Sup Ct

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has nominated 50-year-old Tani Cantil-Sakauye to replace California Chief Justice Ron George who announced he was retiring recently. Cantil-Sakauye's nomination would mean that the state's highest court would now have a female majority: Carol Corrigan, Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard and Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

The Los Angeles Times reported her reaction to the nomination:

"I have had the distinct pleasure of being a municipal court judge, a superior court judge and an appellate court justice," she said. "As a jurist, woman and a Filipina, I am extremely grateful for the trust Gov. Schwarzenegger has placed in me. I hope to show young people what they can achieve if they follow their dreams and reach for their full potential."

Cantil-Sakauye is a Republican of Filipino descent and has served as a Court of Appeals judge since 2005. She's married to a Police Lieutenant and has two daughters.

Celebrity Friday: Ronald George

Chief Justice Ronald George, 70, of the California Supreme Court announced this week that he does not want to seek another 12-year term in November 2010, after serving 19 years on the court.

George is most well-known as the author of In re Marriage Cases, which legalized same-sex marriages in 2008 as well as Strauss v. Horton the 2009 case which upheld Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passed by voters in November 2008.

Governor Schwarzenegger will now have an opportunity to appoint another member of the Supreme Court, which can be ratified by the voters in November 2010.

DC High Court Rejects Marriage Referendum By 5-4 Vote

The nation's capital's highest court, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected (by a frighteningly close) 5-4 vote an effort by the National Organization for Marriage and other heterosexual supremacists to force a vote on that jurisdiction's recently enacted marriage law.

Law Dork Chris Geidner has the best coverage:

The D.C. Court of Appeals issued its awaited decision in Bishop Harry Jackson's appeal of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics's decision that his proposed marriage initiative was an improper subject of an initiative. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Human Rights Act limitation in District law, which prohibits initiatives or referendums that would violation the Human Rights Act, is permissible. In light of that ruling, all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage initiative would violate the Human Rights Act and is, thus, not permitted.

In the absence of a successful appeal, then, D.C. marriage equality, which went into effect earlier this year, cannot be subject to an iniative.

He also quotes from the decision itself (Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics):

In the most important conclusion to be made by the court, it held:

The Charter amendment that established the right to initiative must be read in conjunction with the Home Rule Act, which, although conferring on the Council broad legislative authority, makes clear that the legislative authority is subject to limits implied by the United States Constitution and to the enumerated limits [set out by Congress.] Since [the section defining the initiative right in the District] obviously could not and did not remove those limits, it cannot be read as expressing the entire scope of restrictions on the initiative right. Rather, [the section] does not purport to address, and is ambiguous as to, whether there are other limitations on the right to initiative (and referendum). The Human Rights Act safeguard[, which prohibits initiatives that would violate the Human Rights Act] is not inconsistent with that ambiguous language.

Id. at 21. Four of the judges of the court disagreed with this conclusion, in an opinion written by Judge John Fisher. He was joined by Chief Judge Eric Washington and Judges Stephen Glickman and Kathryn Oberly.

It should be noted that all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage referendum (limiting marriage to between one man and one woman), like Proposition 8, would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act.

Suck it, NOM!

Mehserle Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

2 to 4 years in jail for killing a Black man. 28-year-old Johannes Mehserle was found guilty (by a jury with no Black members) of involuntary manslaughter for shooting Oscar Grant.

Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.

"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.

The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.

Oscar Grant Killer Mehserle Testifies In His Own Defense

The murder trial of Johannes Mehserle, the white BART police officer who shot Oscar Grant to death in the back while the black man was laying on his stomach, continued last week with Mehserle testifying in his own defense.

Sobbing as he testified, a former Bay Area transit officer for the first time offered his account of how he shot and killed a 22-year-old passenger, saying he mistakenly pulled out his handgun instead of an electronic stun gun and fired a single shot before realizing his mistake.

Johannes Mehserle, 28, testified that he was having trouble handcuffing Oscar Grant III and only intended to use the stun gun to make the man comply with his orders.

"I didn't think I had my gun," he testified. "I remember the pop. It wasn't very loud, it wasn't like a gunshot, and I remember wondering what went wrong with the Taser.

"I remember looking to my right side and seeing my gun in my right hand," he said of his .40-caliber pistol. "I didn't know what to think. I just thought it shouldn't have been there."

Mehserle said he looked down at Grant, who was lying on the floor of the Bay Area Rapid Transit station platform. "Mr. Grant said, 'You shot me,' " Mehserle testified.

One member of the audience was not impressed by Mehserle's tears. Timothy Killings, 24, shouted "You should save those [...] tears, dude" and Grant family members applauded.

The jury does not have a single African-American on it, despite Los Angeles County being 10% Black and the person killed was African-American. The trial was moved from Alameda County to Los Angeles County due to concerns about pre-trial publicity influencing the Northern California jury pool.

Judge Walker Issues Questions In Prop 8 Trial

Judge Vaughn Walker has issued questions for the litigants in Perry v. Schwazenegger to answer during closing arguments which are scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday June 16th. Some of the questions are fascinating:

What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?

The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?

Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?

What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37

Very interesting questions, eh? I believe the Williams Institute could provide data which answers the first question. The answer to #2 should be very, very important. If the judge wants to know the answer to #3, he should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition, the documentary on the LDS church's involvement in the Proposition 8 electoral battle. I believe it's irrelevant whether some people claim to have a choice in their sexual orientation. Most people clearly do NOT choose their sexual orientation, and obviously constitutional rights do not go away because the issue in question is a choice, since most people's religion is a choice.

A full list of the Judge's questions can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677

Follow The Federal Prop 8 Trial Online Now!

The federal Proposition 8 trial began at 9:30am in San Francisco. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker is presiding over the case, which is called Perry v. Schwarzenegger with Bush v. Gore opponents Ted Olson and David Boies joining forces to claim that California's ban on gay marriage passed by voters in November 2008 violates the federal constitution guarantees of Equal Protection and Due Process. Proposition 8 is being defended by heterosexual supremacist attorney Charles Cooper, because the state of California, in the form of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have declined to defend it in court, because they agree that the measure is unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court issued an emergency stay this morning which said:

ORDER IN PENDING CASE
09A648 HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.
Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to
Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered
that the order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292,
permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits
streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in
which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting
broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order
of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court,
this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13,
2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time.

Justice Breyer, dissenting.
I agree with the Court that further consideration is
warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time limited.
However, I would undertake that consideration without a temporary
stay in place. This stay prohibits the transmission of
proceedings to other federal courthouses. In my view, the
Court’s standard for granting a stay is not met. See Conkright
v. Frommert, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1–2)
(Ginsburg, J., in chambers). In particular, the papers filed, in
my view, do not show a likelihood of “irreparable harm.”

With respect, I dissent.

What this means is that the proceedings (which I believe are still being videotaped) will not be streamed to any other courthouse except the one in San Francisco, and the video will not be uploaded to YouTube.com.

However, if you want to follow the trial there are numerous different ways:

Rick Jacobs of Courage Campaign is liveblogging from the courtroom at http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Dan Levine is tweeting the trial at http://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie

Bilerico has a web page showing all the relevant tweets on the issue

Firedoglake has numerous live bloggers at http://firedoglake.com/prop8trial/

Follow the twitter hashtags #prop8 and #prop8trial

I really don't understand how the heterosexual supremacists who are so scared that Proposition 8 supporters will be intimidated if videotape is uploaded to YouTube think that the identities of every single person who testifies in the trial will not be broadcast all over the blogosphere ad twitterverse. This is 2010, it is absolutely impossible to keep the information private, especially when you are talking about a trial which is determining the constitutionality of the most hitly contested ballot measure on a social issue in U.S. history!

ACTION: Do You Want To See The Prop 8 Trial?

There's a debate going on whether the federal trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which starts on Monday January 11th in San Francisco will be televised or not.

You can have your say by going to http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/TeleviseTheTrial and signing up online to have aletter delivered by The Courage Campaign, or you can contact the judge directly, at:

www.cand.uscourts.gov, click "Notice Concerning Revision of Civil
Local Rule 77-3").

The comment period on the amendment to the rules
ends FRIDAY JANUARY 8, and if too few comments in favor of the rule
are received, there's a real chance it will be rescinded. People who
are interested in seeing the trial televised need to comment in favor
of the rule change, and anyone can do it (there's no need to be a
lawyer to send a comment). Comments can be mailed using the document
on the Northern District's webpage above, or can be e-mailed to the
Clerk of Court, Rich Wieking, at rich_wieking@cand.uscourts.gov.

So, far, Judge Walker has ruled that each day's proceedings will be taped and then uploaded to YouTube at the end of the day but reporters are calling for one live camera that can be used for pool reports.

There are over 81,000 people who have signed the petition to televise the trial at Courage Campaign's site in the last 24 hours, and there's nearly 40 more hours until the Friday 9am deadline. You shoudl join them, NOW!

Oscar Grant's Killer's Trial Moved To Los Angeles

Big news in the case of the former BART police officer who was videotaped fatally shooting an unarmed 22-year-old Black man named Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009. The judge has moved the trial of 27-year-old Johannes Mehserle to Los Angeles County from Alameda County:

The trial of a white former San Francisco Bay Area transit officer charged in the killing of an unarmed black man will be moved to Los Angeles County because of extensive media coverage and other possible distractions to trial participants, a judge in Oakland ruled Thursday.

The decision by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson comes a month after he decided the murder trial of Johannes Mehserle would be moved out of that area.

State court officials recommended Los Angeles and San Diego counties to the judge as possible sites for a trial.

[...]

According to 2008 Census figures, 14% of Alameda County’s 1.5 million residents are African American, compared with 9% of the 9.9 million residents in Los Angeles County and 5% of 3 million residents in San Diego County.

MadProfessah helped organize a vigil and rally earlier this year in Leimert Park calling attention to the senseless murder of Oscar Grant.

India Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Sodomy Appeal

Joe.My.God is reporting that the India Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the recent landmark decision by the New Delhi High Court which decriminalized homosexuality in the Country.

While there was no major outcry against the ruling, some conservative religious groups made it clear they would fight it. Among those was Kaushal, a Hindu astrologer, who filed the first petition with the Supreme Court. Leaders of religious groups are also contemplating filing petitions.

The Supreme Court said it will hear Kaushal’s petition on July 20 to decide whether it has merit, said Anand Grover, the lawyer for Naz Foundation, a gay rights group that filed the original petition against Section 377 eight years ago.

The Supreme Court also asked the Indian government and the Naz Foundation to appear before it to hear their views.

After listening to all parties, the court will decide whether to temporarily suspend the Delhi High Court order while Kaushal’s petition is heard. The Supreme Court ruling will be binding nationally.

The person appealing the ruling is an astrologer named Sushil Kumar Kaushal who said that "If such abnormality is permitted, then tomorrow people might seek permission for having sex with animals.”

And Franken Makes 60...

Al Franken was officially declared the winner of the November 2008 Minnesota Senate race on Tuesday by 312 votes, after that state's supreme court unanimously rejected Norm Coleman's lawsuit.

The win means that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will now have the votes of 60 people caucusing with the Democrats, although this includes two independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) as well as Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Since it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a majority vote in the 100-member Senate, many Democrats are celebrating Franken's win of the Minnesota seat after a long 8 months. However, the Democrats have had 59 votes since January and still they have not been able to pass truly progressive legislation.

It can't hurt the attempt to pass LGBT legislation, but I think the significance of the "60 vote barrier" has been overstated.

Media Covers LGBT Displeasure With Obama

Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press

Joe.My.God does a good job of covering the reaction of the three openly gay members of Congress to the ongoing flap over the Obama Department of Justice defending DOMA in court in a way that offended LGBT activists:

Barney Frank (D-MA): “I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate. I’ve been in touch with the White House and I’m hoping the president will make clear these were not his views.” Frank says that the DNC fundraiser boycott is wrong. “There are a lot of people who aren’t boycotting. I think it’s a mistake to deny money to the DNC.”

Rep. Tammy Balwin (D-WI): "Last week the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration. I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA. I also recognize that he cannot do it alone. Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law."

Rep. Jaris Polis (D-CO): "I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change. Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply"

In today's Los Angeles Times, Jessica Garrison and Mark Z. Barabak have an article entitled "Obama Policy Is Outreach To Gays" which quotes numerous LGBT activists reacting to the Obama administration's decision to offer (some) domestic partner benefits to federal employees:

"This is a good thing for the small percentage of . . . people that work for the federal government, but it leaves out the vast majority of people who are in same-sex relationships," said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California, one of the state's largest gay rights groups.

[...]

Although there is some sympathy for the president's position -- "he has enormous stuff on his plate that requires a lot of political capital," said Steve Elmendorf, a gay Democratic strategist -- many think the concerns of gays and lesbians are once again being shunted to second- and third-tier status.

Ken Sherrill, a Hunter College political scientist and gay activist, recalled how the Clinton administration started with great hope but ended in disappointment when the president, for tactical reasons, retreated on gay rights. President Clinton approved both the marriage bill and the policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

"There's a fear that Obama will prove to be a heartbreaker as well," Sherrill said.

A White House spokesman said Tuesday that the president was not retreating from his campaign promises. "The president remains fully committed to the . . . proposals he made," Adam Abrams said. "We have already begun work on many of these issues."

[...]

Nothing, however, matches the outrage provoked by last week's court filing in Santa Ana supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact that the brief was filed during Gay Pride Month, which Obama saluted with a formal proclamation, only compounded the sense of insult.

"You have some appointments that have been good and a proclamation," said Sherrill, who has written extensively on the history of the gay rights movement. "And then two tangible areas where the administration has done something wrongheaded and offensive. Doing nothing at all would have been a helluva lot better."

Indeed.

Text of CA Supreme Court Upholding Prop 8

S168047

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Hat/tip to Jeremy as GoodAsYou

Obama Nominates First Latina To Supreme Court

President Barack Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court. From FirstRead:

She currently serves on the Second Circuit in New York and was appointed to that position by Bill Clinton. BUT she was appointed to her first federal court appointment by President George H.W. Bush… She checks lots of boxes: Woman. Hispanic. Empathy… While working for the famed Robert Morgenthau in the New York District Attorney's office in the early 1980s, she described herself as a "liberal.”… Also has drawn criticism for saying in 2005: “All of the legal defense funds out there they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is-- court of appeals is where policy is made." She tried to backtrack, but conservatives are already rallying to defeat her based on this. Other bio information: Child of parents born in Puerto Rico... Grew up speaking mostly Spanish... Raised in a public housing project in The South Bronx in the shadow of Yankee Stadium... Father died when she was 9... A diehard Yankees fan, she's credited as the judge who saved baseball, issuing an injunction that led the eventual settlement of the 1990s-era Major League Baseball strike... Described by the New York Times in the early 1980s as an incessant smoker… Divorced from Kevin Edward Noonan in 1983 after seven-year marriage (no children). She left the NY District Attorney's office a year later and went into private practice... Graduated summa cum laude in 1976 from Princeton after winning a scholarship to the school... Earned her law degree from Yale in 1979, where she edited the Law Review.

Big day for court reporters today. The Prop 8 ruling is coming down at 10am PDT from the California Supreme Court.

Why Elections Matter: Chief Justice Robert's New Yorker Profile

kos over at Daily Kos highlights this key graf from Jeffrey Toobin's profile of Chief Justice John Roberts in the latest New Yorker

After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

Thanks, John Kerry! But if we didn't have Bush's second term we probably wouldn't have Obama's first term and Democratic control of the US House and Senate.

But this also highlights why Obam's choice to replace Justice David Souter is so important.