US Supreme Court on DADT

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The government had filed saying that the policy is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Hrm. Ok.

What was fun about this particular case is that, had it gone through, the Obama administration would have had to put forward to the court why it's ok for don't ask, don't tell to be in place, and what legitimate interest the government has in maintaining the policy. That would have been a nasty, brutish, and awful thing the President and his advisors would have had to do, but the Supreme Court is letting the lower court rulings stand. The lower court, btw, simply threw out the case and did not actually rule on it. 

Weird, weirder, and weirdest.

From Pietrangelo:

I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves. It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way Nazi Germany legalized discrimination against Jews... The Supreme Court is not infallible, they get things wrong, and they got it wrong this time."

*snaps fingers* You go, girl! Seriously, go, fight, win!

And call me when you get back, darling, I do love our little chats.

Read LawDork, 2.0's thoughts on the situation.

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Pres. Obama has tapped Second Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to replace outgoing Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor is being widely applauded by Democrats and liberals as a great pick, and it's looking like she will sail to an easy seat on the SCOTUS... making her the third woman and the first Latina to ever serve on the bench. Her experience is widely applauded and seems to the be "ideal" in terms of all those little things we like to see when we talk diversity -- unless, of course, you're Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich who are going so far as to call her a racist. Of course, there are two other major complaints about her: 1) that she's not the smartest judge in the country, but is, instead, strong willed and opinionated... which I'm trying to figure out how much different that makes her than conservative firebrand Antonin Scalia, and 2) she made a statement in 2005 that alluded to the fact that judges help make policy:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

That particular quote keeps popping up over and over again, but the incarnation I chose to use is from a Huffington Post article entitled Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Nominee: All You Need to Know. Though it's been fun to wade through article after article on Sotomayor trying to glean good information, that particular one sums it up very nicely:

• She has only ruled once on any abortion policy, supporting Bush's Mexico City Policy, preventing the government from funding overseas groups that provide abortions. The pro-lifers are down playing that opinion as "not that influential."
• She has never ruled on an LGBT issues, but her personal and professional history indicates that she is supportive, though no word on marriage.
• She will be one of the most experienced justices to ever sit on the bench.
• She "saved baseball" in 1995 when she ruled in favor of the players during the strike over the wishes of the owners.
• She was originally nominated to the Federal Circuit by George H.W. Bush and received wide Republican support. Though, now, she'll be in a much more volatile position, so I have no doubt many more will challenge her.

Again, I'm still learning about her, and I have no doubt most of our opinions will be shaped by the hearings in the Senate... but, so far... so good. I like this one. It's certainly better than Samuel Alito. Jeez.

Also check out these articles: from On Top Magazine, applause from LGBT folks over the appointment of Satomayor, including from the National LGBT Bar Association (which I didn't even know existed...); and an important reminder that abortion and marriage are not the biggest things that SCOTUS rules on, and we should be asking where Satomayor stands on executive power, instead.

Souter's Replacements

If you haven't heard, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, appointed by Bush I but turning out to be quite the moderate-liberal, will be stepping down at the end of this term from the bench. 

And, of course, there's a lot of speculation as to who will replace him. 

The only reason I post this is because Electoral-Vote.com has a great list of potential replacements and why they would be the primo-pick. There seems to be some pressure on Pres. Obama to pick a woman to stand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and there is no shortage of excellent women in the judicial field with other demographic qualifications, including open lesbian Kathleen Sullivan, an appellate lawyer and a professor of law at Stanford University. She would be the first openly LGBT person to serve on the Supreme Court. Sullivan has a long and successful career in the law... as do all of the other candidates mentioned in that article, as well as this list by the Daily Kos.

Do I think the President should pick one based on their minority status? Absolutely not. But it's nice to dream, yea?

March 5th CA Supreme Court Oral Arguments Audio

The MP3 transcript of yesterday's California Supreme Court hearings on the legality of Proposition 8 can be found here (I believe, I'm having internet troubles, but that's what it bills it to be), as well as the filings, amicus briefings, and documents that went along with the court case.
We have upwards of 90 days to wait.

What did y'all think of the hearings?

And so it begins...

Three very significant developments this week in the fight for equality:

• The Supreme Court fight has begun: Eight couples, and three gay widowers, have brought suit against the federal government for recognition of their marriages. Even though it is only coming out of Massachusetts, the implications are fascinating. If the Supreme Court says that the federal government has to recognize marriages as defined by a state, then that essentially knocks down the 1996 Federal DOMA. The question, of course: is it time?
• Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) has introduced a bill to the US House of Representatives repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, stating that it is ineffective and has impeded military readinness. On her bill, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, she says: "This bill will once and for all end the discriminatory practices of the Department of Defense and men and women who have been administratively discharged would be allowed to have the opportunity to serve again if they want. There is no evidence to support a continued ban on open service, and every reason to allow lesbian and gay Americans to serve our country." President Obama is currently meeting with the Department of Defense on how to best deal with a possible repeal.
• And the right is gearing up to fight "David's Law," which is expansion of hate crimes protections to cover sexual orientation, as well.

Things to watch for...

Oh, and via JMG, Pelosi is promising the passage of a trans-inclusive ENDA. Thank jeebus.

I just realized how expansive this post is... lot of good stuff :-).

Discrimination against the haters

Don't be a hater, apparently you will get discriminated against, as well.

From Kentucky.com:

"We're disappointed because Christian students and other students who do not approve of homosexual behavior (are not) second-class citizens simply because of their viewpoint," Oster said.

This is in reaction to the Supreme Court refusing to hear a whiney lawsuit where a Christian boy in rural Kentucky (actually, not that far from here -- Boyd County) said that allowing a GSA and non-discrimination policies for gays and lesbians was discriminatory against him.

Uh-huh.

In other news, apparently fundies in Australia think that gays and lesbians want children as trophies and North Carolina prepares for another bout with a DOMA (review: NC is the only state without a DOMA in the South). Oh, and even in a bluer state, it's okay to call homosexuality an abomination on the state legislative floor.

I mean, really, folks... so much hate for the religious. Why can't we just be a Christian nation to accomodate them?