We’re just 16 days away from the Supreme Court hearings on DOMA and Prop 8. Here’s the latest news:
At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser is worried about Justice Kennedy’s newfound respect for the powers of Congress.
…it is a bit concerning to see Kennedy suddenly claiming that he believes in judicial restraint while he is no doubt in the process of reviewing briefs in the marriage equality cases: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Wednesday that congressional lawmakers need to maintain the nation’s balance of power by being able to compromise, expressing concerns that the high court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues such as gay marriage, health care and immigration.
It would be stunning (and disgusting) if the Justice who was instrumental in expanded rights for corporations over the objections of congressional law suddenly felt restrained when it came to rights for actual people.
Over at The Dish, Andrew Sullivan questions Richard Socarides’ explanation of why Bill Clinton signed DOMA in the first place:
They didn’t fully comprehend that the federal law would do … exactly what it said it would do. Blogger, please. That’s like Stephanopoulos taking me out to dinner at the time to persuade me that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was going to reduce the number of discharges of gay servicemembers – when it did the very opposite. And Socarides won’t mention Dick Morris, who was the real force behind this move and who once actually told me (probably disingenuously) that his one regret in the Clinton years was DOMA. But Socarides’ point – once you get past his ludicrous excuse that they were shocked, shocked that gay people would be affected by the law – is honest enough. They wanted votes.
Over at Towleroad.com, they have the video of David Mixner talking about the Clinton decision to sign DOMA:
Mixner said that while he welcomes Clinton’s decision to do so, it’s important to not rewrite history and sweep his original actions under the rug. Mixner also talks about the upcoming SCOTUS decisions.
Sunnivie Brydum at the Advocate notes something missing from the Clinton Op-Ed:
“As welcome as Clinton’s words are, there are two that are conspicuously absent: I’m sorry,” writes Capehart. “Sorry for signing the bill. Sorry for crowing about it in radio ads on Christian radio stations during his ’96 reelection campaign. Sorry for the harm it has caused same-sex couples and the income inequality it exacerbates.”
And Joe.My.God reports on NOM’s fundraisng to bus in the fundies to their march at the Supreme Court later this month:
“We have received requests from churches for 100 buses that we don’t have the funds to assist. That’s thousands — many of them from Latino and African-American communities — who want to attend the march but are having trouble pulling together the necessary funds. I know that some of you reading this email can give a lot more than that. Please realize that for every $1,000 you donate today, you will be responsible for bringing an entire bus full of marriage supporters and activists to the march at the Supreme Court on March 26th so they can make their voices heard loud and clear at the exact time the most important court case of our generation is under consideration.”
It’s practically a steal.
