Salon.com > Supreme Court http://www.salon.com Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Watch Bill O’Reilly freak out over the gay marriage rulings http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/watch_bill_oreilly_freak_out_over_the_gay_marriage_rulings/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/watch_bill_oreilly_freak_out_over_the_gay_marriage_rulings/#comments Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:26:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13349610 Fox News host Bill O'Reilly was not too happy about the Supreme Court's rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8 (and, for that matter, Obamacare), railing against how "the Supreme Court has put aside its mandate to uphold the Constitution," and has "morphed into a political organization," finding "loopholes" in the Prop 8 and Obamacare cases to get the desired result.

O'Reilly got particularly angry when talking with Fox News analyst Juan Williams, calling Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that the backers of Proposition 8 had no standing to appeal the case "just absurd."

Williams argued that in cases like Prop 8 and Obamacare, Roberts "made a decision based on what he thought was in the political best interest of the Court."

"That's not his job!" O'Reilly exploded. "That's not his job, Juan!"

Here's the video. The interview with Williams begins at around 4:25:

 

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/watch_bill_oreilly_freak_out_over_the_gay_marriage_rulings/feed/ 18 Federal judge approves challenge to Michigan ban on gay marriage http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/federal_judge_approves_challenge_to_michigan_ban_on_gay_marriage/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/federal_judge_approves_challenge_to_michigan_ban_on_gay_marriage/#comments Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:49:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13349489 A federal judge has ruled that a challenge to Michigan's statewide ban on same-sex marriages can proceed, citing the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

The case involves a lesbian couple that wants to adopt three children, but is barred from it under both a state constitutional amendment and a state statute. As Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog explains, the constitutional amendment, "enacted in 2004, provides that '[t]o secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.'" The state statute limits adoption to single people or married couples. Thus since they are not considered married under state law, the couple cannot adopt.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/federal_judge_approves_challenge_to_michigan_ban_on_gay_marriage/feed/ 5 Justices Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan hunt together http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/justices_antonin_scalia_and_elena_kagan_hunt_together/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/justices_antonin_scalia_and_elena_kagan_hunt_together/#comments Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:14:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13349441 The social lives of congress members is a topic best avoided, but a certain class of Washingtonian gets a little tingle from knowing that the bench warmers on the Supreme Court hang out after hours. Judges: They're just like us!

Justice Elena Kagan first went hunting with Justice Antonin Scalia when she needed to get some Second Amendment credibility. First they shot birds but now Kagan has graduated to killing bigger, hairier animals.

“He said, ‘It’s time for big-game hunting,’” she recalled in an onstage interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “We went out to Wyoming this past fall to shoot deer and antelope, and we did ... I shot myself a deer.” Look at that syntax; soon she'll be droppin' the g's in her opinions.

Another delicious detail: She flies commercial.

Here's the video of her appearance:

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/justices_antonin_scalia_and_elena_kagan_hunt_together/feed/ 9 House GOPer introduces constitutional ban on same-sex marriage http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/house_goper_introduces_constitutional_ban_on_same_sex_marriage/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/house_goper_introduces_constitutional_ban_on_same_sex_marriage/#comments Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:41:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13347745 In response to the Supreme Court's decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., has introduced a measure that would amend the Constitution so that it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The bill, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, is quite short:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Last week, the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of receiving federal benefits, is unconstitutional.

Though there's no chance that Huelskamp's legislation will become law, 28 Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors to it, mostly unsurprising conservatives like Paul Broun, Ga., Trent Franks, Ariz., Louie Gohmert, Texas, Ralph Hall, Texas, Jim Jordan, Ohio, and Steve Stockman, Texas.

The Huffington Post reports:

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/house_goper_introduces_constitutional_ban_on_same_sex_marriage/feed/ 12 Prop 8 backers lose another challenge http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/prop_8_backers_lose_another_challenge/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/prop_8_backers_lose_another_challenge/#comments Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:00:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13346668 The backers of Proposition 8 have lost their last-ditch bid to halt same-sex marriages in California, after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected their Saturday petition. Kennedy's decision was made without comment, SCOTUSblog reports.

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit lifted its injunction against same-sex marriages, which had been put in place pending a Supreme Court ruling on the legal challenge to Proposition 8. Last week, the Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits, as the supporters of the measure, which banned same-sex marriage in California, did not have standing to appeal a District Court ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, meaning that the only barrier to same-sex marriage in the state was the injunction.

Since the Ninth Circuit's decision, same-sex couples have already begun marrying in the state. But supporters of Proposition 8 argued that the injunction could not be lifted until the Supreme Court decision was finalized, which occurs 25 days after a decision is handed down.

Kennedy had dissented from the majority opinion on the ruling, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/prop_8_backers_lose_another_challenge/feed/ 16 David Boies: Goal is marriage equality “in every single state” http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/david_boies_goal_is_marriage_equality_in_every_single_state/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/david_boies_goal_is_marriage_equality_in_every_single_state/#comments Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:46:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13346589 David Boies, who represented the plaintiffs challenging California's Proposition 8, said that advocates for marriage equality are looking to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.

“Our goal is to have marriage equality, that is guaranteed by the United States constitution, enforced in every single state in the Union,” Boies said on CNN's State of the Union.

“There isn't any state we're giving up on,” he added.

From CNN:

Boies argued Sunday that the decision made by the Supreme Court can be applied on a national scale, rather than just California. Earlier this week, he told CNN’s Gloria Borger that proponents of same-sex marriage plan to get marriage equality in all 50 states within the next five years. Currently, 13 states plus the District of Columbia approve same-sex marriage.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/david_boies_goal_is_marriage_equality_in_every_single_state/feed/ 1 NOM lawyer: Prop 8, DOMA decisions were “judicial tyranny” http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/nom_lawyer_prop_8_doma_decisions_were_judicial_tyranny/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/nom_lawyer_prop_8_doma_decisions_were_judicial_tyranny/#comments Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:34:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13346590 John Eastman, an attorney for the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage, called the Supreme Court decisions on Proposition 8 and DOMA "judicial tyranny."

“We are manufacturing the right to redefine marriage,” Eastman said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He added: “That’s judicial tyranny, not the kind of system we have.”

Watch, via Mediaite:

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/nom_lawyer_prop_8_doma_decisions_were_judicial_tyranny/feed/ 31 DOMA isn’t dead yet http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/doma_sort_of_died_but_my_political_pessimism_didnt_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/doma_sort_of_died_but_my_political_pessimism_didnt_partner/#comments Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:00:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13340209 The WeeklingsHEADLINES AND FACEBOOK statuses have been declaring “DOMA is dead!” and other such hyperbole since Wednesday’s two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality. Naturally, the LGBT community was overjoyed at the news with a rally outside The Stonewall Inn bringing gays and politicos together. An historic moment in LGBT rights warrants some celebration, even if the decisions are less than what gays hoped and less than the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, the case most resembling the Prop 8 battle.

I went to the rally, camera in hand, expecting to see the joyous faces of those who had been so worried while the SCOTUS decisions were being awaited. What I saw and heard was not a photo op: men and women, cautiously joyful, wandering through occasional bursts of enthusiasm. There was introspection, wonder, maybe even shell-shock. I went to the rally with a need for solidarity, feeling relief more than anything but the mood at the New York “victory” rally was like the tenuous ripples of a child stepping into a still lake. The water feels good, but what lies beneath? Was it trepidation or the cynicism often attributed to New Yorkers? Realism or pessimism?

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/doma_sort_of_died_but_my_political_pessimism_didnt_partner/feed/ 13 Prop 8 backers ask SCOTUS to halt California marriages http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/prop_8_backers_ask_scotus_to_halt_california_marriages/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/prop_8_backers_ask_scotus_to_halt_california_marriages/#comments Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:20:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13346541 The supporters of Proposition 8 have filed a last-ditch petition with the Supreme Court to block same-sex marriage in California, after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay on gay marriages, the last barrier for gay couples in the state.

Reuters reports:

In their application asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit and reinstate the gay marriage ban, opponents argued the appeals court had jumped the gun in lifting its stay.

The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the 9th Circuit lacked authority to act when it did, and that it violated the terms of its own stay requiring the ruling remain in place "until final disposition by the Supreme Court."

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/prop_8_backers_ask_scotus_to_halt_california_marriages/feed/ 5 SCOTUS: No right to remain silent unless you speak up http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/scotus_no_right_to_remain_silence_unless_you_speak_up_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/scotus_no_right_to_remain_silence_unless_you_speak_up_partner/#comments Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:00:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13340871 International Business Times If you want to invoke your constitutional right to remain silent, you’d better not be silent.

That’s the circular logic of a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that simply remaining silent is not enough to protect American citizens from self-incrimination. Though it’s received scant media attention, the decision has serious implications for criminal prosecutions, legal experts say. It came on June 17 in Salinas v. Texas, which concerned the nature of police questioning in a 20-year-old murder investigation that led to the conviction of a Houston man.

In January 1993, Genovevo Salinas was brought in for police questioning about the murder of two brothers. Police found shotgun shell casings at the scene, and Salinas -- who was not arrested and not read his Miranda rights -- agreed to let police inspect his shotgun. When police asked if the shells would match his shotgun, Salinas did not answer the question. He stayed silent, looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet and bit his bottom lip.

Salinas was later arrested on an unrelated traffic warrant, at which time police decided there was enough evidence to charge him with the murders. Salinas did not testify at the trial, but his reaction to police questioning -- the fidgeting, lip-biting, etc. -- was used as evidence. In other words, Salinas’ silence was used against him, a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, or so he thought.

Salinas was convicted and received a 20-year sentence. On direct appeal, he argued to the Court of Appeals of Texas that the prosecutors’ use of his silence as part of their case was unconstitutional, but the court rejected that argument. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where in a 5-4 decision last week, the court found that Salinas’ self-incrimination privilege had not been violated, mainly because he never flat-out said, “I’m invoking my right to remain silent.” This despite the fact that Salinas was not under arrest at the time of questioning, and was therefore not read his Miranda rights.

From the plurality opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito:

“Petitioner [Salinas] cannot benefit from that principle because it is undisputed that his interview with police was voluntary. As petitioner himself acknowledges, he agreed to accompany the officers to the station and ‘was free to leave at any time during the interview.’ Brief for Petitioner 2 - 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). That places petitioner’s situation outside the scope of Miranda and other cases in which we have held that various forms of governmental coercion prevented defendants from voluntarily invoking the privilege.”

The Supreme Court had previously held that mere silence is not sufficient for a suspect to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The difference here is that Salinas was not a suspect at the time he went silent; he was merely a witness brought in for questioning.

Alito was joined in his opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. While the ruling has been overshadowed by this week's Supreme Court’s decisions on affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8, it’s received its share of criticism in both journalistic and legal circles.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of First Amendment law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law,wrote on the ABA Journal Tuesday that criminal defense lawyers will now have to take extra care, advising their clients to explicitly speak up if they wish to remain silent. He added that the new ruling is also likely to cause unnecessary confusion.

“Constitutional protections should not be just for those who have legal training and know what they need to say to the police to invoke their rights,” Chemerinsky wrote. “From a common sense perspective, Salinas was penalized for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent in the face of police questioning. This should not be tolerated under the Fifth Amendment.”

Read the full syllabus for Salinas v Texas here.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/scotus_no_right_to_remain_silence_unless_you_speak_up_partner/feed/ 17 Lady Gaga returns to public eye to celebrate gay pride http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/lady_gaga_returns_to_public_eye_with_speech_for_lgbt_rights/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/lady_gaga_returns_to_public_eye_with_speech_for_lgbt_rights/#comments Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:29:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13346163 Stepping into the public eye for the first time in months after her hip surgery, on Friday night pop star Lady Gaga delivered a speech at New York's Gay Pride kick-off rally. Gaga, a longtime LGBT icon and activist, paid tribute to the LGBT community celebrating the Supreme Court's historic ruling in favor of marriage equality earlier this week.

"As my LGBT fans and friends always said to me, 'I knew Laday Gaga when,'" Gaga said. "Well, look who the star is now. Now I get to say that I knew you when. Now I get to say that I knew you when you suffered, when you felt unequal, when you felt there was nothing to look forward to."

Waving a rainbow flag, Gaga then sand the national anthem:

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/lady_gaga_returns_to_public_eye_with_speech_for_lgbt_rights/feed/ 1 Gay marriage is back in California http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/gay_marriage_is_back_in_california_ap/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/gay_marriage_is_back_in_california_ap/#comments Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:55:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13346133 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Same-sex marriages that were outlawed in California 4 1/2 years ago resumed in a rush after a federal appeals court took the "unusual, but not unprecedented," step of freeing couples to obtain marriage licenses, before the U.S. Supreme Court had issued its final judgment in a challenge of the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

Within hours of the appeals court's action Friday, the four plaintiffs who in 2009 sued to overturn the ban had exchanged vows during hastily arranged ceremonies that drew crowds of well-wishers as the news spread that the weddings were back on.

"I was at work," lead plaintiff Kristen Perry said, adding that she rushed home to Berkeley to change into a gray suit so she could marry her now-wife Sandra Stier at San Francisco City Hall.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris declared Perry and Stier "spouses for life" as hundreds of supporters looked on and cheered from the balconies ringing the couple's perch under City Hall's rotunda. The other couple in the Supreme Court case, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, was married at Los Angeles City Hall 90 minutes later wearing matching white rose boutonnières and with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presiding.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/gay_marriage_is_back_in_california_ap/feed/ 3 You made Wendy Davis possible http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/you_made_wendy_davis_possible/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/you_made_wendy_davis_possible/#comments Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:30:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13340545 While most of us, most of the time, can be little more than passive observers to the policy-making portion of politics, landmark achievements this week showed that we can be a lot more than that, by turning the results of elections. Even if it doesn’t feel that way sometimes.

The Wendy Davis filibuster in Texas? The Supreme Court decision on DOMA? The immigration bill passing in the Senate? All of them were achievements by ordinary citizens who got involved and affected elections. These things didn’t just happen. They were the real outcomes of citizens voting, in contests that could have gone the other way just as easily.

The United States is an enormous nation, with an enormously complex political system – one that puts no one in charge, but instead relies on separated institutions sharing powers, federalism, and all sorts of other complications. As a result, it’s very difficult, most of the time, to see obvious links between a specific election and a specific outcome. Yes, every once in a while there’s an obvious consequence: no 2008 Democratic landslide, no Affordable Care Act. But frustration is far more common in the Madisonian system.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/you_made_wendy_davis_possible/feed/ 6 House GOPer on DOMA: Justices wouldn’t even “pass law school” http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/house_goper_on_doma_justices_wouldnt_even_pass_law_school/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/house_goper_on_doma_justices_wouldnt_even_pass_law_school/#comments Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:46:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13340348 Rep. Tim Huelskamp railed against the Supreme Court decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that he doesn't even think the Justices would "pass law school with decisions like that.”

Speaking on the conservative radio show The Steve Deace Show, Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, accused the Court of trying to “rewrite the Constitution” and “ramming their views down the throats of Americans.”

“If you read these decisions together," he continued, referring to both the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions (with majority opinions written by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, respectively), "[it's] twisted logic, tortured the Constitution, I can’t even stand to read the decisions because I don’t even think they’d pass law school with decisions like that.”

Huelskamp is currently pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would restore the effects of DOMA by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In a 5-4 decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the section of DOMA that did the same is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/house_goper_on_doma_justices_wouldnt_even_pass_law_school/feed/ 44 Rand Paul’s code switching http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/rand_pauls_code_switching/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/rand_pauls_code_switching/#comments Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:30:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13340082 Republican Sen. Rand Paul got himself in a spot of trouble this week after speaking out of both sides of his mouth on gay marriage. When speaking to a national audience, via ABC News' Jeff Zeleny, the Republican senator seemed unconcerned: He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion striking down the Defense of Marriage Act for avoiding “a cultural war" and letting the states "agree to disagree."

But when speaking to a more conservative audience in an interview with Glenn Beck, Paul warned that changing marriage laws could lead to bestiality: “It is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people will take it to one extension further -- does it have to be humans?”

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/rand_pauls_code_switching/feed/ 50 Family Research Council delights gays http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/what_is_the_family_research_council_telling_us/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/what_is_the_family_research_council_telling_us/#comments Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:55:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13339768 The Southern Poverty Law Center considers the Family Research Council a hate group for its venomous homophobia. But after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, the Council has initiated a prayer campaign that just might be intended to thaw relations with the LGBT community.

The campaign, which is now all over the LGBT blogosphere, encourages the faithful to get "on our knees for America" and the logo, as AmericaBlog puts it "appears to be a man performing oral sex."

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/what_is_the_family_research_council_telling_us/feed/ 28 Breaking: Not all gays are alike! http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/breaking_not_all_gays_are_alike/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/breaking_not_all_gays_are_alike/#comments Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:46:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13339807 Every now and then, a news headline is so bottomlessly dumb -- and not even from HuffPo -- it makes us wonder if there's an editorial directive out there to State the Obvious. In the aftermath of a historic week for LGBT rights, we bring you this recent gem: A USA Today story that reveals "Not all gays and lesbians want to marry, research shows." You don't say!

USA Today isn't exactly a bastion of profound insight – it's best known as the newspaper you find outside your hotel room door in the morning. But it still deserves a very special shout-out for condescending, heterosplaining crap anyway. In the story, Sharon Jayson says that "Just because same-sex couples can legally marry doesn't mean they will" and that "marriage isn't for everyone." Whoa whoa whoa SLOW DOWN, USA Today. The Supreme Court didn't just make marriage mandatory for every homosexual in America? Jayson goes on to quote a University of Minnesota researcher who observes, "Some gays and lesbians clearly want to get married, but others are unsure or reject marriage for themselves." I feel a "The more you know" rainbow coming on here.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/breaking_not_all_gays_are_alike/feed/ 15 A no-lose fix for the Voting Rights Act http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/a_no_lose_fix_for_the_voting_rights_act/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/a_no_lose_fix_for_the_voting_rights_act/#comments Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:45:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13339141 By striking down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and thereby gutting the act’s Section 5, the Supreme Court has presented defenders of voting rights in America with a challenge —and a historic opportunity. The challenge is the need to avert a new wave of state and local laws restricting voting rights in the aftermath of the Court’s decision. The opportunity is the chance that Congress now has to universalize Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, to make it apply to all 50 states.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 imposed a special coverage formula on jurisdictions with particularly bad histories of racial discrimination in voting, including nine states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—and dozens of county and municipal governments, including the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. Section 5 authorized the Justice Department to require “pre-clearance” of proposed changes in electoral laws in these jurisdictions. The pre-clearance requirement has been used in recent years to thwart attempts by the ethnocentric non-Hispanic White Right to engage in voter ID laws or redistricting plans that were evidently motivated by the desire to indirectly eliminate or dilute the votes of nonwhite citizens or poor citizens.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/a_no_lose_fix_for_the_voting_rights_act/feed/ 32 “World War G”: The gay marriage apocalypse is here http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/world_war_g_the_gay_marriage_apocalypse_is_here/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/world_war_g_the_gay_marriage_apocalypse_is_here/#comments Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:20:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13339174 A Funny or Die sketch, probably in partnership with Rick Santorum's Christian film company, presents "World War G," a parody of Brad Pitt's zombie apocalypse movie in which a lone crusader fights against the proliferation of homosexuals as a result of the SCOTUS ruling against DOMA.

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/world_war_g_the_gay_marriage_apocalypse_is_here/feed/ 3 Pat Robertson on DOMA: Does Anthony Kennedy have gay clerks? http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/pat_robertson_on_doma_does_anthony_kennedy_have_gay_clerks/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/pat_robertson_on_doma_does_anthony_kennedy_have_gay_clerks/#comments Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:14:00 +0000 http://www.railrode.net/?p=13338790 Pat Robertson weighed in on the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, in Wednesday's 5-4 decision that was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. “Let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy, does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?” Robertson wondered.

The host of "The 700 Club" was speaking to Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. “I have no idea,” Sekulow replied. “I think what Justice Kennedy did, if you look at a series of cases that he’s been involved in, he’s taken the view that sexual orientation is a special class.”

Robertson later continued that the decision to overturn DOMA could pave the way for a Sodom and Gomorrah-type situation. “Look what happened to Sodom. After a while, there wasn’t any other way, and God did something pretty drastic.”

Watch, via MediaMatters:

Continue Reading...

]]> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/pat_robertson_on_doma_does_anthony_kennedy_have_gay_clerks/feed/ 16