One million reportedly show up for Toronto pride

That is very cool. Read More...

Activist Senator Sessions 'taken aback' by Kagan

I want to extend our remarks on Kagan and Joe's post on DADT because Kagan seems to be providing the Obama Administration with a template on how to respond to attacks by activist Republican politicians on their policies in general.

Kagan seems to get it. She seems to understand you will NEVER be able to win over the activist politicians on the other side who are on the wrong side of history. Therefore, you explain your just and correct position and move on with the knowledge they would never vote for you in the first place. Don't extend a hand of compromise to your sworn enemies because they will simply slap it away.

By the way, with 78% of Americans agreeing DADT should end, those on the other side of the argument to keep the discriminatory policy in place are the ACTIVISTS!



I hope the Obama Administration is watching how deftly Kagan neutralizes the attacks on her justifiable positions. That is how it should be done every time Republicans try to force the Obama Admin to compromise on their policies in order to implement those policies in full force. Otherwise, one would have to conclude the Obama Administration must not really believe in their policies, in the first place, and it is all a matter of "'Yes we can,' but we really don't want to because we don't believe we should." Read More...

Judge in Log Cabin's DADT case rules against DOJ's effort to limit testimony

Next week, a Federal Court Judge will begin hearing the Log Cabin's lawsuit against DADT. But, the Judge has been setting the stage for the trial over the past few weeks. On Friday, she ruled against the Obama administration's effort to limit evidence in the case:

The latest ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips involves the administration's effort to bar all testimony on whether don't ask, don't tell actually benefits the military and how it's affected the lives of individual service members.

According to Justice Department lawyers, the only pertinent question is whether Congress could have rationally decided when it passed the law in 1993 that it would make the military more effective by reducing potential sources of conflict. It's legally irrelevant, the government lawyers say, that the Log Cabin Republicans have researchers prepared to testify that the law was irrational from the start and hasn't accomplished its stated goals, or that former gay and lesbian service members could testify about their discharges.

But Phillips, who will preside over the non-jury trial, said Friday she doesn't plan to limit the evidence to whatever Congress may have considered in 1993. She pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in 2003 that overturned laws banning private homosexual conduct. As Phillips noted, the court didn't confine itself to reviewing the legislative records in Texas, where the case arose, but considered the purpose and effect of the law before striking it down as an intrusion on personal privacy.

Phillips hasn't ruled yet on the critical legal question in the case -- whether the government can justify the law by citing any conceivable reason for its enactment, or whether administration lawyers will have to show that the ban actually serves a legitimate government purpose. She also hasn't ruled on the government's request to delay the trial until Congress acts on legislation to repeal don't ask, don't tell.

It could be awhile before Congress acts on legislation to repeal the law. We're hearing that Senate consideration of the Defense authorization bill, which contains the compromise repeal language, won't begin until September. Assuming the repeal language remains in the defense bill, a vote on the conference report could be delayed until December.

Also, the question of whether the judge relies on the rational basis test is key. Log Cabin wants a higher level of scrutiny -- and it should be. This will be a critical finding by the judge.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is going to be defending the discriminatory DADT law in court next week. And, the Obama administration continues to defend DOMA in federal courts. Asking Courts to uphold "separate, but equal" laws isn't exactly change. Read More...

So, who told Obama that moving on DADT repeal wasn't 'good politics'?

Via Kerry Eleveld's latest column:

That’s why I took note when President Obama kicked off the week last Sunday with some rather candid comments at the G-20 that seemed quite telling -- comments that Joe Sudbay probed during the meeting with [Obama aide Melody] Barnes.

In response to a question about whether the administration would make good on its commitment to meet certain debt reduction goals, Obama said, “For some reason people keep on being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So I say I’m going to reform our health care system and people think, well, gosh, that’s not smart politics, maybe we should hold off. Or I say, we’re going to move forward on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and somehow people say, well, why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics.”

Now, the notion that the White House mounted a serious effort to push DADT forward this year is debatable, but what I was most struck by was the president’s assertion that some people say moving forward on “don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t “good politics.” Which led me to wonder, who? Where is the president getting that from? Obviously, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Carl Levin thought it was good politics, because they pressed the vote forward in both chambers, ostensibly concluding that inaction would in fact be worse politics. A very solid 70% of the American people consistently signal in poll after poll that it’s good politics (far more than were ever on board with the health care bill). And as a politician who campaigned regularly on the issue of repeal and won election handily, you would think Obama himself would believe that making good on a pledge to do something that’s so widely supported across the country would be good politics.

When I asked Barnes the question, I cited the CNN poll showing 78% of voters support allowing gays to serve openly. And, I mentioned that even Dick and Liz Cheney are on board with repeal.

So, who is telling Obama that it's not good politics now? It sure sounds like someone with direct access to the President gave him that advice. To be fair, Barnes said it's never come up in the meetings she's attended. But, someone is giving Obama bad info.

It's bad politics to abandon campaign promises and to reneg on a commitment made in the State of the Union.

Sounds like someone is practicing political homophobia. Read More...