OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:
- February 17, 2015
Posted by bonniekgoodman on February 17, 2015
Posted by bonniekgoodman on October 3, 2014
Source: NYT, 11-18-13
Robert L. Wilkins, left, with President Obama and other nominees in June, was picked to fill one of three vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In blocking Judge Robert L. Wilkins’s nomination, Senate Republicans on Monday denied President Obama his third pick in recent weeks to fill a vacancy on the nation’s most powerful and prestigious appeals court….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on November 18, 2013
Source: WH, 7- 19-13
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:33 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues — immigration, economics, et cetera — we’ll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.
The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week — the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.
First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.
The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.
You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.
There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.
And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.
Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.
And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.
I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.
I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.
That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.
When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.
And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.
So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let’s figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.
Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.
I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “stand your ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?
I’m not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I’ve got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.
And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.
And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.
And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.
Thank you, guys.
1:52 P.M. EDT
Posted by bonniekgoodman on July 19, 2013
The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, ruling that the formula used to enforce the nearly 50-year-old civil rights law needs to be updated.
In a 5-4 decision the court said that the coverage formula used by the government to determine which states are required to get federal permission before they make any changes to voting laws is unconstitutional. The ruling effectively puts the issue back in the hands of lawmakers to revise the law. And until then, the ruling effectively renders section five of the Voting Rights Act inoperable….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 25, 2013
Source: ABC News Radio, 6-24-13
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Obama on Monday said the U.S. is following the appropriate legal channels in the case of fugitive NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom the White House believes is in Moscow….READ MORE
Q — Putin, and are you confident that they’ll expel
— he’ll be expelled?
THE PRESIDENT: What we know is, is that we’re following all of the appropriate legal channels, and working with various other countries to make sure that rule of law is observed. And beyond that, I’ll refer to the Justice Department that has been actively involved in the case.
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 24, 2013
Source: Washington Post, 6-18-13
Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders over data requests it makes, arguing that the company has a constitutional right to speak about information it’s forced to give the government….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 18, 2013
Source: NYT, 6-4-13
President Barack Obama nominated, from left, Robert L. Wilkins, Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Patricia Ann Millett, to fill the three open spots on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday.
President Obama plans to nominate three people to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, setting up a potential legislative collision….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 4, 2013
Source: WH, 6-4-13
President Barack Obama delivers a statement announcing the nomination of three candidates for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 4, 2013. Nominees from left are: Robert Leon Wilkins, Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, and Patricia Ann Millett. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
Today, President Obama announced that he is nominating three candidates for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins.
As the President explained, one of his most important responsibilities is nominating qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench. And the Senate has a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation….READ MORE
Source: WH, 5-4-13
10:28 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Please have a seat.
So one of the most important responsibilities of a President is to nominate qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench.
And Congress has a responsibility, as well. The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent. They can approve a President’s nominee or they can reject a President’s nominee. But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.
Now, throughout my first term as President, the Senate too often failed to do that. Time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.
As a result, my judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor. Let me repeat that: My nominees have taken three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor. These individuals that I nominate are qualified. When they were given an up or down vote in the Senate — when they were finally given an up or down vote in the Senate, every one of them was confirmed. So this is not about principled opposition. This is about political obstruction.
I recognize that neither party has a perfect track record here. Democrats weren’t completely blameless when I was in the Senate. But what’s happening now is unprecedented. For the good of the American people, it has to stop. Too much of the people’s business is at stake. Our legal framework depends on timely confirmations of judicial nominees. And nowhere is this more apparent than with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The D.C. Circuit is known as the second highest court in the country, and there’s a good reason for that. The judges on the D.C. Circuit routinely have the final say on a broad range of cases involving everything from national security to environmental policy; from questions of campaign finance to workers’ rights. In other words, the court’s decisions impact almost every aspect of our lives.
There are 11 seats on the D.C. Circuit Court. When I first took office, there were two vacancies. Since then, two more judges have retired. That means there are four vacancies that needed to be filled. And by February of this year, more than one-third of the seats on the nation’s second highest court were empty. I mean, imagine if a third of the seats on the highest court — the Supreme Court — were empty. We would rightly consider that a judicial crisis. If we want to ensure a fair and functioning judiciary, our courts cannot be short-staffed.
In 2010, I put forward a highly qualified nominee for the D.C. Circuit — Caitlin Halligan. Caitlin’s credentials were beyond question. She had bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities. She had the support of a majority of senators. Nobody suggested she was not qualified to serve on the court. If Caitlin had gotten a simple up or down vote before the full Senate, I am confident she would have been easily confirmed. But instead, for two and a half years, Senate Republicans blocked her nominations. It had nothing to do with Caitlin’s qualifications. It was all about politics. And after two and a half years of languishing in limbo, this brilliant and principled lawyer asked me to withdraw her nomination.
Now, the good news is last year I put forward another highly qualified nominee — Sri Srinivasan. And Sri’s credentials were also beyond question. And no doubt due to some mounting public pressure, along with the vocal bipartisan support that he received, Sri was unanimously confirmed a few weeks ago, becoming the first South Asian American to serve as a circuit court judge in our nation’s history.
So I’m pleased that the Senate acted. I’m glad Republicans chose not to play politics and obstruct Sri’s nomination the way they did with Caitlin’s. And I’m hopeful that we can now build on that progress, because Sri’s confirmation was the first to the D.C. Circuit in seven years. So out of the four vacancies that existed, one has now been filled. There are three seats still vacant on the D.C. Circuit Court — one of them, by the way — one of them has been vacant since Chief Justice Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2005. Anybody who values the role of our courts should find that unacceptable regardless of your party. Which brings me to today. That’s why today I’m nominating three outstanding, highly qualified individuals to fill those remaining seats.
Now Patricia Millett is one of our nation’s finest appellate attorneys and, until recently, held the record for the most Supreme Court arguments by a female lawyer. She served in the Solicitor General’s Office for 11 years, for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Since then, in private practice, she’s represented everyone from large businesses to individual pro bono plaintiffs. And, by the way, as the wife of a retired Navy officer, Patricia has served our nation outside the courtroom as well, as a member of a military family.
Nina Pillard’s career has been defined by an unshakeable commitment to the public good. She twice served in the Department of Justice and was an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Her landmark successes before the Supreme Court include defending the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act and opening the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to female students. And, today, Nina is a professor at Georgetown and, if confirmed, would continue the D.C. Circuit’s strong tradition of distinguished scholars going on to serve as judges — from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And finally, this is the second time I’ve called on Judge Robert Wilkins to serve — because in 2010, I nominated Robert to the D.C. District Court, and the Senate confirmed him without opposition. Before serving with distinction as a federal judge, Robert spent eight years in private practice and a decade as a public defender here in Washington, D.C., providing legal representation to defendants who could not afford an attorney. And throughout his career, Robert has distinguished himself as a principled attorney of the utmost integrity.
So these three individuals are highly qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit. They have broad bipartisan support from across the legal community. The non-partisan American Bar Association have given them — each of them — its highest rating. These are no slouches. (Laughter.) These are no hacks. There are incredibly accomplished lawyers by all accounts. And there are members of Congress here today who are ready to move forward with these nominations, including the Chairman, Patrick Leahy. So there’s no reason — aside from politics — for Republicans to block these individuals from getting an up or down vote.
Despite that, some Republicans recently have suggested that by nominating these three individuals, I’m somehow engaging in — and I’m quoting here — in “court-packing.” (Laughter.) No — people laugh, but this is an argument I’ve made. For those of you who are familiar with the history of court-packing, that involved Franklin Delano Roosevelt trying to add additional seats to the Supreme Court in order to water down and get more support for his political agenda. We’re not adding seats here. We’re trying to fill seats that are already existing. Each of the past five Presidents has seen at least three of their nominees confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. Since I’ve been President, obstruction has slowed that down to one.
Right now, there are three open seats on a critical court. I didn’t create these seats. I didn’t just wake up one day and say, let’s add three seats to the District Court of Appeals. These are open seats. And the Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats. What I am doing today is my job. I need the Senate to do its job.
The fact that Republican senators are now pushing a proposal to reduce the number of judges on this independent federal court also makes no sense. When a Republican was President, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court made complete sense. Now that a Democrat is President, it apparently doesn’t. Eight is suddenly enough. (Laughter.) People are laughing because it’s obviously a blatant political move.
We know that because some of the same Republicans behind this current proposal to reduce the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit Court voted in 2007 to keep 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit — same folks. They say the workload has decreased since then, but in April, the judicial conference of the United States — which, by the way, is led by Chief Justice John Roberts and includes judges from various levels of the federal court system — told the Senate that the current workload before the D.C. Circuit requires 11 judges. So they should know. That was just two months ago.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land, and former member of the D.C. Circuit Court says they need 11 judges. So it’s important we don’t play games here, and it’s important that we cut through the verbiage.
An essential part of our democracy is the separation of powers. The executive, the legislative, and the judiciary each have a role to play. And when it comes to judicial nominees, my responsibility is to put forward qualified individuals. These are three of the most qualified individuals you’ll ever meet. The Senate’s responsibility, in turn, is to promptly give them an up or down vote.
So today, I’m doing my part. I hope in the coming months that the Senate does its part, because I assure you, when these three outstanding individuals are on the bench, they will do their part. That’s what the Constitution demands. It’s what the American people expect. And I look forward to years of outstanding service by these outstanding lawyers of incredible integrity.
And I promised that I would mention this before all of you — they also have really good-looking families. (Laughter.) Because I just saw their kids, and — (applause). All right. Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)
10:43 A.M. EDT
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 4, 2013
Source: ABC News Radio, 6-3-13
The Supreme Court Monday upheld a Maryland law that allows officials to take DNA without a warrant from those who have been arrested, but not convicted of a serious crime.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, for a 5-4 majority, wrote, “the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure.”…READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 3, 2013
Source: SCOTUS, 3-27-13
United States, Petitioner
Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Docketed: September 11, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-2335, 12-2435)
Decision Date: October 18, 2012
Questions Presented …READ MORE
|~~~Date~~~||~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Sep 11 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due October 11, 2012)|
|Sep 18 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 19, 2012, for all respondents.|
|Oct 10 2012||Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer in opposition filed.|
|Oct 18 2012||Judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.|
|Oct 19 2012||Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in opposition filed.|
|Oct 26 2012||Supplemental brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Oct 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.|
|Oct 29 2012||Supplemental brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 1 2012||Supplemental brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Nov 8 2012||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 13 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.|
|Dec 3 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.|
|Dec 7 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch�s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.|
|Dec 11 2012||Vicki C. Jackson, Esq., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the positions that the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case, and that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives lacks Article III standing in this case.|
|Dec 13 2012||Briefing proposal of the parties and Court-appointed amicus curiae filed.|
|Dec 14 2012||Upon consideration of the letter of December 13, 2012, from the Solicitor General on behalf of the litigants and the amicus curiae invited to brief and argue this case, the following briefing schedule is adopted. On the merits, the brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, January 22, 2013. The brief of the Solicitor General, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Friday, February 22, 2013. The brief of Edith Windsor, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, February 26, 2013. The reply brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 6,000 words, is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court. On the jurisdictional questions, the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 10,000 words, is to be filed on or before January 22, 2013. The briefs of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, not to exceed 10,000 words each, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, February 20, 2013. Reply briefs of the litigants and the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 4,000 words, are to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court.|
|Dec 14 2012||Other amici curiae briefs shall be filed within the time allowed under Rule 37.3(a) of the Rules of this Court, except that amici curiae briefs on the merits in support of the positions of the Solicitor General and/or Edith Windsor shall be filed within 7 days after the brief of the Solicitor General on the merits is filed. The litigants, Court-appointed amicus curiae, and other amici curiae shall indicate on the cover of each brief filed which issue or issues are addressed in that particular brief in addition to the information required by Rule 37.3 of the Rules of this Court.|
|Jan 2 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.|
|Jan 7 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 27, 2013|
|Jan 8 2013||The time to file the brief, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 24, 2013.|
|Jan 8 2013||The time to file the briefs, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, is extended to and including February 22, 2013.|
|Jan 10 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jan 22 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Distributed) (Statement of costs received.)|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 24 2013||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Organization for Marriage (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 25 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 25 2013||Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of International jurists and academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Declaration (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Indiana and 16 other states (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Dovid Z. Schwartz (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Orrin G. Hatch, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare filed. (Merits) VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed. ( Merits) (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of The Beverly LaHaye Institute, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Feb 6 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit is electronic.|
|Feb 13 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of New York is electronic.|
|Feb 13 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief of petitioner United States (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2013||Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2013||Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument filed by the parties and Court-appointed amici curiae.|
|Feb 26 2013||Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LBGT Equality (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of 278 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of Professors Nan D. Hunter, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2013||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft in support of neither party (Jurisdiction) out of time.|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed).|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of Empire State Pride Agenda, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Former Federal Intelligence Officer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of OutServe-SLDN Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Family and Child Welfare Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Family Law Professors, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Dr. Donna E. Shalala, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Former Senior Justice Department Officials, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Former Senators Bill Bradley, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Partnership for New York City (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of 172 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles County Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Historians, American Historical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Federalism Scholars (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of Hon. Lawrence J. Korb, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Fair Administration of Taxes (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 1 2013||Brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 4 2013||Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument GRANTED and the time is to be divided as follows: on the jurisdiction issues, the Court-appointed amicus curiae is allotted 20 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 15 minutes. On the merits, respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 30 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Windsor is allotted 15 minutes.|
|Mar 15 2013||Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft GRANTED.|
|Mar 19 2013||Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 19 2013||Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2013||Reply of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2013||Reply of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2013||Reply of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)|
Posted by bonniekgoodman on March 27, 2013
Source: SCOTUS, 3-26-13
Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners
Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Docketed: August 1, 2012
Linked with 12A688
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (10-16696, 11-16577)
Decision Date: February 7, 2012
Rehearing Denied: June 5, 2012
Questions Presented ….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on March 27, 2013
Listed below are live links to the orders, case filings, and other information pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 cases. Click on each item to access further information.
|12-11-12||Amicus Appointment Order|
|12-144||Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition filed by Kristin M. Perry
Brief in Opposition filed by City and County of San Francisco
Brief of Petitioner on the Merits
Brief of Respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffery J. Zarrillo
Brief of Respondent City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief of Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al.
|12-307||United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, In Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition of Edith Schlain Windsor
Brief in Opposition of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Supplemental Brief of United States
Supplemental Brief of Edith Schlain Windsor
Supplemental Brief of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the
United States House of Representatives
Brief for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Addressing Jurisdiction
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Merits)
Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Merits)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits)
Reply Brief of Court appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction)
Reply of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)
Posted by bonniekgoodman on March 25, 2013
Source: ABC News Radio, 2-27-13
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court continued to express strong reservations Wednesday about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, suggesting the key provision of the law might be in danger.
That section of the law says that certain states, mostly in the South, must get any changes to voting regulations pre-cleared by federal officials….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on February 27, 2013
Source: AP, 1-25-13
In a setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that could severely curtail the president’s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on January 25, 2013
Source: ABC News Radio, 11-9-12
Only three days after the contentious 2012 election, the Supreme Court announced Friday that it would take up a major voting rights case; it will be heard in the next few months and decided by June.
At issue is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965. It’s a central provision of the law that requires states with a history of voter discrimination, mostly in the South, to clear any changes to their election laws with federal officials in Washington….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on November 10, 2012
Source: ABC News Radio, 10-16-12
The Obama campaign scored a legal victory Tuesday when the Supreme Court declined to step in and allow Ohio’s early in-person voting limitation to take effect.
After two lower federal courts ruled in favor of the Obama campaign and enjoined the law, Ohio’s Republican leaders had appealed their case to the Supreme Court.
But in a one-sentence order Tuesday, the Court declined Ohio’s appeal. There were no noted dissents….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on October 16, 2012
Chris Graythen/Getty Images
After Congress found the nation’s top law enforcement officer in contempt Thursday, the Department of Justice quickly wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner informing him that it will not prosecute U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for withholding documents in a congressional investigation of the Fast and Furious gun walking operation.
“The longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute an Executive Branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general, wrote in a letter dated June 28 and addressed to the Speaker.
The House voted Thursday to pass a resolution which, for the first time in U.S. history, found a sitting U.S. attorney general in criminal contempt of Congress….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 29, 2012
Source: Fox News, 6-28-12
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made the following statement Thursday following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law.
“As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent. What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal ObamaCare.
Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it’s good policy. ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.
Let me tell you why I say that. ObamaCare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. ObamaCare cuts Medicare — cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, ObamaCare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations. ObamaCare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.
ObamaCare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of ObamaCare. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said ObamaCare makes it less likely for them to hire people. And perhaps most troubling of all, ObamaCare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.
For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system? One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people —
up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.
No. 2, got to make sure that those people who have preexisting conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.
We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to
affordable health care.
And something that ObamaCare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.
And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.
This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that: that we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.
If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace ObamaCare. That is my mission, that is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me. If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat ObamaCare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that’s killing jobs across this great country.
Thank you so much.”
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 28, 2012
Source: WH, 6-28-12
12:15 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.
I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.
And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.
First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.
There’s more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent’s health care plans — a provision that’s already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that’s already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.
All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.
Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.
Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman. They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can’t afford the premiums, you’ll receive a credit that helps pay for it.
Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.
First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.
And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need — which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.
That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.
Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.
Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.
There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage — despite her fears that she would get sick again — she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.
I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.
Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans — other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers — who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.
The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do — what the country can’t afford to do — is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.
With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward — to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.
But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.
Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.
12:23 P.M. EDT
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 28, 2012
Source: NYT, 6-28-12
The Supreme Court left standing the basic provisions of the health care overhaul, ruling that the government may use its taxation powers to push people to buy insurance….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 28, 2012
Source: ABC News Radio, 6-28-12
The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act on Thursday, saying that the First Amendment defends a person’s right to lie — even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service.
The case started in 2007 when California man Xavier Alvarez was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, the federal legislation that made it illegal for people to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons they did not earn. Alvarez had publicly claimed to have won the country’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor, but was later revealed to have never served in the military at all.
Alvarez was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service, but he and his lawyer appealed the decision, saying that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional — essentially that it violates a person’s right to lie….READ MORE
The justices said that a federal law making it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech….READ MORE
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 28, 2012
Source: Mitt Romney, 6-25-12
Today’s decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration.This represents yet another broken promise by this President.
I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.
As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting.
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 25, 2012
“They’re intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama’s image as a tough guy for the elections. That is unconscionable.” — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
“These two highly-respected and experienced prosecutors will be directing separate investigations currently being conducted by the FBI. I have every confidence in their abilities to doggedly follow the facts and the evidence in the pursuit of justice wherever it leads…. They are fully authorized to prosecute criminal violations discovered as a result of their investigations and matters related to those violations, consult with members of the Intelligence Community and follow all appropriate investigative leads within the Executive and Legislative branches of government.” — Attorney General Eric Holder
Holder Appoints 2 US Attorneys to Lead Leaks Probe: Two US attorneys are taking over separate FBI investigations into leaks of national security information that critics have accused the White House of orchestrating to improve President Barack Obama’s re-election chances, a claim Obama calls “offensive” … AP, ABC News, 6-9-12
Posted by bonniekgoodman on June 9, 2012
Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger published by Facts on File, Inc. in 2011.
Travis Dove for The New York Times
John Edwards outside the federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., with his daughter Cate on Thursday.
Source: ABC News Radio, 5-31-12
A North Carolina jury found former Sen. John Edwards not guilty Thursday on one of six counts in a campaign-finance trial, and declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on those counts.
Edwards, a two-time presidential candidate, accused of soliciting nearly $1 million from wealthy backers to finance a cover up of his illicit affair and illegitimate child during his 2008 bid for the White House, was found not guilty on count 3 of the six-part indictment. That count pertained only to whether Edwards illegally received several hundred thousand dollars in donations from wealthy heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon to cover up the affair in 2008.
Following the verdict, Edwards, who remained silent throughout the trial, gave an emotional speech on the courthouse steps. He acknowledged his moral shortcomings and thanked his children, dramatically pausing when mentioning 4-year-old Frances Quinn, the baby he fathered with his mistress….READ MORE
Edwards not guilty on 1 count; Judge declares mistrial on other 5 counts: John Edwards was found not guilty on one of six campaign fraud charges Thursday, and the jury could not reach a verdict on the other counts, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on them…. – WaPo, 5-31-12
“Thank goodness that we live in a country that has the kind of system that we have.
This is about me. I want to make sure that everyone hears from me and from my voice. While I do not believe that I did anything illegal or ever thought I was doing anything illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong, and there is no one else responsible for my sins.
I am responsible. And if I want to find the person who should be held accountable, honestly, I don’t have to go any further than the mirror. It is me and me alone.” — John Edwards
Posted by bonniekgoodman on May 31, 2012