I loved this hidden camera video of regular folks standing up for others who aren't just like them – made me cry a little, and feel like rationality and human kindness are winning the day.
Watch after the jump…
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
On Friday, the Obama adminstration filed its briefs in U.S. v. Windsor. The brief of the Obama administration on the constitutionality of DOMA is here, and its brief on its right to pursue an appeal on DOMA is here. The brief for the House Republican leaders on their standing to appeal
and their challenge to the government’s right to appeal is here.
Lyle Denniston breaks down the position of the Obama administration at Scotusblog.com, DOMA: U.S. takes tough line on marriage denial:
The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights
for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of
those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against
gays and lesbians still continues. The brief cited California’s flat
ban on such marriages — Proposition 8 — as an example of the ongoing
problem of bias against homosexuals.
In the context of the brief, the brief references to California’s
Proposition 8 were subtle and fleeting, but they immediately raised the
question of whether the administration was getting into position to come
out directly, next week, against that voter-approved ballot measure.
It has not yet taken a position on the proposition’s constitutionality,
and that is not an issue in the case in which the new document was filed
— United States v.Windsor (12-307).
In a separate administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor
case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the
constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is properly
before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case. That 1996 law’s
Section 3 barred legally married same-sex couples from any federal
benefits or programs based on marriage.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Arizona's Tea-Publican Neo-Confederate dead-enders are a bunch of slackers! Montana's Tea-Publican Neo-Confederate dead-enders are putting you to shame.
Just this past week, Montana Bill Defies Supremacy Of All Federal Laws:
Among a slate of far-reaching gun bills
that cleared the Montana House Judiciary Committee this week was one
that takes defiance of federal authority far beyond the Second Amendment
context. The “Sheriffs First” bill would require federal agents to seek county sheriffs’ permission
before enforcing any federal law, and empowers those sheriffs to arrest
federal agents who don’t comply for kidnapping. The bill also mandates county attorneys to prosecute any claim by a sheriff against a federal official.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
First it was Sen. John McCain who said he was open to new tax revenues to avoid sequester spending cuts to the Department of Defense, and now it is Governor Jan Brewer — gasp! — Arizona teabaggers are clutching their pearls in horror. Tea Party Governor Calls For GOP To Compromise On Taxes To Avert Sequester Cuts:
On CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday morning, Tea Party favorite Gov. Jan
Brewer (R-AZ) said Republicans should compromise on tax increases rather
than let the budget cuts stand:
MAJOR GARRETT (HOST): Is it a greater danger for you to
deal with these cuts or would it be a greater danger to the economy for
the Republicans to give in on raising taxes? Which would you like to
see?BREWER: You don’t give me very good choices…As a governor from a
western state, it is difficult for me to be honest and say ok, I know
all the answers, because I don’t have all the inside baseball games, and
for me to sit here and say I know every detail of what they’re dealing
with there…
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I do not care for the writing of conservative columnist "Lord" Byron York, but damnit, even a broken clock can be right twice a day, am I right?
Last week "Lord" Byron, in an opinion at the Washington Examiner, explained the schizophrenic GOP messaging on the sequester:
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed
Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner describes the upcoming sequester
as a policy “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs
and more.”Which leads to the question: Why would Republicans support a measure
that threatens national security and thousands of jobs? Boehner and the
GOP are determined to allow the $1.2 trillion sequester go into effect
unless President Obama and Democrats agree to replacement cuts, of an
equal amount, that target entitlement spending [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are exempt under the sequester plan]. If that doesn’t happen —
and it seems entirely unlikely — the sequester goes into effect, with
the GOP’s blessing.
…
Could the GOP message on the sequester be any more self-defeating?
Boehner could argue that the sequester cuts are necessary as a first —
and somewhat modest — step toward controlling the deficits that threaten
the economy. Instead, he describes them as a threat to national
security and jobs that he nevertheless supports. It’s not an argument
that is likely to persuade millions of Americans.