Sotomayor avoids saying whether marriage should be issue for federal courts
Sen. Charles Grassley had a testy exchange Wednesday with Judge Sonia Sotomayor about the federal government’s authority over marriage law.
During the Iowa Republican’s second turn at questioning the Supreme Court nominee, Grassley referred to a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Baker v. Nelson, in which the justices declined to consider a gay-marriage case. He asked whether she thought federal courts lacked authority to hear civil-rights cases involving marriage.
Sotomayor said the issue is pending in several courts, before Grassley cut her off.
“I thought I was asking a very simple question,” he said.
He ticked off a list of cases Sotomayor had referenced as precedent during her testimony on Tuesday. “You said these are precedents,” Grassley continued, raising his voice. “Now, are you saying to me that Baker v. Nelson is not a precedent?”
“It’s not that I’m attempting not to answer your question, Senator Grassley,” she said.
Grassley interrupted again, “Why are you hedging on this?”
Finally, Sotomayor said it had been since law school that she had reviewed the case, prompting Grassley to move on to another topic.
See Sotomayor avoids saying whether marriage should be issue for federal courts
The Des Moines Register
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/sotomayor-avo…
Voter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people, same-sex couples could not enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships anywhere in the nation, much less get married. But as they seek to persuade a federal judge to strike down California’s ban on gay marriages, lawyers for two unmarried gay couples are using that 13-year-old decision as their road map — one they expect will eventually lead the high court to take up the marriage issue. In the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court majority held that voters’ dislike of gays and the laws that several cities had approved to shield them from bias motivated the state amendment. Such “animus,” it said, was incompatible with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to treat its citizens equally absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason. “Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court. Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8’s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a defendant in the case, has sided with gay rights advocates and declined to defend the ban, which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court five weeks ago upheld the measure, saying it represented a valid exercise of voters’ authority to amend the California Constitution. Proposition 8’s sponsors, a coalition of religious conservative groups called Protect Marriage, has been given permission to intervene in the federal case. In court papers, the group’s lawyers rejected the assertions that anti-gay attitudes fueled the November measure and that the 1996 Colorado case was applicable. “Nothing in California law, either Proposition 8 or otherwise, indicates that Californians harbor animus towards gay and lesbian individuals,” they wrote. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, attorneys for gay rights and Christian conservative groups have debated whether the Romer decision could be used to expand gay rights. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution’s equal rights guarantees extended to gays and lesbians. “The basic point of Romer is that government cannot ever act out of hostility toward a group of people, and whether that is in the context of marriage or anti-discrimination law, the point carries over,” said Suzanne Goldberg, who worked on the case and now directs Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Program. The ruling has been cited, though so far unsuccessfully, in past challenges to gay marriage bans in Nebraska and Florida. At the same time, gay rights groups mostly have shied away from pursuing federal marriage cases in favor of pursuing marriage rights in state courts. Legal observers on both sides of the debate agree, however, that California’s Proposition 8 presents novel questions that could make the issue ripe for federal action.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/voter-animus-…
A Gay Justice?
Former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan is, according to the National Law Journal, one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. She’s a nationally prominent scholar and teacher of constitutional law, and author of the nation’s leading casebook in constitutional law.
Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, is founding director of Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and is a leading expert on voting and the political process.
Sullivan and Karlan are both frequently mentioned as possible Supreme Court nominees for President Obama.
Both women also happen to be openly lesbian. … Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, says that “the real issue would not be the person’s private life but the issue would be would they be imposing their personal ideology upon the court. In this case would they be imposing a pro homosexual ideology, a pro-same sex marriage ideology.”
Sullivan, for instance, joined a friend of the court brief arguing that same sex marriage should be legal even if the “equal protection” clause “would not always have been interpreted by the courts to forbid discrimination against gay people.” Not allowing same sex marriage is a violation of “both due process and equal protection; the former because the right to marry is a form of liberty and the latter because the restriction treats lesbians and gay men differently from straight individuals.”
That she believes that because she’s lesbian, and not because she believes the refusal to allow same sex marriage constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, is another matter.
Either way, discussion about a Justice Sullivan or a Justice Karlan comes at a time when the Obama administration is hearing some impatience voiced by gay and lesbian activists on other issues.
“I think there is some disappointment in the gay community that (President Obama) hasn’t in this initial period spoken more directly and more forcefully about some of the issues he spoke about on the campaign,” Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay and lesbian issues, told us for Good Morning America today. “Specifically the ‘Don’t ask/Don’t tell’ policy in the military.” See Gay Justice?
ABC News * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/gay-justice.h…
A first gay justice?
President Barack Obama is looking to advance diversity with his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter — and early speculation has focused on whether he’ll pick a woman, or perhaps the first Hispanic justice.
But gay rights groups — disappointed that Obama didn’t pick an openly gay man or woman for his Cabinet — are pushing him to put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court.
Within hours of word of Souter’s departure, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund was hailing the candidacy of a First Amendment scholar and former dean of Stanford Law School, Kathleen Sullivan. “Out lesbian a contender for Supreme Court,” one of the group’s web sites declared.
Another Stanford law professor on the “frequently mentioned” lists, Pam Karlan, has been open about being a lesbian, colleagues and former students say. In response to an e-mail from POLITICO, Karlan expressed no reticence about discussing her sexual orientation, though she downplayed talk about being a possible nominee.
“It’s no secret at all that I’m counted among the LGBT crowd,” she wrote, using a common acronym for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. As for the possibility she’d be nominated, Karlan said, “Given the landscape, I’m flattered, but not fooled, by having my name tossed around.”
Unrelatedly, a rave for Karlan as “(1) brilliant, (2) broadly knowledgeable — Cass Sunstein aside, I can’t think of anyone who knows so much about so many different legal fields — and (3) a spectacularly gifted writer” from a right-leaning Harvard Law professor, William Stuntz.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/first-gay-jus…
Gingrich: Iowa ruling ‘judicial arrogance’
(Athens, Georgia) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says that a recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage is “outrageously wrong.”
Gingrich spoke Tuesday at the University of Georgia’s law school, where he’s been teaching a series on the judicial system.
Gingrich says that he was astonished by last Friday’s decision in …
Tags: Arrogance, Athens Georgia, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Iowa Supreme Court, Judicial System, Last Friday, Law School, Legalizing Gay Marriage, marriage, Newt Gingrich, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Supreme Court Ruling, University Of GeorgiaLesbian picked for White House associate counsel job
Alison Nathan, an out fellow at New York University’s law school and a visiting assistant professor at Fordham’s law school, was named one of President Barack Obama’s associate counsels. Nathan, during Obama’s White House campaign, served as a national voter protection senior adviser and as a member of his LGBT advisory committee. Washington Blade
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/lesbian-picke…
