House GOP’s Anti-Gay Supreme Court Brief Reads Like 1950’s Racist Propaganda
The House GOP on Tuesday filed a 60-page brief in the Supreme Court that addresses the upcoming DOMA case of Edie Windsor, and it reads like 1950’s racist propaganda.
READ: Republicans File Brief in Support Of DOMA – Gays Are Doing Fine Without Any Help
DOMA, by the way, is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 that bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
The brief, filed by John Boehner‘s hand-picked private attorney, Paul Clement — whom Boehner has secretly authorized to receive up to $3 million to defend DOMA — addresses the question:
Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Clement, who has never, ever won a same-sex marriage case since Boehner hired him at the rate of $520 an hour to work for the “BLAG,” the House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group that has as its majority Republicans not Democrats, has decided that “traditional marriage” must be defended for these reasons:
“Gays and Lesbians Are Far from Politically Powerless.”
“DOMA Rationally Preserves Each Sovereign’s Ability to Define Marriage for Itself at a Time When States Are Beginning to Experiment with the Traditional Definition.”
“Congress Rationally Proceeded with Caution When Faced with the Unknown Consequences of an Unprecedented Redefinition of Marriage, a Foundational Social Institution, by a Minority of States.”
“Sexual Orientation Is Not an “Immutable†Characteristic.”
Among others, of course.
And look out, because the LGBT community is omnipotent!
More than twenty years ago, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits recognized that “homosexuals … are not without growing political power,†and that “[a] political approach is open to them†to pursue their objectives. Ben-Shalom, 881 F.2d at 466; accord High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 574. Whatever the limits of that conclusion two decades ago, there can be no serious doubt that the political power of gays and lesbians has increased exponentially since then.
…
In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best- organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history. Characterizing such a group as politically powerless would be wholly inconsistent with this Court’s admonition that a class should not be regarded as suspect when the group has some “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers.â€
And this, which can only be described as the “shuck and jive” of Paul Clement’s anti-gay animus:
There is no precedent for creating a suspect class that is based on the class’ propensity to engage in a certain kind of conduct.
Not only is sexual orientation different from every recognized suspect class in that it is based on a propensity to engage in certain conduct, the cause of that propensity is not well understood.
A “propensity to engage in certain conduct”? Really? I’d like you to take a moment, pause, and reflect on what Attorney Clement might be suggesting there.
Other reasons Clement gives for denying same-sex couples the benefit of marriage that is the birthright of heterosexual couples?
1. Providing a Stable Structure to Raise Unintended and Unplanned Offspring
2. Encouraging the Rearing of Children by Their Biological Parents
3. Promoting Childrearing by Both a Mother and a Father
Curiously, Clement notes that when DOMA was passed, in “the Senate supporters included then-Senator Biden; then-Minority Leader Daschle; current Majority Leader Reid; and current Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy. In the House, Rep. Hoyer, the Current Minority Whip, supported DOMA.”
All those have in some manner, if not specifically, come out in support of same-sex marriage. Daschle lost his seat after fighting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Later, Clement quotes Jonathan Rauch, identifying him as a gay marriage supporter, which he was not — but now is.
Perhaps extremely disgusting is the argument Clement cites, from 1996:
As Senator Gramm observed, without DOMA, state recognition of same- sex marriage will create
a whole group of new beneficiaries—no one knows what the number would be—tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially more—who will be beneficiaries of newly created survivor benefits under Social Security, Federal retirement plans, and military retirement plans…. [I]t will impose … a whole new set of benefits and expenses which have not been planned or budgeted for under current law.
And:
If the federal government were forced to recognize same-sex marriages, Sen. Byrd noted, “it is [not] inconceivable that the costs associated with such a change could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions … of Federal taxpayer dollars.â€
[Bolding ours]
Clement writes, “in 1996 when it appeared that states soon would begin experimenting with changing the traditional definition [of marriage], the federal government was under no obligation to follow suit.”
In what other venue, issue, etc., does anyone refer to changing a law as “experimenting”?
Is ensuring First Amendment rights “experimenting”? Are anti-fracking laws labeled “experimenting”? Are laws ensuring children receive certain levels of education classified as  “experimenting”?
Why is same-sex marriage called “experimenting”?
And then this, what amount to their final argument: gays are already too powerful:
Creating new suspect classes takes issues away from the democratic process, and this Court has wisely refrained from recognizing new suspect classes over the last four decades. Homosexuality would be a particularly anomalous place to eschew that reluctance, as gays and lesbians have substantial political power, which has grown exponentially with each election cycle. Nor do the other factors this Court has looked to support recognizing a new suspect class here. To the contrary, with an issue as divisive and fast-moving as same-sex marriage, the correct answer is to leave this issue to the democratic process. In that process, there is a premium on persuading opponents, rather than labeling them as bigots motivated by animus. And the democratic process allows compromise and way-stations, whereas constitutionalizing an issue yields a one-size-fits-all-solution that tends to harden the views of those who lose out at the courthouse, rather than the ballot box. In the final analysis, the democratic process is at work on this issue; there is no sound reason to constitutionalize it.
And then this: Government must defend traditional marriage and exclude same-sex couples from the institution because heterosexuals are irresponsible:
The link between procreation and marriage itself reflects a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples— namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Government from time immemorial has had an interest in having such unintended and unplanned offspring raised in a stable structure that improves their chances of success in life and avoids having them become a burden on society.
Ian Millhiser at Think Progress makes the case as well:
One can only wonder what Paul Clement might have written if Virginia had hired him to defend their practice of racial marriage discrimination when it was before the justices in 1967. “Negro leaders meet often with the President and with Congressional leaders, and indeed, President Johnson himself signed two major laws pushed by the Negro lobby. Negro groups not only led a widely attended rally on the National Mall, but they routinely organize well-attended sit-ins, marches and other events that garner press attention and national sympathy. Recently, a Negro march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama even sparked the President of the United States to give a speech endorsing the Negro lobby’s agenda before a joint session of Congress.â€
Because, of course, if the fact that gay people have won a few political battles lately were reason to deny them the equal protection of the laws, then the same would also be true about African-Americans and women. Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act two years before Virginia lost its marriage discrimination case in the Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 promised equal treatment to women in the workplace — a promise still denied to gay men and lesbians —seven years before the justices first recognized that official discrimination against women violates the Constitution. Political victories do not cancel out Americans’ constitutional rights, they augment them, and Clement is simply wrong to suggest otherwise.
Read the entire brief, below:
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Stephen Miller’s latest anti-immigrant rant is drawing attention, including from a well-known Catholic Jesuit priest, who appeared to liken the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s remarks to those made by Hitler’s notorious Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in 1941.
Miller, one of the most powerful members of the Trump administration, is seen as the principal architect of the President’s anti-immigration and deportation policies.
“U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles. Masked immigration officers at courthouses and popular restaurants. Bans on travelers from more than a dozen countries,” Reuters reported on Friday. “For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, things were going according to plan.”
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
Denouncing the city government of Los Angeles as “waging a campaign of insurrection against the federal government,” Miller on Friday painted a scenario without undocumented immigrants in remarks made to Fox News.
“Let’s be very clear,” he said. “What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?”
“Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problem. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who had special needs would get all the attention that they needed.”
“There would be no violent transnational gangs. There would be no cartels. There would be no Mexican Mafia. There would be no Sureños. There would be no MS-13 There would be no TdA.”
“You would be living in a city that would be safe, that would be clean, there would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug dens,” he alleged. “That could be the future Los Angeles could have, but the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and their criminal aliens.”
READ MORE: Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
Some of Miller’s claims are incorrect. For example, public schools often receive state funding in part based on the number of students and their attendance rate. Fewer students in classrooms means fewer dollars. And federal funding is tied to the number of low-income students and students with disabilities.
Miller’s claims about fentanyl and “drug dens” also don’t hold up. Most fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens, according to the Cato Institute.
Father James Martin, editor-at-large for America Magazine, which is published by the Jesuits, responded to Miller’s remarks by posting a quote from Goebbels:
“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?”
It’s not the first time Father Martin has responded to Miller’s anti-immigrant rants with a quote.
In April, he quoted the Bible:
“‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Matthew 25).”
See Martin’s post and video of Miller’s remarks below or at this link.
“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?” Joseph Goebbels, Nov 16, 1941. https://t.co/f6cHSLqlbU https://t.co/lACjN2F9Ql
— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) July 11, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Image via Shutterstock
A record-high majority—nearly eight in ten Americans—now view immigration positively, with similarly strong support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. The Gallup poll also found that most Americans favor maintaining or increasing current immigration levels.
Meanwhile, large segments of the public oppose expanding the number of immigration enforcement agents—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Overall, just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, while 65% disapprove.
Gallup’s report deals a major blow to the very core of President Donald Trump’s agenda, and his “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that dramatically increases spending on immigration enforcement, including detention camps, deportations, and removal, even to third-party countries.
RELATED: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
“Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today,” Gallup reported on Friday. “At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”
When asked if immigration is generally a good thing or bad thing for the country, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults call it a good thing; a record-low 17% see it as a bad thing. pic.twitter.com/VCGVplgsE9
— Gallup (@Gallup) July 11, 2025
“These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups,” the top-rated pollster also reported.
Now, just 38% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, in vast contrast to the stated Trump agenda. That’s down from 47% last year.
In what could be seen as a warning to the GOP, Gallup notes that “the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%.”
Just this week, several top Trump administration officials have continued to promote his anti-immigrant policies.
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this week told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them.
“There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation,” Secretary Rollins said.
Republican Senators have been promoting the Trump anti-immigrant agenda as well. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) called Democrats who oppose the often warrantless raids and tactics used by the DHS’s frequently masked ICE agents, “ignorant pawns of a subversive anarchist agenda.”
President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s budget, which Trump signed into law last weekend, is tremendously unpopular, including his exponential expansion of immigration enforcement budgets, as well as aspects that gut vital social safety net programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
Critics praised Gallup’s findings.
“Nativism had its 6 months and now it’s clear that it’s not the answer,” wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier.
NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, pointing to the Gallup statistics, called it “backlash politics.”
“Turns out, mass kidnappings and deportations are deeply unpopular when put into practice,” observed New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher.
See the social media post above or at this link.
READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals—and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”
“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them.”
“They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
“A uniformed border police officer walks up to them, for instance, at a Home Depot. And they got all these … facts, plus the person walks away or runs away,” Homan said, offering one scenario. “Agents are trained. What they need to detain somebody temporarily and question them.”
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
“It’s not probable cause,” he insisted. “It’s reasonable suspicion.”
“We’re trained on that. Every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again,” Homan said.
Legal experts blasted Homan’s remarks.
Professor of Law, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance summed up Homan’s remarks: “Racial profiling.”
“This is patently false,” declared U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), also an attorney, “DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop.”
Attorney and California Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener charged, “This is literally the definition of a white nationalist police state.”
U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) warned, “Trump’s thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it.”
READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
Attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold explained, “Walking up to people (without threatening) is legal. But ‘detaining’ people without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal or quasi-criminal activity is illegal. Racial profiling is not cause for the required reasonable suspicion. ‘Let me see your papers’ is un-American.”
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), who, in a highly-publicized incident was forcibly removed and handcuffed by federal agents at a DHS press conference, wrote: “And there you have it. Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.”
“They’re saying the quiet part out loud now,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “Don’t get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they’ll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough.”
“THEY ARE ADMITTING IT,” wrote David J. Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies and an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. “Homan is admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States,” he alleged.
Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, wrote: “Trump’s Border Czar and Project 2025 contributor says ICE can detain anyone based on ‘suspicion’ and physical ‘appearance.’ That’s not immigration policy, it’s fascism.”
Watch the video below or at this link:
Homan: “People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them … based on their physical appearance.” pic.twitter.com/aQzwepaHpk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 11, 2025
READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows
Image via Reuters
‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda
Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda
Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
News4 days ago‘Absolutely Mind Blowing’: Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Remark Draws Concern, Backlash
News3 days ago‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign
News4 days ago‘Cartoon Villains’: Ag Secretary Under Fire for Medicaid-to-Farm-Work Plan
News4 days agoTrump Claims ‘Tremendous Power’ to Run ‘Places’ Like DC and NYC
News3 days agoTrump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows
News2 days ago‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
News3 days ago‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue
News3 days ago‘Not Even Done Your Homework, Sir’: Dem Demands ‘Unqualified’ Trump Nominee ‘Shape Up’