Connect with us

House GOP’s Anti-Gay Supreme Court Brief Reads Like 1950’s Racist Propaganda

Published

on

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.”

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.”

[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.”

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:

House GOP’s BLAG files SCOTUS brief in support of DOMA by

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

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.

News

‘Tenfold Increase in Number of Deportations’: Trump Hands Stephen Miller Top Policy Post

Published

on

Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s child and family separation policy and one of his longest-serving, die-hard loyalists, will become the incoming president’s deputy chief of staff for policy, a top role in the second administration of the Republican nationalist.

Miller, an immigration hardliner who was also responsible for Trump’s Muslim-majority country travel ban, has a history of promoting white nationalist rhetoric. He is responsible for the separation of thousands of young children from their parents, and even from their siblings, as a means to deter other asylum seekers from crossing the southern border into the United States. Under Trump and Miller’s “zero tolerance” policy, there were no plans to reunite the children with their parents.

Despite efforts by the Biden administration, thousands of children have never been placed back into their families. As of May, 1400 children remained separated from their parents.

READ MORE: Trump Nomination of Stefanik to UN Resurfaces ‘Ultra MAGA’ Transformation

“Miller will return with more influence than he had in the first Trump administration, where he served as a senior adviser for policy, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN,” The Daily Beast adds, noting that Miller was also behind Trump’s “American carnage” inauguration address.

CNN reports that “Miller is also a lead architect of the president-elect’s plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. He has said that a second Trump administration would seek a tenfold increase in the number of deportations to more than 1 million per year. In an interview on Fox News last week, Miller expressed eagerness at the prospect of beginning mass deportations as soon as possible.”

“They begin on Inauguration Day, as soon as he takes the oath of office,” Miller said.

“Confirming the appointment, Vice President-elect JD Vance posted a message of congratulations on Monday to Miller on X and said, ‘This is another fantastic pick by the president.’ The announcement was first reported by CNN,” The Associated Press reports.

READ MORE: ‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

In 2019, The Guardian called Miller “the white nationalist at the heart of Trump’s White House,” amid an “extraordinary email leak” that revealed Miller had “promoted white nationalist articles and books in emails to a writer at Breitbart, who after leaving the hard-right website leaked 900 messages to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).”

Miller also wrote at least part of Trump’s infamous January 6, 2021 speech at the Ellipse, during which he said, “…and we’re going to walk to the Capitol…”

CNN, in a minute-by-minute analysis of the insurrection,  reported that at 9:52 AM, “Trump talks to senior adviser and lead speechwriter Stephen Miller for 26 minutes, according to White House records that were obtained by the committee and released at a public hearing. After Trump’s conversation with Miller, Trump adjusts a draft of his upcoming speech to add more lines about Pence and the joint session of Congress, according to the committee, which reviewed the drafts.”

In February of 2017, just weeks into Trump’s first term, Miller told reporters, “our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial, and will not be questioned.”

Watch the video bel0w or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

 

Image via Shutterstock 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Nomination of Stefanik to UN Resurfaces ‘Ultra MAGA’ Transformation

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has accepted Donald Trump’s nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, drawing criticism from opponents who challenge the president-elect’s decision to cite her prior controversial and shifting statements, including her apparent hostility toward the international organization.

“Stefanik has repeatedly attacked the United Nations over accusations that the world body is antisemitic. Last month she called for a ‘complete reassessment of U.S. funding of the United Nations’ in response to efforts by the Palestinian Authority to expel Israel from the United Nations as war rages in the Middle East,” Politico reports. “Stefanik this year drew praise from Republicans and Jewish leaders after she grilled college presidents in a House hearing on their handling of campus demonstrations over the Israel-Gaza war.”

But before Donald Trump won the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, Congresswoman Stefanik had opposed the real estate mogul and later attributed responsibility for the January 6, 2021, insurrection to the now-former president, who sought to overturn his election defeat.

Stefanik, 40, currently also serves as the Chair of the House Republican Conference, a role she won after MAGA Republicans ousted U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) from that leadership position. Cheney, who opposed Donald Trump, served as one of two Republicans on the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

READ MORE: ‘My Family in Danger’: Democratic Congressman Reveals Chilling Details of ‘Potential Plot’

In 2021, Mother Jones reported that Stefanik had said Trump was soft on Russian President Vladimir Putin, and noted that her replacing Cheney “marks the triumph of Trump-uber-alles fealty within GOP circles. A heretic is being excommunicated and replaced by a loyalist. It’s been noted that Stefanik entered the House as a moderate and now is being anointed as a top Trumper who has fully supported Trump’s Big Lie that the election was rigged against him.”

“But Stefanik’s Trumpification stands out because only a few years ago—well into Trump’s presidency—she was speaking critically about him on key fronts. In fact, at times Stefanik sounded practically like a Never Trumper, as she called on Trump to recognize that Russia had attacked the 2016 election to help him, urged him to release his tax returns, and assailed him for his comments about women.”

The following year, Stefanik proudly declared, “I am ultra-MAGA.”

Before that, Stefanik had made decisively anti-Trump statements, like, “Russia meddled in our electoral process,” and, “We’ve seen evidence that Russia tried to hurt the Hillary Clinton campaign,” and, “I am concerned about some of the contacts between Russians and surrogates within the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign.”

In December of 2022, The New York Times published a lengthy profile on Congresswoman Stefanik, detailing how she had “embarked on one of the most brazen political transformations of the Trump era. With breathtaking speed and alacrity, Ms. Stefanik remade herself into a fervent Trump apologist, adopted his over-torqued style on Twitter and embraced the conspiracy theories that animate his base, amplifying debunked allegations of dead voters casting ballots in Atlanta and unspecified ‘irregularities‘ involving voting-machine software in 2020 swing states.”

“Ms. Stefanik’s reinvention has made her a case study in the collapse of the old Republican establishment and its willing absorption into the new, Trump-dominated one.”

Critics now note that she deleted her original statement condemning the January 6, 2021 violence at the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection.

And point to an interview she did that highlighted that New York Times report:

Her “reinvention” would also come to include her full-throated support for George Santos, the now-expelled Republican former U.S. congressman and convicted felon, an endorsement that remains on her social media page.

READ MORE: ‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

In January, Stefanik declared she had “concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages.”

Former Republican Capitol Hill communications director Tara Setmayer blasted Stefanik for, among other things, calling those convicted of crimes surrounding the January 6 insurrection “hostages.”

Stefanik faced condemnation after that declaration, but escaped a resolution that would have censured her.

NPR’s Brian Mann, who had reported on Stefanik in 2018, wrote Monday that the New York Republican lawmaker’s “foreign policy values during her early career (neocon, antiRussia, internationalist, proNATO) have proven entirely flexible. They have been adjusted or abandoned to reflect Trump’s agenda.”

“Underestimating Stefanik,” he warned, “has ended so many careers.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘My Family in Danger’: Democratic Congressman Reveals Chilling Details of ‘Potential Plot’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz Friday evening revealed the chilling details of an apparent potential assassination plot he says has endangered his life and his family. The Florida Democrat says police arrested a suspect who is a former felon, had body armor, a rifle, an antisemitic manifesto, with “only my name on the ‘target’ list.”

“The day before the election, I was notified by the Margate Police Department, located in my Congressional District, about a potential plot on my life,” Congresman Moskwitz said in a statement. “The individual in question was arrested not far from my home; he is a former felon who was in possession of a rifle, a suppressor, and body armor. Found with him was a manifesto that, among other things, included antisemitic rhetoric and only my name on the ‘target’ list. There are many other details that I will not disclose as I do not want to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I want to thank local law enforcement, the US Marshalls, the FBI, the US Capitol Police, and the US Attorney’s office.”

READ MORE: ‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

“As someone who was appointed to the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump, I understand the failures and importance of fixing the protection of our current and future Commander- In-Chief and Vice President.”

Rep. Moskowitz adds that, “At the same time, I am deeply worried about Congressional member security and the significant lack thereof when we are in the district. Regardless of our political affiliations or differences, we all have families we want to keep safe.”

In a post on social media, Moskowitz added, “Serving my constituents is a great honor, but it has put my family in danger.”

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.