Connect with us

What Happened? 22 Tweets From Reporters At Supreme Court Prop 8 Hearing

Published

on

Direct from reporters at this morning’s Prop 8 hearing in the Supreme Court, 22 tweets with interpretations of today’s Q&A. The current perception from SCOTUSblog is that prop 8 will not be overturned by the Supreme Court, therefore avoiding a broad ruling by the Court.

[View the story “Interpretations Of Prop 8 Arguments At Supreme Court” on Storify]

Interpretations Of Prop 8 Arguments At Supreme Court

Direct from reporters at this morning’s Prop 8 hearing in the Supreme Court, 22 tweets with interpretations of today’s Q&A.

Storified by David Badash· Tue, Mar 26 2013 08:58:59

Arguments done. #scotus won’t uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.SCOTUSblog
Alito said there could be terrible consequences: Same sex marriage is younger than cell phones and the Internet…we can’t see the futureAdamSerwer
Clever trolling from Roberts: since children of same sex couples are doing ok, can’t argue they are hurt by parents not being marriedAdamSerwer
Kagan asked prop 8 def if states could ban couples too old to procreate. He said no because its “rare” that both spouses would be infertileAdamSerwer
Breyer was baffled by Obama admin argument that only states that recognized some rights of same sex couples had to recognize marriageAdamSerwer
Scalia, incorrectly, to SG Verrilli: You are asking us to impose [same sex marriage] on the whole countryAdamSerwer
Kennedy called same-sex marriage “unchartered waters,” said there is either “a wonderful destination or a cliff in it.”Ryan J. Reilly
Kennedy: children of same-sex couples “want their parents to have full recognition and legal status.” #SCOTUS #Prop8Ryan J. Reilly
Scalia: “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it’s certainly true there is no answer to that scientific question…”Ryan J. Reilly
Scalia: “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex couples raising children. #SCOTUS #Prop8Ryan J. Reilly
Ted Olsen: “Based upon the questions that the justices asked, I have no idea [how court will decide]”Sam Stein
RT @ryanjreilly: Scalia: “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex couples raising children. #SCOTUS #Prop8Sam Stein
Olson: “I have no idea”Based on the questions asked what the Supreme Court will do.Kerry Eleveld
Kagan asked prop 8 defender what harm was caused by same sec marriage. When he couldn’t answer, Kennedy asked if he was conceding the pointAdamSerwer
Kennedy: There are 40k kids in California of same se parents who want their parents to be married…their voice is important isn’t it?AdamSerwer
First #SCOTUS take: Very significant questions about whether the proponents had standing to bring the #Prop8 appeal at all.Chris Geidner
Scalia demanded Olsen pick a date for when banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional. Olson said it was irrelevantAdamSerwer
Verrilli shockingly conceded that in a different case, a state might be able to argue that marriage equality could be harmful to kidsAdamSerwer
It seems like the standing issue will have a bigger role than most thought in the #SCOTUS #Prop8 case… hmm.Waymon Hudson
Olson: if you said mixed race couples could have a “union” but not marriage, everyone would know that was wrongAdamSerwer
Remember #SCOTUS typically avoids sweeping rulings if possible. Think of narrowest way to allow #ssm in CA without one. #prop8Nancy C. Jacobson
MT @AdamSerwer #Prop8 defender unable to answer q on what harm was caused by gay marriage, Kennedy asks if he is conceding the point #SCOTUSCandidly Canadian
Seems to be some interest in this case #Prop8 #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/d4d3UvgOXWRyan J. Reilly
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

‘This Is Insane’: Experts Blast McCarthy After He Approves George Santos Attending Classified Briefing on China

Published

on

U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-NY), under multiple state and federal investigations, and even a criminal fraud investigation in Brazil, recently stepped down from his committee assignments pending House ethics investigations, but on Thursday he will be allowed to attend a classified briefing by the Pentagon on threats from China.

Santos is facing numerous investigations, including ongoing, pending, or possible investigations from the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Nassau District Attorney, the Queens District Attorney, the New York State Attorney General, along with the House Ethics Committee.

CNN’s Manu Raju Wednesday afternoon reports: “Asked Speaker McCarthy if he’s OK with George Santos attending tomorrow’s classified briefing on China. ‘Yes,’ he told me.”

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene During House Hearing: It’s ‘Against the Law’ to Ban My Twitter Account

Experts are expressing outrage, and are calling allowing Santos to gain access to classified information a “threat to our national security.”

“George Santos should not be getting access to classified information,” the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) immediately responded.

Last month CREW published a report that states: “George Santos should not get intelligence information.”

READ MORE: Yes, the GOP Has Repeatedly Said It Wants to Gut Social Security and Medicare Before Calling Biden a ‘Liar’ – Here’s Proof

“Santos’s misrepresentations of large swaths of his background have proven his tendency to lie for power and personal gain. It is clear that he has not demonstrated the trustworthiness necessary to guard our country’s most closely guarded secrets,” it reads.

“Santos’s serial misrepresentations of the truth about a vast array of subjects have demonstrated an astonishing level of untrustworthiness,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder says in the report. “It would be a threat to our national security to allow him to serve on any committee where he would gain access to national intelligence.”

Retired U.S. Naval War College professor Tom Nichols, an academic specialist on international affairs including Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, tweeted: “This is insane.”

Just last month Speaker McCarthy banned two top House Democrats, Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, from returning to the Intelligence Committee. While he claimed it was for national security reasons, some believe it was retribution for their roles in prosecuting Donald Trump’s impeachments.

“I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership on this essential committee. Integrity matters more,” McCarthy wrote in a letter.

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Marjorie Taylor Greene During House Hearing: It’s ‘Against the Law’ to Ban My Twitter Account

Published

on

Members of Congress have access to vast resources to conduct the people’s business, including on-staff attorneys and the ability to contract experts, yet on Wednesday U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) appeared to shun those assets while appearing before the TV cameras while misrepresenting federal law. She falsely declared that Twitter banning her personal account was “against the law,” and a violation of her First Amendment rights as she made clear she will use her newly-restored committee assignments to spread falsehoods, misinformation, and disinformation.

Greene now sits on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. During its third hearing of the year, “Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story,” Greene appeared determined to extract vengeance for her personal Twitter account being permanently “suspended” – banned –before Elon Musk purchased the company and restored accounts of countless extremists.

At the beginning of her remarks Greene mentioned the witnesses, including former Twitter executives, and said: “You can consider your speech canceled during my time because you permanently canceled mine.”

“You see, you permanently banned my personal Twitter account, and it was my campaign account also, so let’s talk about election interference, shall we?”

“Let’s explain 52 United States law 10101: ‘No person shall intimidate, threaten or coerce or attempt to stop any other person for the purpose of interfering with their rights to vote or to vote as you may choose,'” Greene said, reading inaccurately from 52 U.S.C. 10101.

READ MORE: Former GOP Congressman Calls for Marjorie Taylor Greene to Be Censured After Calling President Biden a ‘Liar’

For reasons unknown, Congresswoman Greene decided that federal voting rights law applies to Twitter. It does not.

“You didn’t shadow ban or permanently ban my Democrat opponent,” Greene charged. “No, you did that to me. And that was wrong and it was against the law.”

It is not against the law for Twitter to shadow ban or permanently ban anyone, even a Member of Congress and their personal Twitter account.

“You see, not only that, was it was it me, that you violated my First Amendment rights, you violated countless conservative Americans,” she said, which again is false. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Be Blunt’: Bannon Blasts Huckabee Sanders as ‘Not Intellectually Capable’ After ‘Insulting’ SOTU Response

Greene pushed forward.

“These were doctors that were trying to tell the truth about COVID,” she said, of people spreading false or misleading information and disinformation. “Doctors that were having success treating people with ivermectin that you all would not allow to be talked about.”

The FDA has made clear ivermectin is not a treatment for COVID-19: “The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.”

“These were parents complaining about their school boards, teaching gender lies in their schools, biological males entering their daughter’s bathrooms and sports,” she complained. “These were also people questioning the 2020 election. And guess what? That’s Americans’ First Amendment right. These were people talking about voting machines. You know what? Democrats did that in 2019 before the 2020 election,” she claimed.

Watch below or at this link.

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

‘Let’s Be Blunt’: Bannon Blasts Huckabee Sanders as ‘Not Intellectually Capable’ After ‘Insulting’ SOTU Response

Published

on

Arkansas Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders delivered the Republican Party’s official response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address and was panned from all sides.

Many on the left were angered and outraged as she attacked LGBTQ and Black Americans in a lengthy speech that was tall on culture war rhetoric and extremism and short on policy or vision.

But even those on the right seems exasperated with her remarks.

READ MORE: Yes, the GOP Has Repeatedly Said It Wants to Gut Social Security and Medicare Before Calling Biden a ‘Liar’ – Here’s Proof

Lou Dobbs, the far-right-wing culture warrior and former Fox Business anchor, told former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon that Huckabee Sanders’ speech was “unacceptable,” and, “an insult to President Trump” for “not mentioning his name,” as Media Matters reports.

“Sarah Huckabee went to Iraq with the President,” Dobbs recalled, which the former White House press secretary spent an unusually large portion of her remarks discussing, “and the First Lady in the dark of night, for Christmas, with our troops.”

“To not mention is name, to talk about ‘new leadership’ – it looked like the Governor’s Association had written much of that speech, and aligned themselves with Ron DeSantis,” Dobbs lamented, calling it a “lack of respect to POTUS.”

READ MORE: Former GOP Congressman Calls for Marjorie Taylor Greene to Be Censured After Calling President Biden a ‘Liar’

Bannon, convicted on two federal criminal contempt charges, agreed that her remarks were “an insult to Trump.”

“She does not exist, politically, if it’s not for President Trump,” Bannon continued. “I thought the speech was terrible.”

“If you’re going to give a counter speech, you’ve got to talk about important issues. Don’t get me wrong, the wokeism is very important. But it’s not quite the heart of the matter right now, right? It’s not the heart of the matter. She is not — the reason is she’s just not — she’s not intellectually capable of going to the heart of the matter, right? Let’s be blunt.”

“This was like written by Ron DeSantis and the entire RGA,” Bannon said, referring to the Republican Governors’ Association.

Watch below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.