Nerve Wracking SCOTUS Watch Week

Good thing I'm going to be hitting the road in the middle of the week for a long interstate highway journey to Denver.  It'll keep me from not being stressed out reading SCOTUSblog about the potential results in several cases of importance to me and the various communities I'm a part of.  

I'm keenly interested in the Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder case which takes aim at Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Fisher v UT Austin one and the ones the marriage equality peeps are sweating in Hollingsworth v Perry and United States v. Windsor.

Note to John Aravosis and the rest of you GL peeps pimping that tired Blacks are keeping us from getting gay marriage meme, let me drop another 50 megatons on knowledge on to you irradiate that lie. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote friend of the court briefs in support of striking down DOMA and was part of the coalition of organizations filing in the Hollingsworth v perry care to take down Prop 8.

The LDF has been filing friend of the court briefs on behalf of the LGBT community since the 1996 Romer v Evans case. 

But back to the SCOTUS and these upcoming landmark cases.  The only thing we know about these cases is that there is no way of knowing which way they will go, and we can't even say for certain the vote will break down on 5-4 conservative-liberal lines as has been the pattern in the Roberts Court era.

For those of us who like to see human rights expand, all we can do is watch, hope and pray that justice prevails. 

These SCOTUS decisions will drop either sometime this week or next, and you will definitely know when it happens because the online chatter will be off the charts when it does.

HRC, You Have A Problem

I'm sure that the truth will come out about what really happened at that rally today, but note Human Rights Campaign, you still have a very long and tough road to travel before you even begin to get some positive cred back and you have zero room for errors, misspeaking, or mistakes.   TransGriot. 'What The Hell Happened In DC Today?'  March 27, 2013

Well, looks like we can take the 'alleged' label off the incident that was described in yesterday's post about the SCOTUS rally because someone has come forward to comment on it.

That someone who has come forward is a biggie.  It's Jerame Davis, the executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats.

Jerame wrote on his Facebook page Wednesday that he witnessed the incident, and the only flag out of the community affinity flags that was targeted for removal was the trans one.

HRC is mishandling this situation. While not directly, they are essentially calling me and John M. Becker liars when we were actually direct witnesses to all of this occurring, unlike the folks putting out the statement.

No other flags were asked to be removed from the shot. There were pride flags, American flags, and marriage equality flags all on display. I had a flag of my own. And at one point, organizers directed a person with a pride flag to block someone who was hijacking the media with pictures of dead young gays who were victims of discrimination.

It disappoints me greatly that HRC has chosen the circle-the-wagons-and-deny tactic once again when there were multiple witnesses to what happened. Shameful.

John M. Becker had this to say about it on his Facebook page.

Jerame and I attended the rally together and as he pointed out earlier today, both of us saw this happen. I cannot verify the word-for-word accuracy of the quote in this blog post as I was just out of earshot in that loud and exciting environment, but regardless of whether the words spoken were as blunt as the writer alleges or couched in nicer-sounding language, the sentiment and intent were unmistakable. This greatly dismayed me and others nearby, and we affirmed the flag holder and encouraged him to stand his ground. I'm so glad he did.

I'm sure the staffer was acting out of a misplaced sense of caution in that excruciatingly high-pressure environment -- and I'm equally sure it was not HRC's intent to exclude or deeply offend, but regardless of the circumstances, people *felt* excluded and *were* deeply offended. HRC really should apologize for this regrettable incident before it casts any larger a shadow on an otherwise beautiful event.

Instead, HRC is going into their standard playbook whenever they get caught dissing the trans community and it's witnessed by someone NOT from the trans community:  deny it

“It is a not true to suggest that any person or organization was told their flag was less important than another – this did not occur and no HRC staff member would ever tolerate such behavior. To be clear, it is the position of the Human Rights Campaign that marriage is an issue that affects everyone in the LGBT community.

QNotes published the full statement in this Matt Comer article.

So in effect, HRC Communications Director Michael Cole-Schwartz is basically calling Jerame and John liars.  Damn, I hope and pray somebody comes up with video from the rally for this.

But right now HRC, you have a problem.  As I said in yesterday's post, you had zero room for errors, misspeaking, or mistakes and this incident is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire.  That white hot fire of anger, especially within the trans community with whom you had little to zero trust and credibility with anyway, is about to burn your organization in multiple ways.  

You may be about to witness the restarting of HRC gala protests a la 2007-2008 by trans community activists and our allies in a city near you and another dropoff in donations, and that's just the opening salvos in how this kerfluffle could probably play out.

NBJC Supreme Court Rally For Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments March 26-27 on two cases that could potentially lead to the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Prop 8. 

Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California's Proposition 8 will be argued today and United States v. Windsor, the case challenging the unjust Defense of Marriage Act, is scheduled Wednesday, March 27.

Events have been organized inside I-495 and in all 50 states to rally for marriage equality and the National Black Justice Coalition will be at the Supreme Court along with its United For Marriage coalition partners 

The NBJC team and volunteers will join a coalition of supporters of marriage equality on the steps of the Supreme Court at 8:30 AM EDT on both days of the hearings at 1 First St. NE in Washington, D.C.

NBJC Executive Director and CEO, Sharon Lettman-Hicks, will be addressing attendees at the Wednesday, March 27 rally.

Wear RED to show your solidarity!

Together we will stand up for our love and show the nation that all Americans deserve to be treated fairly and equally under the law - no matter who they love.   All we need are five or more Supreme court justices to realize the same thing.  NBJC asks that you spread the word on Twitter with the hashtag #UnitedforMarriage.

For those of you in the Washington D.C. area or planning to hang out and watch history unfold, the nearest Washington Metro station is Union Station for the Red Line and Capitol South for the Blue and Orange lines. Be sure to wear comfortable shoes and bring anything you'd need to be outside

This 2012 Election Is STILL About The Supreme Court

As much as the pundits will try to make this election about the economy, I submit this election is about a far more important factor the media pundits aren't talking about in terms of the Supreme Court.

I bring this subject up because in a few hours another term of our nation's highest judiciary body starts and runs through June 2013.   Just as in the last term, there will be some contentious subjects such as Section V of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, same gender marriage, Prop 8 and affirmative action that come up to be argued in front of the 5-4 conservative leaning Roberts Court.

It hasn't escaped my attention that there are four justices who are over 70 years of age.  Clinton appointed Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (77) and Stephen Breyer (71) are past that age on the liberal progressive side.

Reagan appointed Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy (73) is a predominately right leaning swing vote, and reliably conservative Antonin Scalia is 74.    

The next president (and I pray it's a second term President Obama) could possibly get to appoint three and possibly four Supreme Court justices during his next term  and shape the direction and political orientation of it for the next thirty to 40 years.  

For you people who claim there's no difference between the two parties, nowhere does your rhetoric look more delusional and politically clueless than when it comes to what person is in the Oval Office picking Supreme Court justices and judges for the federal judiciary.

The last thing I want is a President Romney (yecch) advised by Robert Bork picking those justices.


I would rather have it continue in the liberal-progressive direction of being diversified as the trend has been under President Obama.  

We have already seen President Obama's first two picks be women in terms of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

I'd also like to remind people there has never been an African-American woman, an Asian of any gender, a Latino male or a Native American jurist of any gender selected to serve on the SCOTUS.

As a matter of fact President Obama's judiciary picks have been leaning heavily towards women and persons of color.   He has had appointed and confirmed a record 72 women to the federal judiciary in his first term with 29 of those women being non-white ones.   31 of President Obama's judicial picks were African-American, three were openly gay and there is no reason to doubt that pattern won't continue in a second Obama term

With a gridlocked Congress, the federal judiciary will become more important to advancing our human rights agenda.  With 90 federal judicial vacancies and four potential ones at the Supreme Court level diversity in the federal judiciary not only improves the quality of the decisions rendered by federal courts, it's a trend I want to see continue.

It's not only about the economy stupid, it's about the federal judiciary. and especially the political orientation the Supreme Court will take for the people in my generation for the rest of our lives.

Ponder that point as you enter the voting booth on November 6 or whenever during this month you get to cast your early voting ballots.

POTUS Comments On Health Care Reform SCOTUS Win

The first president to push and get passed health care reform in US history.   It's spike the political football time and work like hell to get this man reelected on November 6 along with a Congress that can help a presidential brother out.

And I'll bet Teddy is smiling today. 

Break Out The Constitution-The Supreme Court Is In Session

It's the first Monday in the month of October, and that means it's the first day of a new session for the US Supreme Court that will last through the first Monday of October 2012.

As of yet haven't heard of or read anywhere if the SCOTUS has accepted or will be hearing any cases that impact the trans or GL community, but you can bet I will be keeping an eye on the Supreme Court website just in case.

Let's just hope and pray there are no deleterious cases or rulings that come from this Roberts court during this session.  Some of them (Citizens United anyone) have been bad enough.

44th Anniversary Of Thurgood Marshall's SCOTUS Appointment

Today is the 44th anniversary of then US Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall becoming the first African American ever nominated to become a Supreme Court justice by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967.

The conservafools hate Justice Marshall with a passion to the point that duiing the Elena Kagan SCOTUS nomination hearings, Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) had to call their behinds out about the 'activst judge' lie they pimp about any judge or rulings they don't like.

Justice Kagan had been one of Justice Marshall's law clerks back in the day, a fact the GOP hated and tried to use to attack her.

Senator Franken tells it like it T-I-S is concerning one of our legal giants and a man Clarence Thomas wishes he could be but tragically isn't fit to shine his shoes.

.