TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ALLOWED TO ENLIST IN U.S. MILITARY JAN 1, 2018 (TRUMP'S STRATEGY)

TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ALLOWED TO ENLIST IN U.S. MILITARY JAN 1, 2018 (TRUMP'S STRATEGY):

TRUMP CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL COURT'S LATEST RULING.

IS THIS TRUMP'S WAY OF REACHING OUT TO THE GAY COMMUNITY AHEAD OF 2020??

TRUMP MAY BE MUCH WISER THAN WE ALL REALIZE.


Sources: Reuters


****** U.S. military to accept transgender recruits on Monday: Pentagon


Transgender people will be allowed for the first time to enlist in the U.S. military starting on Monday as ordered by federal courts, the Pentagon said on Friday, after President Donald Trump’s administration decided not to appeal rulings that blocked his transgender ban.

Two federal appeals courts, one in Washington and one in Virginia, last week rejected the administration’s request to put on hold orders by lower court judges requiring the military to begin accepting transgender recruits on Jan. 1.

A Justice Department official said the administration will not challenge those rulings.

“The Department of Defense has announced that it will be releasing an independent study of these issues in the coming weeks.

So rather than litigate this interim appeal before that occurs, the administration has decided to wait for DOD’s study and will continue to defend the president’s lawful authority in District Court in the meantime,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In September, the Pentagon said it had created a panel of senior officials to study how to implement a directive by Trump to prohibit transgender individuals from serving. The Defense Department has until Feb. 21 to submit a plan to Trump.

Lawyers representing currently-serving transgender service members and aspiring recruits said they had expected the administration to appeal the rulings to the conservative-majority Supreme Court, but were hoping that would not happen.

Pentagon spokeswoman Heather Babb said in a statement: “As mandated by court order, the Department of Defense is prepared to begin accessing transgender applicants for military service Jan. 1. All applicants must meet all accession standards.”

Jennifer Levi, a lawyer with gay, lesbian and transgender advocacy group GLAD, called the decision not to appeal “great news.”

“I’m hoping it means the government has come to see that there is no way to justify a ban and that it’s not good for the military or our country,” Levi said. Both GLAD and the American Civil Liberties Union represent plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed against the administration.

“COSTS AND DISRUPTION”

In a move that appealed to his hard-line conservative supporters, Trump announced in July that he would prohibit transgender people from serving in the military, reversing Democratic President Barack Obama’s policy of accepting them.

Trump said on Twitter at the time that the military “cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

Four federal judges - in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Seattle and Riverside, California - have issued rulings blocking Trump’s ban while legal challenges to the Republican president’s policy proceed.

The judges said the ban would likely violate the right under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection under the law.

The Pentagon on Dec. 8 issued guidelines to recruitment personnel in order to enlist transgender applicants by Jan. 1.

The memo outlined medical requirements and specified how the applicants’ sex would be identified and even which undergarments they would wear.

The Trump administration previously said in legal papers that the armed forces were not prepared to train thousands of personnel on the medical standards needed to process transgender applicants and might have to accept “some individuals who are not medically fit for service.”

The Obama administration had set a deadline of July 1, 2017, to begin accepting transgender recruits.

But Trump’s defense secretary, James Mattis, postponed that date to Jan. 1, 2018, which the president’s ban then put off indefinitely.

Trump has taken other steps aimed at rolling back transgender rights. In October, his administration said a federal law banning gender-based workplace discrimination does not protect transgender employees, reversing another Obama-era position.
In February, Trump rescinded guidance issued by the Obama administration saying that public schools should allow transgender students to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

DONALD TRUMP'S APPEAL: OPPORTUNITY, GREATNESS, BUSINESS GROWTH & SUCCESS (STEPHEN COLBERT)

View More: Live News|More News Videos

DONALD TRUMP'S APPEAL - OPPORTUNITY, GREATNESS, BUSINESS GROWTH & SUCCESS FOR ALL:

STEPHEN COLBERT AGREES.

2016 GOP Frontrunner Donald Trump's appeal represents more than his Bold personality and Fame.

For American voters, Vets, the U.S. Military and Wall Street Trump's appeal actually represents Opportunity, Greatness, Business Growth & Success for all.

Comedian and Political Commentator Stephen Colbert agrees with this analysis.

~ Stephen Colbert: Donald Trump's Populism 'Very Appealing'

"There is something really hopeful about the fact that, well, 36 percent of the likely voters want him so the people in the machine don't get to say otherwise," late-night host says

Over the past few months, Stephen Colbert has had some fun with Donald Trump's headlines-grabbing presidential campaign, from overdosing on Trump jokes to daring the GOP frontrunner to donate $1 million to charity to disguising Jon Stewart as the mogul. However, in a new interview with Face the Nation set to air Sunday, Colbert admitted that he admires how Trump's campaign has shifted the balance of power in the Republican party.

"There's a populism to Trump that I found very appealing," Colbert said. "The party elders would like him to go away but the people have decided that he is not going to. I may disagree with anything that he's saying and think that his proposals are a little ... well, more than a little shocking. But there is something really hopeful about the fact that, well, 36 percent of the likely voters want him so the people in the machine don't get to say otherwise. That's the one saving grace, I think, of his candidacy."

As 2016 approaches and Trump's GOP lead continues to swell, Colbert also confessed that his earlier boast that there was no way Trump could ever win the White House was shortsighted. "What I do respect is that he knows that it is an emotional appeal, and it might be emotional appeals that I can't respect, but he knows that you have to appeal to the voter. And that's why, I may be wrong - I made a big deal about there's no way he's gonna win," Colbert said before conceding, "I don't know anything about politics."

At a press event before Colbert took the helm of The Late Show, the former Colbert Report host was asked about Trump's presidential odds. "Honestly, he could, and that's not an opinion of Trump. That's my opinion of our nation," Colbert said. "You know what, there have been some great presidents and there have been some bad presidents. Having a giant swinging set of balls isn't the worst thing in the world."

Sources: CBS News, Rolling Stone, NY Times, Face The Nation, YouTube

RAY RICE REINSTATED TO PLAY IN NFL; DESERVES 2ND CHANCE; HE IS NOT A DEMON

RAY RICE WINS HIS APPEAL......IS REINSTATED TO THE NFL.

HE DESERVES A SECOND CHANCE BECAUSE HE'S HUMAN.

RAY RICE WAS WRONG BUT HE IS NOT A DEMON.

Article Sources: ESPN; CBS News; Youtube


ARTICLE: "Ray Rice Wins Appeal"

Former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice has won his appeal of an indefinite suspension and has been reinstated to the NFL.

Rice is now eligible to sign with any NFL team.

"I would like to thank Judge Barbara Jones, the NFL Players Association, my attorneys, agents, advisors, family, friends and fans -- but most importantly, my wife Janay," Rice said in a statement released by the NFLPA on Friday.

"I made an inexcusable mistake and accept full responsibility for my actions.

"I am thankful that there was a proper appeals process in place to address this issue. I will continue working hard to improve myself and be the best husband, father and friend, while giving back to my community and helping others to learn from my mistakes."

Former U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones, who heard Rice's appeal earlier this month, concluded in her decision, which was obtained by ESPN, that Rice did not lie to or mislead NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

"In this arbitration, the NFL argues that Commissioner Goodell was misled when he disciplined Rice the first time. Because, after careful consideration of all of the evidence, I am not persuaded that Rice lied to, or misled, the NFL at his June interview, I find that the indefinite suspension was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated," Jones' decision stated.

"I find that the NFLPA carried its burden of showing that Rice did not mislead the Commissioner at the June 16th meeting, and therefore, that the imposition of a second suspension based on the same incident and the same known facts about the incident, was arbitrary," Jones also wrote.

"The Commissioner needed to be fair and consistent in his imposition of discipline.

"Moreover, any failure on the part of the League to understand the level of violence was not due to Rice's description of the event but to the inadequacy of words to convey the seriousness of domestic violence. That the League did not realize the severity of the conduct without a visual record also speaks to their admitted failure in the past to sanction this type of conduct more severely."

An NFL spokesman, when asked by ESPN's Andrew Brandt if the league would pursue any further action against Rice, said: "We, of course, accept the ruling as binding."

Rice's wife, Janay, told ESPN's Jemele Hill on Friday that they learned of the ruling while at the house of Janay Rice's mother, and were with family and friends at the time.

"It feels unbelievable," Janay Rice said. "It's a relief. We've been telling the same story for months and we always had faith that we'd done the right thing. Everyone deserves a second chance. We're excited about what the future will bring."

Whether Rice is entitled to back pay for game checks he missed during his suspension will be determined in a separate proceeding through the grievance filed against the Ravens by the NFLPA on behalf of Rice.

"This decision is a victory for a disciplinary process that is fair and transparent," the NFLPA said Friday in a statement. "This union will always stand up and fight for the due process rights of our players. We take no pleasure in seeing a decision that confirms what we have been saying about the Commissioner's office acting arbitrarily. The only remaining action is for NFL owners to embrace a fair process with a neutral arbitrator in all cases. The players thank Judge Barbara Jones for her time and thoroughness in this matter."

Rice was suspended indefinitely Sept. 8 for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy after a video of him hitting his then-fiancée was released publicly.

Goodell originally had suspended the running back for two games. The incident occurred in February inside an elevator at an Atlantic City, New Jersey, casino.

Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome testified under oath Nov. 6 in the appeal hearing that he heard the former Baltimore running back tell Goodell during his June 16 disciplinary hearing that he had hit his then-fiancée in a casino hotel elevator, sources told ESPN's "Outside the Lines."

Rice also testified, as did his wife. Details of what Rice and his wife testified to Nov. 6 and what Goodell said Nov. 5 were not released to "Outside the Lines" because of a gag order that Jones imposed. But sources said Newsome backed Rice's previous accounts of what he told Goodell.

Goodell spent the majority of his time testifying under cross-examination by outside union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, sources said.

Rice's attorney, Peter Ginsberg, said in a statement Friday it was "a huge relief" that Rice can "get back to work."

"That is the fair and legally correct result. The decision, however, certainly does not mean that this incident will be forgotten by anyone involved," Ginsberg said in the statement. "On a personal level, Ray, individually, and Ray and Janay, as a couple, are dealing with these events privately. On a professional level, it is time for Ray to prove himself again.

"Hopefully, the NFL will use this incident to learn and to improve. On the heels of Bountygate, Commissioner Roger Goodell has shown once again that he does not follow the rules in his treatment of players and that his judgment cannot be trusted. Under his leadership, the NFL ignored for years the need to create a stronger and more constructive program to address domestic abuse."

Rice, 27, is a three-time Pro Bowler and helped the Ravens win Super Bowl XLVII. He rushed for 6,180 yards and 37 touchdowns in six seasons with Baltimore.

Ravens receiver Torrey Smith tweeted his support of his former teammate after Rice's reinstatement was announced.

U.S. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS GAY MARRIAGE IN UTAH

#GayMarriageUTAH

U.S. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS GAY MARRIAGE IN UTAH


ARTICLE: "Supreme Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriage In Utah"

The Supreme Court filed an order Monday that blocks gay marriages in Utah, giving state officials time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The high court issued a stay “pending final disposition,” according to the order issued Monday. State officials have been appealing to a federal appeals court to reverse a recent ruling that allowed same-sex marriages to continue.

The temporary stay on Monday effectively reinstates an earlier ban the state imposed on such marriages. The order doesn’t indicate that any justices dissented, thereby suggesting the full Court supported the stay, according to SCOTUSblog.

This decision comes just two weeks after a federal district court Judge Robert J. Shelby struck down a ban on same-sex marriages in the state.

Shelby said the ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

Utah became the 18th state, in addition to Washington, D.C., to allow gay marriages when Shelby overturned the ban on Dec. 20.

Just a few days later, a federal appeals court upheld Shelby’s decision, and rejected an emergency request by Utah officials to block the marriages. The panel said issuing a stay on the ruling was “not warranted” as Utah officials could go through the appeals process.

Last Tuesday, however, Utah officials filed an emergency appeal to prevent the marriages from continuing.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor oversees such requests and ordered a group of same-sex couples challenging that appeal to respond to the state by noon last Friday.

As of last Tuesday, at least 900 same-sex couples were able to get married since Shelby had issued his decision, according to multiple reports.

Shelby’s ruling came as a surprise, and was heavily praised by gay rights groups. He is only the second federal judge to reverse a state ban on same-sex marriage, as The New York Times notes.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco was the first when he struck down California’s proposition 8 in 2010.


Sources: CNN, The Hill

OBAMACARE vs SCOTUS: Justice Sotomayor Grants Religious Organizations Exemption From Contraceptive Mandate (For Now)

#ObamacareMandate

Tuesday evening SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor Blocked the OBAMACARE Contraception Mandate.

She allowed Religious Organizations to be Exempt from the Contraception Mandate.

However she has given the OBAMA Admin until Friday to respond to her Ruling.

"Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate On Insurance In Suit by Nuns"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing some religious-affiliated groups to provide health insurance coverage of birth control or face penalties as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Acting at the request of an order of nuns in Colorado, Justice Sotomayor issued the stay just hours before the requirement was to go into effect on New Year’s Day. She gave the Obama administration until Friday to respond to the Supreme Court.

Justice Sotomayor’s order applies to the nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups that use the same health plan, known as the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust. The groups’ lawsuit is one of many challenging the federal requirement for contraceptive coverage, but a decision on the merits of that case by the full Supreme Court could have broader implications.

“We are delighted with the ruling,” said Mark L. Rienzi, a lawyer at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who represented the nuns in the lawsuit. “We are delighted that the Supreme Court will require the government to file briefs in the court on this matter.” The Little Sisters of the Poor operate nursing homes for low-income people in the United States and around the world.

Without Justice Sotomayor’s order, the nuns “would have been forced to comply with the contraceptive mandate on Wednesday or face large fines,” Mr. Rienzi said late Tuesday.

The contraception requirement has been one of the most controversial aspects of the health law since the Obama administration first announced it in mid-2011, along with other requirements it characterized as preventive care. Religious opponents of abortion have objected especially strongly to the requirement to provide emergency contraception pills, like Plan B, although most studies show that the drug works by preventing fertilization, not by inducing abortion.

In an effort to compromise, the administration said that women who work for nonprofit religious groups that object to birth control could receive separate coverage not paid for by the employers. It refused, however, to offer accommodations to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception.

That has led to a separate group of lawsuits. And last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a pair of cases on whether corporations may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

Justice Sotomayor — who later was to lead the countdown for the Times Square ball drop — issued her order after the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, earlier on New Year’s Eve denied the nuns’ request for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the new health care law.

The Obama administration had argued that the Little Sisters of the Poor could opt out of the contraceptive coverage requirement by completing “a self-certification form” and providing it to the entity that administers their health benefits. Therefore, the Justice Department said, the contraceptive mandate imposes “no substantial burden on their exercise of religion.”

“To opt out of providing contraceptive coverage, Little Sisters need only certify that they are nonprofit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and that, because of religious objections, they are opposed to providing coverage for some or all contraceptive services,” the Justice Department told the appeals court on Monday.

The administration says it has exempted churches from the contraceptive coverage requirement and offered an accommodation to certain religious nonprofit groups. But the Becket Fund argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”

“The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage,” it said. “In good conscience, they cannot do that. So the ‘accommodation’ still violates their religious beliefs.”

The Obama administration has repeatedly defended the birth control requirement. “The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said last month.

One of the pending Supreme Court cases was filed by Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned by a family whose members have said they try to run the business on Christian principles. The company, which operates a chain of arts-and-crafts stores and has more than 15,000 full-time employees of many faiths. Hobby Lobby has said it has no problem with offering coverage for many forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery. But drugs and devices that can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb are another matter, and make it complicit in a form of abortion, the company said.

The other case was filed by the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, which makes wood cabinets and is owned by a Mennonite family that had similar objections to the law.

Sources: AP, NY Times, TIME Magazine

Prop 8 Ban Sponsors To Seek SCOTUS Ruling For Final Decision: Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Court Won’t Revisit Gay Marriage Case; May Go to Justices

The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Tuesday they plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a landmark appellate court ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional.

Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Proposition 8 backers "absolutely" would take the case to the high court now that it has run its course at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He did not know if the Proposition 8 defense team would take the entire 90 days they have to petition the Supreme Court.

The move follows a federal appeals court's refusal to revisit a decision by two of its member judges declaring the voter-approved ban to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians in California.

Backers of the ban petitioned the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February to review the decision instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gay marriage opponents said at the time they would go to the high court if the appeals court declined to rehear the case.

Same sex unions were briefly legal in California before voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008. Due to the ongoing legal wrangling, it's unlikely the practice will resume in the state anytime soon.

The 9th Circuit said Tuesday a majority of its 26 actively serving judges had voted not to revisit a three-judge panel's 2-1 decision declaring the voter-approved ban to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians in California.

The 9th Circuit does not often agree to rehear cases, a procedure known as en banc review. Federal court rules reserve the practice for appeals that involve "a question of exceptional importance" or if the original decision appears to conflict with Supreme Court or 9th Circuit precedents.

After voters approved Proposition 8, two unmarried couples sued to overturn the ban in May 2009, and their lawsuit gave rise the next year to the first federal trial to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ultimately sided with the couples.

The ban's sponsors appealed, and the split 9th Circuit panel affirmed Walker's finding that Proposition 8 violated those civil rights. But, instead of finding any gay marriage ban would be unconstitutional, the panel limited its decision to California, saying Proposition 8 improperly took away an existing right.

Several other high-profile same-sex cases also are making their way toward the high court. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared last week that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex couples unconstitutionally denies Social Security and other federal spousal benefits to married gay couples.



LGBT donors back President Obama, big time

After President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, a group organizing a fundraiser on his behalf suddenly had to find a bigger venue. The event, featuring the pop singer Pink, is one of two LGBT-organized fundraisers Obama is expected to attend on the West Coast on Wednesday.

A CNN analysis of President Obama's biggest fundraisers, known as bundlers, shows that at least 33 -- or about one in every 16 bundlers -- is openly gay. Together, they have raised at least $8 million for the campaign between January and the end of March.

By contrast, in the same period, bundlers from the television, movie and music industry, some of whom attended a recent high-profile fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney, raised $6.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

While campaign finance laws require donors to disclose their full names, addresses, occupations and employers, there is no box to check for sexual orientation.

Nor does the law require candidates to release information about their bundlers. Under prodding from watchdog groups, presidential campaigns have released bundler data in past elections.

Obama's campaign has released its list. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign has not.

In CNN's analysis, only bundlers who have disclosed their orientation in past CNN reporting or in trusted LGBT publications were counted as gay. The Washington Post has reported that as many as one in six bundlers supporting Obama are gay. The Advocate Magazine estimates one in five.

Glancing down the names on the bundlers list released by the Obama campaign for the first quarter, it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.

Tim Gill, a software entrepreneur who runs a large Colorado-based foundation that backs gay rights projects, has already contributed $672,800 with his partner Scott Miller to the Obama for America campaign. Fred Eychaner, who owns the Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., has donated $1,220,550 so far.

He co-hosted a $35,800-per-person LGBT organized fundraiser for Obama in February. Kathy Levinson, the former president and CEO of the Menlo Park, California-based Etrade, gave $202,150.

The LA Gay and Lesbian Center Women's Night named Levinson a "Community Role Model" in 2000. She was instrumental in raising money to stop the anti-same-sex marriage law in California.

Donations made after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage May 9 won't be released until mid-June, when the campaign files its second-quarter reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Many LGBT bundlers have maintained a close relationship with the president throughout his first term.

A state dinner in March was attended by bundlers Gill; Eychaner; Barry Karas, a former Human Rights Campaign board member; James (Wally) Brewster, senior vice president of General Growth Properties, a real estate investment trust that owns and operates shopping malls;

Dana Perlman, a corporate lawyer who has served as co-chair of the Obama/DNC LGBT Leadership Council; Joseph Falk, a Miami mortgage broker and others.

Support for Obama from the LGBT community was challenged after the initial excitement of his first campaign, largely because of what was perceived as his lukewarm support on same-sex marriage. Some say a low point came during the election in 2008, when evangelist pastor Rick Warren asked Obama how he defined marriage and he called it "a union between a man and a woman."

He added: "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." He further angered the community by picking Warren to deliver his invocation at the presidential inauguration.

Actor Alan Cumming wrote in 2010, "We keep hearing that Obama is an ally, that DADT [the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that kept LGBT people from openly serving in the military] will end under his watch, but what do we actually get? Diddly squat."

Dustin Lance Black, who won a best screenplay Oscar for "Milk," a movie biography of the gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk who was gunned down because of his sexual orientation, said last year that he had been an Obama supporter before but might sit out the upcoming election.

When President Obama finally signed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and "evolved" in his position on marriage by saying he was in favor of it for the LGBT community, both Black and Cumming did more than just say they supported the president. They donated money. They also encouraged others to do the same.

David Mixner, who started one of the first LGBT-themed PACs in the late 1970s, said the community has come a long way in being accepted in electoral politics. "We had some candidates who wouldn't take our money back then because they didn't want to be associated with anyone who was gay," Mixner said.

He said he believes that changed with the Clinton administration, which the PAC raised $4 million to support. "Now the community knows how to raise money and contribute on their own and we are more than welcome at the table."

The LGBT community is such an important part of this president's re-election effort that the Obama for America campaign hosts a special section for it on its website. It includes a video discussing the president's support for LGBT issues narrated by actress Jane Lynch, who is openly gay.

It also offers Obama merchandise like T-shirts and drink koozies to bring to Gay Pride events this summer.

The president has already attended several LGBT-organized fundraisers, including one in New York hosted by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, the Futuro Fund, and Obama for America LGBT Leadership Council.

Another event in Washington, hosted by Karen K. Dixon and her partner, Dr. Nan Schaffer, was rumored to have raised more than a million dollars for the campaign, although the Obama team won't comment on the record about fundraising.

Tickets for one of the California events were selling so well the campaign had to find a larger venue. There also is great interest in a Chicago fundraiser co-hosted by LGBT bundlers Brewster and Bob Satawake. The couple has already raised $288,663, according to the CNN analysis.

"I think there has always been a strong base of support from LGBT people for the president," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, whose incoming president Chad Griffin is a bundler.

"He earned even more respect from the community -- from repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' to signing the hate crimes law giving the first civil rights protection for us in federal law, to coming out against DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for federal purposes as unions exclusively between a man and a woman.

"Now, with his saying he believes in full marriage equality, we have another reason for people in our community to be generous with their time and money."

It is difficult to know if there are any openly gay bundlers for the Republicans, because Romney has not disclosed his bundler list.

The Republican candidate has, however, voiced his opposition to civil unions and supports a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

But some gay Republicans say Romney is not totally close minded on LGBT issues. "On gay issues, where Romney stands is not as black and white as it seems," said R.

Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans. "One thing he has been consistent on, as governor and as a candidate for president, is he has spoken in broad terms about ending discrimination in the workplace. He has said there is no room for it."

Cooper said the Log Cabin Republicans haven't decided yet if they will endorse Romney. That announcement will come sometime this fall. He does believe, though, that there are gay donors to Romney's campaign. They just might not be as outspoken.

"We joke that at Pride (festivals), the question we most often ask other Republicans we see there is, 'Are you out?' Meaning 'out' about your politics yet."


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, ABC, CNN, NY Times, PBS News, Youtube, Google Maps

Cuccinelli vs Obamacare: Who'll Win Mandatory Purchase Challenge?

Right Ruling Against Obamacare Doesn't Go Far Enough


Yesterday a Va. Federal Court rightly struck down as unconstitutional Obamacare’s individual mandate. But this decision is only half right. It also shows that if Congress won’t repeal this law entirely, then tinkering with it might doom our chances in court of having this whole monstrosity thrown out.

Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Obamacare’s individual mandate—requiring most Americans must buy health insurance—is unconstitutional. Although states might be able to require people to buy health insurance (like they do car insurance), the federal government cannot because it’s not authorized by any provision in the U.S. Constitution.

After correctly striking down the mandate, Judge Hudson then went in the wrong direction. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of Obamacare’s 2,700 pages. As such, striking down the mandate means you have to strike down the whole law. Judge Hudson declined to take that step.

Cuccinelli’s right, and Judge Hudson—who’s a very good judge—got this one wrong. Hudson held that the record doesn’t make clear whether Congress intended the law to survive without the mandate, and that without such a record he should only strike down the part that’s clearly unconstitutional.

That’s not what Supreme Court precedent requires. As I explained in detail in a brief I filed on behalf of the Family Research Council in the multi-state challenge to Obamacare in Florida, if a provision in a law is unconstitutional, a court must ask whether the statute can function in the manner Congress intended without the invalid part. If not, then the court must strike down the whole law.

There are two key points on this question of severability when it comes to Obamacare.

First, the law does not contain a severability clause, in which Congress announces that if part of the law is found invalid, the remaining provisions continue to carry the force of law. Courts treat a severability clause as strong evidence that Congress intended the rest of a law to survive without the unconstitutional section.



Even without a severability clause, a court still presumes an unconstitutional provision can be severed. It just doesn’t take as much to make the case that Congress would rather have no law at all.

That’s where the second point becomes critical. In Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare’s official name), Congress inserted a finding that the individual mandate, “is essential to creating effective health insurance markets.” Then, in their briefs and court arguments, the Justice Department admitted that the individual mandate is absolutely necessary for Obamacare to function as Congress intended.

The Virginia district court did not comment on this congressional finding and these government admissions. Taken in this context, the mandate is so intertwined with various parts of the law that a court needs to strike down many of Obamacare’s 450 sections.

Judge Hudson noted that he would have no way of knowing which provisions of Obamacare Congress intended to save without the mandate, also commenting that a number of provisions surely cannot be severed from the mandate. However, the correct course in that event is to strike down the entire law, allowing Congress to take the issue up all over again.

That raises a serious cautionary flag to Congress. The new Congress should do everything possible to repeal Obamacare entirely. However, if those efforts fail—as they likely will given that President Obama will veto any flat-out repeal, meaning a repeal couldn’t succeed before the 2012 elections—Republicans must not allow partial repeals to doom the court challenges to Obamacare.

Some moderate Democrats support a bill that would repeal the individual mandate. If that were to pass, then all of the major Obamacare lawsuits would become moot (since all of them challenge the mandate), and would be thrown out of court. Should that happen, then the rest of Obamacare would survive until 2013—or permanently.

Repeal Obamacare entirely. If Congress can’t, then it should be very careful, allowing the lawyers on these cases every opportunity to convince the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and cannot be severed from the remainder of the law.

If the Court holds the mandate unconstitutional and that it cannot be severed, then the whole law goes down, and we’ll kill this leviathan once and for all.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Va. Federal Judge Strikes Down Health Care Law


A Federal Judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the Va. judge's ruling on the health care law (.pdf)

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

"The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," Hudson wrote in a 42-page decision. However, he declined to invalidate the entire healthcare law, a small victory for Obama.

The law has become a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aiming to expand health insurance for millions more Americans while curbing costs, and his Justice Department lawyers have been sent around the country to defend it in federal courts.

The Obama administration will likely appeal.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

Hudson, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.







Business On Obamacare: Resist, Don't Repeal


Congressional Republicans are touting plans to repeal the Obama Administration's health care reform law, but they face wariness for a full rollback from a key constituency: the business lobby.

In the weeks before the midterm elections, many Republicans used the health care law to tap into anti-government sentiment and angst about the economy. In their Pledge to America, Republican candidates committed to "repeal and replace the government takeover of health care" by any means necessary. Even John Boehner, the incoming House Speaker, filed a brief on Nov. 16 in support of a lawsuit filed by 20 states challenging the constitutionality of a central part of the new law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. "ObamaCare is a jobkiller, and our economy simply cannot afford this unprecedented, unconstitutional power grab by the federal government," Boehner said in a statement.

But few in the business community want to embark on the grueling process of seeking a full repeal of health care reform, because they believe it will ultimately fail. Even if a repeal effort passed the Republican-led House, it would be certain to die in a Senate still dominated by Democrats. And if repeal legislation miraculously survived the Senate, President Obama would never sign it. The more viable strategy, business believes, is to try to tweak or eliminate key parts of the law. James Gelfand, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's director of health policy, says of the new law, "We'd like it to go away. But we're business people, and we're pragmatic."

The Big Business game plan is moving forward on several key fronts. The first strike is likely to come on the provision of the law requiring businesses to file 1099 tax forms on any individual or business with which it incurs an expense of more than $600 over the course of a year, starting in 2012. Small-business owners, in particular, warn that the requirement will overwhelm them with paperwork — and, consequently, stymie job creation and economic growth. Last week, a senior Democrat, Senator Max Baucus, announced plans to file legislation repealing the 1099 portion of the law. Second, business groups will focus on new restrictions on how much individuals can deduct on nonprescription drugs, like Tylenol, using flexible spending accounts.

The business community also plans to fight new regulations that would fully implement health reform. On Nov. 17, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's CEO, Tom Donohue, challenged what the organization calls a "regulatory tsunami" by the government, including the one created by health care. As the health care law is implemented in the coming years, the chamber predicts it will create 183 new agencies, commissions and panels. While the new law sharply expands Americans' access to health care, critics warn of the cost: a CATO Institute report claims that the law will increase taxes by nearly $670 billion in the coming decade. "We've never seen anything on this scale before," Donohue said, adding, "It defies all logic and common sense." The chamber will hire a regulatory economist and encourage its internal law firm to take a more activist posture in fighting increased regulation.

The last prong of the attack will come in congressional oversight. In the coming weeks, Republicans are expected to hold hearings on what has happened with the health care law. That may look good for the television cameras and generate headlines. It will also test the public's willingness to go further with a broader legislative rollback of the law.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Heritage Foundation, MSNBC, Politico, Red State, TIME, Washington Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Martha Witt's Reinstatement Halted By DOJ & U.S. Military

U.S. Air Force: Not So fast On Lesbian's Reinstatement!


The Air Force said Wednesday a lesbian flight nurse discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" must prove she is still qualified and pass a medical exam before it will consider reinstating her.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma ruled two months ago that former Maj. Margaret Witt's firing violated her rights, and he ordered that she be given her job back as soon as she put in enough nursing hours to meet qualifications for the position.

The Justice Department appealed that ruling Tuesday. But government lawyers did not seek a stay that would put the judge's order on hold.

Witt's lawyers celebrated the ruling, saying it meant she could be reinstated even as the appeal proceeds.

The Air Force issued a statement Wednesday saying that if Witt meets her nursing qualifications, military officials and the Justice Department will reconsider whether to seek a stay.

"To date, she has provided the Air Force no evidence that she meets the qualifications necessary to serve as an Air Force flight nurse, nor has she passed a medical physical which is also a prerequisite to her reinstatement," said the statement released by Lt. Col. Karen A. Platt.

Witt's lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington said they'd fight any effort to keep their client from resuming her duties during the appeal. They noted that the judge found that her dismissal advanced no legitimate military interest, and to the contrary actually hurt morale in her unit at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

"We do not foresee a problem in Maj. Witt getting reinstated," ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said. "We will present the Air Force with evidence showing she meets the nursing hours requirements and she will pass the physical."

Witt was suspended in 2004 and subsequently discharged after the Air Force learned she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman.

If Witt is reinstated, she would be serving openly at a time when the military's policy on gays is in disarray. President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates want to end the ban, but say it should be done through Congress, not the courts.

A federal judge in California has declared the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law unconstitutional — a ruling the DOJ is also appealing. In the meantime, the Pentagon has implemented new guidelines that have drastically cut the number of gays being dismissed under the policy.

The Pentagon plans to release a monthslong study Nov. 30 on how lifting the gay service ban would affect the armed forces.

"Don't ask" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but allows the discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered to be engaging in homosexual activity.


View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Tom Delay: "I Am Innocent", Will Appeal Guilty Verdict

Texas Jury Convicts Tom DeLay On Money Laundering Charges


A Texas jury on Wednesday convicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges of illegally funneling corporate money to help elect GOP candidates to the Texas Legislature.

DeLay was found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, court bailiff Gilbert Soto said. He was accused of funneling $190,000 to help elect Republicans to the state House and Senate in 2002.

At the outset of the trial, DeLay predicted the jury would clear him, and he remained unrepentant after learning the verdict..

"This is an abuse of power. It's a miscarriage of justice," DeLay told reporters. "I still maintain that I am innocent, that the criminalization of politics undermines our very system, and I'm very disappointed in the outcome. But you know, it is what it is, and we will carry on and maybe we can get it before people who understand the law."

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said the verdict showed no one was above the law.

"This case is a message from the citizens of the state of Texas that the public officials they elect to represent them must do so honestly and ethically, and if not they'll be held accountable," Lehmberg said.

DeLay's sentencing was set for December 20, and he faces a possible maximum prison term of 99 years on the money laundering charge and 20 years on the conspiracy charge.

Two other men facing charges in the case are awaiting trial.

DeLay, a conservative Republican, helped Newt Gingrich spearhead the GOP revival in 1994 that won control of the House and Senate in the first midterm election under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

While serving as the GOP's congressional whip, DeLay earned the nickname "The Hammer" for his strict enforcement of party discipline. In 2004, he was admonished three times by the House ethics committee, which warned him to "temper" his future actions to comply with House rules.

DeLay stepped aside as majority leader after his 2005 indictment on the money laundering and conspiracy charges and resigned from Congress the following year. He fought the charges on procedural grounds for several years, seeking unsuccessfully to have the trial held in his home county in suburban Houston instead of in the state capital, Austin, and blaming the indictment on a partisan prosecutor.

This past summer, DeLay said a separate, long-running federal criminal investigation of his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff had been closed with no charges.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Two former DeLay aides who joined Abramoff's lobbying team after leaving Capitol Hill also pleaded guilty during the wide-ranging influence peddling investigation.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the status of the Abramoff investigation, which also resulted in prison time for Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney and for Steven Griles, the No. 2 official in the Interior Department for much of the administration of President George W. Bush.

In August, DeLay told CNN that his legal bills have topped $8 million.

Despite his legal troubles, DeLay found time last year to appear as a short-lived contestant on the television show "Dancing with the Stars." He dropped out of the demanding dance competition due to stress factors in both feet.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Obama Loses Control Of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Debate

Why Obama Pushed To Reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

A Federal Appeals Court has, at the urging of the White House, granted a temporary stay on an Oct. 12 order by a district court judge to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell," which bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Many observers are surprised to see the Obama administration, which has opposed the policy and sought its repeal through Congress, lobbying the appeals court to keep the ban in place.

The stay is temporary and is designed to maintain the status quo until the appeal court can formally review the policy. The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that it would begin allowing openly gay recruits; the New York Times reports that this court stay "almost certainly means the government will go back to enforcing" don't ask, don't tell. Here's what people are saying about this development and what it means for the controversial policy.


Obama Explains the Move.

The Associated Press's Lisa Leff reports, "President Barack Obama said last week that the Clinton-era law 'will end on my watch' but added that 'It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now.'

He said he supports repeal of the policy, but only after careful review and an act of Congress. ... Government lawyers argue that striking down the policy and ordering the Pentagon to immediately allow openly gay service members could harm troop morale and unit cohesion when the military is fighting two wars."

The Department of Justice issues a statement:

“Proper implementation of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s’ repeal cannot occur overnight,” the Justice Department filing says, indicating that the amount of time needed to end the policy is the subject of a Pentagon working group review due out on December 1.

“An abrupt, court-ordered end to the statute would pretermit (sic) the Working Group’s efforts to ensure that the military completes development of the necessary policies and regulations for a successful and orderly implementation of any repeal of § 654. The significant impairment of the Department’s efforts to devise an orderly end to the statute would cause irreparable harm,” the Justice Department wrote.


Legal Complications if DADT Repealed Too Quickly.

The New York Times' Sabrina Tavernise and John Schwartz write, "Military officers have argued that if the change is made too quickly, it will place the military on a collision course with federal statutes. Families and spouses of soldiers have access to benefits like housing, health care and education through marriage, which the federal government does not recognize for same-sex couples."

Now Obama Owns a Policy He Opposes.

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer warned before the White House secured its sought-after stay, "if the administration successfully appeals Judge Phillips's decision, it will find itself obligated to enforce a policy the president himself says he opposes and that he says undermines national security, a policy with no empirical, legal, or moral basis.

The administration will have effectively instituted its own Proposition 8, retroactively denying rights to individuals who already have them. That will be significantly harder to explain or justify than simply maintaining the status quo. After having promised to repeal DADT, Obama would be responsible for its ongoing survival."


Obama Is Losing Control.

Liberal blogger Joe Sudbay fumes, "Well, DADT is the law of the land again -- at least for now. This has gotten absurd. The White House has lost control of this situation and it looks bad. I hope whoever concocted the Obama administration's strategy on DADT (and those who enabled it, meaning HRC and Winnie Stachelberg at CAP) grasp the magnitude of how screwed up this is. The people who are suffering here are the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Atlantic Wire, CNN, Democracy Now, Youtube, Google Maps

Virginia A. Phillips: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Judge Denies Stay

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": An End To Court Deference To The U.S. Military?



President Obama's battle over gays in the military escalated on Tuesday, as a federal judge refused to back down from her order to stop the enforcement of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Pentagon for the first time ordered recruitment centers across the country to welcome potential recruits who are openly gay or lesbian. The Pentagon's guidance to recruiters was a remarkable development, ending — for the moment — a blanket ban on gays serving openly in the military, even as the Obama Administration scrambled to put the ban back in place.

The Pentagon's message to recruiters warned that while they were to welcome gay potential recruits, they must also notify those would-be soldiers, sailors and Marines that if the Obama Administration succeeds in putting Judge Virginia Phillips' decision on hold or, ultimately, has it reversed, their enlistments will be stopped. But Phillips has rebuffed the Obama Administration's efforts to delay her ruling long enough to appeal. And in doing so, she has tossed aside muscular arguments from top military officials who warn of dire consequences if her ruling stands.

Her easy dismissal of such arguments comes on the heels of a string of other gay-rights rulings that appear to have outpaced the will of voters and state lawmakers alike. It has prompted some legal scholars to argue that the case's importance goes well beyond the legality of "Don't ask, don't tell." They say it also triggers key questions about the proper role of the judiciary and whether courts are losing their reluctance to interfere in military policymaking, even in times of war.

Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court deferred again and again to the military when it came to setting important policy, even when those policies apparently conflicted with fundamental rights. For instance, the court upheld rules denying Jewish soldiers the right to wear a yarmulke; it allowed rules limiting the roles women can play in combat; and, infamously in the case of Korematsu v. United States, it deferred to the military's argument that Japanese Americans on the West Coast should be interred in camps during World War II.

"Part of what is interesting here is that while Judge Phillips' order formally puts 'Don't ask, don't tell' and its constitutionality front and center, right behind that issue are important questions about the deference shown by the judiciary to the military where a military policy has been duly enacted by the Congress and signed by a President into law," says Marc Spindelman of Ohio State University's law school. Those questions are likely being debated in the Justice Department as the Administration decides whether to make an immediate appeal of Phillips' decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or instead to simply seek more time to sort out its options by asking a special panel of higher-court judges to do what Phillips refused to do on Tuesday — stay her order until the matter can be resolved on appeal.

The President's decision about how to proceed will be made against a rising chorus of gay-rights groups and others who insist that he not appeal at all, a decision that would leave Phillips' order in place permanently and automatically make good on Obama's many promises to end discrimination against gays in the military. In the view of one leading constitutional scholar, the President's protestations that tradition requires him to defend the statute are unfounded. "It is entirely up to the President to decide whether or not to appeal," Dean Erwin Chereminsky of the University of California at Irving School of Law tells TIME. "The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and need not defend laws that he believes are unconstitutional. I think that if Obama wants an end to the policy, the simplest path is to not appeal the nationwide injunction."

But so far, Obama has insisted that he will appeal, in the hope that Congress, not the courts, will decide whether gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military.



So what's the next step? Chances are, the Administration won't appeal the full ruling — not yet. Instead, the Justice Department will likely ask judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review Phillips' refusal to stay her order. That's a procedural matter that will be handled by a special rotating panel of three judges. Two of the judges serving this month — Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Senior Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott — were put on the bench by Ronald Reagan; the third, Circuit Judge William Fletcher, was nominated by Bill Clinton.

"Everything always comes down to which judges are deciding," says Vikram Amar, associate dean for academic affairs at the University of California at Davis School of Law. "Especially in this case, where the legal standards are not so self-executing, it really does depends on who you draw. Any of the conservatives on the Ninth Circuit are going to be more likely to give the military deference." No matter what happens with the stay, Amar says it's likely the Ninth Circuit will speed up review of Obama's promised appeal, probably setting oral arguments within a few months, just as it did with the Prop 8 gay-marriage case that is currently being appealed within the circuit.

Meanwhile, if Phillips' order stays in effect, things could get awkward for both the military and Obama. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruitment Command at Fort Knox in Kentucky, tells TIME that recruits who are open about their sexual orientation won't be turned away while the judge's order is in effect. "We continue to not ask what one's sexual orientation is," Smith says. "And if an applicant tells us they are gay or lesbian or bisexual, we are going to say O.K. and process their applications like any other applicant."

Obama has repeatedly insisted that "Don't ask, don't tell" is ripe for repeal. Now supporters are asking why, if the President is truly serious about a repeal, his Defense Secretary is issuing warnings that Phillips' ruling could have dire consequences for the military.

Chereminsky, for one, calls the Administration's response hypocritical. "I think it is stunningly hypocritical for the President to say [the policy] should be ended and for the Secretary of Defense to say that ending it would harm national security," he says. "It is strange that Secretary Gates now says that ending 'Don't ask, don't tell' will harm the military. The government presented no such evidence in court. Second, there is no reason why this is inherently more [appropriate] for Congress than the courts. Federal courts decide issues of rights — such as here, the First Amendment — all the time."

Whatever strategy the White House ultimately adopts in the case, Phillips' ruling, and her insistence on Tuesday that it be respected despite the military's objections, has added gasoline on a fire over gay rights that Obama has tried to keep to a low burn since his election. As the parade of gays and lesbians entering recruitment centers looking for enlistment papers swells in the coming days, that blaze will only get bigger — and probably harder to extinguish.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, TIME, Youtube, Google Maps