ad_email
ad_email_468

7 responses to “Feldblum confirmation on secret hold for now”

  1. Gavel Grab » Tuesday Media Summary

    [...] Keen News Service: Feldblum confirmation on secret hold for now Lisa Keen – 3/1/2010 [...]

  2. Which Senator Has A Secret ‘Hold’ On Gay Nominee Chai Feldblum? | World Wide Web

    [...] Keen of Keen News Service reported the hold on Feldblum and four other EEOC nominees on Monday, quoting a spokesperson for Sen. Harry [...]

  3. Kraaal

    First and foremost Dr. Feldblum is no doubt a highly qualified individual and candidate to head the EEOC. This should be the primary reason for her candidacy and not who she sleeps with! Discrimination based on race and sexuality is not only morally wrong but legally wrong as well. That said, the fight for gays is and should be solely equal rights under the law rather than the advocating of homosexual openness! Other than the devoutly religious, most folk care little about who another adult sleeps with…. This is why DADT is a fair policy for the military. In other words the US Military is saying you can be gay but it’s personal not public!

  4. Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

    [...] unknown senator or senators have put a hold on the nomination of lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [...]

  5. EqualRights?

    [Regarding comment "the fight for gays is and should be solely equal rights under the law rather than the advocating of homosexual openness!"]
    okay…a straight person cannot be fired from the military if it is found out that they are straight. …Equal rights under the law? How about straight people talking about their affairs on the job? (“I couldn’t decide if she wanted me to kiss her or not.”)
    How is it equal, if we get fired for the same behavior?

  6. boligalarmer

    Very nice blog post, thanks :)

  7. ufc 119 results

    I really like this one: “I do not support polygamy,” said Feldblum. “I am sorry I signed that document and I have asked that my name be removed.”

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Sixth Circuit GOP judges: Why not let the voters decide who gets to marry?

The three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seemed to signal pretty clearly where they’re headed on the six marriage equality lawsuits they heard arguments in Wednesday: toward the first federal appeals ruling to undo lower court rulings that held state bans on marriage for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional.

» more


Breaking News

Sixth Circuit GOP judges: Why not let the voters decide who gets to marry?

The three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seemed to signal pretty clearly where they’re headed on the six marriage equality lawsuits they heard arguments in Wednesday: toward the first federal appeals ruling to undo lower court rulings that held state bans on marriage for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional.

» more


Fourth Circuit panel votes 2 to 1 to strike Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

It was clear from the oral argument that two out of three of the judges on a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel would vote on opposite sides concerning the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The question was how the third judge would vote. That question was answered Monday: He voted against the ban.

» more


President signs historic executive order

President Obama this morning (July 21) signed a long-sought executive order prohibiting contractors who do business with the federal government from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and adding to existing protection (which includes sexual orientation) for federal employees a prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity.

» more


Legal activists call Hobby Lobby decision ‘radical’ and will require vigilance to protect LGBT equality

Some LGBT legal activists say today’s decision in a U.S. Supreme Court religious exemption case amounts to a “dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers.”

Saying it is not providing a “shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice,” a 5 to 4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 30) that a federal law may not require a closely held commercial employer to provide health insurance coverage for contraception if that employer claims that to do so violates his or her personal religious beliefs.

» more


First federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutionalFirst federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutional

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a 2 to 1 decision Wednesday, upholding a district court decision that Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

» more