ad_email
ad_facebook_468

4 responses to “Kagan: ‘vigorously defended’ DADT”

  1. DavidTheLeo

    Say what they want to hear, you’re in. Say what they don’t want to hear and you’re out. Seems like an easy game of Mother May I.

  2. John

    As a Harvard official, she did her job and enforced university policy. As Solicitor General, she vigorously defended D.A.D.T. Inconsistent? Hypocritical? Absolutely not. I can’t think of better evidence that she is able to put her personal politics and personal agenda aside to do her job. She is outstanding! This woman will occupy a great place in Supreme Court history. The senators who crudely disparaged her, as if being Progressive was an epithet, only proved themselves small, petty and mean-spirited. I was delighted when she not only did not let them get away with it, but laughed in their face. They will go back and crawl under their rocks. She will have a bigger place in history. She will be a proud legacy for Obama presidency.

  3. Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

    [...] Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, among other [...]

  4. FlexSF

    Religious groups claim their religion will be harmed by gay legal equality, but gay legal equality advocates are wholly unassociated with religious groups. It appears that the religious groups have the problem, and seek to stop anyone that lives their lives, equally under the law, and subsequently leaves the religious groups in an irrelevant vacuum.

    Religious groups should stop telling others, via voter referendum, who may marry who.

    This practice is dead wrong, and infuriating to be on the receiving end! They wouldn’t tolerate it for themselves, so why do they treat others differently?

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