Reporters have always been comfortable ignoring their sources’ motives. Now everybody else needs to get used to that.

Via: @MiriamElder

One of the most difficult features of the new news environment is that everybody gets to see the utter mess of the early hours of a breaking news story — the chaos, the bad information off the scanner, the misidentifications. Those are things that used to take place inside the newsroom or, at worst, be swept away on the unrecorded broadcast airwaves.

There is now a heated debate over the moral status of Edward Snowden — who fled Hong Kong for Moscow en route, reportedly, to Ecuador Sunday — and over whether his decision to flee almost certain conviction and imprisonment in the United States means that his actions can't be considered "civil disobedience." These seem like good questions for a philosophy class. They are terrible, boring, ones for reporters, and have more to do with the confusing new news environment than with the actual news.

Snowden is what used to be known as a source. And reporters don't, and shouldn't, spend too much time thinking about the moral status of their sources. Sources sometimes act from the best of motives — a belief that readers should know something is amiss, or a simple desire to see a good story told. They also often act from motives far more straightforwardly venal than anything than has been suggested of Snowden: They want to screw someone who is in their way professionally; they want to score an ideological point by revealing a personal misdeed; they are acting on an old grudge, and serving revenge cold; they are collecting chits with the press to be cashed in later.

When these sources are anonymous or — in the case of earlier NSA sources — gray men whose stories haven't captured the public imagination, nobody much cares. The Nixon Administration's campaign to smear reporters' Vietnam source, Daniel Ellsberg, is remembered only for having happened. When you learn decades later that the most famous anonymous source in American history — Deep Throat — was an unappealing figure fighting a bureaucratic civil war, that's a mildly interesting footnote. The criminality he unearthed was interesting; Mark Felt wasn't really. Who cares?

Christians talk of hating the sin and loving the sinner; reporters occasionally operate in exactly the opposite way: They hate, or at least, dislike the source, and love the story. (They also sometimes adore the source, respect the source, like the source — you know who you are, honored BuzzFeed sources.) If anyone ought to understand this, it's the national security establishment: Spy agencies haven't ever been accused of being overly solicitous of their assets.

But the new media ecosystem has moved sources to the foreground. They make their cases directly on Twitter or in web videos; in Snowden's case, he also chose to protect himself by going and staying public in a way that would never before have been fully possible. "Big news will now carve its own route to the ocean, and no one feels the need to work with the traditional power players to make it happen," David Carr wrote recently. The fact that the public must now meet our sources, with their complex motives and personalities, is part of that deal.

Snowden's flight is a great, classic international story. It is, as Glenn Greenwald tweeted today, a kind of global White Bronco moment. His roots in web culture; his ideology; his decision-making; these are all great stories. He's a much more interesting figure than Mark Felt because, at least, he's a new figure, not a familiar one.

But Snowden's personal story is interesting only because the new details he revealed are so much more interesting. We know substantially more about domestic surveillance than we did, thanks largely to stories and documents printed by The Guardian. They would have been just as revelatory without Snowden's name on them. The shakeout has produced more revelatory reporting, notably this new McClatchy piece on the way in which President Obama's obsession with leaks has manifested itself in the bureaucracy with a new "Insider Threat Program."

Snowden's flight and its surrounding geopolitics are a good story; what he made public is a better one. I'm not sure why reporters should care all that much about his personal moral status, the meaning of the phrase "civil disobedience," or the fate of his eternal soul. And the public who used to be known as "readers" are going to have to get used to making that distinction.

A procedural question about whether the right party is before the court could be a hurdle for the pending Supreme Court cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act, California’s Proposition 8, affirmative action policies, and the Voting Rights Act.

Lawyers and plaintiffs challenging California's Proposition 8 left the Supreme Court on June 20, 2013, without a decision in their case. Decisions in at least some of the 11 remaining cases are expected at 10 a.m. Monday.

Via: J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — Although the country is waiting on the Supreme Court's decisions in four major cases — involving California's Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, affirmative action policies, and the Voting Rights Act — the court's decision in all four cases could be not to decide.

How?

Standing.

Standing is a part of the court's jurisdiction, a determination by the court that the party bringing a lawsuit or an appeal has a real interest in the litigation, in terms of a substantial harm or burden that they could face depending on the lawsuit's outcome. Basically: "Do they have a right to be there?" Standing doctrine is a result of the Constitution's requirement that the federal courts only hear an actual "case" or "controversy."

In the challenge to DOMA's federal definition of marriage — United States v. Windsor — the court has asked whether the government's decision to stop defending the law meant the court no longer had the ability to consider the case and whether the 5-member House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — led by a 3-2 Republican majority — had standing to step in to handle the law's defense.

In the Hollingsworth v. Perry challenge to Proposition 8, the question about standing is whether the proponents of the initiative — private citizens who advanced the initiative back in 2008 — can bring an appeal of the case when the state defendants chose not to do so. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that they could, the justices asked to take another look at the issue.

In the affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, some have questioned whether Abigail Fisher is a suitable plaintiff. According to the university, as noted at SCOTUSblog, Fisher "wouldn't have been admitted to the university's freshman class under any circumstances, regardless of her race," because "[h]er academic credentials ... just weren't strong enough."

Finally, in the Shelby County v. Holder case addressing the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires state and local political jurisdictions to get federal government approval of changes to voting procedures, some justices raised the question at oral argument — consigned to a footnote in the briefs — about whether Shelby County, Mississippi, had standing to bring the lawsuit because, as Justice Elena Kagan noted, "Under any formula that Congress could devise [for coverage under Section 5], it would capture Alabama."

Justices allotted extra time for the standing and jurisdiction issues in the DOMA case, but did not appear overly concerned about the questions raised by Harvard Law School professor Vicki Jackson, who the justices asked to brief the court on the issues. They seemed much more preoccupied with the issue, however, when hearing arguments the day before that in the Proposition 8 case.

University of Alabama School of Law professor Heather Elliott — a former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and expert on standing doctrine — told BuzzFeed that the questions about whether there is standing in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases "reveal[s] the inadequacy of the standing doctrine in determining the Supreme Court's jurisdiction."

Elliott noted that, while there are these questions raised now about who can appeal the cases, "the [trial] courts unquestionably had jurisdiction over the initial cases," and, as such, their decisions would stand even if the Supreme Court decides the parties appealing the cases now lack standing.

"In Windsor, the lower court struck down a federal statute; in Perry, a federal court struck down an initiative-created state constitutional amendment. If the Supreme Court exists to do anything, it should exist to review these kinds of decisions," Elliott told BuzzFeed. "If the standing doctrine says they are not 'cases,' it is the doctrine that is wrong."

In the other two cases, the standing question relates not to who is bringing the appeal, but whether the initial plaintiff bringing the lawsuit in the first place had standing. The standing issue was seen by many as an attempt by more liberal justices to avoid a ruling striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and it has remained at the margins of discussions about the case's possible outcomes. The justices could fall back on the standing questions in Fisher, however, particularly if the eight justices hearing the case — excluding Kagan, who had been involved in the case previously when in the Obama administration — deadlock 4-4.

"If the Court finds that the plaintiffs lacked standing, it can vacate the lower court decisions, leaving the legal landscape as it was before the cases were filed," Elliott wrote. "Nevertheless, I think the Shelby County case raises problems similar to those I see with the standing analysis in Windsor and Perry: the question is, what role should the Supreme Court play in our system of government? It should review decisions of lower courts striking down federal statutes (Windsor) and state laws (Perry). It probably also should review cases involving laws that affect the working of the body politic -- laws such as the Voting Rights Act."

Elliott was not so sure about the affirmative action case, writing, that the case "does not raise the same kinds of systemic issues: if the Supreme Court holds that Ms. Fisher lacks standing, it will not affect the workings of our democracy or the federal-state relationship."

The justices are scheduled to release more of the 11 remaining decisions at 10 a.m. Monday.

Longtime friends Paul Ryan and Luis Gutierrez bonded over their morning workouts years ago, and have developed an important partnership on immigration reform. “Maybe there is a correlation between working out and loving immigrants,” Gutierrez said.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez and Rep. Paul Ryan

Via: facebook.com

WASHINGTON— It's not often you'll hear a Democrat say there should be more Republicans like Paul Ryan in the House.

But that's exactly what liberal Chicago Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., thinks Ryan, R-Wis., — best known for his budget that Democrats love to hate and his role as Mitt Romney's running mate — is a key ally of Gutierrez's on immigration reform. And in the fierce legislative battle that has come to consume that issue on the Hill, their unlikely partnership could be crucial to getting an immigration deal done in the deeply polarized House.

Their odd-couple friendship began years ago in the House gym, where early morning workouts inevitably turn into locker room conversations about policy. Gutierrez says he isn't part of the cadre of lawmakers who faithfully work out with Ryan, but years of early morning run-ins have fostered a relationship of trust — and a degree of mutual admiration — between the two men.

"These guys are like chiseled … I think the best thing that they do is actually put their shirts and suits on because if you saw what they looked like, you couldn't listen to them," Gutierrez said. "But the group that works out is pretty pro-immigrant. Maybe there is a correlation between working out and loving immigrants."

Both men acknowledge they are about as far apart ideologically as two congressmen can be, but unlike so much of the partisan bickering that happens in the House, they actually seem to trust each other.

"He's very liberal," Ryan said of Gutierrez. "He and I don't see eye to eye on virtually every issue except on this. What I've learned about Luis is that he's a man of his word and he really wants to get this done. He's not trying to play politics, he is sincere in trying to find common ground to solve the immigration problem and I very much appreciate that. He's true to his word."

As Gutierrez continues to craft a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the House, he has kept in close communication with Ryan, who could end up being an important Republican broker to conservatives wary of immigration reform.

"He is one of the bedrocks of the Republican Party and his support helps immensely," Gutierrez said.

Ryan has been supportive of immigration reform efforts since he worked as a young staffer in Jack Kemp's office, and there's the often-forgotten fact that Ryan was a co-sponsor of the 2006 immigration reform legislation in the House.

"He has a very clear economic point of view but he also has a moral point of view. Everyone goes well really? Paul Ryan? But he thinks about the social justice issues," Gutierrez said. "These are his words: 'Luis we just can't, as Catholics, we can't have a permanent underclass. That's not who we are."

As the Senate continues to debate the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform legislation, the situation in the House is infinitely more complicated — a fact of which both men are acutely aware.

House conservatives are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to any legislation that would include an earned pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally. Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, went so far as to hold a six-hour "press conference" to rally support against the Senate bill. At least a dozen of his House colleagues showed up. The House Judiciary Committee has begun to work piecemeal immigration legislation, but some conservatives object even to that, arguing it could be used as a vehicle to go to conference with the Senate to get immigration reform passed.

And the House gang Gutierrez is a part of, which has been meeting for years, has yet to introduce legislation. Ryan, who is not a part of the House gang, views his role in the process as a sort of liaison between the group and the Republican conference.

"What I try to do is calm the rhetoric and keep the emotions in check and work on this issue methodically and focus on the facts. I had hoped the gang would have produced a bill by now but I still think there are good relationships that were forged there that can be very productive going forward," he said.

"I want to be encouraging of this group because I think we need bipartisan reform and Republican principles of the rule of law, of securing the border are very important and they need to be a part of any reform. Luis understands that:
the key is bridging these gaps," he added, noting that Gutierrez has been very willing to "concede to Republican principles" to get immigration reform accomplished.

When Ryan was on the vice presidential campaign trail last year, he returned to the House several times to cast votes, and Gutierrez pulled him aside one morning in the gym.

Of course, the Chicago Democrat wanted nothing more than to see Ryan and Mitt Romney lose the election and he promised his buddy that he'd do everything he could "so he'd never be vice president."

But their immigration bond trumped electoral politics.

"I said, 'Well you know you might be vice president, not that I'm going to help you in anyway. But if you win can I get to call you about immigration? Are we still going to collaborate?' And he said, 'Absolutely, even more,''" Gutierrez recalled. "So I said 'OK, well get me an office next to yours because I'm going to be there a lot if you're Vice President Paul Ryan.'"

Ryan recalled it thusly:

"I thought we were going to win the election and I said, 'Luis when the dust is settled we need to work on immigration reform. Its something I feel we need to do.' And I said that from the position of expecting to be the vice president of the United States."

Obama's victory didn't stop Ryan and Gutierrez from continuing their conversations. As national Republicans evaluated how they could win more Hispanic votes, eyes turned to immigration reform. But Gutierrez says that Ryan's interest in reform was never about politics.

"He's never talked to me about it in those terms," he said.

Ryan has continued to argue for an immigration fix, and recently butted heads with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham over the issue. Ryan charged that whatever the House produced would be different from the Senate bill, but there were economic benefits to getting immigration reform passed.

Gutierrez reached out to Ryan early in the year to see if the busy budget chairman could think of any Republicans to join Gutierrez in Chicago for an immigration summit. To his surprise, Ryan said he would come himself.

"I didn't want to walk up to someone who just ran for vice president and say, 'Would you share a stage with me in Chicago?' And he said, 'I'm an hour away, I can come down,'" Gutierrez recalled. "It's one thing for Paul and I to talk in the gym or the House floor, you have to have public expressions of these things. What he received is what other Republicans would receive. There was a warm embrace, applause, thankfulness, and gratitude which was expressed by hundreds of people in the room."

“I can’t go into any details.” Glenn Greenwald doubts it. (Updated)

An empty passenger seat believed to be reserved by former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden is seen on a plane to Cuba in Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, June 24, 2013.

Via: Maxim Shemetov / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A WikiLeaks spokesperson opened the possibility Monday that the group could publish the rest of Edward Snowden's National Security Agency documents when reached by phone by BuzzFeed on Monday.

Kristinn Hrafnnson, an Icelandic journalist who serves as the main spokesperson for WikiLeaks, would not answer definitively when asked whether or not the organization, which had its last major leak in 2010, would handle the rest of Snowden's material. A WikiLeaks member is accompanying Snowden on his travels out of Hong Kong, it was reported yesterday.

"I can't really answer that," Hrafnnson said. "I can't go into any details."

"As they say, I can neither deny nor confirm," Hrafnnson said.

On a call with reporters later on Monday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the question of whether or not the organization will publish other Snowden documents was a "sourcing matter" that he couldn't talk about. Like Hrafnnson, he left the door open to the idea.

"Of course WikiLeaks is in the business of publishing documents suppressed by governments," Assange said.

Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who has published most of Snowden's leaks on NSA spying, said he still doubts that WikiLeaks will publish any of the information that Snowden has. Greenwald had said earlier this month that more information and documents would be coming out over the next few months, but has also suggested that some of what Snowden took from his job as an intelligence contractor was not appropriate for release.

"As far as I know he's not given them to WikiLeaks," Greenwald told BuzzFeed, noting that the Guardian has not been the sole purveyor of Snowden leaks. "It was very very important to him that there not be an indiscriminate dumping of these documents so that there be a real public debate about surveillance policy and not just gratuitous disclosures for its own sake."

"WikiLeaks has successfully inserted themselves into the story by doing what seems to be an impressive job of lending support to Snowden's ability to get out of Hong Kong," he said. "The kind of publication that WikiLeaks has done in the past is not as I understand it what Snowden wants for the documents. He could have gone to WikiLeaks in the first place if he'd wanted that."

Greenwald said that the Guardian will likely publish more from the trove of documents Snowden gave them within the next 7–10 days, and that the new stories will focus on other NSA domestic surveillance programs that have not been previously disclosed. Greenwald has not spoken to Snowden since Snowden left Hong Kong, he said.

Hrafnsson would not go into detail to BuzzFeed about the terms of the deal WikiLeaks is trying to broker with Ecuador, but said that he expects Snowden will be granted asylum.

"That was my understanding, that it would not be a problem," Hrafnnson said.

Hrafnnson was recently in Ecuador himself. Last week, he went for a "conference on journalism," he said.

Ecuador has been widely criticized for its treatment of the press, including a recent media law that the Committee to Protect Journalists said indicated that the government was engaged in "widespread repression of the media."

"I think that it is a bit strange the entire focus on the revelations that Snowden has offered has shifted to a secondary issue because of the media situation in Ecuador," Hrafnnson said.

Perception of Ecuador's media law "depends on how you look at it," Hrafnnson said. "It seems to fall within the democratic process."

Hrafnnson acknowledged that he had had contact with Ecuadorian government officials at the journalism conference. He said he was not there for the explicit purpose of brokering a deal for Snowden.

This story has been updated with comments from Glenn Greenwald. (12:46 p.m.)

Let’s hope Howard Kurtz takes a look at this one. Correction: This image is fake.

This is OLD and FAKE.

Source: imgur.com  /  via: reddit.com

CORRECTION: The image is a fake. 6/24/2013.

High court tells lower courts considering affirmative action programs that they must conclude that “no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”

Via: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday potentially made it harder for affirmative action programs at universities to survive, but the justices avoided the broad type of ruling striking down the policies that some had expected.

In Abigail Fisher's challenge to the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas at Austin, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court that strict scrutiny — the most searching form of review when courts consider whether government laws or policies are unconstitutional — was not properly applied to the school's program.

Kennedy wrote that a court needs to "examine with care, and not defer to, a university's" consideration of alternatives to affirmative action:

Consideration by the university is of course necessary, but it is not sufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny: The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.

The Supreme Court held Monday that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding the affirmative action program, failed to do so sufficiently when looking at the university's admissions program.

As such, and rather than striking down the admissions program's consideration of race as unconstitutional, the court — with only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting — vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case so that lower courts can apply Monday's ruling to the case.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision, as she had previously been involved with the case when in the Obama administration.

Published. Then deleted. Update: Several hours after this story was posted the New York Times republished their story.

On June 10, The New York Times inadvertently briefly posted an article on the lives of the women involved in Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal. The article, written by reporter Michael Barbaro, was titled "For Women in Weiner Scandal, Indignity Lingers." It was quickly deleted before being replaced with a production note:

"An article was posted on this page inadvertently, before it was ready for publication," read the note left on the story page.

"The story was posted inadvertently before it was ready," New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha told BuzzFeed. "We do not discuss stories in advance of publication."

But while the story was deleted from the Times website, large portions of it remained cached by Google. By looking at search result listings in a series of more than 100 searches in Google News, it was possible to reconstruct what appears to be the bulk of the article: 1,342 words.

The article that emerges is a sympathetic look at several of the women whose names were made public after Weiner accidentally tweeted a lewd picture to a college student. The women, many of whom went public in exchange for cash, and one of whom is a porn star who held a press conference to draw attention to herself, are portrayed as victims of a harsh media environment who have banded together in a shared struggle to reclaim their lives:

This is the life of a Weiner Woman: infused with indignity, two years later. Anthony D. Weiner's improbable campaign for mayor of New York is a carefully calibrated wager that voters have made peace with his lewd online behavior, a seemingly victimless cybercrime for which his wife and family have forgiven him. But for the women who were on the other end of Mr. Weiner's sexually explicit conversations, the scandal remains an open sore that has cut short careers, disrupted educations and shattered reputations. In ways big and small, they say, the experience has defined them: once-private details of their lives, as well as their exchanges with Mr. Weiner, are now immortalized on the Internet for all to see and judge.

"I cannot tell you the devastation," Lisa Weiss, a blackjack dealer who leaked her emails with Weiner to RadarOnline, is quoted as saying, calling herself "a little piece of collateral damage from the Weiner situation."

"Fans of Mr. Weiner from the start, their feelings about him now are complex and unsettled: Some, like Ms. Weiss, are heartened by his campaign for mayor and rooting for him to win, despite their travails," the story says.

The porn star Ginger Lee, who capitalized on the situation by staging a press conference with the lawyer Gloria Allred, "called on [Weiner] to stay out of the race to spare women like her further anguish," the spiked Times story said. "Every new headline and news story about him reminds reporters and bloggers that we exist, and the cycle starts all over," she said through her lawyer. "There will be a new flare-up of jokes, inaccurate statements, and hurtful remarks."

Weiss and Traci Nobles, a Georgia fitness instructor, both say in the story that they support his mayoral campaign.

"I think third time is going to be the charm," Nobles told the Times. "A perfect comeback story, ya know?"

Asked about the fallout, Mr. Weiner said in a statement to the Times: "I am deeply sorry that my behavior caused so much upheaval in the lives of those who were unwittingly involved."

The portions that could be recreated were taken from the Google cache below; BuzzFeed cannot guarantee the sentences appear in the exact order as The New York Times intended to them to be.

Update Several hours after this story was posted the New York Times republished their story. A New York Times spokesperson said in a statement: "Our editors decide when a story is ready for publication. Outside coverage does not play a role in that decision," according to Dylan Byers of Politico.

Anthony Weiner responding to the New York Times in an interview with City and State said "I want to reiterate that sense of apology, and I've never talked about the private exchanges that we've had and I never will, because I think that they've already been put through enough."

Teens, guys. Teens.

In the year 2000, the White House held a conference about teens.

It was held on May 2, 2000. 'N Sync's No Strings Attached was the No. 1 album in America at the time.

First Lady Hillary Clinton talked about all her experience talking with teens.

She knew a lot about teens because Chelsea just finished being a teenager that year.

Getty / Donald Miralle

View Entire List ›

“The balance between privacy and security.”

Via: Rich Schultz, File / AP

Newark Mayor Cory Booker — a leading Democratic Party star and a front-runner for Senate seat from New Jersey — said he's glad the nation is discussing the issues of domestic surveillance raised by leaks of classified documents from the National Security Agency.

"When I see this real fear out there, we obviously as a country have not had the discussion that we need to have about the balance between privacy and security," Booker said at a lunch hosted by Bloomberg View in Manhattan. Booker also suggested that the source of the documents, Edward Snowden, could be seen as a "whistle-blower" — going beyond what many current federal legislators of both parties will say, and suggesting a new strain of Democratic politics that is headed for Washington.

Booker said he has spoken to friends "who say they're afraid of searching on the internet for fear of triggering government intrusions."

"Their very curiosity, which is the seed of innovation, is being stifled because of fear," he said.

Booker didn't commit to a position on domestic surveillance but called for a more open conversation.

"Do I think that we as American leaders are having a robust conversation about this and what the chilling effect it's already having in our country against curiosity, against innovation? I'm not satisfied with where we are today," he said.

As for Snowden, who Booker described as "a whistle-blower — however you want to call him," he noted that "I don't think we'd be having this conversation now" without him.

He said Snowden had broken the law, and that fell short of true civil disobedience because he left the country.

"It's not heroic to be the person who stands up and you blow a whistle and then you sprint out of Dodge," he said. "Stay here in your country — stand up."

Booker invoked "friends who smoke pot and one of them saying to me, 'This is my civil disobedience, man.'"

"Go smoke your joint in front of a policeman and get 100 of your friends to do the same thing," he said.

Booker also said at the lunch that his main cause in the Senate would be bringing issues of poverty to light. He denounced the failure of Democrats to object to a provision that would bar people from criminal convictions from receiving food stamps, a provision he called "abso-friggin-lutely ridiculous."

"For the Democratic Party to remain silent in that specific instance is unacceptable to me," he said.

Can’t we all agree?

The Intelligence Community:

Via: gifmovie.tumblr.com

The CIA:

Via: gifmovie.tumblr.com

The National Security Agency:

Via: whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com

Mainstream Democrats:

Via: whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com

View Entire List ›

The OutServe-SLDN board of directors held a Sunday night conference call to discuss the status of the organization and its leader, Allyson Robinson. Update: Saying she will continue to lead the organization “in the near term,” Robinson said Monday afternoon, “I have decided of my own accord to step down ….”

WASHINGTON — The board of directors of OutServe-SLDN held an emergency board meeting Sunday night to discuss the staff and board resignations that had been reported throughout the day Sunday, as well as the underlying Saturday decision to ask executive director Allyson Robinson to resign.

According to a person on the call, OutServe-SLDN will be releasing a statement to its members this afternoon. No further information was given by the source, and neither the organization nor board co-chair Josh Seefried has provided any public statement since the news was reported by the Bilerico Project and then BuzzFeed on Sunday morning.

Asked for comment Monday afternoon, Seefried — who has himself become the target of an attempt to remove him from his leadership role — told BuzzFeed, "[N]othing at this time."

[Update at 6:25 p.m.: Robinson has told the members of OutServe-SLDN that she will "continue to lead [the organization] in the near term," but also stated, "I have decided of my own accord to step down, and will work with our members to ensure an orderly transition to the next phase of this organization's life."

Robinson's statement posted at OutServe Magazine:

This weekend's events were most unfortunate and deeply troubling for many of us, but for my part, as from the beginning of my tenure with this organization, I am fully and firmly committed to our LGBT service members, veterans, and their families and to their fight for equality. For that reason, and to honor those who've shared those values with me, it is my intent to continue to lead OutServe-SLDN in the near term as we approach an historic moment for our community and our country. After that, at a date to be determined, I have decided of my own accord to step down, and will work with our members to ensure an orderly transition to the next phase of this organization's life.

Very few people ever get the opportunity in this life to hear from those whose lives they've touched just how much they are loved and respected. I have no words to express my gratitude for the hundreds who have reached out to me privately or stood up for me publicly over these last 24 hours to show their support: from the military community, the LGBT community, and most especially, most dear to me, the troops of OutServe-SLDN and their families. For that, I am blessed beyond measure.

In light of the momentous events the coming days hold for us all, I intend to put this matter behind us and look forward to shifting the focus back to where it belongs: our LGBT service members, veterans, and families, who sacrifice so much every day, and their ongoing fight for full equality.

— Allyson Robinson, Executive Director, OutServe-SLDN

The board also issued a statement:

Washington, DC – The OS-SLDN Board and staff are in the process of transforming the organization from primarily a legal services organization into a membership services and advocacy organization. This not only includes revising our business model to operate effectively under new political and financial realities, but is also part of a larger effort to increase the role of the organization's 6,500 members in the leadership and direction of the organization.

This past Saturday an email containing the contents of confidential internal discussions of the OS-SLDN Board of Directors was erroneously distributed to an email list containing recipients outside of the Board of Directors. The board would like to clarify that the drafted item was only part of a series of discussions aimed at transitioning the organization in what has been a rapidly changing financial and political landscape facing the LGBT movement, which will soon include a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. As is the case with many of our partners at this critical time, OS-SLDN is facing real and significant financial obstacles, forcing the Board to look critically at all aspects of its operations and to consider difficult decisions, including cutting costs and staffing reductions.

Board Co-Chair, Josh Seefried, stated, "There is no excuse for the series of events that transpired this past weekend. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I sincerely apologize for this as well as the impact it's had on our staff's and members' trust and confidence in the organization. Allyson Robinson has led OutServe-SLDN as one of the most transformational leaders of this movement, and there is not a member serving on this board who does not respect and admire her work for this organization and the LGBT movement."

"Allyson has continually put our LGBT service members, veterans, and their families first in the changes the organization has faced since the repeal of DADT," stated co-chair April Heinze. "As many in our community know, the LGBT movement is evolving quickly, and so will its institutions. Many people thought that after the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' all the military LGBT organizations would or should disappear. As Allyson Robinson and her staff have so powerfully and effectively reminded the nation, the mission for full equality in our Armed Forces is incomplete."

Robinson, a 1994 graduate of West Point, has led OutServe-SLDN through some of the movement's most significant victories since the repeal of DADT, including the public vetting of Chuck Hagel for the office of Secretary of Defense, the highlighting of ongoing discrimination against gay and lesbian military families at Ft. Bragg and elsewhere, and the extension of non-DOMA restricted benefits to same-sex military partners. She has worked tirelessly to put military families at the center of the discussion of the Defense of Marriage Act and has become the nation's leading advocate for transgender inclusion in the military.

In light of these events, the board and Allyson will be working together toward a successful transition of the organization. Allyson will continue to serve as Executive Director throughout this period.

OS-SLDN operations and planned events, unless explicitly noted, will continue as planned to include the 2013 OutServe-SLDN Leadership Conference which will be held in San Antonio, Texas in October.

Neither statement sets up any substantially different timeline for Robinson's departure than had been suggested previously upon the breaking of the initial news of Robinson's ouster. The only substantive difference, if it is one, is that Robinson now says her departure is "of [her] own accord."

(This update was updated at 6:45 p.m. to include the board statement.)]

[Update at 8:45 p.m.: Sue Fulton, a board member who resigned on Sunday, told BuzzFeed Monday night that the board statement inaccurately portrayed the circumstances of the past few days.

"The statement of the board is troubling to me. I was in the room, and it was my understanding that the board had rejected all options that did not include the resignation of Allyson Robinson as executive director," Fulton said. "The suggestion that they did not ask Allyson for her resignation is offensive to me and other board members, as well as staff, who resigned. If the board were still considering other options in which Allyson would have stayed on as executive director, I would not have resigned, nor, I suspect, would others have."]

After a day of reporting from the Bilerico Project and BuzzFeed on the resignations of multiple staff and board members, which followed the initial decision by the board on Saturday to seek Robinson's resignation, the emergency board meeting was held via telephone Sunday night.

BuzzFeed has since obtained a copy of Beth Schissel's board resignation letter, in which she wrote was "completely dismayed by the decision to ask Allyson to resign" and resigning as a result of that decision.

Matthew Phelps, one of the board members who submitted his resignation, meanwhile, announced that he is staying on the board for the time being.

In a statement provided to BuzzFeed and others, he said, "As many of you know, I submitted my resignation to OutServe-SLDN yesterday. It was not immediately accepted by the board co-chairs, and at their request I have agreed to withhold my resignation for the time being. My primary focus has been and always will be in service to my country and ALL service members who defend it."

[Update at 2 p.m.: Although Phelps would not comment on any organizational developments that might be forthcoming, he did tell BuzzFeed, "I can confirm I will remain on the board. My resignation has been officially withheld."]

[Update at 2:10 p.m.: A person familiar with the board discussions tells BuzzFeed that the board has been unable to come to a decision on a statement, following a move to remove board co-chair Seefried. The votes for removal were not there, the source said, and Seefried has refused to step down voluntarily.

Bil Browning at the Bilerico Project, meanwhile, reported that "[n]ine OutServe-SLDN chapters have threatened to break away if Seefried does not step down as board co-chair," a fact that BuzzFeed has independently confirmed from a source familiar with the plans.]

[Update at 4:10 p.m.: Nathaniel Frank — the author of Unfriendly Fire, a book about the military's ban on out gay service, and a leading national expert on LGBT military service — has resigned from the board of OutServe Magazine. In an email sent today to the magazine's editor and provided to BuzzFeed, Frank wrote:

After hearing this weekend of actions taken by the OutServe-SLDN Board of Directors that do not appear to reflect either the best interests of the organization or the proper procedure for making organizational decisions, I have concluded I can no longer serve on the board of OutServe Magazine. As someone who has devoted the bulk of my professional career to researching and sharing information about the experiences and challenges of LGBT service members, I am hopeful that Outserve-SLDN or some other organization will be able to adequately serve the needs of this and the wider U.S. military community. It has been my honor to serve in my capacity as Magazine board member alongside many dedicated and professional staff and board members. Effective today, I am resigning my position, and I wish all our service members the very best.

Best,
Nathaniel Frank

There has still been no public statement from the board of OutServe-SLDN.]

Here is Schissel's full letter:

Board:

When I was approached by Jeff Cleghorn to consider joining the board, I was both honored and humbled. Jeff was on the other end of a phone line - a lifeline to me - when I was in the quagmire of being investigated and ultimately discharged under DADT. The support provided me by SLDN was invaluable. Despite trepidation regarding my ability to become a fundraiser, I agreed to be nominated. And after talking with Jeff and Sue Fulton, I felt assured that the sum total of my life experience both in and out of the military and the all gray hairs earned along the way could be put to use by this organization moving forward.

I am completely dismayed by the decision to ask Allyson to resign. She is the right leader for this organization. Period. There is no one else who has the years of experience in the trenches and gravitas to reach across the table in the Pentagon and the halls of government who can get us to win-win on the issues facing the folks in uniform. And that after all, should be the focus - the mission, the mission, the mission.

I won't compromise my integrity in asking friends, colleagues and strangers to share their treasure to support an organization in chaos that has put egos before mission. I am, therefore, resigning from the board.

Regards,
Beth L. Schissel, MD

Dr. Seuss, also known as Theodore Geisel, worked as the the chief editorial cartoonist for the left-leaning New York magazine PM from 1940 to 1942.

(Published by PM Magazine: Dr. Seuss Collection, MSS 230. Mandeville Special Collections Library, UC San Diego)

Via: libraries.ucsd.edu

(Published by PM Magazine: Dr. Seuss Collection, MSS 230. Mandeville Special Collections Library, UC San Diego)

Via: libraries.ucsd.edu

(Published by PM Magazine: Dr. Seuss Collection, MSS 230. Mandeville Special Collections Library, UC San Diego)

Via: libraries.ucsd.edu

(Published by PM Magazine: Dr. Seuss Collection, MSS 230. Mandeville Special Collections Library, UC San Diego)

Via: libraries.ucsd.edu

View Entire List ›

It appears that Texas Republican Rep. Jodie Laubenberg is under the impression that rape kits performed on women in hospitals can prevent pregnancies.

The Texas House of Representative Monday passed legislation that includes a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Source: flickr.com

Laubenberg shocked constituents when she said that rape kits were essentially the same thing as an abortion.

Via: trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com

"In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out. The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

View Entire List ›

Bipartisan Senate majority may want to move towards final passage, but House Republicans aren’t in any mood to take up massive immigration bill.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — Comprehensive immigration reform passed a key procedural hurdle Monday when the Senate passed a bipartisan compromise that included stringent new border enforcement language designed to lure fence-sitting Republicans into the reform fold.

Of course, thanks to a dysfunctional House that increasingly finds itself at the whims of a small but powerful group of hardline conservatives, the Senate's vote may not mean much.

The 67 to 27 procedural vote, setting up a final passage vote later this week, was less than reformers had hoped for coming into the weeks-long debate. Supporters had wanted a particularly strong showing of at least 70 votes, hoping that would put pressure on the Republican controlled House to move on the legislation.

Republicans who voted for the bill includes Sens. Jeff Chiesa, Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, John Hoeven, Dean Heller, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Roger Wicker, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Orin Hatch.

Hoeven and Corker were authors of the border security language that was added to the bill as a sweetener for Republicans.

Although reformers didn't meet that goal — due in part to thunderstorms on the East Coast that grounded flights with senators in them — the significant bipartisan support for the bill is a remarkable achievement given the toxic nature of immigration reform for most of the last decade.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — who was never expected to vote for a comprehensive reform package — blasted Majority Leader Harry Reid's handling of the bill in a statement.

""When I called for a debate on immigration earlier this month, a massive bill, pushed up against an artificial deadline, without any real opportunity for review or amendment isn't what I had in mind. Since what we do here is far more important than how many votes we do it with, there is simply no reason we need to end this debate now in order to meet some artificial deadline determined by the Majority Leader's summer schedule," McConnell said.

But the bill — most of which has been public for weeks if not months — had essentially reached it's limit of Republican votes, and with the August recess quickly approaching and conservative opposition mounting, supporters ultimately decided to move on.

Still, prospects for a bill making to President Barack Obama's desk are, at best, dim. The House is slowly working on a series of much more conservative measures of it's own, many of which have no chance of becoming law.

And while Speaker John Boehner has said he wants to see reform pass this year, he all but lost total control over his rambunctious conference, much of which is vehemently opposed to any legislation that would include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers — a key part of any bill that will become law.

The president tries to make good on his climate change promises in a big speech Tuesday. Keystone is not expected to be mentioned and protesters aren’t giving him a pass. But at the same time, they’re happy their time has come.

Via: Richard Clement / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama will not escape Keystone XL protesters Tuesday even as he unveils a raft of climate change proposals designed to reduce the nation's carbon emissions.

The scene outside Obama's big climate speech at Georgetown University that the White House has been advertising since Saturday will be a perfect microcosm of the environmental movement's feelings about Obama: grateful but wanting more.

350.org, a climate change advocacy group that's been been a part of some of the more strident protests over Keystone that have included arrests and other cvil disobedience, will dial it back a bit Tuesday in an action outside Obama's speech and actually show the White House some love.

"We plan to have about 100 youth activists there outside the speech," Daniel Kessler, an organizer for 350, told BuzzFeed. "More to congratulate the president on doing what's right, but reminding him there's still work to do."

Other groups that have been part of the protest movement pressuring Obama on Keystone for years don't have anything planned for the day of Obama's speech other than praise for the president, a sign that they don't want to rock the boat on what's likely to be one of the best day they'll have in the president's second term.

Keystone-focused activists won't be satisfied Tuesday: Obama's not expected to mention the Keystone pipeline in the speech at all. The pipeline project is still under review at the State Department, and White House officials have repeatedly said Obama won't make a call on whether or not to let the pipeline be built until State is finished with it. When exactly that will be remains unclear.

Many of the same environmentalists who are wary of what Obama will do on Keystone — and who vow to fight him with civil disobedience if he rebukes them — will be watching Tuesday's speech with great excitement. Obama is expected to roll out plans to use his executive power to reduce carbon emissions and increase the production of alternative fuels, furthering the goals he set out in his inauguration address.

Obama has to rely on executive action to take on climate because Congress has proven skittish when it comes to the environment. Red state Democrats haven't shown much interest in significant climate change legislation, and most Republicans still reject the findings of the vast majority of scientists that human-cause climate change exists. Climate activists are happy to see the president acknowledging the facts of life and moving ahead on climate change on his own. They admit they probably can't get sweeping climate change legislation out of Washington anytime soon.

"The fossil fuel industry, who has fought for decades to deny the science of climate change and undermine every policy wherever they can, still has control. Now they have control of Congress," Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace, said. "That's what's ruining this moment. If not for that, this president would be doing more."

While stopping Keystone remains a unifying goal for climate groups, they don't like that Keystone has become the central focus of climate change coverage. Climate activists say Obama's speech is a very big moment.

"Here's the distinction that's really important: Keystone is about stopping the increase of our emissions. Which we need to do, there's no doubt," said Navin Nayak, a vice president at the League of Conservation voters. "The stuff that I think you're going to hear the president talking about [Tuesday] is all about proactively actually starting to reduce our emissions and make the shift to clean energy. And so they're just two sides of the exact same coin."

"I don't think you can reject Keystone and do nothing else and say you're a great leader on climate because you haven't reduced emissions," he added.

Some even say that Obama's speech is happening at all is a sign they're winning the Keystone fight. Opponents of the pipeline say it could damage the environment it's built through but, more than that, they say building it will make it easier for more carbon to get into the atmosphere in the form of burning fossil fuels. Obama's expected focus on carbon Tuesday gives them hope he's seeing things their way on Keystone.

"I haven't heard anyone saying it's a victory," said Bill McKibben, an activist and co-founder of 350. "But i do think it would be extremely odd if he took two steps forward here, and then two steps straight back in a couple of months."

Keystone protesters aren't stopping their plans to keep opponents of the pipeline a thorn in Obama's side through the summer however. CREDO, the activist group with a list of more than 50,000 who promise to be arrested if Keystone is approved, plans to keep its planned protest calendar through the summer. Other groups do, too.

"There is no reading the tea leaves in trying to link this speech with a decision on Keystone XL and lighting the fuse on that carbon bomb. We know there are immensely powerful and wealthy forces arguing for its approval, and we believe the president when he says he has not made up his mind," said Becky Bond, CREDO's political director. "It is our task to help him make up his mind to follow the facts and the science and not the lobbyists and the money, and nothing in this speech changes any of that."

Chief Justice John Roberts throws the task of modernizing the law to Congress.

Via: Charles Dharapak / AP

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a major provision of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, with Chief Justice John Roberts putting the responsibility for adjusting the civil rights law to modern times in Congress' hands.

In Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 5-4 decision, took no action on the strict "preclearance" restrictions in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act itself. Under Section 5, state and local political subdivisions need federal government approval to make any change to their voting policies and systems.

The court did, however, strike down Section 4's coverage formula, which determines what jurisdictions have to follow Section 5's restrictions.

The reason for doing so, Roberts wrote, was because "At the time [the law was originally challenged in 1966], the coverage formula—the means of linking the exercise of the unprecedented authority with the problem that warranted it—made sense. ... Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically."

In summary, Roberts wrote:

Striking down an Act of Congress "is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform." We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Roberts also wrote for the court, "We issue no holding on Sec. 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

Justice Clarence Thomas joined Roberts' opinion but also wrote separately "to explain that I would find Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional as well."

Unless Congress can "draft another formula" — and pass it — however, there is no coverage formula in place to which Section 5's restrictions apply.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing for herself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. She wrote:

After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that "40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution." That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments "by appropriate legislation" merits this Court's utmost respect. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress' decision.

Ginsburg, as she had done Monday in dissenting to cases involving affirmative action and Title VII, read from her opinion from the bench.

Shelby County was the final of three decisions issued Tuesday, leaving three cases — including the challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment — undecided. Roberts announced at the end of Tuesday's session that the final day of the court's sitting — and, presumably, the decisions in the three final cases — will come at 10 a.m. Wednesday.

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.

As a nation, we've made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today's decision is a setback, it doesn't represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process..

View Entire List ›

Plagued by dysfunction, Republicans and Democrats alike admit little will be done to fix the landmark civil rights law.

Supporters of the Voting Rights Act listen to speakers discussing today's rulings outside the United States Supreme Court building on June 25, 2013, in Washington, D.C. The court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which aimed to protect minority voters, is unconstitutional. The high court convened again today to rule on some high profile decisions, including two on gay marriage and one on voting rights.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court may have tasked Congress with fixing key provisions of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, but civil rights activists and voters throughout the country shouldn't hold their breath: Interviews with a range of lawmakers in the wake of the decision suggest it's unlikely any changes to the law will come soon.

In a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court struck a blow to the heart of the Voting Rights Act by ending, at least for now, a requirement that certain parts of the country get advance federal approval before changing local voting laws, in pursuit of protecting the rights of minority voters. The court found that the law was based on an outdated formula and shifted the burden to Congress to come up with a new way to determine which areas should be subject to "preclearance" from federal judges or the Justice Department.

But lawmakers Tuesday were not optimistic that Congress, weighed down by dysfunction in recent years and unable to complete even the most routine legislative tasks, would be able to address the issue in the near future.

Asked if Congress' dysfunction makes it unlikely a fix will be made in the next two years, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said, "Of course it does," and sought to lay the blame at the feet of House Republicans.

"The reality of the Congress today is a House of Representatives that cannot pass a farm bill, that has been unwilling to take up a [water infrastructure bill] with 80 votes [in the Senate] … is an indication that they are not prepared to face some of the challenges that we are facing in this country," he said.

Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, similarly acknowledged it could be difficult, regardless of interest in fixing the law.

Asked if congressional gridlock could make it impossible, Cornyn said, "Is this a trick question? I don't know the answer to that. I would think there will be widespread interest in making sure the Voting Rights Act is updated and available for its intended purpose, so I'd hope so … I think we'll give it the old college try."

He added, "Perhaps Congress ought to declare victory, say the Voting Rights Act worked and update the formula to reflect the current reality."

Senior Republican aides in both chambers said dealing with the Voting Rights Act is unlikely anytime soon. Asked what's more likely, the voting rights act being addressed by Congress this year or next, or the start of the end times, one House Republican aide said simply "the latter," while a colleague quipped "Likeliest: Al Sharpton and Jesse Helms press conference to outline new Voting Rights Act."

A Senate Republican leadership aide pointed out that the court's ruling was hardly a surprise and that Democrats have made no preparations to address the likely decision — which, for Republicans, raises questions about their seriousness.

"If Democrats plan to raise the issue, they sure have a funny way of showing it. Nobody's heard the slightest peep out of them in the lead-up to this decision. If they decide to raise the issue now a lot of people will assume it's a head fake to assuage their base," the leadership aide said, arguing that, "They've used the same trick on guns — lead your base to believe you're serious about doing something, but don't actually do anything."

Democrats and Republicans began drawing battle lines over the ruling almost immediately Tuesday morning, with Republicans largely praising the decision and Democrats denouncing it.

"Today's Supreme Court's ruling invalidating the preclearance requirements contained within the Voting Rights Act is a win for fairness, South Carolina, and the rule of law. The preclearance requirement forced South Carolina to spend millions of dollars to defend a photo identification requirement for voting that had already been ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court," South Carolina Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan said in a statement. "The court's ruling will hopefully end the practice of treating states differently and recognizes that we live in 2013, not the 1960s."

Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy decried the ruling, pointing to a series of previous Supreme Court rulings and congressional reauthorizations of the law as proof that it is valid. "Despite this sound record, and the weight of history, a narrow majority has decided today to substitute its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination in voting," Leahy said in a statement.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday that Congress must act, regardless of how difficult that may be.

"It's incumbent upon the leadership for the House and Senate to come together. I think it can be done, should be done, and is what's practical to be done," Hoyer said.
But the Maryland Democrat acknowledged that, "Congress has not been very able to act in a bipartisan fashion. That's unfortunate because as recently as 2006 we acted in a very bipartisan fashion [on the Voting Rights Act] and I hope we can back to that again."

"It's not going to be easy but I think it is in [Republican's] best interest on a bigger picture, just like immigration. Whether it's in the individual interest to each member of Congress that's a different thing. We're sent here to promote the interest of our country," Hoyer added.

LINK: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision In Voting Rights Act

Somebody is a little too Ready for Hillary.

Creepy Button

Creepy T-Shirt

Even Creepier T-Shirt

Creepy Multi-Use Bag

View Entire List ›

It will bring a tear to your eye.

First, play this song:

Now watch broadcast interns run the Supreme Court decision out to reporters.

Now just let that classic song of victory play.

And appreciate this intern's hustle.

View Entire List ›

They went all out.

President Barack Obama spoke about climate change at Georgetown University Tuesday afternoon and cable news channels largely ignored it.

In fact, the only channel to carry the speech in its entirety was The Weather Channel.

The Weather Channel also aired a what-to-expect segment before President Obama's speech and provided analysis afterward.

View Entire List ›