Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

The Obituary For Barack Obama's Great-Aunt Handles Her Famous Relation Perfectly


Progressives Are Complaining About CAP's Embrace Of Military Action In Iraq

0
0

“It’s hard to see this as anything other than Washington’s leading Democratic Party-aligned think tank advocating for a re-engagement,” says a former CAP staffer.

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks on the situation in Iraq on Thursday, June 19, 2014.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — When the Center for American Progress embraced the idea of an American military response to the chaos in Iraq last week, it split from many liberal groups formally opposing any new U.S. military intervention, no matter how limited.

Former employees at the liberal think thank — closely aligned with the Obama administration — were dismayed.

"One of the things that CAP can be proud of is its opposition to the Iraq War and authoring one of the first reports advocating for disengagement from the conflict," said Zaid Jilani, a former writer at CAP's news site, ThinkProgress. "Unfortunately, the think tank's newest report seems to be advocating for militarily taking sides in a civil war between one side that is dropping barrel bombs on civilians, torturing prisoners, and alienating Sunnis, and another side that is conducting mass executions of Shias."

"The U.S. has played this game of picking sides in the Middle East for long enough," Jiliani, who left ThinkProgress amid a debate about the progressive movement's relation to Israel and after he accused some American advocates for Israel of being "Israel firsters" on Twitter.

The think tank's report specifically keeping airstrikes on the table in Iraq raised eyebrows when it emerged days before President Obama announced his plan for strictly limited military assistance to the Iraqi regime, including the potential for targeted airstrikes.

Former CAP officials, some of whom declined to be named or quoted, grumbled that the think tank report sounded a lot like Obama's eventual course of action in Iraq and complained that the organization was getting too close to the White House on foreign policy matters, even if they didn't completely disagree with the findings of the CAP report.

Most did completely disagree with the findings of the CAP report, however.

"It's quite a contrast to see the organization that pushed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2005 now suggesting that airstrikes and 'limited counterterrorism' operations might be necessary," said a former CAP staffer who worked in the foreign policy arena. "It's hard to see this as anything other than Washington's leading Democratic Party-aligned think tank advocating for a re-engagement (as limited as it may be) of U.S. military assets in Iraq."

A spokesperson for the think tank did not respond to a request for comment.

But a top foreign policy expert at CAP said there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the think tank's Iraq report, though he dismissed the critics as uninformed.

"You're not the first one who's called me on this," Lawrence Korb, a former deputy secretary of defense for Ronald Reagan who's been a longtime senior fellow at CAP, said in an interview Friday.

Korb wasn't an author of CAP's Iraq report, but he said he supports its findings and says it is not a pro-war document.

"What they said is, [military strikes are] an option that you might consider with a lot of caveats," he said. "That's being read as 'let's bomb them now.'"

"That's not really what we said!" Korb said in a fairly animated interview that indicated the attacks on the CAP study were causing some frustration. Critics "didn't read the report, they just heard the headline," he said.

"Am I surprised at the way things get picked up? No," he said. "I'm an academic and so I know what it's like when someone writes a long book and people just read the cover."

The CAP report lists five recommendations for how the U.S. should proceed in Iraq. They include making U.S. aid to the embattled Iraqi regime conditional on significant reform efforts; including Iran in a "full-court press" effort to alienate the terrorist group ISIS; bolstering regional allies; and "[preparing] for limited counterterrorism operations against ISIS, including possible air strikes."

ISIS, the report states, "poses an immediate threat to Iraq and a possible terrorist threat to the United States and its allies." The authors call on the Obama administration to prepare for "limited use" of airstrikes and the positioning of associated military assets, including advisers on the ground in Iraq. That's close to Obama's actual course of action in Iraq, which included positioning an aircraft carrier in the region, dispatching hundreds of military advisers, and promising that military strikes were a possibility even as he explicitly ruled out ground combat operations.

Progressive critics of CAP, Korb said, are making unfair claims about CAP's closeness to Obama's team. He insisted that if someone else was in the White House, CAP would be calling for the same course of action.

"These are people who know a heck of a lot about the Middle East," he said. Korb added that he wasn't backing the report because he's associated with CAP, but because it reflects his own views on the conflict. "We don't have groupthink over there or anything," he said.

Korb said removing the option of airstrikes is foolish, considering the swiftly shifting situation in Iraq.

"It's not saying 'let's have airstrikes,' it's saying that's something you can't take off the table right away," he said. "There's a big difference there."

Michelle Obama Wants A Female President In The USA "As Soon As Possible"

0
0

“I think we have some options, don’t we?”

View Video ›

While speaking to ABC's Robin Roberts at the White House Summit on Working Families, First Lady Michelle Obama treated the audience to a bit of 2016 political punditry:

Robin Roberts: "There are many feeling that if we're going to talk about leadership, and that's what we're doing here, that a woman president is part of that, and what an example that would set for your girls, and for young boys, and for all of us. Do you perceive that happening, and when should that happen?"

Michelle Obama: "That should happen as soon as possible. And I think this country is ready. This country is ready for anyone who can do the job, and what we have learned is that the person who can do the job doesn't have a particular race or gender or background or socio-economic status. The person who can do the job is the person who is the most qualified. I think we have some options, don't we?"

Earlier, Roberts asked Obama if her next act would be in the world of politics.

"No, it will not be political. No, it definitely will not be," Obama said, adding, "It will be mission based. It will be service focused."

Did This Happen In The Mississippi Senate Primary, Scooby Doo, Or A John Grisham Book?

0
0

If you come through, you’re gonna have yourself a Scooby Snack.

U.S. Archivist Tells Oversight Committee The IRS "Did Not Follow The Law"

0
0

“They did not follow the law.”

View Video ›

Speaking at an Oversight and Investigations Committee hearing Tuesday on missing emails related to the IRS scandal, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero said the Internal Revenue Service did not "follow the law" in not reporting the loss of records related to Lois Lerner.

"In your testimony, you state that when agencies become aware of unauthorized destruction of federal records they are required to report the incident to the archives," Rep. Tim Walberg said to Ferriero. "At any time in 2011 through last Monday did the IRS report any loss of records related to Lois Lerner?"

"No," said Ferriero.

Asked directly if the IRS broke the Federal Records Act, Ferriero said that any agency would be required to report the loss of material to the archives.

"I'm not a lawyer," Ferriero said when asked if they broke the law.

Walberg followed up again, asking if they broke the law.

"They did not follow the law," said Ferriero.

Key Ruling On New Standard For Review Of Anti-Gay Laws Will Stand

0
0

The 9th Circuit won’t give further review to an earlier decision that gives laws that treat people differently based on sexual orientation additional scrutiny. An important ruling for pending marriage cases and other discrimination claims.

AP Photo/Otto Kitsinger

WASHINGTON — A key federal appeals court decision to review claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation with heightened scrutiny will stand.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals turned down a request for a larger panel of the appeals court to reconsider the decision. The ruling subjects all sexual orientation claims within the 9th Circuit's nine states — including marriage-discrimination claims — to heightened scrutiny, which means treating gay, lesbian, and bisexual people differently under the law will be more difficult to justify when challenged in court. The ruling already has had an impact on the cases challenging Nevada and Idaho's marriage laws.

The case, SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories, centered around a dispute over HIV drugs, but the sexual orientation question came in to play when lawyers for Abbott removed a person from the jury because he is gay. The 9th Circuit had ruled that a lawyer could not do so; in reaching that ruling, though, the court first decided that sexual orientation claims should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

While most laws that create groups or classifications must merely show there is a rational basis, or a legitimate reason, for the law, laws subjected to heightened scrutiny must show more. Some, like those that classify based on race, must show a compelling state interest for the classification, while others, like those based on sex, must show a lesser but still important state interest in doing so.

Although the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the question of what level of scrutiny sexual orientation claims should receive, the initial 9th Circuit decision in the case, which the court let stand on Tuesday, stated that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act "established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review."

In today's order, the 9th Circuit announced that a majority of the appeals court judges did not vote to rehear the case en banc. The call for a vote on rehearing was unusual in that it was made by a judge on the court and not one of the parties in the case. The decision means that the ruling will stand unless the Supreme Court were to review the decision, which Abbott has said it will not seek.

Three of the appeals court judges dissented from the decision not to rehear the case, with Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain writing for himself and Judges Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea, "While this case may end here—neither party is likely to seek certiorari given that neither party urged en banc reconsideration of the applicable standard of review—reliance on the panel's analysis as an example of anything more than an exercise of raw judicial will would be most unwise."

The states in the 9th Circuit are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Read the order and dissenting opinion:


View Entire List ›

5 Articles On Hillary Clinton From 1969

0
0

“Spunky Wellesley Grad Visits for Wedding Tonight.”

Then 21, Hillary Rodham made national news in 1969 when speaking at her college commencement, she delivered a dramatic rebuke to Sen. Edward Brooke, the main commencement speaker. Clinton suggested the Republican senator was out of touch with her generation.

The article generated a healthy amount of national news and appearances on talk shows and nightly news.

Here are some of those articles:

A local news story on Clinton visiting for a wedding:

A local news story on Clinton visiting for a wedding:

Lawrence-Journal World

A profile of Clinton in the Boston Globe and Chicago Daily News:

A profile of Clinton in the Boston Globe and Chicago Daily News:

Chicago Daily News/Boston Globe

A wire story on her speech:

A wire story on her speech:

UPI Wire Story


View Entire List ›

This Video Of Congressional Leaders Singing "We Shall Overcome" Is Unintentionally Hilarious

0
0

A Tuesday event honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King with the Congressional Gold Medal gets awkward.

View Video ›

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

C-SPAN

Michigan Senator Carl Levin

Michigan Senator Carl Levin

C-SPAN

House Speaker John Boehner

House Speaker John Boehner

C-SPAN


View Entire List ›


Listen To Tea Party Candidate Chris McDaniel Go On An Extended Riff About Lesbians

0
0

“There’s going to be a lesbian Brokeback Mountain and it’s going to star Beyonce and Eva Longoria.”

View Video ›

Mississippi Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel went on an extended rift about lesbians and the film Brokeback Mountain while co-hosting the Right Talk radio program in 2006. An portion of the audio has been posted before, but this is the first time the segment has appeared in full.

"There's going to be a lesbian Brokeback Mountain and it's going to star Beyonce and Eva Longoria," McDaniel said. "Isn't it great and it's true we're talking about doing a movie here that really brings together something I think the country's been needing and that'a a classic lesbian love story."

McDaniel was discussing rumors (which turned out to be false) that Longoria and Beyonce would star in the film adaptation of Sarah Waters's love story Tipping the Velvet.

Later McDaniel says that a Hollywood film featuring Beyonce and Longoria didn't have enough of what he called "realism." McDaniel suggest Rosie O'Donnell and Janet Reno would be better for such a movie.

"Why can't Hollywood at least in this instance have a movie based in realism?" McDaniel adds.

"Because nobody would go see a lesbian movie featuring Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr," another person in the broadcast says.

"You got it, that's it. Where's Janet Reno here when you need her? This is a perfect film for Rosie (O'Donnell) and Janet right? But nobody wants to go see that. I'm wondering why we can't see realism here. Hollywood always hides behind realism. There's too much cursing. Well that's because it's realism. There's too much violence. It's realism. But when it comes to lesbian lovemaking...yeah we're...we're...we're getting Beyonce."

The primary election between incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran and state senator Chris McDaniel is taking place Tuesday.

Scott Brown Trades In The Truck In New Hampshire

0
0

A tracker filmed him riding around in an SUV.

Gretchen Ertl / Reuters / Reuters

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown still talks a lot about his old pickup. The truck starred in his first TV ad of the 2014 cycle, and he talks often about driving it on the campaign trail.

But the 2005 GMC Canyon that has become Brown's mascot is not his sole mode of transportation on the campaign trail. A Democratic tracker captured Brown hopping in a new Ford Expedition with Texas plates outside a fundraiser in Salem, New Hampshire, Monday.

The Democratic operative filmed Brown leaving the restaurant and hopping into the Texas-registered Ford.

Brown has made a point of campaigning with the truck in past campaigns. At the kickoff of Brown's 2014 Senate exploratory committee in March, Brown highlighted the truck.

"I've travelled so much in New Hampshire I'm approaching a new personal milestone," Brown said. "The truck now has about 300,000 miles on it. I'm pretty proud of that American-made GMC Canyon, no offense to our Toyota dealers here, and it's sure looking good now, not withstanding all the dents, with the Live Free or Die license plates on it."

A request for comment to Brown's campaign was not immediately returned.

Democratic tracker video:

Woman At Center Of NSA Defender's Twitter Scandal Apologizes

0
0

“I was a willing participant.”

WASHINGTON — The woman who says she received explicit photos and messages from a well-known former intelligence officer and defender of NSA surveillance policies has apologized for releasing the photos.

The national security community on Twitter was sent into a frenzy on Monday after John Schindler, a Naval War College professor and former NSA intelligence and counterintelligence officer who is well-known on the internet as a vehement defender of NSA surveillance and foe of Edward Snowden, was accused of sending a photo of his penis and a flirtatious email to a woman who lists her name as Lesley on Twitter and uses the handle @Currahee88.

Lesley allegedly gave screenshots of both to @T3H_ARCH3R, a self-described Internet troll she is friends with, and he posted the photos online. Naval War College said that it was investigating Schindler and put him on leave.

Lesley tweeted on Tuesday that she was "truly sorry" and that "if I could go back and change this I would do so immediately." She also stated that the photo was not unsolicited and that her aim had been to embarrass Schindler and inform his wife. She then deactivated her Twitter account.

@T3H_ARCH3R, whose real name is Trent Jensen and who has also deleted his Twitter account, told BuzzFeed that he was surprised when Lesley apologized.

"I knew she was going to talk today but I thought she was going to be standing up and saying this is what happened and this is why she shouldn't be getting harassed," Jensen said.

Jensen said that Lesley asked for his help in spreading the photos online: "When the posts went up, that's when she came to me and said she was feeling harassed or whatever," he said.

Jensen said he wasn't sure if he regretted posting the photos, which he said he was confident are real.

"I don't know," he said. "Because the thing of it is [Schindler] is somebody that's supposed to be instructing our people on how to do things the right way. The information that was presented to me was that she was the victim. It was 'Hey I need help.' She reached out to me for help."

"When a friend asks you to do something and you do it you have to own it," Jensen said. "So I own that I posted it and she has to own what she said today."

Lesley has not responded to requests for an interview from BuzzFeed.

Jensen said he did not decide to do this out of any political beliefs.

"I don't have any real political affiliation, I was just trying to stick up for her," he said. He told BuzzFeed that both he and Lesley have received threats since the publication of the photos, and that "I've been getting a lot more than her because I'm the one who posted the photos."

"I go at all kinds of different groups and I love to troll, that's an internet term if you're not aware of it, just for the hell of it," Jensen said.

He said that he and Lesley know each other from both supporting the Wounded Warrior project, which he said Lesley has raised money for. He otherwise declined to give any other information about Lesley.

Schindler, who deleted his Twitter account after the photos were published, declined to comment.

The Supreme Court Is House Republicans' Last, Best Hope On The Contraceptive Mandate

0
0

The Hobby Lobby case is expected to come down in the next few days. If the court rules against the business, there’s no clear next step for Republicans save for the election.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry

Andrew Burton / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Obamacare contraceptive mandate for employer-based care has ignited conservative activism around the idea of religious freedom over the last few years. But with the Supreme Court expected to rule on the explosive Hobby Lobby case in the next few days, House Republicans say there's no real next step if the Supreme Court rules against Hobby Lobby.

Republicans have been united against it but for years now have been unsure as to how to move forward. Some have wanted to wait until the court decides, and others have said that the House needed to take a more aggressive stance and bring legislation to the floor.

The outcome of the Supreme Court case will depend on a number of variables, including how broadly the justices apply their ruling. But many Republicans say a court ruling is really their last, best hope at overturning the mandate.

"A lot of hope has been invested quite frankly in the court decision," said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, an original co-sponsor of the bill to undo the mandate. "On specifics, what we do, I don't know. We've tried a number of ways, even on the last budget negotiations with the president to get him to at least have a delay of the HHS mandate until the court rules so it wouldn't put companies like Hobby Lobby in such a difficult ethical dilemma."

Fortenberry and others have tried to push the leadership to bring a bill to the floor, which they so far have not done. A similar Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt, failed as an amendment a few years ago — and Democrats in turn railed against Republicans, charging they wanted to allow bosses to make decisions about birth control for the women they employ. And how narrowly or broadly the court decides the case could have major implications for legal defenses based on the principle of religious freedom.

"We've exhausted legislative options although there were attempts to get delays to this in budgetary agreements," he said. "If they uphold it, I don't know if it comes back as a specific issue or it lends itself to this ongoing debate about Obamacare in general."

But even Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has long argued that the House should vote on the mandate, conceded that if Hobby Lobby loses the case, there's not a lot Congress can do except use the outcome in a pitch to voters in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

"I think it'll be an impetus for the elections in November because people recognize the overreach that the Obama administration made. They're violating people's constitutional rights, their sincerely held religious beliefs and their right to freedom of speech and expression," she said. "So I think we'll see a greater likelihood of the Democrats losing control of the Senate and I think it will be even more difficult in 2016 for the eventual Democratic nominee to be successful. Because the Democrat nominee would have to defend denying religious liberty rights, they would have to defend denying freedom of speech rights. That's a really tough sell with the American people."

Rep. John Fleming, a Republican doctor from Louisiana, said it would not be in the GOP's best interest to try to pass legislation, even if it's just a messaging bill, before the November election.

"We have such a divided Congress but if we get control of the Senate we get a significant ability to shape legislation that the president will have to sign or veto and I believe our leadership will move forward with this," he said. "In the lame duck, it's no more likely to pass then. If we take over the Senate it's a whole new ballgame."

The Old Guard And Thad Cochran Hang On In Mississippi Republican Primary

0
0

Sen. Thad Cochran won — surprise! — in round two of a nasty Senate battle and will be the Republican nominee.

John Fitzhugh/Biloxi Sun Herald / MCT

Thad Cochran isn't done in the U.S. Senate after more than 35 years.

In close fashion, the 76-year-old Mississippi Republican defeated primary challenger state Sen. Chris McDaniel in the runoff of a contentious and deeply weird primary election.

Cochran was largely expected to lose Tuesday night. The establishment Republican made a hard campaign push in recent weeks, enlisting Republicans like Sen. John McCain and Brett Favre, and the money of the national committees, to ultimately defeat the less-funded, less-established tea partier.

The exit of Cochran — a champion of pork and dealmaker on major issues like the Farm Bill — would have represented a potential shift in the amount of federal dollars Mississippi receives each year.

The younger McDaniel ran an aggressive outsider campaign, funded by outside groups and focused on conservative principles.

But McDaniel also drew the most attention for comments made in the mid-2000s on a radio show he formerly hosted, including slavery reparations, the word "mamacita," and many other topics.

Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Generally Are Protected From Police Searches Without A Warrant

0
0

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant,” the chief justice says.

© Gary Cameron / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that cell phones are generally protected from police searches without a warrant, a broad ruling recognizing the changes that smartphones have made to daily life.

"[O]fficers must generally secure a warrant before conducting … a search" of data on cell phones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

"The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought," he concluded. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."

The justices were unanimous in the court's ultimate resolution of the cases, although Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to discuss some differences he had with the chief justice's opinion for the court.

The justices were faced with cases asking how changes in technology should affect the limits on searches of smartphones after arrest — and, when the court heard argument in the cases in April, several justices expressed concerns about the broad range of information and services stored in today's phones.

"The term 'cell phone' is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone," Roberts wrote for the court. "They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers."

In finding that the general "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement did not apply to data stored on cell phones, Roberts also noted that "the exigent circumstances exception" — when imminent destruction of evidence or similar circumstances apply — means that, even under Wednesday's ruling, "[T]here is no reason to believe that law enforcement officers will not be able to address some of the more extreme hypotheticals that have been suggested."

The first case involved David Leon Riley, who was found with photos and notes on his phone that police used to show involvement in gang-related activity. After Riley's arrest, police found notations in his text messages and contacts, as well as photos and videos stored on the phone, that led California to charge him for attempted murder in a previous shooting.

The second involved Brima Wurie, in whose case drugs were found by obtaining the defendant's home address through his flip phone. When the phrase "my home" came up in an incoming call made to Wurie after his arrest, police examined the missed call, found the phone number associated with what Wurie had labeled "my home," searched a reverse directory to find the house, and went to the home in question — where they found drugs.


View Entire List ›

House Intelligence Chair: Iraq Crisis "Not An Intelligence Failure"

0
0

“This is a result of indecision, which is a policy failure.”

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration had specific intelligence about the terror group ISIS' activities and movements in Iraq and failed to act on it, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday.

ISIS' take over of much of the country "is a result of indecision, which is a policy failure," Rogers said at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "This is not an intelligence failure, it is a policy failure."

"We watched them pool up, we watched the debate between Al-Nusra and ISIL, we watched the concern between Al-Qaeda leadership, Zawahiri, about trying to get them back in the fold, we watched training camps get built and developed, we watched them get weapons, we watched them get finances, we watched western passport holders show up at these camps, we watched them all," Rogers said.

"We heard their stated intentions," Rogers said. "The reason they're called the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant is because they want the Levant."

Rogers, who is leaving Congress after this term to become a talk radio host, said the blame for not acting on the intelligence lay with the administration, not with the intelligence community.

"Those are all policy failures in my mind that has led to this," Rogers said. "You can't blame the intelligence community, you can't blame Congress.This is a foreign policy failure of a magnitude that will risk the security of the United States of America."

"About two years ago I and others were ramping up this notion that we had to do something in eastern Syria," Rogers said. "I came to those conclusions based on the intelligence that was afforded to the committee, as a consumer of intelligence."

"It was very clear that years ago ISIL, ISIS was pooling up in a dangerous way, building training camps, recruiting, drawing in jihadists from around the world. We saw all of that happening. Nothing happened to disrupt them."

"So some notion that we didn't see this coming means you weren't paying attention to the intelligence that was afforded to us," Rogers said.

"They clearly stated their intentions, we knew what their intentions were," Rogers said, though he conceded that "Did we know they were going into Iraq? I'm not sure."

Rogers also blamed the crisis in Iraq on the Obama administration's decision to pull out of Iraq completely, and blamed the Obama administration for, he alleged, failing to stop the movement of weapons and money from Arab League countries to extremist groups in Syria.

"This is a product of indecision in a very difficult neighborhood," Rogers said.

"We know for a fact that some of the supplies that some of those Arab League countries were supplying were getting in the hands of extremists" in eastern Syria, he said.


Federal Appeals Court Says Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

0
0

“A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union,” the court concludes. An appeals court decision that could impact laws in six states. [ Update: Both Utah’s governor and attorney general make clear they will appeal the decision.]

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Utah's ban on same-sex couples' marriages is unconstitutional, making it the first federal appellate ruling on the issue since last June's Supreme Court ruling striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The decision also brings the issue closer to going back to the Supreme Court, as the state could now ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Wednesday's ruling, upheld the December 2013 federal trial court ruling that the ban is unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision written by Judge Carlos Lucero. The court heard arguments in the case on April 10.

Although more than a dozen federal trial court judges — including, earlier Wednesday, one in Indiana — have ruled in the past year that such marriage bans or marriage recognition bans are unconstitutional, Wednesday's ruling is the first federal appeals court ruling to rule on the question in that time.

Lucero put the ruling on hold pending the outcome of any request for Supreme Court review of the decision, meaning same-sex couples cannot immediately marry in Utah.

The 10th Circuit includes Oklahoma, which has a similar case pending before the judges, as well as Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Only New Mexico has marriage equality currently, but Wednesday's ruling would be precedent in the whole circuit — absent Supreme Court intervention in the case.

Lucero wrote:

ca10.uscourts.gov

In detailing the reasoning, he wrote, "Consistent with our constitutional tradition of recognizing the liberty of those previously excluded, we conclude that plaintiffs possess a fundamental right to marry and to have their marriages recognized."

Importantly, however, at the end of the opinion, the court also stated that because the Supreme Court stayed the trial court's ruling in the Utah case pending the 10th Circuit appeal that it should stay its mandate of the appellate ruling "pending the disposition of any subsequently filed petition for writ of certiorari" to the Supreme Court.

Judge Paul Kelly wrote a 21-page dissent, countering Lucero's 65-page majority opinion. Judge Jermoe Holmes joined the majority opinion.

The 10th Circuit's decision, which cites heavily from Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, was issued one day before the one-year anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision.

The lawyer for the Utah same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit, Peggy Tomsic, said in a statement, "Today's decision by the Tenth Circuit affirms the fundamental principles of equality and fairness and the common humanity of gay and lesbian people. As the Court recognized, these families are part of Utah's community, and equal protection requires that they be given the same legal protections and respect as other families in this state. The Court's ruling is a victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case, but for our entire state and every state within the Tenth Circuit."


View Entire List ›

Senator Tim Kaine Argues Congress Needs To Approve Military Action In Iraq

0
0

The former DNC chair and close ally of Obama took to the floor of the senate to demand that the White House seek an update to the post-9/11 laws that authorized military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

View Video ›

After penning a Washington Post op-ed arguing against the White House's position that no congressional authorization is needed for U.S. military action in Iraq, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine urged president Obama to keep his promise to update the Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress passed in '01 and '02 under then president George W. Bush:

"In a speech in May of 2013 to the National Defense University, president Obama recognized that the administration and congress have to work together to examine and update the 2001 AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force] in order to narrow its scope, clarify what it allows, and make it suitable for the new challenges before us. I heard many of my colleagues say exactly the same thing. But, madam president, there has been no progress on this necessary update. The administration has made no proposal. There is no AUMF revision under active consideration in either house. Strangely, while all acknowledge that the authorization needs an update, we drift from crisis to crisis— Syria, Iraq, POW exchanges — without grappling with the underlying document that initiated our entrance into war 13 years ago. We cannot afford further delays."

Bill Clinton: "Refreshing Virtue Of Candor" In GOP Trying To Deny Undocumented Immigrants The Right To Vote

0
0

Talking about House Republicans’ immigration principles.

View Video ›

Former President Bill Clinton said the House Republicans' principles on immigration policy have a "refreshing virtue of candor" in denying undocumented immigrants the right to vote. Clinton was speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative America three-day forum in Denver Wednesday.

"The House put out some principles last year which basically...said what we're trying to do is figure out a plan that would allow these people to stay here and work, earn money, and pay taxes as long as they don't vote...which is you know, a refreshing virtue of candor."

Clinton was referring to principles the House Republicans introduced to their conference in January. The principles stress that Republicans remain opposed to a comprehensive immigration bill, like the one passed last year in the Senate stating that there would be no "special path" to citizenship, writing instead that people living in the country illegally will be able to do so "without fear."

"There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation's immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits)."

Anderson Cooper Is Not A Vagina Expert

0
0

The CNN producer who got this segment on the air deserves a raise.

"I'm certainly no expert on the topic of... vaginas." — CNN's Anderson Cooper

Colorado County Issues Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Even Though State Official Says They're Invalid

0
0

Same-sex marriages began in Boulder County, Colorado, Wednesday even though the attorney general said they were in violation of court orders.


View Entire List ›

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images