A federal appeals court refused to issue a stay in the Alabama same-sex marriage cases, meaning couples should be able to marry there Feb. 9. [Update: Alabama’s attorney general is asking the Supreme Court to intervene.]

s3.amazonaws.com

WASHINGTON — The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Alabama's requests to keep two rulings striking down the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages from going into effect.

Without further action, the trial court rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade are due to end on Feb. 9 — meaning same-sex couples could marry in Alabama at that time.

Although the state can still ask the Supreme Court for a stay, the high court has not granted a stay in similar circumstances in recent months.

This would, however, be the first such request brought to the Supreme Court since the justices agreed to hear the appeal of several cases involving marriage or marriage recognition rights brought by same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. In those cases, the state bans were upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, leading the same-sex couples to seek review from the Supreme Court.

Alabama officials argued unsuccessfully to the district court and the 11th Circuit that the ruling in the cases involving their state's ban — one brought by a same-sex couple seeking to marry in Alabama and the other by a same-sex couple who married elsewhere and are seeking recognition of that marriage in Alabama — should be put on hold until the Supreme Court's resolution of those other cases.

They had hoped the appeals court would see that distinction as forming the basis of a reason for granting a stay during Alabama's appeal of the cases — in contrast to an earlier ruling from the appeals court when it denied a request to stay a ruling striking down Florida's marriage ban.

The appeals court, however, denied Alabama's request in a brief, one-page order that gave no reasoning for its decision.

Meanwhile, shortly after the 11th Circuit denied Alabama's request, the plaintiffs in the marriage recognition case — which includes a judgment that strikes down the ban as unconstitutional for both marriage and marriage recognition purposes — asked the district court to lift the stay before Feb. 9.

"Plaintiffs respectfully submit that there is no reason for this Court's stay to remain in place until February 9, 2015, as the Court made clear that this Court's stay was to allow the Defendants time to seek relief from the Eleventh Circuit on that issue," lawyers for Cari Searcy, Kimberly McKeand, and their son wrote in the motion filed Tuesday. "The Defendants have done so, and the Eleventh Circuit has denied their motion."

The brief ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

View Entire List ›

In a draft letter to President Obama obtained by BuzzFeed News, Sens. Rob Portman and Dick Durbin write that “sanctions alone are unlikely to deter Putin.”

Republican Senator Rob Portman and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin are calling on President Obama and NATO to "move quickly" to increase military assistance to Ukraine in a draft letter to President Obama obtained by BuzzFeed News.

"With grave concern over escalating Russian aggression in Ukraine, we urge the U.S. and NATO to rapidly increase military assistance to Ukraine to allow it to defend its sovereign borders," the senators write.

"Unfortunately, sanctions alone are unlikely to deter Putin. As such, Ukraine needs an immediate infusion of effective defensive military equipment and financial aid to thwart Putin's naked aggression. Defensive military assistance such as anti-tank weapons, counter-battery radar, armored Humvees, and training are all critical to ensuring Ukraine has the capabilities to defend its territory and its citizens."

The Obama administration is reportedly considering sending military assistance, both defensive and lethal, to Ukraine to help combat against Russian incursions in the eastern part of the country.

Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Ukraine on Thursday to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in a show of solidarity.

Read the full letter:

February 3, 2015

President Barak Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

With grave concern over escalating Russian aggression in Ukraine, we urge the U.S. and NATO to rapidly increase military assistance to Ukraine to allow it to defend its sovereign borders. Russia's affront to established international norms is a direct threat to decades of established European security architecture and the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people. It must not be allowed to succeed. We believe it is time to increase military assistance to Ukraine and urge the U.S. and NATO to move quickly.

Despite the welcome imposition of U.S. and EU sanctions and mounting international isolation, Russian President Putin appears willing to gamble his country's economy and world standing to further his blatant military invasion of another nation. That he is willing to undertake such a selfish pursuit to protect his kleptocracy and at the cost of the Russian people's freedoms, aspirations, and talents is only the more tragic. Such a dangerous international bully will only stand down when faced with credible resistance.

In the last few weeks, Russia and its armed proxies in eastern Ukraine have launched a new and grisly military offense, walked away from peace talks, and thumbed their noses at the international community. The Donestk Airport has been destroyed, more civilians continue to be killed or displaced, and new attacks have been launched against towns like Mariupol and Debaltseve. Meanwhile, Russian agents and propaganda outlets continue to stoke tensions in Moldova, Georgia, and the Baltics, and Russian ships and aircraft have taken provocative and dangerous actions around European allies. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said it clearly last year, "Despite Moscow's hollow denials, it is now clear that Russian troops and equipment have illegally crossed the border into eastern and south-eastern Ukraine. This is not an isolated action, but part of a dangerous pattern over many months to destabilize Ukraine as a sovereign nation." As this pattern has only increased since then, a change in our response is also needed.

Working with our NATO allies, the United States must implement a comprehensive strategy to support Ukraine, deter Russian aggression, and help maintain stability in the region. Unfortunately, sanctions alone are unlikely to deter Putin. As such, Ukraine needs an immediate infusion of effective defensive military equipment and financial aid to thwart Putin's naked aggression. Defensive military assistance such as anti-tank weapons, counter-battery radar, armored Humvees, and training are all critical to ensuring Ukraine has the capabilities to defend its territory and its citizens.

As Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko recently said, "Putin fears a Ukraine that demands to live and wants to live and insists on living on European values – with a robust civil society and freedom of speech and relation [and] with a system of values the Ukrainian people have chosen and laid down their lives for." We must help her and her fellow Ukrainians succeed. The bipartisan Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which passed the Congress in December, authorized tighter sanctions and such military equipment. We urge you to take such steps without delay.

Sincerely,

RICHARD J. DURBIN
United States Senator

ROB PORTMAN
United States Senator

Most still don’t have clear answers. Carson, Cruz, and Rubio are most specific.

Nicholas Kamm / AFP

BuzzFeed News asked a number of lawmakers, including many of the likely 2016 presidential candidates two questions about vaccinations:

Does [the lawmaker] think parents should be required to vaccinate their kids (except in cases where medically the child can't be vaccinated)?

Should states offer a religious exemption, or a personal belief exemption of some kind?

All states require levels of vaccination for children to attend school, though most states provide a religious exemption, and some states allow a philosophical exemption. The philosophical exemptions in states like California, Texas, and Colorado allow parents to legally keep their children from being vaccinated. In California, for instance, large pockets of unvaccinated children have helped the spread measles, a disease once considered defeated in the United States.

Here were the responses:

Clinton's spokesman declined to comment in response to BuzzFeed News's questions on Monday, but Clinton did tweet the following:

View Entire List ›

It’s not his official portrait, but people have a lot to say about it.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is a possible Republican contender for the presidency in 2016 and one of the most high profile Indian-Americans in U.S. politics.

Gage Skidmore / Via en.wikipedia.org

Robin May

View Entire List ›

“There is only one Internet, and users expect that they be able to access an uncensored Internet regardless of how they connect.” The FCC chair backs President Obama’s push for an open internet.

WASHINGTON — The trade group representing the nation's biggest technology firms moved quickly to get behind proposed Net Neutrality rules announced by the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday.

The new rules, proposed by FCC Chair Tom Wheeler in a Wired op-ed, would regulate internet service providers like a utility, giving the government broad regulatory powers to ensure ISPs don't create preferred pathways for some websites while chocking off access to others. The proposals, which need to be approved by the full FCC when it votes later this month, are opposed by the major telecommunications companies and their allies in Washington.

Tech companies, however, are broadly supportive.

"Internet companies are pleased to hear that Chairman Wheeler intends to enact strong, enforceable, and legally sustainable net neutrality rules that include bright-line rules that ban paid prioritization, blocking, and discrimination online," Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association — a group representing the biggest players on the internet including Google, Twitter, Amazon, and Netflix — said in a statement.

Beckerman said tech firms are still waiting for the full text of Wheeler's proposals, but what they've seen so far, they really like.

"We thank Chairman Wheeler for including equal treatment of wireless and fixed broadband connections in his proposal," he said. "There is only one Internet, and users expect that they be able to access an uncensored Internet regardless of how they connect. It is also important that broadband gatekeepers not use interconnection as a chokepoint to thwart net neutrality protections by degrading consumer access and harming online services."

Rules like the ones proposed by Wheeler Wednesday were the hope of the tech industry after President Obama came out in support of regulating ISPs like a utility last November, a move that surprised and delighted the tech industry.

A White House aide did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wheeler's proposal.

“People say, ‘should the president be impeached?’ I say, we’re getting close to that.”

youtube.com

Republican Rep. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania says President Obama is "getting close" to impeachment.

"People say, 'should the president be impeached?' I say, we're getting close to that," the Marino said in a video posted on YouTube Wednesday by the local newspaper, the Wellsboro Gazette.

Marino said he was talking about impeachment because "it comes up consistently at town hall meetings."

Of Attorney General Eric Holder, Marino said he also was "approaching impeachment."

"I think when an attorney general says, 'I am not enforcing the law that I took the oath to enforce,' that's approaching impeachment."

Marino explained earlier he was against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, saying it should be used sparingly and only when there is a constitutional violation.

"I don't think we should be using impeachment just because we do not like a president or an attorney general, or anybody else that's elected."

Marino has said previously that he wanted to impeach the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

The California Democrats say there should be “no such thing” as a philosophical exemption. California has had a recent measles outbreak — and, in general, few Democrats in the state are totally clear on whether the exemption should end.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Democrats toed the line Tuesday on whether parents should be able to exempt children from vaccination for philosophical reasons — something the state of California allows.

On Wednesday, though, Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein called on California to reconsider the state's religious and philosophical exemptions on vaccination.

"We think both options are flawed, and oppose even the notion of a medical professional assisting to waive a vaccine requirement unless there is a medical reason, such as an immune deficiency," the senators wrote in a letter.

"While a small number of children cannot be vaccinated due to an underlying medical condition, we believe there should be no such thing as a philosophical or personal belief exemption, since everyone uses public spaces," Boxer and Feinstein wrote.

Earlier this week, when asked by BuzzFeed News, several liberal lawmakers unequivocally said parents should vaccinate their kids. But when pressed further on the state laws that allow parents to skip vaccinating their children if they have a medical, religious, or "personal belief" reason not to do so, their answers became less clear.

Democratic Rep. Alan Lowenthal, who represents the California district where many of the recent measles cases have been found, said he supports vaccination — but he doesn't think anyone should be compelled to vaccinate.

"I'm not sure we should mandate all children to be vaccinated. I have difficulty sometimes with mandating, but I certainly think children should be vaccinated," he said. "I strongly support vaccines, it's a public health issue and we need to have 95% of children vaccinated to really keep this from coming back. Measles was under control and I strongly support people vaccinating their kids."

California Rep. Maxine Waters said parents shouldn't be mandated to vaccinate their kids — but if they make that choice parents shouldn't be able to send their children to public schools either.

"If parents refuse vaccines they should have a right to do that, but they don't have a right to put others at risk," she said.

Others would not address the issue of the personal belief exemptions, which have been tightened in California in recent years, though not eliminated (parents must see a health care provider before deciding not to vaccinate).

In a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News, California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez focused on educating people about vaccines, but avoided directly saying whether personal belief exemptions should be allowed.

"It is critical that we educate our families on the importance of vaccinations," Sanchez said. "The first step in stopping the spread of disease is ensuring you have access to the right information to make informed decisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues and my community to do just that."

On Wednesday, Feinstein and Boxer called for a reconsideration. On Tuesday, Boxer called for some sort of review to make sure children are "protected," but sidestepped directly commenting on the law.

"A broad review by appropriate federal, state, and local public health agencies is called for to make sure all children are protected from diseases like measles, a highly contagious respiratory disease that can cause pneumonia, brain damage and death," Boxer said in the Tuesday statement.

An aide to Feinstein didn't respond to BuzzFeed News' questions on Tuesday, but instead pointed to a statement the senator made last year.

At a Brookings Institute event Tuesday morning, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said while she thinks everyone should be vaccinated, she was "sympathetic" to parents who don't want to their children to get them — and mentioned autism in connection with the process.

"While I'm sympathetic to the concerns and I've spent many, many hours and have tried to facilitate conversations with families who have had concerns about vaccines and how it affects their children be it autism or otherwise," she said. "It is a public health issue and the fact is children should be vaccinated."

Spokespeople for California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is running to replace the retiring Boxer, declined to comment Monday in response to BuzzFeed News questions about vaccinations.

Of those BuzzFeed News spoke to, Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright — who represents another state with a philosophical exemption, Pennsylvania — was the only one to outright reject his state's law. Pennsylvania allows vaccine exemptions or "on the basis of a strong moral or ethical conviction similar to a religious belief."

"I think opting out of vaccines is backward," Cartwright said. "You may quote me. [The state law] is not enlightened."

Similarly, Rep. Ami Bera, a California Democrat who is a physician, said the state should move toward getting parents that don't have a medical or religious reason not to vaccinate their kids, to do so.

"We should be pushing for full vaccination," Bera said. "[There are] rare circumstances — religious belief or health concerns. Outside of that everyone should be moving towards vaccination."

Ruby Cramer contributed reporting.

“[W]e will follow the law and extend state marriage benefits to those couples,” Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder says. The move doesn’t change the state’s defense of the state’s marriage ban at the Supreme Court.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

Rebecca Cook / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder on Wednesday announced the state will not appeal a federal trial court decision ordering the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples that were granted in the state this past year.

"The judge has determined that same-sex couples were legally married on that day, and we will follow the law and extend state marriage benefits to those couples," Snyder said in a statement.

Approximately 300 same-sex couples were married by the state of Michigan during the window between last year's district court ruling striking down Michigan's ban and when the stay on the decision was issued by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As the underlying case continued in the appeals court, a second case seeking recognition of the marriages that were granted during that time was filed. That second case resulted in the order that Snyder decided not to appeal on Tuesday.

In earlier court filings, the state had argued that the court should keep the second case on hold while the constitutional issue was decided. If it did decide the issue, though, the state argued those marriages should not be considered valid. U.S. District Court Judge Mark Goldsmith did decide the issue, and ordered the state to recognize them.

The state is continuing to defend the underlying ban on-same-sex marriages in one of the cases currently before the Supreme Court, however, a matter Snyder also addressed in Wednesday's statement.

"I appreciate that the larger question will be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court this year. This is an issue that has been divisive across our country. Our nation's highest court will decide this issue," he said. "I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and it's vitally important for an expedient resolution that will allow people in Michigan, as well as other states, to move forward together on the other challenges we face."

The move came as another Republican governor, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, filed a brief at the Supreme Court supporting his attorney general's request pending before the court to issue a stay of a district court ruling in Alabama that is due to go into effect on Feb. 9.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange filed the stay application with Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday. Thomas can decide the matter on his own or refer the matter to the full court.

“The fact remains that White people who live in my building are routinely harassed by Black miscreants who blockade the sidewalks and entryways in front of and behind my building…” Update: Cole resigned from Schock’s office.

A senior policy adviser to Republican Rep. Aaron Schock of Illinois made more racially charged comments on Facebook than previously reported, according to posts obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Benjamin Cole, who serves as a senior adviser for policy and communications to Schock, said a mosque should be built on the White House grounds for President Obama and said he was doing "[his] absolute best" to put "as many Black Criminals who live and loiter on [his] street behind bars."

The website Think Progress reported Thursday on other racially charged comments from Cole.

The website in one instance showed a Facebook post from Cole, which had a video allegedly showing a black woman arguing with someone off the screen.

"So apparently the closing of the National Zoo has forced the animals to conduct their mating rituals on my street. #gentrifytoday Pt. 1," Cole wrote in that post in 2013.

Cole resigned Thursday following the revelations.

"I am extremely disappointed by the inexcusable and offensive online comments made by a member of my staff," Schock said in a statement reported by Journal Star. "I would expect better from any member of my team. Upon learning about them I met with Mr. Cole and he offered his resignation which I have accepted."

Cole did not return a request for comment on the posts below.

Here's his Facebook post saying a mosque should be built for President Obama on the White House grounds:

Benjamin Cole Facebook

Here's his post on "Black criminals" from last week.

Benjamin Cole Facebook

Here's another Facebook post on the "Django series" he said was being filmed outside his home:

Benjamin Cole Facebook

View Entire List ›

“I’d much rather have to defend this than say, yes, I used to regularly be apart of the choom gang. It’s just bizarre.”

w.soundcloud.com

Former Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Wednesday addressed some columns that he wrote as a teenager and college student.

BuzzFeed News posted a series of columns the Republican presidential hopeful wrote in the 1970s for the Baptist Trumpet, a weekly newspaper of the Baptist Missionary Association of Arkansas. The columns, which offered an interesting look into early life of the former governor, touched on a variety of topics for youth, including dancing, dating, and smoking, as well as some more serious topics such as the Houston Mass Murders and the Arab oil embargo.

Speaking with the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins on his radio program, Washington Watch, Huckabee discussed the columns at length, saying he found it funny the anecdotes from his past showed him to be a devote Christian while other potential Republican rivals were admitting past drug and alcohol use.

"It's a column that I wrote for the Baptist Trumpet newspaper. It was actually even before I went to college, I was writing it when I was a senior in high school. I was 17 years old and I wrote this weekly column in the newspaper and it was sort of an advice column for teenagers who were believers," said Huckabee.

The former Arkansas governor added the title of the column, "RAPture Express," came from combining rap and the rapture.

"So the term the 'Rapture Express' came from the very popular term in the 70's for 'rap,' meaning to converse and of course rapture was something we were all talking about in the 70s. So much talking about the second coming. But anyway, I did this so, BuzzFeed, I don't know how they got em', I'm not sure, don't really care, but they found sets, a whole selection of the columns I wrote, on which I discussed things like dating, dancing, smoking, I mean all sorts of issues that would be relevant to a 1973 teenager. Cause that's when it was, 1973. I was 17."

Huckabee said he found it funny people were focusing on his old columns, specifically one in which he wrote Christians shouldn't dance, when at the same time other potential Republican candidates were addressing past drug use and drinking.

"Well it was basically like—you know—I couldn't say that it was prohibited but I wasn't sure that it was good for a person's witness. Anyway, the funniest thing, I mean, I read this and I laughed out loud and I said, while other candidates are being outed for their teenage drug use, their teenage alcohol use, their teenage partying hard, doing all sorts of destructive things like painting graffiti on bridges. The scandal with me is that I wrote a column at age 17 telling Christian young people to live a godly life. So, I mean, I just had to say, is this really controversial? I'd much rather have to defend this than say, yes, I used to regularly be apart of the choom gang. It's just bizarre."

Huckabee said BuzzFeed News' story showed "how contemptuous the left really is toward believers."

"I just wish that I can grow as much hair now Tony, I really do. Now I've been made fun of by my own family because of the sideburns. But I tell them, I say, 'hey, it was 1973, what do you think I'm going to look like?' Thank goodness they didn't have the bell bottom pants to show those as well. I just find that its amazing, but it shows though how contemptuous the left really is toward believers. They truly think that we are just laughable for the beliefs we hold. Rather than let get me down and make me all depressed, I just take it as, wow, the worst thing they can say about us is that we truly believe that the scripture teaches us to live a circumspect life, okay well you got me, I plead guilty, and we'll find something else to be upset about. "

Alabama officials have asked Justice Clarence Thomas to stop same-sex marriage rulings from going into effect on Feb. 9. The Human Rights Campaign pushes for removal of Alabama chief justice for actions criticizing the federal court marriage rulings.

Via Facebook: Iamaparent

As two same-sex couples from Alabama asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the state's request to issue a stay in their cases while the state appeals the matter, the nation's largest LGBT group called for the removal of Alabama's chief justice — who has questioned the authority of the federal court in the same-sex marriage cases.

Trial court rulings in a pair of cases by U.S District Court Judge Callie Granade, in which she ruled that Alabama's marriage ban is unconstitutional, are due to take effect on Feb. 9, under a current order from Granade.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state's request to issue a further stay of the ruling, and Attorney General Luther Strange has now asked Justice Clarence Thomas to issue a stay pending the state's appeal. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley also weighed in at the high court in support of a stay, but the same-sex couples who brought the lawsuits opposed the request on Thursday.

"[Alabama] points to nothing that would justify issuance of a stay in this case when recent orders of this Court have had the effect of dissolving all stays in every other case raising the same constitutional issues," lawyers from the National Center for Lesbian Rights wrote in defense of James Strawser and John Humphrey, who are seeking to marry in Alabama.

The justices have denied stay applications in marriage cases involving other states since October 2014, but this application is the first to reach the justices since they agreed to review the constitutionality of such bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Those watching those marriage cases are watching the stay issue closely. If the justices deny Alabama's request, the move would be the strongest sign yet that the Supreme Court — at least a majority of the justices — are preparing to issue a national marriage equality ruling come this June. If they grant the stay, on the other hand, it would be more of a sign that the justices have decided the marriage cases should be kept in a holding pattern until they can issue a decision in the other states' cases.

The Human Rights Campaign, meanwhile, weighed in Thursday on the recent actions of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Despite the fact that the cases at issue are in federal court, Moore has weighed in criticizing the rulings twice — once in a letter to the governor and once in a letter and legal memorandum to probate judges, who grant marriage licenses in Alabama.

"Chief Justice Roy Moore is lawlessly disregarding the binding ruling of a federal judge, and he's encouraging other statewide officeholders to do the same," HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow said in a statement joining in support of the Southern Poverty Law Center's ethics complaint against Moore. "Moore's personal opinions are not at issue here. As a lawyer and as a judge, he has an obligation to follow the law. If he refuses to do so, he should be removed from office."

An HRC spokesperson told BuzzFeed News this is the first time the organization has called for the removal of a judge and, so far as anyone can recall, the first time the organization has ever called for the removal of any elected official.

Moore already was removed from office once before, in 2003, when he refused to remove a Ten Commandments replica from his courtroom in defiance of a court order.

Read the Searcy response:

Read the Strawser response:

View Entire List ›

He said the science on the issue should drive U.S. drug policy.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told CBS medical marijuana may be helpful in treating certain medical conditions.

"We have some preliminary data showing that for certain medical conditions and symptoms, medical marijuana can be helpful," said Murthy, who took up the post in December. "You have to use that data to drive policy-making."

AP Charles Dharapak

After Murthy's interview, the Department of Health and Human Services released a statement on his behalf:

While clinical trials for certain components of marijuana appear promising for some medical conditions, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the standards for safe and effective medicine for any condition to date.

The process of requesting funds is tedious, as prospective researchers must get approval from multiple federal agencies. Getting the go-ahead isn't easy.

Jason Redmond / Reuters

View Entire List ›

Berry currently oversees consular operations for the United States in the Netherlands.

amsterdam.usconsulate.gov / Via amsterdam.usconsulate.gov

The State Department has forwarded the name of Randy Berry, currently the consul general to the Netherlands, to the White House as the department's pick to be the United State's first special envoy for LGBT rights, a source familiar with the deliberation told BuzzFeed News on Friday.

Berry has overseen the United States' consulates in the Netherlands since 2012, according to his bio on the State Department website.

His most recent postings before that were in New Zealand and Nepal, but he has also served in countries with governments that have recently launched anti-LGBT crackdowns — including Uganda and Egypt.

Reached by email, Berry told BuzzFeed News he had "no comment to share" for this story. State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach said in an email, "We aren't going to have any comment to confirm who the envoy will be."

The post will be a lead spokesperson for promoting LGBT rights around the world, which has become a key priority for the Obama administration, as well as coordinating discussions on the issue within the department.

An unnamed State Department spokesperson told the Boston Globe on Thursday that the Obama administration would create the position. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) had introduced legislation to establish the post, but its supporters agreed that it had little chance of passing in Congress.

Thanks to a mysterious legislative mandate tacked onto the state budget, North Carolina will now be home to two new experiments in online schooling.

Don Douglas/Don Douglas

It has taken three years, a court case, an appeal, a half-dozen hearings, and a posse of lobbyists, but controversial education company K12 Inc. has finally won a battle to operate an online charter school in North Carolina.

The Board of Education approved today the opening of North Carolina Virtual Academy, an online charter school that will be managed and operated by K12 Inc. After years of resistance from the state school board, the approval was essentially mandated by a last-minute legislative rider slipped into the state's budget. Another virtual charter school, which will be operated by a subsidiary of education giant Pearson, was also approved.

In online charter schools, students take classes at home on their computers, interacting with their teachers via chat and video calls; as at traditional charters, taxpayers foot the bill.

The opening of North Carolina Virtual Academy is a key victory for K12, the nation's largest operator of online charter schools, which has been weathering increasing pushback across the country in the face of poor academic results and high student turnover in the online schools it manages. K12 does not dispute those results, but attributes them to the struggling student population it says it serves.

K12 was targeted by a high-profile campaign from activist investor Whitney Tilson, who criticized the school's practices and compared it to subprime mortgage lenders, as well as two shareholder lawsuits, which were both dismissed. The company was cited in Florida for failing to provide adequately certified teachers, and last year, the NCAA ruled that it would no longer accept coursework from two dozen of the company's virtual schools.

In 2013, the company lost its management contract in Colorado, which cited the school's poor results; last year, it lost a major contract to manage its largest school, in Pennsylvania, which at its peak made up 14% of K12's revenue. It is now on the verge of being driven out of Tennessee.

"K12 has a lot riding on North Carolina Virtual Academy," said Matt Ellinwood, an attorney and policy analyst at the progressive North Carolina Justice Center, which has long publicly opposed K12's expansion into the state. "They're in a grow or die industry, and that's how their model works."

K12, currently valued at around $615 million, saw its stock rose almost 3% on Thursday, the day the company won the right to operate the North Carolina school. To increase revenue and satisfy shareholders, Ellinwood said, the company needs to replace its lost contracts with new ones, opening new schools in as many states as it can.

The complex legal and legislative battle K12 has waged in North Carolina shows just how far the company is willing to go to achieve that goal.

Getty Images Peter Macdiarmid

While NC Learns, a nonprofit, will technically operate North Carolina Virtual Academy when it opens this September, K12 is contracted to provide day-to-day-operations, management, and curriculum, with the nonprofit redirecting virtually every dollar of public money it receives to K12. NC Learns was funded solely by K12, which has paid its legal costs and sat alongside its members at every meeting and hearing since the board's founding.

K12 and NC Learns first submitted an application to open a virtual school in North Carolina more than three years years ago, in 2011, when a change in state statute appeared to open the door to the legality of virtual schools. K12 Inc. said that NC Learns' founder Chris Withrow, a longtime advocate of virtual charters, approached the company.

The state board's chairman had said in October of that year that the board would not approve any virtual schools. So rather than apply to the state — as is the protocol in North Carolina — K12 took the application directly to Cabarrus County, a midsized county near the state's center.

Cabarrus' superintendent first heard from K12 and NC Learns by way of a lobbyist named Jeff Barnhart, a five-term state representative of Cabarrus County who had left the state House just two months earlier. The deal, he proposed, was that Cabarrus would approve the virtual school's application — and share in a fraction of the school's revenue, which K12 projected to top $34 million by the end of its fifth year. The lawyer K12 paid to represent its interests was the current state senator from Cabarrus.

After a pair of meetings dominated by K12 employees — representatives from the nonprofit partner appear not to have spoken, according to minutes of the meetings — Cabarrus County school board approved the school. But when the state's school board did not provide an approval of the decision, K12 turned to legal action, asking a judge to file an injunction against against the state school board compelling the school to open. K12 lost subsequent appeals, including a final appeal on December 3, 2013.

Three days later, on Dec. 6, K12 and NC Learns submitted another application for a virtual charter school, this time directly to the state. It was joined by a second application for a virtual school, North Carolina Connections Academy, which would be managed by Pearson subsidiary Connections Education. Connections' application made it through the first round of approval; K12's did not. It was unanimously rejected by the state's charter board. So was the appeal that K12 filed a day later.

K12 Inc. deferred comment to Withrow, the NC Learns founder, who declined to speak to BuzzFeed News. In a statement, Withrow said of NC Learns: "Our mission has always been to provide innovative digital learning charter school option to NC families. Our members contacted K12 to help us provide that opportunity."

The charter board's concerns about K12 ran deep. They praised the nonprofit's experience, but expressed worries about improper and infrequent oversight of K12 Inc. They said there was little rationale for allowing K12 to run the school, aside from the company's massive size: the company's academic performance was poor, the proposed student to teacher ratio was "too high," and the budget projections were "inadequate."

Others in North Carolina were equally critical of the K12-backed application. Beyond the issues of quality are concerns about budget, said Mark Jewell, the vice president of the North Carolina Educator's Association, another longtime K12 foe. "Every student that goes to a virtual school is sending student dollars away from a state system that's looking at a couple hundred million dollar shortfall this year," Jewell said. "And the money's going to a for-profit company on Wall Street."

The school board's concerns, however, were essentially overridden by a mysterious act of legislative fine print. On May 15, two days after the K12 application had been rejected for a second time, a provision appeared in the state budget that would change the company's fate in North Carolina. The school board, the budget mandated, was now required to approve two separate pilots of virtual charter programs by the start of 2015.

The legislative rider passed without ever being discussed publicly. K12 representatives, activists, and school board leaders said they did not know who had introduced it; the minority leaders of the state house and Senate declined to comment.

K12 Inc. and Connections jumped on the chance the Senate had given them, and were the only companies to apply for the slots.

When it came time to approve the K12-backed application and send it to the state board for final approval this past December, the school board's special committee appeared to be hesitant, according to transcripts of the meeting. They had grilled a K12 representative — who spoke more frequently than the nonprofit's president — about the company's reputation and proposals, receiving answers that at times skirted the reality of K12's troubles in other states with technicalities.

"I don't want to be next," one committee member, Helen Nance, said when she was called on.

"I didn't want to be first," another replied.

"I didn't want to go at all," said a third.

"I know," Nance said. "It's hard."

Ultimately, though, all of the state committee's members voted to move the application forward.

Before the state board, K12 and NC Learns were grilled yet again, in two separate meetings. They received several pointed questions about K12's background, with one member asking repeatedly how the company could explain "what I read on the internet."

But for most board members and observers, the legislative mandate made the question of approval moot: there were two charter applications, and two mandatory slots. "There's a lot of fear and trepidation over things we don't know," said one board member. "This has been done in other states, and there have been some challenges there. But we do have legislation in front of us that says to offer a pilot program for two schools."

Technically, the school board could have denied the K12-backed application, reopening the process. But few saw that as a possibility. The virtual charter pilot legislation made approval such a foregone conclusion for K12 that, a week before the school board was set to meet to vote on North Carolina Virtual Academy, NC Learns' president, Chris Withrow, began tweeting a countdown to a "super colossal announcement." "I just can't wait," he tweeted. The countdown coincided exactly with the time of the school board's meeting.

Minutes after the board had voted, Withrow tweeted: "I am proud to announce the State Department of Public Instruction of North Carolina has awarded us a contract to open the first K – 12th grade Virtual School."

View Entire List ›

A Sunday night “administrative order” from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore could lead to a crisis come Monday morning. Groups supporting marriage equality call Moore’s move “outrageous.”

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — With the U.S. Supreme Court silent as of Sunday evening on Alabama's request to keep a pair of rulings striking down the state's ban on same-sex couples' marriages on hold while the state appeals the cases, Alabama's own chief justice, Roy Moore, issued an order purporting to bar probate judges there from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The move sets up a stark contrast — and a possible crisis — in hours as probate court offices open across the state Monday morning with no clear answer on whether they should grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples or not.

Citing an aim of "ensur[ing] the orderly administration of justice within the State of Alabama," Moore wrote on Sunday night: "Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 36.03, of the Alabama Constitution or § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975."

The order — not issued in any case but instead issued in Moore's role as "the administrative head of the judicial system" — came hours before stays are due to end in two federal court rulings striking down the state's marriage ban amendment and statutes.

Absent word from the Supreme Court before Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade made clear in her most recent order in either of the cases, on Feb. 3, that the stay ends on Monday "[i]f the Supreme Court denies a stay or does not rule before February 9, 2015." The stay, she explained, would be in place until Monday "to allow the Probate Courts of this state to be completely prepared for compliance with the rulings" in the cases.

Although Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange asked the Supreme Court, in a request made to Justice Clarence Thomas, for a stay pending the appeal of the cases, neither Thomas nor the full court had responded to the application by Sunday night — meaning Granade's existing stay would end at midnight in Alabama and her ruling would go into effect.

With the deadline approaching — and no word from the U.S. Supreme Court justices — Moore, in Alabama, took his own action Sunday night, earlier reported at WAFF.

Moore — previously removed from the bench for refusing to remove a replica of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom back in 2003 — already questioned the authority of Granade's ruling in a letter to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and urged probate judges against granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples should the stay end. Now, he purported to bar the probate judges from issuing licenses that violate the amendment or statute hours before Granade's order striking down the amendment and statutes is due to go into effect.

When the Alabama Probate Judges Association and Moore initially criticized the ruling, Granade issued an order clarifying her judgment in the first of her decisions, noting on Jan. 28, "[I]f the stay is lifted, the Judgment in this case makes it clear that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 and ALA. CODE § 30-1-19" — the constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex couples from marrying — "are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Quoting at length from the federal court decision in Florida that led to same-sex couples marrying there, Granade quoted that judge's statement that, while specific parties may not, technically, be covered by the current ruling, a party denied a marriage license could, through a process called intervention, seek to add other officials as defendants in either of the existing lawsuits.

Additionally, Granade quoted the Florida judge as follows: "The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses."

Even before Moore's Sunday night order, as of the evening of Feb. 7, at least five probate judges in Alabama said that they would not be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday. "Two, in Clarke and Pike counties, say they won't issue any licenses, even to opposite-sex couples. One, in Marengo County, says the forms will be available but she won't sign them. And probate judges in Washington and Covington counties say they won't issue to same-sex couples," AL.com reported.

Then came Moore's order on Sunday night. It was not immediately clear what effect Moore's latest foray into the fight would have.

In the Sunday night order, Moore added that, if any probate judge does issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, "it would be the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley, in whom the Constitution vests 'the supreme executive power of this state,' Art. V, § 113, Ala. Const. 1901, to ensure the execution of the law."

The state, while vigorously defending the ban in court, had — prior to Moore's order — been preparing for the possibility of Monday marriages, sending out new, gender-neutral marriage forms to probate judges throughout the state on Feb. 5.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not stayed any federal court marriage decisions from going into effect since its Oct. 6, 2014 decision not to hear appeals of marriage cases out of Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

On Jan. 16, though, the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases challenging marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Alabama's is the first stay request to reach the justices since the court decided to hear the other cases, and Alabama officials have argued that the court should grant the stay to allow the court to decide the overall issue before Alabama is forced to implement the federal court's ruling in its cases.

Read Moore's administrative order:

View Entire List ›

The family network has faded, he’s unpopular on policy, and his trip next month will be Bush’s first in three years. “The first thing he needs to do is show up.”

Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call

Columbus Junction is a town in Eastern Iowa of two square miles and 2,000 voters — a small corner of Louisa County where nearly half the people are Latino.

On the phone last month, when the chair of Iowa's Republican Party mentioned the town in passing, the reply on the other end of the line took him by surprise.

Jeb Bush not only knew tiny Columbus Junction — he knew other towns like it, speaking with ease and specificity about a corridor of Latino-heavy communities in Eastern Iowa where voters might support him if he decides to run for president.

"When you talk about towns in Eastern Iowa of that size, you're ready to tackle the Hawkeye State," said Jeff Kaufmann, the state party chair, recalling his 20-minute call with the former Florida governor, who is known among friends and supporters as a quick study.

But most of the Republicans thinking about a run for president have already visited Iowa. Bush hasn't. Many have hired state-based staff. Bush hasn't. And nearly all have put in calls to Kaufmann. Bush waited until last month to finally get in touch.

In interviews this month, state operatives and officials said Bush has yet to take many early steps to catch up to his rivals in the state where voters expect to be courted with rigor ahead of the caucuses that mark the start of the presidential race.

Bush has been the least engaged of any major candidate, with the most to overcome: He's underwater in early polling; he has no "Bush Brigade" in waiting like his dad and brother did; and he is expected to struggle selling his positions on Common Core, immigration, and energy to the conservatives who propelled candidates like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum forward in 2008 and 2012.

"Can Jeb Bush win Iowa? Of course he can," said Kaufmann. "Can Jeb Bush come in fifth place in Iowa? Sure he can."

In January, Bush set up a PAC, Right to Rise, to fund travel and staff. He and his cadre of longtime aides spent the last month fundraising and expanding a national team.

David Kochel, a leading Iowa strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's presidential campaigns, recently announced he would move to Miami to serve as Bush's national campaign manager. The Kochel pick, according to one Republican involved in the Bush effort, showed a "state-based" approach, but not necessarily a focus on Iowa.

"If they wanted to play aggressively in Iowa, why would they take the best strategist in Iowa and move him to Miami?" the Bush-aligned operative said.

Last month, Bush skipped the "Iowa Freedom Summit," a day-long parade of speeches by other likely candidates, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who received enthusiastic reviews. Bush is slated to attend an agriculture summit in March, marking his first visit to the state since he headlined the Sioux City Chamber of Commerce dinner almost three years ago.

"The first thing he needs to do is show up," said Bob Vander Plaats, the president of the Family Leader, a leading conservative group in Iowa. "He may be able to skip the Freedom Summit, but if he starts skipping other forums, the people of Iowa will take note of that."

Vander Plaats said he hasn't heard from Bush — nor has he caught wind of outreach to other conservative leaders. Other operatives, including some working for Bush's competitors, said they see few signs the former governor is building a campaign operation in the state.

"I don't know who his team is in Iowa. I haven't heard anything, and I've been listening," said Steve Grubbs, a former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party who is now serving as the chief state strategist to Sen. Rand Paul.

Candidates like Santorum and Huckabee, and even Paul, whose father competed in the last two caucuses, have "a built-in base of support here," said Jeff Patch, a former spokesman for the Iowa Republican Party. "The last time a Bush ran was 2004. These people aren't automatically transferable to Jeb Bush."

George H. W. Bush, with Jeb to his left, speaks at the Republican caucus headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, during his unsuccessful run for president in 1980.

Jim Mone / AP Photo

When George H. W. Bush first ran for president in 1980 — beating Ronald Reagan in Iowa, then losing the nomination — a group of his supporters in the state, the so-called "Bush Brigade," stayed together for another eight years, waiting for a second chance.

But young Jeb Bush, the only son working full-time on the 1980 campaign, spent those early months of the election based in Puerto Rico, not Iowa.

The former governor has fewer long-term ties of his own to the state's Republican infrastructure, strategists said. And because of his family name, a large share of voters have already made up their mind about his candidacy. Forty-three percent of voters view him negatively, according to a Bloomberg-Des Moines Register poll.

Like George W. Bush, the party's last nominee to decisively win Iowa, Jeb Bush has a robust record as a social conservative — often a common thread between Republicans who perform well in the state. But Bush is running more to the center earlier than his brother did in 2000.

State Republicans said that the big challenge for Bush will be on federal policy: defending what conservatives describe as too soft a stance on issues like immigration and Common Core, the system of reading and math standards for grade students.

"The one we hear on the ground all the time is his efforts to push Common Core," said Grubbs, the Paul strategist. "That's the lead problem, but there are others."

Bush has also argued that the United States should phase out federal subsidies for ethanol, a major benefit to corn-growers in Iowa and other parts of the Midwest.

Ahead of the 2008 election, amid speculation he might get in the race, Bush joked that his position on ethanol was "living proof that I'm not running." And when Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, kicked off his campaign in Iowa five years ago by calling for an end to the federal subsidy, Bush backed him up.

"I admire truth telling and t-paw sure did it to open his campaign," he wrote on Twitter at the time.

Kaufmann, the state party chair, said there's just as much room for an "establishment" candidate as for a hard-line conservative. "Rick Santorum won our caucuses four years ago in a virtual tie. The person he tied was Mitt Romney."

"That's the political diversity of Iowa," said Kaufmann.

View Entire List ›

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have granted the stay denied by the Supreme Court on Monday morning. [Update: Multiple counties are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley will not take any action to stop them from doing so.]

Tori Sisson, left, and Shante Wolfe kiss after saying their marriage vows on Monday, Feb. 9 in Montgomery, Ala. Sisson and Wolfe were the first couple to file their marriage license.

AP Brynn Anderson

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to stop marriage equality rulings in Alabama from going into effect this morning, denying a stay in the pending federal court cases there.

The move comes even as the state's Supreme Court chief justice, Roy Moore, has purported to bar probate judges there from granting same-sex couples marriage licenses.

It was not immediately clear how probate judges across the state would react to the seemingly conflicting orders — although one, a spokesperson in Montgomery County Probate Judge Steven L. Reed's office, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that they are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples this morning. Jefferson County Probate Judge Alan King says his office will issue licenses as well, the New York Times reports. Madison County Judge Tommy Ragland's office confirmed to BuzzFeed News that they will issue same-sex marriage license between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT today. Same-sex couples are marrying in Etowah County as well.

Although the probate judges are not currently a party to the rulings that the Supreme Court allowed to go into effect Monday morning from U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade, Granade has made clear that a same-sex couple could come to her seeking to intervene in the cases if a probate judge declines to grant a same-sex couple a marriage license. Should that happen, it is not clear whether Moore would step aside and allow a license to be issued.

Additionally, if a probate judge does grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it was not yet clear how Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley would react. Moore's Feb. 8 order stated that it would be Bentley's responsibility to address the situation if a probate judge did so.

View Entire List ›

“Not only did he vilify Christianity, but he actually made a case to defend radical Islam, that’s killing people around the world.”

w.soundcloud.com

Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming said President Obama's speech to the National Prayer Breakfast last week in which he drew a historical comparison between atrocities committed by Islamic State fighters and past "terrible deeds in the name of Christ" were "unpresidential" and actually defended ISIS.

"I was very disappointed, although not surprised. The president has said many things that just seem so unpresidential, and this was no exception," said Fleming on Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio program last week.

President Obama made references to the Crusades and the Inquisition at the National Prayer Breakfast last week when speaking about religious violence around the world.

"Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," President Obama said last week. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Fleming continued, saying the president defended ISIS with his speech.

"Not only did he vilify Christianity, but he actually made a case to defend radical Islam, that's killing people around the world. He actually defended what they were doing, and tried to draw some sort of twisted equivalency, moral equivalency, between what they're doing today and what Crusaders did 800 years ago. It really, it was really weird, in fact, and although we had, gosh, hundreds, maybe a thousand people there, he got very little applause. It was really quite sullen, and he really had no energy in his speech. If you've ever been in his presence, you know he's a very articulate speaker and can give rousing speeches, but it really hit the floor, hard. He was flat throughout that discussion."

The congressman also said the president was really saying ISIS fighters were just like those who fought in the American revolution

"Yeah, I mean he's really creating a propaganda bonanza for terrorists, because what he's really saying is 'Well look, these are freedom fighters, just like the patriots of the Revolutionary War. And they're no different, their service is just as honorable,'" said Fleming.

"And nothing could be further from the truth. And of course we know that everything from slavery to the Inquisitions and the Crusades happened before our lifetimes, and so what we're dealing with today is an existential threat to our society, to our individuals. At any time, somebody can blow themselves up, and take Americans with them. They can blow up an airplane, they can crash an airplane. That's something we have to worry about every day — we spend 40 billion dollars yearly on homeland security. That has nothing to do with Crusades, or any of that other nonsense."

If there was any doubt left, Justice Clarence Thomas ended it on Monday morning.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

AP Photo/Dr. Scott M. Lieberman / Via s3.amazonaws.com

WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court will end discrimination against same-sex couples this June — and even justices who oppose the coming decision appear to know it's going to happen.

On Monday morning, Justice Clarence Thomas made explicit what had been growing apparent to observers for months: The court — at least a majority of the justices — has made up its mind on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution bars states from treating same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples in marriage laws.

In denying the Alabama attorney general's request to keep a U.S. district court order that strikes down Alabama's ban on same-sex couples' marriages on hold while the state appeals, the Supreme Court — even as it considers marriage cases out of four other states — made it clear that the justices will not stop same-sex couples from marrying in the meantime when a judge strikes down a ban.

The cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee — come out of the one federal appeals court that said bans on marriages for same-sex couples are constitutional.

Since October 2014, when the justices decided not to hear cases from five states where the appeals courts had struck down the bans as unconstitutional, the justices have denied requests to keep marriage rulings on hold during appeals.

Court observers, including BuzzFeed News, see these decisions as a signal of the court's direction. But the court had given no reason for denying the stay requests — leaving people guessing.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange's request, however, was the first stay application to reach the justices since they had agreed to hear the cases out of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Some — including Strange and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley — had hoped the court would treat stay requests differently now that it had taken up the issue.

On Monday morning, though, the court denied the request. Just by itself, the move would have been the strongest statement yet about where the court is headed on the ultimate question.

But Thomas brought the issue out into the open. He issued a statement, in which he was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, explaining why they would have granted a stay to Alabama — the first word from a justice suggesting the expected end result in the matter.

In the short, three-page statement, Thomas criticized the court for "look[ing] the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court's resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor," the 2013 decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's ban on federal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages.

"This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question," he wrote, referring to the question of whether bans on marriage for same-sex couples are constitutional. "This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is."

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee cases in late April, with a decision expected by late June.

Given Thomas' dissent today, the only real question left outstanding is where Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will end up on the ultimate question. Although both dissented in the Windsor DOMA decision, neither has joined Thomas and Scalia in saying publicly that they would have granted any of the recent stay requests.

Ethan Czahor’s tweets began disappearing today after news broke that he had been hired by Jeb Bush. A spokesperson for Bush told BuzzFeed News: “Governor Bush believes the comments were inappropriate. They have been deleted at our request. Ethan is a great talent in the tech world and we are very excited to have him on board the Right to Rise PAC.” Czahor also apologized in a tweet on Monday.

Rebecca Cook / Reuters

Time magazine reported on Monday that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has hired Ethan Czahor, a Santa Monica-based techie who co-founded Hipster.com, to be chief technology officer for his political action committee, Right to Rise.

After the story of his hiring broke, tweets on his Twitter account started disappearing. The Twitter account is linked from his personal website. The count this morning was 177 tweets:

And the latest tweet count is 132:

View Entire List ›