Category Archives: ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Will the Supreme Court Say I Do?

03/26/2013 Nativegrl77

Supreme Court to Take Up Historic Marriage Equality Cases

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the first of two historic cases dealing with marriage equality. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases and how the High Court could come down.

Case #1 (Tuesday): Hollingsworth v. Perry

At issue: California’s Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters in 2008.

Legal Questions:

Is it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for California to prohibit marriage equality?
California’s governor and attorney general stopped defending the measure several years ago, so a group of cities and Prop. 8 proponents stepped in to defend the law in their place. The Supreme Court must decide if it was even proper for this group to have been allowed to do so in the first place.

Possible Outcomes:

Marriage equality for everyone, everywhere
Marriage equality in some places now, everywhere else later. One route proposed by the Obama administration would result in marriage equality right now in California and other states that have civil union laws that are essentially marriage in everything but name. Legally speaking, if California’s ban is deemed unconstitutional, bans in other states would then also be difficult to defend. As the president said recently, he can’t think of any reason why any state’s ban should be valid.
Marriage equality just in California. The Court could tailor a narrow opinion that invalidates Prop. 8, but doesn’t really advance jurisprudence in a way that is particularly useful anywhere else.
Marriage equality in California, probably. The Court could use the second question about legal standing to dodge making a decision on the merits, which would leave the district court decision invalidating Prop. 8 in place. There are some unresolved questions about how this particular approach would play out.
No marriage equality in California, at least for now. The Court could reverse the lower courts and leave Prop. 8 in place. The only way it could then be undone is by voters through yet another ballot measure or in a future Supreme Court case heard by a more progressive Court. A poll out last week found that 61 percent of California’s now support marriage equality, making this route likely to succeed if also costly, time-consuming, and limited only to California.

For more details on how the Court could strike down Prop. 8, check out ThinkProgress’ legal analysis HERE.

Case #2 (Wednesday): United States v. Windsor

At Issue: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Legal Questions:

Whether Section 3 of DOMA, the part of the law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples for purposes of taxation, federal benefits, and more than 1,000 other rights or responsibilities, violates the legal married same couples’ guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
As with the Prop. 8 case, there are technical legal questions about whether the Supreme Court is even allowed to hear the case. First, can the Court hear the case since the executive branch already agrees with lower courts that the law is unconstitutional? After the Department of Justice stopped defending the law, House Republicans took up the cause of defending discrimination and have spent millions of taxpayer dollars doing so. The Court must decide if House Republicans are allowed, legally speaking, to stand in for the executive branch.

Possible Outcomes:

Marriage equality for everyone. The Court could simply rule that DOMA is unconstitutional because everyone has a constitutional right to marry the partner of their choice.
Marriage equality in some places. The Court could strike down DOMA and allow legally married same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as straight couples, but not rule on whether there is a broader constitutional right to marriage equality. Depending on how strongly worded such a decision is, it could make it difficult to defend other anti-gay laws and state marriage bans. Another version of this outcome could be decided on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, but this would establish a highly unfortunate precedent that could be dangerous for the social safety net.
Muddled mess. If the Court decides that it lacks jurisdiction for either or both of the reasons mentioned above, nobody is quite sure what exactly will happen. It’s possible that DOMA could remain valid everywhere but New York and New England (the federal circuit courts where the challenges were initiated). Another theory says the Obama administration could refuse to enforce the law, but then that still leaves open the possibility that a future anti-gay President Rubio could revive the law.
No change. The Court could disagree with the various lower courts that invalidated DOMA and find it to be constitutional. In this case, the only ways to get rid of DOMA would be a future case before a less conservative Supreme Court or Congressional repeal of DOMA. Senators and members of the House have already introduced a bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, to accomplish the latter.

For more details on how the Court could dump DOMA, check out ThinkProgress’ legal analysis HERE.

Stay tuned: ThinkProgress reporters will be both inside and outside the Supreme Court tomorrow and we’ll be bringing you live updates.

Get Involved: Sign Our Brief Telling the Supreme Court to Dump DOMA

Our partners at the Center for American Progress signed onto a legal brief against DOMA. Will you support their brief by signing on, and say that you won’t stand for the unconstitutional discrimination against LGBT people?

Sign HERE to tell the Supreme Court that DOMA must go.

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You Might’ve Missed

Former Bush administration official slams top social conservative over opposition to marriage equality.

Virginia Democratic senator backs marriage equality.

Watch: the most compelling case for marriage equality in under a minute.

Another NFL player speaks out for marriage equality.

Thirteen offensive things Justice Scalia has compared homosexuality to.

Majority of Ohioans back marriage equality, want to overturn state’s 2004 ban on marriage equality.

Missouri Democratic senator backs marriage equality.

Puff pieces profiling paid marriage equality opponents plague the mainstream media.

The NRA is flooding Newtown with robocalls opposing gun violence prevention measures.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

First Lady Michelle Obama Visits the Fisher House

03/25/2013 Nativegrl77

As part of her Joining Forces initiative, First Lady Michelle Obama visited the Fisher House located at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and participate in a pre-Easter celebration with military families and children. The Fisher House program supports military families by welcoming them to stay at the House while their loved one is receiving specialized medical care.

~ Culture & History, ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

NMAAHC public programs in March and May 2013

03/25/2013 Nativegrl77

NMAAHC public programs in March and May 2013 Envisioning Emancipation: Black Americans and the End of Slavery, A Conversation between Deborah Willis and Lonnie Bunch

Monday, March 25, 2013, 7:00 pm

Lonnie Bunch, founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, will moderate a discussion with Deborah Willis, chair of the Department of Photography & Imaging at the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University, about her latest work Envisioning Emancipation: Black Americans and the End of Slavery. The publication is a collaboration with Barbara Krauthamer, professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Through rare photographs and documents, the book focuses on black enslavement, emancipation and life from 1850 to1930. Recipient of Guggenheim, Fletcher and MacArthur fellowships, Willis is a founding member of the museum’s Scholarly Advisory Committee.

Books will be available for sale and signing following the program. For more information, visit http://nmaahc.si.edu/Events/calendar or call (202) 633-0070. Admission is free and on a first come, first serve basis.

Joan Trumpauer Mulholland walking beside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

An Ordinary Hero: The True Story of Joan Mulholland, film screening and discussion

Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm

The Artisphere 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209

Joan Trumpauer Mulholland grew up in the segregated South and emerged as an activist who fought fervently for the rights of others. Attacked and beaten during the courageous Freedom Rides of 1961, Joan was imprisoned and hunted but never wavered in her beliefs. An Ordinary Hero is a moving chronicle of Mulholland’s life, containing rare images and footage from the Civil Rights Movement. Following the film will be a panel discussion featuring Mulholland, her son, Loki Mulholland, who is the writer and director of the film, and William Pretzer, Senior Curator of History at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC). Co-sponsors of the event are NMAAHC and the Arlington Public Library.

For more information, visit http://nmaahc.si.edu/Events/calendar or call (202) 633-0070. Admission is free and on a first come, first serve basis.

On Art and History: Natasha Trethewey Reads and Discusses Native Guard

Monday, May 6, 2013, 7:00 pm

National Museum of American History, Warner Bros. Theater 14^th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC First floor, enter through Constitution Ave doors Metro: Smithsonian or Federal Triangle
Natasha Trethewey, appointed the U.S. Poet Laureate in June 2012, will read from her Pulitzer Prize-winning collection of poems titled Native Guard. Trethewey gives an impressive interpretation of the Native Guard, one of the first mostly black regiments to fight in the Union Army. The Native Guard was composed mostly of former slaves who enlisted and were assigned to guard Confederate prisoners of war. According to Trethewey’s poem “Elegy for the Native Guards,” the presence of the African American soldiers has gone unrecognized. She also explores her life from the mid-1960s through the early 1980s, a time of tremendous upheaval in Mississippi. Native Guard provides a thoughtful, long view of a tumultuous century in American History. The Rising Star Fife and Drum Band led by Sharde Thomas of Sardis, Miss., will open and close the program.

Books will be available for sale and signing following the program. For more information, visit http://nmaahc.si.edu/Events/calendar. Admission is free, but reservations are suggested, call (202) 633-0070.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Radio stations offering progressive talk in Seattle

03/25/2013 Nativegrl77

Update on Progressive Radio now available in Seattle

KLAY 1180 AM: http://www.klay1180.com/

Station Manager, Bruce Bond says his station can be heard “from Seattle to Olympia,” and adds that “We have terrestrial listeners that tune in regularly and report good reception in Burien, Silverdale, Kent, Factoria and Georgetown.” The station also streams at klay1180.com.

Stephanie Miller is on KLAY 1180 AM from 9 AM – noon and Thom Hartmann is on 4 PM -7PM weekdays.

KBCS 91.3 FM http://kbcs.fm/site/PageServer/index.html

Bruce Worth the Program Manager for KBCS reports that, following five years of patience and persistence, KBCS is now broadcasting from its new location atop Cougar Mountain. At 1400 feet above sea level, the signal coverage has increased over 40% and reaches more than 2.5 million potential listeners across the Puget Sound. Their signal can now be heard as far east as Fall City, as far south as Tacoma, west to Poulsbo and the Kitsap Peninsula, and north up to Everett.

Thom Hartmann is heard weekdays from noon to 3 PM; Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now is on three times at 6 AM, 8AM and 5 PM.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Senators …

03/25/2013 Nativegrl77

By ThinkProgress War Room

10 Terrible Amendments Offered Today by Senators

The Senate has been debating the Democratic budget for the past few days. One of the quirks of Senate rules means that the amendment process on the budget is completely open, allowing senators to file and request a vote on an unlimited number of amendments. They don’t even have to say what their amendments are in advance, but many still choose to file them in advance. Since the process is so open, a rarity in the gridlocked Senate, senators often use this opportunity to file highly political message amendments. We sifted through the more than 400 amendments filed and found dozens that are terrible, ridiculous, nonsensical, damaging, or just plain crazy. Here’s a look at ten of those proposals.

BOSS IN YOUR BEDROOM: Sens. Fischer (R-NE), Cruz (R-TX), Johanns (R-NE), and Enzi (R-WY) introduced an amendment to put your boss in your bedroom by allowing them to deny you birth control coverage based on their beliefs, not yours. This is just one of numerous anti-Obamacare amendments offered by Republicans. Incidentally, the law turns three tomorrow. 42 GOP senators and 2 Democrats voted for this amendment.
NRA-FUELED CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) offered an amendment that would prevent the U.S. from signing on to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The NRA and other right-wing groups falsely claim that this is some backdoor gun grab, which led the Senate to fail to ratify the treaty last year. The NRA is currently making a full court press to kill or at least gut the treaty. Sen. Vitter (R-LA) offered a similar amendment that would prohibit the U.N. from registering or taxing Americans’ guns, something the organization obviously has no plans to do.
HOUSE GOP BUDGET: While Republicans found time to cook up hundreds of other amendments, it seems no Republican senator wanted to vote on the House GOP budget as a substitute for the Senate Democratic plan. When Democrats offered the draconian Ryan plan that ends Medicare and raises taxes on the middle class in order to slash them on the wealthy, a measly 40 GOP senators voted for the plan from their counterparts in the House. Three GOP senators, however, voted against it because it wasn’t extreme enough.
GIVEAWAY TENS OF BILLIONS TO WALL STREET BANKS: In the same so-called “reconciliation” bill that was necessary to finish passing Obamacare was a provision that stopped routing federal student loans through the big banks. Previously, the banks acted as a middleman between the federal government and borrowers, reaping billions in fees each year even though they bore no risk because the government was the one guaranteeing the loans. The banks role was eliminated in 2010 and the money was shifted to Pell grants. Earlier today, Republicans put forward an amendment to repeal all of the Obamacare bill, including the student loan reforms. This would literally take money away from students and hand it over to the Wall Street banks. 45 Republicans backed this proposal, which also was the third time this week that GOP senators forced a vote on repealing Obamacare.
OBAMAPHONE: One of the more racially-charged moments in last year’s presidential campaign came when Republican groups promoted a video of an African-American woman proclaiming her support for Obama because, she said, the government was giving out free cell phones, among other things. The Drudge Report and other right-wing media immediately dubbed this the “Obamaphone” controversy. As it turned out, the FCC’s Lifeline program offering free cell phones to low-income Americans began under President George W. Bush and is based on a Reagan-era program to provide low-income Americans with subsidized telephone service. Sen. Coburn (R-OK) offered an amendment to “reform” or, more likely, eliminate, this otherwise obscure program that is important to low-income Americans.
MITT ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN: The Democratic plan raises close to $1 TRILLION in revenue just by closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy and corporate special interests like Big Oil. Republicans wanted to replace this with revenue-neutral tax reform that used the money to pay for huge new tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations instead of using it to reduce the deficit. This is almost identical to the Romney-Ryan tax plan that raised middle class taxes and which voters soundly rejected last year. All 45 GOP senators voted for this recycled Romney plan, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) also included in this year’s House GOP budget.
KILL WIND JOBS, SEND CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY TO CHINA: Sen. Alexander (R-TN) wants to repeal the vital tax credits for wind power, just as Mitt Romney proposed last year. This would kill 37,000 jobs more or less immediately and effectively cede the clean energy industry to China and our other foreign competitors.
LEAVE THE UN: Sen. Paul (R-KY) proposed one measure to save a very small amount of money: withdraw from the United Nations.
RACE-BAITING WELFARE LIES: You may remember that Mitt Romney and other Republicans advanced the outright lie that President Obama “removed the work requirement from welfare.” This was categorically untrue, but that didn’t stop Republicans from airing millions of dollars in ads about it. In any case, the GOP campaign of distortion around the amendment has resulted in no states taking advantage of the flexibility requested by some Republican governors that the Obama administration offered to grant. Nevertheless, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) is still so concerned that he offered an amendment to address the non-existent problem of the work requirement having been removed from welfare. For good measure, he offered a second mean-spirited amendment that mandates drug testing for welfare recipients.
CREATE A PERMANENT IMMIGRANT UNDERCLASS: Sen. Sessions (R-AR), who has faced charges of racial prejudice in the past and was once denied a seat on the federal bench as a result, put forward a proposal to bar even those immigrants who receive legal status from receiving numerous tax breaks directed at the working poor. This would even prevent immigrants from receiving tax breaks that they are claiming on behalf of their American citizen children.