SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Gay Marriage

Day one audio of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on the issue of gay marriage.  On of the main arguments of petitioners who are against gay marriage is that it is not "in the best interest of children".

Some of their arguments are hilarious with roaring laughter from the gallery.

I still want to know if anyone is going to address the scientific definition of sex.  Is it phenotypical or genotypical?

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 26 March 2013. 

Facts of the Case 

In 2000, the citizens of California passed Proposition 22, which affirmed a legal understanding that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the California Constitution required the term “marriage” to include the union of same-sex couples and invalidated Proposition 22. Later in 2008, California citizens passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized by California.”

The respondents, a gay couple and a lesbian couple, sued the state officials responsible for the enforcement of California’s marriage laws and claimed that Proposition 8 violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law. When the state officials originally named in the suit informed the district court that they could not defend Proposition 8, the petitioners, official proponents of the measure, intervened to defend it. The district court held that Proposition 8 violated the Constitution, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Question:

Do the petitioners have standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue this case?

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state of California from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

  Hollingsworth v. Perry - Oral Argument

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Spanish Speech In Judiciary On "English Only" Bill

Touché: Congressman speaks in Spanish at hearing for “English-only” bill

A House committee held a hearing Thursday morning on a Republican bill that declares English the official language of the United States. Said hearing quickly devolved into a political sideshow.

The legislation would mandate the federal government to carry out business in English and erase a Clinton-era requirement to provide translators for non-English speakers who use social assistance programs. Opponents say that English is already the de facto language in the U.S. and that immigrants are required to learn English to become citizens. They also argue that the bill would make government less accessible non-English speakers.

The problem, though, is that the bill has virtually no chance of passing Congress.

So, Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, decided to make light of the hearing by delivering his opening statement against the legislation in Spanish — albeit broken.

“Gracias, Señor Presidente,” the Michigan congressman began his statement addressing the chairman of the hearing, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) Conyers continued for several minutes, reading from prepared remarks.

“Hoy en día, los inmigrantes de Asia o América Latina son los objetivos de la demonización y la discriminación,” he said. “Un día, nuestro país mirará hacia atrás a este período con vergüenza y arrepentimiento.”

(Translation: Today, immigrants from Asia or Latin America are the targets of demonization and discrimination. One day, our nation will again look back on this period with shame and regret.)

The length of the statement clearly made other lawmakers in the room uncomfortable:

Elise Foley@elisefoley

Conyers' remarks in Spanish are pretty long, which is hilarious. Franks is checking his phone.

2 Aug 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

At the conclusion of his statement, an exasperated Franks remarked: “My wife certainly would have understood his statement … I don’t,” adding that Conyers’ action underscored the need for the bill.

Franks also quipped that Conyers should read his statement in Yiddish, French, and Vietnamese to satisfy the constituents of New York City Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D), who referenced those communities while speaking before Conyers.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said he appreciated those the hearing who did not “villify” or “mock” its proceedings.

“I looked through the audience and I saw a lot of smiles and thumbs up, and I understand that,” Forbes said of the audience reaction during Conyers’ statement. The GOP lawmaker said that he had the same reaction when he hears English at NATO hearings overseas.

Nadler and other Democrats suggested that the bill could prevent non-English speakers from casting ballots. But Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) the sponsor of the law, denied that was the case, saying that it does not target language in the Voting Rights Act. In the past, King and his fellow Republicans have tried to erase language in the Voting Rights Act that required bilingual ballots in certain jurisdictions.
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Statement in Spanish on HR 997, August 2, 2012 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Chairman John Conyers,Jr. U.S. Judiciary Report on Michigan's Emergency Manager Law

U.S. Judiciary Chairman
John Conyers, Jr.

This is the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff Report, under the Chairmanship of U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr.,  on the legal implications of Michigan’s Emergency Manager law. The Report represents the first comprehensive legal analysis of the Emergency Managers law since its adoption. Foremost among the Report’s detailed findings is the conclusion, based on expert testimony (including preeminent academic expert Professor Kenneth Klee) and legal precedent that the Emergency Manager law is unconstitutional because it violates the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Report also identifies other serious legal and management issues The Report also contains several recommendations, including amending the law; collaborative actions by local, state and federal authorities; and increased federal oversight of the law.


Democracy For Sale: Subverting Voting Rights, Collective Bargaining and Accountability Under Michigan's Eme...