Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3383
June 26, 2013
Rachel Maddow on the TV machine all day
You've likely noticed if you've been within eye-shot of MSNBC today that Rachel has been on as a guest or part of a panel for most of the day so far. As I write this she's about to be on with Andrea Mitchell as well. Some people have asked for clips, and the encoding machine is slowly churning them out.
So far I have a bunch from the 10 a.m. hour with Chris Jansing. So we'll begin with this brief list and then when the Thomas Roberts clips come (those are fun because they include President Obama's phone call and Roberts and Christine Quinn nagging Rachel about getting married) I'll add them to the list and I'll just keep going like that. If I figure out a more technical way to build a playlist within our player I'll do that, but for now, for the sake of expediency, links. So PC users, Ctrl click to tab out a playlist:
Supreme Court: DOMA unconstitutional - In the first of two rulings on same sex marriage, the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling.
Rep. Frank: DOMA ruling a ‘major step’ - Former Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., expresses his happiness on the Defense of Marriage Act being struck down by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage legal in California - MSNBC’s Chris Jansing and a panel talk about the politics behind the Supreme Court’s decision on Prop 8.
From today with Thomas Roberts:
Obama calls Prop 8 Plaintiffs during emotional moment - Kris Perry and Sandy Stier , the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court’s case against Proposition 8 received a congratulatory phone call from President Obama, while be interviewed by MSNBC's Thomas Roberts Wednesday morning.
Sen. Gillibrand: Today is a historic day for the nation - SCOTUS Blog’s Tom Goldstein has the latest landmark ruling from the Supreme Court. And later Rachel Maddow, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY., and openly gay Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., discuss the ruling with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts.
Prop 8 plaintiffs emotional after Supreme Court ruling - Soon-to-be married Prop 8 plaintiffs Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami share their excitement about Wednesday’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8. Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who helped organizes resistance to the measure, gives his take on the ruling as well.
LBGT activists across the US celebrate DOMA’s defeat - Activists across the country are celebrating this landmark ruling for gay rights. NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn and California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom discuss the historic moment.
And here is the clip from Andrea Mitchell Reports:
Maddow: DOMA ruling 'will be a hugely practical step forward' for same-sex couples - The Supreme Court has ruled that same sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry according to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, saying the federal government can't make distinctions between couples. In addition to overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the court's 5-4 ruling on Proposition 8 opened the door to the resumption of gay marriages in California. NBC Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reports live from the Supreme Court; then MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Human Rights Campaign’s Chad Griffin join the discussion.
Antonin Scalia and his 'argle-bargle'
Associated Press
Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent (pdf) in U.S. v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, is not subtle in its anger. The conservative Supreme Court jurist refers on page 22, for example, to the "legalistic argle-bargle" the court majority uses as its rationale.
And as Paul Waldman explained, the dissent goes downhill from there.
Scalia is outraged at the majority's contention that the core purpose of DOMA was to discriminate against gay people, and this, he asserts, means that they're calling everyone who supports it a monster. "To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution," he writes.
And more: "It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race."
Yes, apparently Scalia is feeling a little defensive, so much so that he believes those who disagree with him are calling him an enemy of humanity. One gets the sense reading his dissent that he doesn't want to be seen as a bigot, just because he's on record describing homosexuality in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent as "a lifestyle" that should be seen as "immoral and destructive."
But let's also not overlook this curious argument from the beginning of his DOMA dissent:
"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. "
Really? When it's the Voting Rights Act and the Affordable Care Act on the line, Scalia doesn't hesitate to take an axe to "democratically adopted legislation," approved by the elected representatives of Americans who are able to "govern themselves." But when it's the Defense of Marriage Act, Scalia suddenly remembers his affinity for restraint?
Exactly one year ago yesterday, following some of Scalia's partisan antics, a constitutional law professor at UCLA said the conservative jurist "has finally jumped the shark." At the time, that seemed like a reasonable assessment, and yet, Scalia somehow manages to get worse.
Update: Sahil Kapur takes the next step, listing "the top 10 quotes from the staunchly conservative jurist — a mix of rage-filled metaphors and legal punches."
Why the breadth of the DOMA ruling matters
It will take some time to digest the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, but as MSNBC's Adam Serwer noted, the "likely consequences for same-sex couples who until now have been denied legal recognition by the federal government are difficult to overstate."
Families headed by married same-sex couples will now be recognized by the federal government as families. Servicemembers fighting for their country in far off lands will not have to worry about their spouses being denied benefits. The same-sex spouses of Americans who are not U.S. citizens will not be denied green cards on the basis that their marriages don't count.
But there was something that NBC News' Pete Williams said this morning that's also worth keeping in mind. For those who can't watch clips online:
"The interesting thing here is that the court has said that DOMA is unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection -- meaning that it's discriminatory. Now, the importance of that is, if the Supreme Court had struck it down on a narrower basis -- by saying for example that the federal government doesn't have the power to determine what a marriage is, that's a matter for the states -- that would have been a very narrow ruling.
"This is a very broad ruling. If the Supreme Court is saying here that the federal government can't make distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in terms of what marriages the federal government will recognize, then this is an opinion that can be used by proponents of same-sex marriage to attack laws in other states."
It can and will be used exactly that way, and for marriage-equality supporters, it suggests the DOMA ruling in U.S. v. Windsor is not only a breakthrough victory today, but it will continue to offer opportunities for further victories fairly soon.
Note, the Supreme Court had some options, even once the majority agreed to strike DOMA down. In fact, while the outcome was widely expected, many predicted a narrow ruling -- the justices would point to federalists principles, and say that if a marriage is legal at the state level, the federal government will recognize it, too.
But the majority went considerably further than this, saying that DOMA didn't just violate principles related to states' rights, but also that the law was discriminatory.
There are legal scholars who can speak to this in more detail, but it appears that every state with anti-gay laws has a real problem on its hands. Windsor didn't establish marriage equality in all 50 states, but it did hand a meaningful legal precedent to everyone challenging discriminatory state laws.
Anti-gay activists seemed apoplectic this morning, and I'm afraid I have some bad news for them: for the right, it won't get better.
Obama calls Prop. 8 plaintiffs on live television
ADDING: Here is the full, wonderfully chaotic interview.
The California couples who challenged Prop. 8 -- Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami -- were clearly delighted to be speaking about this morning's Supreme Court rulings, but their MSNBC interview was interrupted this morning. President Obama wanted to extend his personal congratulations.
Soon after, the White House issued this statement from President Obama, who can now cross off "get rid of DOMA" from his to-do list:
"I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
"This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents' marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.
"So we welcome today's decision, and I've directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.
"On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation's commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision -- which applies only to civil marriages -- changes that.
"The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free."
And then there were 13
Associated Press
The Supreme Court's decision to reject the Prop. 8 appeal on procedural grounds has one very significant, immediate effect. As of last month, 12 states and the District of Columbia embraced marriage equality, and as of this morning, California is the 13th.
The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco. [...]
The court's action, while not a sweeping ruling, sends the case back to California, where state and federal judges and the state's top officials have said same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights.
This gets a little tricky, but if I'm reading this correctly, the federal district court struck down California's anti-gay measure. There was an appeal, but state officials, including Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and state Attorney General Kamala Harris (D), refused to defend the discriminatory measure, and this morning, the Supreme Court majority scrapped the appeals court ruling on procedural grounds, which leaves the district court ruling in place.
The effect of the decision, then, will be to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California.
By some accounts, state clerks may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as early as this afternoon.
* Update: I originally said California is 12th, when in fact, it's 13th.
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
Associated Press
In a breakthrough legal victory, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. In a 5-4 ruling, the court majority said the anti-gay law is discriminatory: "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."
The decision was written by Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. More soon.
First Update: The full ruling is online here (pdf); the Scotusblog description of the case is here; and previous MaddowBlog coverage is here.
Second Update: From the ruling: DOMA is "unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."
Third Update: Pete Williams' initial read suggests this ruling is "broad" enough for marriage-equality proponents "to attack laws in other states."
Fourth Update: Some of the reach of the ruling will depend on a deeper analysis of the decision itself, but keep in mind that the end of DOMA will have significant consequences. The Defense Department, for example, ended DADT, but could not apply equal benefits to gay servicemembers because of this law. Now that it's been struck down, it's no longer an issue.
Fifth Update: It's worth clarifying that the DOMA ruling does not extend marriage equality to all 50 states, but rather, as Amy Howe explained on Scotusblog, that "same-sex couples who are legally married will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law-- with regard to, for example, income taxes and Social Security benefits."
Sixth Update: The other major Supreme Court case on gay rights was a challenge to California's Prop 8. In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts and the court majority punted on procedural grounds, saying the defendants lacked the standing needed to defend the case in court. The full ruling is online here (pdf).
Seventh Update: From Scotusblog's summary of this morning's Prop 8 ruling in Perry: "After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case."
Eighth Update: The Prop 8 ruling was 5-4, but not along traditional ideological lines. The majority included Justices Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan. An unexpected combination, to be sure.
June 24, 2013
Decryptomaddowlogical #72
President Obama can't pass laws by himself. It takes work from Congress as well to do that. And given the state of affairs with House Republicans, any action, particularly on climate change, shouldn't be expected any time soon. Under the powers of the Clean Air Act President Obama can set regulations, like controls on new power plants. He can also issue executive orders and establish a vision for what the United States should be aiming for. On the subject of climate change, you might call it his...
Need help? Need to shout out the answer without spoiling anyone else's game?
*Remember to mention the number of the puzzle you're talking about.
Links for the 6/24 TRMS
Citations for Monday night's show are listed after the jump.
US charges NSA leaker Snowden with espionage
HKSAR Government issues statement on Edward Snowden
Flight Departs for Cuba, but No Sign of Snowden
Leaker's Flight Raises Tension Between U.S. and 3 Nations
Snowden's Hong Kong exit shows Chinese displeasure over spying, lack of friends for US
Edward Snowden: Russia offers to consider asylum request
U.S. officials don't know how much secret material Snowden took
Excerpts From Snowden's Letter Requesting Asylum in Ecuador
Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance
Video: In Texas 'rape kits' debate, the sound of abortion politics
New IRS Information Shows "Progressives" Included on BOLO Screening List
Newly released (but heavily redacted) IRS BOLO list (pdf)
Justice Department letter regarding Houston polling places (pdf)
Brenan Center for Justice Analysis- If Section 5 Falls: New Voting Implications (pdf)
Supreme Court voices skepticism about Voting Rights Act
Finally! The Fisher decision in Plain English
Addressing the threat of Climate Change
Obama promises renewed effort to combat climate change
Obama's greenhouse gas plan faces court challenges
Obama to take sweeping action on climate
Obama to give long-awaited climate-change speech Tuesday
Obama to announce plan to tackle climate change
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on Leahy Amdt. No. 1183 As Modified )
Farm bill setback opens House GOP up to new attacks about ability to lead
Ahead on the 6/24 Maddow show
Tonight's guests:
Andrea Mitchell, NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and host of MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports"
Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP
And here's executive producer Bill Wolff with a look at what's cooking, which we want you to want to watch:
Monday's Mini-Report
Today's edition of quick hits:
* After expressing his "frustration and disappointment" with Hong Kong and China this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he "expects" Russian officials to note the bilateral cooperation that has existed in the recent past when it comes to extradition options for Edward Snowden.
* State is leaning in, too: "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday called on Russia to 'do the right thing' and prevent professed NSA leaker Edward Snowden from fleeing Moscow and instead return him to the United States."
* In related news, Snowden reportedly told the South China Morning Post that he became an NSA contractor specifically so that he could gain access to evidence that he later leaked. Greg Sargent talked to Glenn Greenwald about this and published a really interesting report.
* Why the New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin thinks Greenwald should be prosecuted is a mystery to me. How bizarre.
* Iraq: "Ten car-bomb explosions killed at least 39 people across the Iraqi capital on Monday, police and medical sources said."
* More on this in the morning: "Internal Revenue Service Principal Deputy Commissioner Danny Werfel said Monday that the IRS had continued to use other 'inappropriate' or 'questionable' criteria in their targeting of applicants for tax-exempt status."
* What an aggressive leak crackdown looks like: "Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions."
* Italy: "A court in Milan on Monday found former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi guilty of paying for sex with a minor and abusing his office to cover it up, handing him a seven-year jail sentence and banning him from public office for life."
* Virginia: "Federal authorities are asking Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell's associates about previously undisclosed gifts given by a campaign donor to McDonnell's wife that total tens of thousands of dollars and include money and expensive designer clothing, according to people familiar with the inquiry."
* And I don't think I've ever seen the kind of on-air misogyny on display on Sean Hannity's Fox show last week, when Bill Cunningham told Fox contributor Tamara Holder to to "know your role and shut your mouth," adding, "Are you going to cry?" Unbelievable.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
