Categories
Join Us At:
|
The Best of Days, The Worst of Days(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) It was a day of personal schizophrenia for me. I woke up on the west coast with news of President Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the U.S. Supreme court. My heart swelled with such pride. Over the years, I've had occasion to meet Judge Sotomayor and watched her ascent in judicial circles with such pride. Perhaps my veneration and personal belief in Judge Sotomayor come from the fact that she and I have a similar "pedigree" of sorts. We're both of Puerto Rican descent, from public housing projects in the Bronx. We both went to Princeton, she went to Yale Law School. I was only wait-listed at Yale, and opted to go to Stanford Law School instead. Over the years, I watched from afar as she broke one glass ceiling after another. And today felt like the culmination of not just one remarkable woman's career, but of the sacrifices of generations of immigrant parents who struggled to give their kids a chance at achieving the pinnacle of the American dream. "Que dios me la bendiga" — may god bless her — my grandmother would have said today on Judge Sotomayor's behalf. And grandma was always right. Then three hours later, my mood worsened. As one glass ceiling was being shattered and as America was overcoming centuries of discrimination against women and Latinos, one other ceiling was being reinforced with concrete and steel over the heads of gay and lesbian couples in California. As proud as I was to be a lawyer in the morning, I was disgusted at my profession this afternoon. How could any judge — or any lawyer— not understand what Prop. 8 was really about? What is the role of the judiciary if it is not to protect the minority from the whims of the majority? I sat in the courtroom that day when Prop. 8 was argued, as I watched judges and lawyers struggle in legal speak as they tried to rationalize a decision to take away people’s rights. Was Proposition 8 an amendment or a revision to the state constitution? The first case that granted us full civil rights was a case of first impression. This second case that took away our new-found rights wasn't a case of first impression. The people — the homophobic majority — has spoken. I guess I just have to lump my civil rights. The majority speaks. In the afternoon, I went back to the clips of Judge Sotomayor talking of her personal triumph, and hearing President Obama speak of the importance of having a Supreme Court justice speak with empathy for the powerless. While the ACLU does not officially endorse or oppose U.S. Supreme Court candidates, I have never been personally prouder of any appointment. After watching the evening clips, I asked my media office to check and see if President Obama said anything about Prop. 8 or if a written White House statement was issued to the thousands of lesbians and gays in California who were relegated to second class citizens. Hope springs eternal. The answer from my press office: "Obama has not said anything about Prop 8 today. When asked for reaction at the White House press briefing today at 3:48 p.m., Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said: 'The issues involved are ones that, ah, you know where the president stands.'" "Brilla con su ausencia," my grandmother would say when one of her 12 grandkids didn't show up for her birthday. "He shines in his absence." President Obama's empathy for lesbian and gay Californians shines in its absence today — my grandma would tell him. May Judge Sotomayor's deep empathy rub off on all Americans.
Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 40 Responses to "The Best of Days, The Worst of Days" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
May 27th, 2009 at 10:35am
THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY IS WELL AWARE OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT NETWORK SPAWNED OR EXPANDED UNDER BUSH-CHENEY..
...A POLICE STATE APPARATUS THAT CONTINUES UNDER OBAMA.
WHAT GOOD IS AN ENLIGHTENED SCOTUS NOMINEE IF A PARALLEL SYSTEM OF VIGILANTE INJUSTICE IS COVERTLY PROMOTED AND FUNDED BY FEDERAL SECURITY/MILITARY/INTEL AGENCIES...
...WHO HAVE CO-OPTED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT NATIONWIDE TO CREATE A COVERT AMERICAN GESTAPO...
...THAT IMPLANTS GPS TRACKING DEVICES ON THE VEHICLES OF INNOCENT BUT "TARGETED" U.S. CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES... AND USES MICROWAVE RADIATION "DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS" TO DEGRADE THEIR MINDS AND BODIES.
While the media is distracted by the "stories of the day," democracy is being stolen at the grassroots -- and the domestic TORTURE and gradual financial expropriation of the "unjustly targeted" continues unabated under an apparently "unaware" Team Obama.
Please read this:
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigila nte-network-terrorizes-america
OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener
May 27th, 2009 at 12:18pm
What's so good about Sotomayor when she rules that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states, but only federal government? see Maloney v. Cuomo
May 27th, 2009 at 12:55pm
If real change will happen it will be in large part because of strong women with real power.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:36pm
If I had a case going to the Supreme Court I would want it judged by the rule of law not by someone's feelings. That is certainly against the constitution.
So far I have heard her speak twice. Using racial slurs does not make me real happy. Also she has had 6 of her decisions go to the Supreme Court and so far; she has been reversed 5 times.
Usually it is not the powerless that goes to court it is the lawyers.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:05pm
May I ask a question? I worry a great deal about the lawless behavior of the executive branch. I read Scotusblog on Judge Sotomayor's opinions. They stated that she did not have any on executive power. On privacy the said she had ruled against 2 FOIA requests because fulfilling them would be burdensome to the agency. This worries me because it shows deference to governmental authority.
Are you able to share your thoughts about the FOIA rulings and anything else concerning executive power issues?
Thank you.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:43pm
The California ruling on Prop 8 has me discouraged and confused. Did they rule on the constitutionality of such bans or not?
Two other questions have arisen in my mind in the wake of the ruling. First, don't bans on gay marriage violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment? Second, does the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution provide adequate protection from a gay marriage ban being applied retroactively at the local level?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:41pm
Sorry about your "Bad" day it will be noted as one of my best. ACLU is for "truth" and I wonder what you think about the Superior Court of CA. issuing that order to release Occidental College data on Berry Soetoro as a Foreign aid student with a Fulbright Scolarship and how that would apply to the USA Constitution regarding his election to the President of the USA..
May 28th, 2009 at 10:23am
Sonia Sotomayor is a racist and an enemy of our second amendment civil right to keep and bear arms.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:25pm
I am sorry, but what is Anthony DOING about this. His self-important blogging without committing to action is just gotten tiresome. "his" press office, "his" media office - this is the ACLCU for goodness sake, not "his" private organization. It is time for Anthony to retire and we get someone in there who actually believes in action, not just talk.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:56pm
The majority of the people in California want to persecute Gays and Lesbians because it is a familiar way of treating us.Never in my 61 years have I witnessed a group of people given a civil right only to have it taken away from them.
History was made in my state of Massachusetts when the majority of state
justices realized that it is within the right of every citizen to get married.
So there you have two history making events.I can only hope that justice will come to my brothers and sisters in California.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:06pm
It appears that Obama is not in the GLBTQ camp. If he were, we would not continue to be the "bottom of the barrel" of his priorities.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:36pm
Hooray! New format is terrific! Best background for readibility is pale grey; get rid of dark backgrounds. You have humanized your content. made it interesting for more & diverse readers.
Kudos.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:42pm
"What is the role of the judiciary if it is not to protect the minority from the whims of the majority?"
Um, while that sounds good, I don't know that that is the role of the judiciary in this country. A jury is called upon to see justice done, but a judge is called upon to see the law fairly applied.
If the law is not fair, it is up to the legislature--or in the case of California--the people themselves to address the issue.
If a law is inconsistent with other laws, including that supreme law of any district: the constitution, then a judge may overturn the lesser law.
But I think your premise here is not valid, and it is a concern to me and my support of the ACLU that you should hold it.
In the case of california, the legal ruling turned upon a technicality of local constitutional law, and ruled, fairly, that the people's will should be enforced. They also ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples to retain the full rights of marriage, even if they are denied the name.
I'm not saying I like it; I hope the people of California change their minds.
But I think the legal process worked quite well in this instance, and I hope the ACLU understands that in our democracy, 'good' results are not just the desired outcome, but the fair application of justice and the impartial functioning of our legal system.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:44pm
Beautifully articulated...
May 29th, 2009 at 7:59pm
My partner cried when the announcement on Prop 8 was made. I was a gay rights activist in the '70's and '80's, so I have become almost immune to these arrows aimed at my heart. But I want to protect her and can't; I'm powerless. My vote doesn't count any more in Alabama, where I live, than it does in California. Christian Right hate must be diluted by CHRISTIAN love.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:05pm
My partner cried when the announcement on Prop 8 was made. I was a gay rights activist in the '70's and '80's, so I have become almost immune to those arrows aimed at my heart. But I want to protect her from them and can't; I'm powerless. My votge doesn't count anymore in Alabama, where I live, than it does in California. This disregard for individual rights must be diluted by love for all humankind.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:41pm
I am shocked by your use of the term "personal schizophrenia." Schizophrenia is a mental disorder due to a biological chemical imbalance. It is not a disorder of mood changes, but one of withdrawal from the real world.
An organization that purports to stand for individual rights and to be against stigmatizing individuals and groups should not be using such language. It is demeaning to those who suffer from schizophrenia and serves to further stereotype such people.
I am really ashamed to be a person who follows the ACLU today.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:45pm
This article was refreshingly honest. Also, it is good to see a photo of the ACLU PRESIDENT ROMERO. Do not be discouraged. I am 55 and 33 years ago I was just 22 and a young actor in New York working at the Glines Theater on Canal Street. In those days, I remember at "5 minutes" standing in the wings, waiting for the house lights to go off and suddenly I realized that being gay was against the law! "Can I be arrested for doing this show?!" , I thought. Too late it was to think about it then! The show had to go on, another abstract theater production about the isolating feelings on being gay in a hetero world. These political situations do not educate people about the real issues sensitive to gay rights and the world viewed as gay. More public education on the difficulties of being gay in a predominaently hetero world will eventually bring us all to mutual understanding; and it is possible to make this legal within our kind of constitution and federal system. Do not be discouraged. I moved from New York to Maine and in Maine, my having worked at the Glines, was considered extremely risque and radical, even in the liberal business of advertising in the 1990's. It was H_ll to deal with the mean attackes I got for having worked with people considered "outrageous". But now, in the 1990's the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, Maine came out in support of gay civil rights and that law was enacted. Now, in 2009, Maine just past the same sex marriage law. Maine has come a long way since I lived there in the 1990's. So do not be discouraged. I am a heterosexual and I am still fighting for my rights to be a single Mom and relocate with my job, without my child held behind and never seen again, due to the lies about a licensed counselor, on the part of a lawyer who thought I should be put in my place as a an "arrogant" working woman and the "selfish" sole custodian. It is a documented kidnapping by legal fraud and my child was denied all her rights to appear in court until she turned 18, whereby my parental rights went moot. The Maine Supreme Court took my appeal and waived the moot on my parental rights for my overaged daughter Elizabeth. But, I am still fighting to have that mandate enforced, by the MIA district court judge. It is good to see your photo too! You should keep it on the site!
May 29th, 2009 at 9:20pm
I begin to wonder if I should support an
organization whose leader supports an supreme court candidate based upon her
similar "pedigree". And when I hear ""Que dios me la bendiga" — may god bless her" I'm reminded of the previous 8 years of hell.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:23pm
Anthony, please get off this ridiculous topic.
A union of two men or two women is not marriage - whatever you think about it and whatever any law says.
Just look in the dictionary!
May 30th, 2009 at 9:03am
Interesting how the ACLU fights for the freedoms of the people but does not accept the legitimacy of a majority vote by the people.
How can you say you "Protect Freedom", but at the same time tell the majority of Californians they were wrong on Prop 8, tell them you know better, and then ask a few judges to override the choice of the people? The judges were right to stand up for democracy and you need to first define freedom before continuing your efforts against democracy.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:43am
Hello:
I completely support gay and lesbian citizens in their fight for equal right to marriage. If there is anything I can do to further their political position, please let me know.
Joan Luckmann
Luckmann.aol.com
May 30th, 2009 at 9:44am
Anthony,
As a member in Virginia, I know exactly what you mean. Our state went significantly out of its way to also amend its constitution to eliminate the rights of the LGBTs to equal protection under the law. Considering our original constitution was written by the same people who wrote the US Constitution, it was even sadder to see the day come when Virginians denied basic civil liberties to fellow citizens.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:14am
Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”.
Clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he’s the one who nominated all these kooks.
What happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.
If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
May 30th, 2009 at 11:48am
Hello, Anthony:
My husband and I were married in Oakland on 6/20/2008. I'm glad we did so during the brief window of opportunity. Yes, the California Supreme Court shamed itself last Tuesday. It was quite clear that this is what happens when a state has a succession of Republican governors who make appointments to the court.
Have you read the Dallas Principles? Check out this site: http://www.thedallasprinciples.org/The_Dallas_Principles/Home.html
The fight has just begun!
Eugene Marangoni (& Frank McNamara)
2914 Begonia Street
Union City, CA 94587
May 30th, 2009 at 2:53pm
Can anyone else out there agree in feeling both disappointed and a bit betrayed with the difference between what we beleived in our hearts that Obama stood for when we voted for him and where he stands--idly by--today?
May 30th, 2009 at 3:20pm
While I am extremely proud to see a Latina and a Puerto Rican (being a PR man) rise up to such a position of power; let's not forget the debacle of Alberto Gonzalez.
Plus Hispanics are notoriously homophobic; hopefully that upbringing did not influence her enough to realize her struggles are the same as LGTB trying to fight for their right to live a normal life.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:36pm
schizophrenia ?Try truth with cops ,That are just out to make money for goverment .I just got a ticket and I was not speeding I know for fact I looked and knew my speed .When I used the law to get the cop car cam my pull over was gone ,Problems with the cam ya right.It will be droped If I don't get another one in 90 days but wtf .Next week I'm putting a cam in my car and this will never happen again .I hate lieing cops and there god trip .They have way to much power .A radar does noting if the cop is a lier .There was so many things work with this its not even funny .I was told I could not have a jury trial after being told by the first judge I could .The cop tape should of been giving to me in 5 days 12 max by law I got it after 5 months .I was the only one in the court room the last 2 times no one else there to even hear it ,for go reason .I could go on .I have lost my trust in the law .
May 30th, 2009 at 7:40pm
If any one else has had this happen to them please email me bacause I'm going to sue .Class action would be best badboychronic_gmail.com
Please put bad cops in Subject .
May 30th, 2009 at 7:44pm
Anthony D. Romero why is your pic not on this page ?
Jun 1st, 2009 at 4:26pm
I agree with your sentiments, but as an ACLU member and mental health activist, your first sentence disturbed me. Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness and has nothing to do with split personalities. The word is misused often and when educated folks use it, I cringe. We wouldn't say, "it was a day of personal cancer." I urge you and your readers to educate yourselves about mental illnesses, and in particular, schizophrenia. Rights of those with mental illnesses is a seldom publicized but important civil rights movement in this country.
Jun 1st, 2009 at 7:00pm
ACLU=Freedom? says how can the voters be wrong? Adolf Hitler was elected by the voters and I still believe they were wrong. More to the point we have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of minorities, just because the majority is not always right. I would say when they discriminate against people they are always wrong! As a nation the majority supported slavery for 85 years as a self governing nation and I dare say they were wrong too.
Jun 3rd, 2009 at 3:34pm
While I am not strongly opposed to Sotomayor, and think that she will be a relatively good justice, I am concerned by a couple of things. First, it does not seem that she has ever made clear her position on abortion or gay rights. Hopefully this will be discussed in her confirmation hearing. Second, and less speculatively, Sotomayor joined in a ruling that allowed a school to punish a student for referring to her school's administrators, on her blog, with a vulgar term. This decision, in Doninger v. Niehoff, seems to me to violate basic principles of free speech, and therefore causes me to worry about what Sotomayor's position on free speech, especially by students, would be on the Supreme Court.
Jun 5th, 2009 at 11:10am
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that the role of the judiciary is not "to protect the minority from the whims of the majority." The role of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and the will of the people.
It seems - from what you're saying - that this special overturning only applies to a specific minority. What if the tables were turned? What if the majority of the people of California had voted against Prop. 8? Going by your standard of justice on the opinion that the judiciary's role is "to protect the minority from the whims of the majority," would the judiciary have an obligation to adhere to the wishes of a very vocal and well-funded minority who wanted Prop. 8 to pass?
I'm not a nut. I would actually just like to get an informed response from you on this questions.
As for me, I'm glad that I live in an America where free speech is protected, and everyone has an equal vote in deciding the direction of our country.
Jun 5th, 2009 at 11:40am
As a Hispanic female, it's always good to see my fellow Latino ladies moving up in the world and helping other people find inspiration.
Having said that, I think Sonia Sotomayor is better suited for giving motivational talks than being the next member of the Supreme Court.
I AM proud of my Hispanic heritage, and I AM proud that a woman can be considered for a top position in our courts, but I have enough humility to take a step back and say, "Hey, you know, based on her case history, this person is probably not the most qualified for this Supreme Court position; NOT because she's a woman, NOT because she's Hispanic, simply because she's not as qualified."
To support this nomination for Sotomayor solely based on her race and gender, amounts to reverse racism. If people in this country want Sotomayor considered as a candidate, then let her be judged by her case record as a judge, not be her personal story, which IS compelling, but is not the issue in this instance.
Jun 6th, 2009 at 7:30pm
I would imagine that the voters of California were of all colors!
Jun 7th, 2009 at 7:54am
>The California ruling on Prop 8 has me discouraged and confused. Did they rule on the constitutionality of such bans or not?
Two other questions have arisen in my mind in the wake of the ruling. First, don’t bans on gay marriage violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment? Second, does the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution provide adequate protection from a gay marriage ban being applied retroactively at the local level?
As ridiculous as the gay marriage ban is, it would be troubling to me had the court not ruled the way they did, as it would indicate that they were too willing to ignore the law. The judges had ruled that, based on the Constitution of California, gay couples could not be denied marriage rights. However, the voters put in that Constitution that marriage was between a man and a woman, so, as far as the state Constitution goes, the court's hands are tied. As for the establishment clause, an argument could be made that banning gay marriage does violate it. However, that the government recognizes the institution of marriage, as opposed to just a legal union of two people, could also be seen as a violation.
Jun 7th, 2009 at 8:09am
>It was quite clear that this is what happens when a state has a succession of Republican governors who make appointments to the court.
Really? Because this was the same court that ruled that gays have the right to marry in the first place. There was really nothing they could do. The constitution was amended, and they can't just overrule the amendment. The courts can not disregard the law to get the desired result.
Jun 7th, 2009 at 2:23pm
With respect, the U.S. Constitution was written by white men predominantly of the propertied class. For their time, the steps they took were heroic and progressive. They brought an end to hereditary monarchy and introduced the separation of church and state to end theocracy — both exceptional accomplishments for their time. The original Constitution, however, enshrined the power of white males of property, a system of rule by people of wealth. It specifically sanctioned slavery and gave no rights to women, Native Americans, or people of color.
The story that those who wrote the U.S. Constitution acted out of a passionate belief in the right of every person to life, liberty, and justice for all and gave us governing institutions that embody the highest expression of these democratic ideals is a leading example of an Empire fiction. As is characteristic of such fictions, it clouds our ability to see and thus to reach for unrealized possibilities of Earth Community well within our means and the major bulwark to progressive change.
America is ruled over by a degenerate plutocracy in an advanced stage of decay. A criminal oligarchy controls not only the corporations, but the media and government as well. Obama, like all presidents of the past century is drawn from their ranks. Obama earnings last year were in the top 1% of earnings in the US, while the Clintons are ranked in the richest 1% of American families, in fact it would be quicker to name Senators and congressmen that aren’t either millionaires, company directors, CEO’s or execs—if there are any at all.
Asking people to write to corporate controlled media, or their corporate controlled congressman to pressure the government change policy that the oligarchy (to which they belong) has installed them to do, is the epitome of naive, foolish, futility. It really is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Bringing democracy to the United States begins with acknowledging we have never had it. In the words of Frances Moore Lappe, “To save the democracy we thought we had, we must take democracy to where it’s never been.”
The previous decades of domestic prosperity were the result of intimidation, assassinations, coupes and all manner of US imperialist barbarisms abroad. "McDonalds operates because of theWhile there can be no question of the honourable intentions of the American people, the US has never been a bastion of freedom and democracy, as the criminal cabals that have headed this nation have led us to believe.
Advocating the Obama administration as a lightning rod for change is deceitful and dangerous—it will ensure that the American people and the world at large are subjected to further misery, poverty war and suppression. Obama is not, and never has been a messenger for change; he is merely a more articulate snake-oil salesman of the ruling class that should be denounced in the harshest possible manner. He is the contemporary personification of the evil that we deplore.
"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas... And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
-- Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree
Jun 7th, 2009 at 2:34pm
As for the law, it is written and implimented by the oligarchy to shore up their intersts. The same ideals they once had us revere, are the very same ones they cast aside when they present an obstacle in achieving their udishonerable agendas. Habeas Corpus and the contitution are such a hinderance to the elites, that they simply ignore them.
US law, is the best justice money can buy