ReportWire

Tag: lgbtq marriage and unions

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

    1803Marbury v. Madison
    This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

    Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

    Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.

    1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
    This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

    Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

    Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the United States.

    1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
    This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

    Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

    Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In January 2022 Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards granted a posthumous pardon to Homer Plessy. The pardon comes after the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously in November 2021 in favor of a pardon for Plessy, who died in his 60s in 1925.

    1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
    This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

    Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Board of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

    Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
    This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

    Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

    Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

    1964New York Times v. Sullivan
    This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama’s libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

    Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.

    1966Miranda v. Arizona
    The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

    Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

    Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

    1973 – Roe v. Wade
    This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

    Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

    Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.

    1974 – United States v. Nixon
    This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

    Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

    Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.

    1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
    This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

    Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

    The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.

    Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race cannot be the only factor in the admissions process.

    2012 – National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

    Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

    The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

    Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    2013 – United States v. Windsor
    This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

    Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they lived. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

    Historical significance: The court strikes down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

    2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

    Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” referred to the individual states.

    The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.

    2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

    Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. There were 37 states allowing gay marriage before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

    The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

    Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

    Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

    The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

    Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Situation: Gerald Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County for discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he was terminated for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” shortly after he began participating in a gay softball league. Two other consolidated cases were also argued on the same day.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that being fired “merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Historical Significance: Federal anti-bias law now protects people who face job loss and/or discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Situation: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018 and which greatly restricts abortion after 15 weeks, is blocked by two federal courts, holding that it is in direct violation of Supreme Court precedent legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, and that in an “unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” The court said states may “regulate abortion procedures prior to viability” so long as they do not ban abortion. “The law at issue is a ban,” the court held. 

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start…Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

    In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

    Historical Significance: The ruling overturns Roe v. Wade and there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, leaving abortion rights to be determined by states.

    1944 – Korematsu v. United States – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

    1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

    1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

    1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

    2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

    2023 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard together with Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – Colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, claims the court is not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggests that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

    2024 – Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al – The Court rules former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden says efforts to restrict transgender rights ‘close to sinful’ | CNN Politics

    Biden says efforts to restrict transgender rights ‘close to sinful’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden called efforts to restrict transgender rights in Florida “close to sinful” in an interview released Monday, suggesting federal laws should be passed to protect those rights in all states.

    “What’s going on in Florida is, as my mother would say, close to sinful. It’s just terrible what they’re doing,” Biden said during an interview with Kal Penn for “The Daily Show.”

    Biden’s comments came as an unprecedented number of measures are introduced in state legislatures this year that are seeking to restrict LGBTQ rights. The proposed bills cover a wide range of policies, including some that seek to restrict transgender people from competing on sports teams or using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

    Youth and medical care is a growing legislative focus. Florida will soon enact a measure banning gender-affirming medical care for youth, including barring doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries for patients under 18. Tennessee passed a law this month banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

    Biden didn’t specify which rules he found offensive, but said that efforts to restrict the rights of trans individuals were “cruel.”

    “It’s not like a kid wakes up one morning and says, You know, I decided I wanted to become a man or want to become a woman or I want to change. I mean, what are they thinking about here? They’re human beings. They love, they have feelings, they have inclinations,” he said.

    “It just, to me, is, I dunno, it’s cruel,” he went on.

    “And the way we do it is make sure we pass legislation like we passed on same-sex marriage. You mess with that, you’re breaking the law, and you’re going to be held accountable,” he said.

    At least 385 bills targeting LGBTQ rights and queer life have been introduced around the country through March 7, according to data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union. The number of bills has already surpassed last year’s total of 306, according to ACLU data shared with CNN.

    In the interview, Biden also affirmed his support for same-sex marriage, describing an epiphany when he was young after seeing two “well-dressed men” kissing outside an office building in Delaware.

    “I’ll never forget – I turned and looked at my dad. He said, ‘Joey, it’s simple. They love each other,’” he said.

    Despite the early view into same-sex relationships, Biden still voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 when he was a senator, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    His views on the issue evolved, and in 2012, when he was serving a vice president, Biden delivered an unexpected endorsement of same-sex marriage in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    At the end of last year, Biden signed into law landmark new federal protections for same-sex and interracial couples, capping both a personal and national evolution on an issue that’s enjoyed growing acceptance over the past decade.

    In the interview, Biden lightly ribbed Penn – an actor who also worked in the Obama White House – for putting off marriage after getting engaged to his partner five years ago.

    “Listen to your auntie and your uncle: get married. Do it now. Don’t wait,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act | CNN Politics

    The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first ran in July. It also appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Let’s start with the positive: Republicans and Democrats are coming together to protect same-sex marriage from the Supreme Court. The Respect for Marriage Act, which safeguards the right to same-sex marriage nationwide, passed the House with bipartisan support earlier this week and now awaits a Senate vote.

    The Respect for Marriage Act codifies marriages and came about amid worries among Democrats that the same conservative majority on the Supreme Court that took away the right to abortion will target same-sex marriage in the future.

    The version that overcame a filibuster in the Senate passed the Senate Tuesday. A dozen Republican senators from across the country voted with Democrats before Thanksgiving to limit debate and move toward a final vote.

    RELATED: Meet the 12 Republicans who voted to consider the Respect for Marriage Act

    It next goes to the House for approval before President Joe Biden can sign it into law.

    But there is a fair amount of fine print.

    First, the bill does not require all states to allow same-sex marriage, even though that is the current reality under the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Rather, if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell and previous state prohibitions on same-sex marriage came back into effect, the Respect for Marriage Act would require states and the federal government to respect marriages conducted in places where it is legal.

    There are religious exceptions. Republican supporters have emphasized the elements in this Senate version that protect nonprofit and religious organizations from having to provide support for same-sex marriages.

    “I will be supporting the substitute amendment because it will ensure our religious freedoms are upheld and protected, one of the bedrocks of our democracy,” said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in a statement after helping break the filibuster.

    It took months of behind-the-scenes effort to bring 10-plus Republicans on board.

    This is all academic right now. The bill is only being passed in case the now-solidly conservative Supreme Court, which has taken delight in upending precedent, were to revisit the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that created a national right to marriage for same-sex couples.

    Two of the justices who voted in favor of that ruling have been replaced by Republican-appointed conservatives, which means that if the case were heard today, there’s a real likelihood it would be decided differently.

    While Justice Samuel Alito seemed to want to wall off the abortion rights precedent upended by the Supreme Court earlier this year, CNN’s Ariane de Vogue has written about how the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could affect issues like marriage. Read her story.

    Here’s a brief history of marriage equality playing a role in prior election years:

    Today, it’s Republicans and Democrats, along with a Democratic president, working together to protect same-sex marriage from a government institution.

    During that time, public support for same-sex marriage grew from about a quarter of the public in the year the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted to 71% in Gallup polling this year.

    The issue has played a role in multiple US elections, including, arguably, the one that just took place.

    Here’s a brief history of marriage equality playing a role in prior election years:

    In 1996, Republican majorities in the House and Senate sensed a political opening after then-President Bill Clinton failed to allow gay people to openly serve in the military.

    They were also trying to get ahead of a Hawaii court decision that could have legalized same-sex marriage in that state. Fearing every state might have to recognize same-sex unions, Republicans pushed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

    It declared marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages. It also withheld federal benefits from married same-sex couples. In 2013, a part of DOMA was found to be unconstitutional.

    DOMA had broad approval. Democrats like then-Sen. Joe Biden voted for the bill. Current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and many other Democrats whose names you’d recognize, were among the 342 who voted for the bill in the House.

    Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was among the 67 members to vote “no,” along with Rep. Steve Gunderson, who at the time was the House’s only openly gay Republican.

    In 2004, placing anti-gay-marriage amendments on ballots in key states like Ohio was smart politics. It helped George W. Bush win reelection to the White House and the GOP gain seats in the US Senate.

    Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, also opposed same-sex marriage at the time.

    In 2008, even as more in his party began to publicly support marriage equality, Obama continued his opposition.

    He has more recently said and written that he always personally supported same-sex marriage rights. His campaign aide David Axelrod has written that Obama made a calculated decision to oppose gay marriage.

    “He grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote in a memoir.

    In 2012, following the lead of then-Vice President Biden, Obama officially evolved on the issue and said he now supported marriage equality. It was a big moment.

    A few years later, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide.

    “I’m fine with it,” Trump said in 2016 during an interview with “60 Minutes.”

    He’d go on to brag about being a champion for gay rights, although many LGBTQ activists would disagree.

    The politicians of the ’90s have largely evolved with the country.

    But one of the Supreme Court’s relics from the ’90s, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently questioned the 2015 marriage decision he opposed. As a result, Republicans and Democrats are coming together again, in less than a generation, to undo what they did in 1996, and try to guarantee marriage as a right for all Americans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate clears key procedural step on bill to protect same-sex marriage | CNN Politics

    Senate clears key procedural step on bill to protect same-sex marriage | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Senate on Wednesday cleared a key procedural hurdle toward historic passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, voting 62-37 to break a filibuster.

    There could be additional votes before final passage, but Wednesday’s successful test vote signals the bill is on a glide path to succeed, a remarkable turn of events given how contentious the issue of same-sex marriage was just a few years ago.

    While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

    All 50 members of the Democratic caucus voted to start debate on the bill as well as 12 Republicans.

    It’s unclear when the chamber will vote on final passage. Without an agreement to speed up passage of the bill which needs consent from all 100 senators, final passage will likely occur after the Senate returns from Thanksgiving recess.

    Still, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN he wants his chamber’s bill to pass by Thursday before senators leave for their Thanksgiving recess all next week.

    “We’re hoping that could happen,” he said.

    Earlier this week, Schumer expressed “hope” that after the vote Wednesday, “both sides can work quickly together to move this bill through the Senate and on to the president’s desk.”

    “It already passed the House earlier this year with significant 47 Republican votes and I’m optimistic we can achieve a significant result in this chamber,” he added.

    Once the bill passes the Senate, it will need to be passed again through the House before going to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. Supporters of the bill hope to pass the legislation through the House before the end of the year as Republicans appear on track to take control of the chamber in the next Congress.

    Earlier this week, the bipartisan negotiators who worked on the legislation, announced they were “confident” the bill has enough votes to pass and were hoping the bill could be put to the floor for a vote.

    The bipartisan group, which includes Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, said in a statement Monday that they “look forward to this legislation coming to the floor.”

    Lawmakers had hoped to pass the bill before leaving for recess ahead of the midterm elections, but the chamber punted on a vote until after the November elections as negotiators asked for more time to lock down support. That gamble appears to have paid off for the bill’s supporters given the 12 Republican votes to break the filibuster Wednesday.

    In a sign of how much support has grown in recent years for same-sex marriage, the bill found backing from GOP senators including those in deeply red states.

    Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming told CNN’s Manu Raju that she voted to advance the Senate’s same-sex marriage bill due to “Article 1, Section 3 of the Wyoming Constitution,” which she read to reporters and includes an anti-discrimination clause.

    “That’s why we’re called the equality state,” she added.

    Utah Sen. Mitt Romney said the “bill made sense” and “provides important religious liberty protections.”

    “While I believe in traditional marriage, Obergefell is and has been the law of the land upon which LGBTQ individuals have relied,” Romney said in a statement. “This legislation provides certainty to many LGBTQ Americans, and it signals that Congress—and I—esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.”

    This story and headline have been updated to reflect additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Candace Cameron Bure criticized by JoJo Siwa and others over ‘traditional marriage’ comment | CNN

    Candace Cameron Bure criticized by JoJo Siwa and others over ‘traditional marriage’ comment | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Months after they had a public back and forth, JoJo Siwa is voicing her disappointment with Candace Cameron Bure.

    The singer/dancer, 19, posted on her verified Instagram about Bure after the former “Full House” star talked to the Wall Street Journal about her work with the faith-based channel, Great American Family.

    When asked if the Great American Family will include LGBTQ storylines in their projects, Cameron Bure said, “I think that Great American Family will keep traditional marriage at the core.”

    Siwa identifies as queer and shared a screen grab of a headline which read, “Candace Cameron Bure’s plans for new cable channel: No gays.”

    “Honestly, I can’t believe after everything that went down just a few months ago, that she would not only create a movie with intention of excluding LGBTQIA+, but then also talk about it in the press,” Siwa wrote. “This is rude and hurtful to a whole community of people.”

    In July Siwa posted a video on TikTok that went viral in which she shared a photo of Cameron Bure as the “rudest celebrity” she had ever met, later revealing she had felt ignored by the star at an event when she was a child and tried to meet her.

    Cameron Bure responded in a video on her verified Instagram account explaining that she was “shocked” by the designation and said everything was “all good” after the pair connected and discussed it.

    Siwa wasn’t the only one upset by Cameron Bure’s recent comment.

    Actress Hilarie Burton slammed her and Bill Abbott, chief executive of Great American Media, for “bigotry.”

    “That guy and his network are disgusting,” Burton tweeted. “You too Candy. There is nothing untraditional about same-sex couples.”

    CNN has reached out to reps for Bure and Great American Media for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A White House speechwriter on writing for Obama, Biden as Kool-Aid man and being a ‘full Swiftie’ | CNN Politics

    A White House speechwriter on writing for Obama, Biden as Kool-Aid man and being a ‘full Swiftie’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The idea for Cody Keenan’s New York Times best-selling first book came from a viral tweet storm.

    It’s a genesis rich with irony for a man who rose to prominence as President Barack Obama’s chief speechwriter, toiling in a windowless West Wing office (the “speech cave,” as Obama’s wordsmiths called it) as he drafted tens of thousands of words for the 44th President.

    But the fact it took two years for Keenan to fully grasp the depth of meaning captured by the weight and stakes of a 10-day period that shaped the country underscores the reality of his job – really any job – in a White House.

    At the end of June 2015, Keenan and his team were responsible for drafting remarks on Supreme Court rulings that would eventually uphold the Affordable Care Act and establish the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples – as well as remarks if the court had ruled differently on each case.

    That was all happening as Keenan grappled with his own personal struggle – and Obama’s – to find the words to come to terms with the nationwide horror resulting from the murder of nine Black Americans attending a Bible study at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

    Keenan is an engaging and almost charmingly self-deprecating Chicago native in person and has been traveling the country on a full-throttle book tour over the course of the last several weeks. But as I read the book on a recent Air Force One trip with President Joe Biden to the West Coast, I kept thinking of things I wanted to ask him that would expand on various elements of the book.

    Full disclosure, I was covering the White House during the time period the book focuses on for Bloomberg News and knew Keenan at the time. He is unflinchingly loyal to Obama, who he continued to work for in the four years after they left the White House. He is a true-blue Democrat, even if that’s more of a backdrop of his experience than a defining feature.

    But the reason I shot him a note asking to chat was to see if he’d dive a little deeper into his writing process – both in speechwriting and as an author – and into the rich portrait he paints of what it’s like to work in a White House at the most senior level.

    A few days after giving his daughter, Gracie, the experience of her first Northwestern University football tailgate – his alma mater lost to Wisconsin by five touchdowns, which Keenan admirably acknowledged was a valuable early life lesson – we connected as I sat a couple hundred feet away from the building that he called his office for eight years.

    CNN: Part of the reason I wanted to read the book is obvious – I was covering the White House at the time, it was a tsunami of history and news and I was kind of intrigued to see it from your end. But I think the more salient thing for me is that I’m fascinated by the process, just the insight into how anyone at a high level approaches their job – there’s so much you can learn. And there’s an extraordinary amount of detail in here on exactly that. But one thing I kept wondering throughout was, man, were you just taking copious notes like 24/7 while you were here?

    Keenan: I was not, I promise, because when we first joined the White House – this is gonna sound like a joke, but it’s not – they were very adamant that any notes you take, any journals you take belongs to the National Archives and not you. So, they actually cautioned us against keeping notes.

    But one of the lucky things is within the Oval Office, I would transcribe all of my conversations with the President on my laptop, because that’s how I wrote my speeches – I would ask, and prompt, and get him going.

    So, all of our conversations in the Oval are verbatim, just because I would type it down super-fast because I needed that material for speech writing. So, I did have those.

    But the rest of it is memory – there’s a mix of emails to myself. But there was no notebook or journal or anything like that.

    CNN: As you’ve talked to people since the book has been out, what are the elements that you hear … from people who don’t understand how this place works, that they’re most surprised about? Beyond the fact that you worked in a cave.

    Keenan: A lot of people been surprised by a few things. Number one, and this is gonna make you roll your eyes, but how much we all liked each other, which I think is really rare in any company, any business, let alone a White House. We were family – I mean literally, I met and married my wife (Kristen Bartoloni, the White House research director) there.

    But also, that it’s just a slog. And I wanted to convey the struggle to do good work. Because you don’t just ride into town and do everything you said you were gonna do. It is really, really difficult. And for the 2,922 days we were there, a good night was when you could go home just feeling like you’ve moved the ball forward a little bit. Because all of those inches eventually add up to a touchdown.

    You know, the Obamacare ruling, the marriage equality ruling – those were the result of not just years of our effort, but decades of other people’s effort. Democracy is hard. That’s what I wanted to convey.

    Also, there’s still people out there who aren’t convinced that Barack Obama was an active speechwriter. He was our chief speechwriter. He was involved in every speech – you know this from being there. Writing for him was very, very difficult just because he was so good at it and expected a lot from us. And we expected a lot of ourselves we tried to get in the first draft.

    CNN: I wanted to dig in on that, because you’re very candid about the kind of “imposter syndrome” that almost seemed pervasive. The reason it struck me is one, because I think I identify with it, and I think many rational people probably would. But two, in this town where everybody acts like they know everything and often know nothing at all, you don’t usually see it laid out in such a detailed manner.

    Did it come from who you were working for and his reputation as a writer and orator? Or is that just you generally?

    Keenan: It’s mostly working for him and never really believing I earned it.

    But we all felt that way, whatever our jobs were. None of us felt like we had earned the right to be there, or just deserve to be there. We all had impostor syndrome – and I think that’s a good thing. Because that is what constantly pushed us to do our best work and prove that we deserved to be there.

    And you know, maybe this is a little unfair because I don’t actually know any of the Trump people, but I never got the sense that they felt the same way. I always got the sense they felt like they were entitled to be there and deserved to be there. And I think as a result, the country didn’t get their best effort.

    CNN: You get into it a little bit, but the process of working underneath (Obama’s first chief speechwriter Jon Favreau) to being “the guy” – what was that like? How did you become the heir apparent?

    Keenan: The great thing about Favs was for all of his fame – and he became famous on the first campaign because Obama’s speeches were different, you know Favs was the wunderkind who dated actresses and was famous. But he never acted that way, he did not have an ego. Everyone wanted to be around him, but he was a patient and generous mentor who taught me almost everything I know about speechwriting.

    The way it just kind of unfolded was when we moved into the White House, I was the junior speechwriter on the team and so I made myself a workhorse. I did like four speeches a week and just worked my butt off.

    But I drafted the Tucson eulogy (for the victims of the 2011 shooting in the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), and (White House press secretary Robert) Gibbs outed me on the plane to everybody without my knowledge. We were flying back from the eulogy and some of the press corps asked, “Who helped the President with those?” And Gibbs said it’s Cody Keenan, and then he took the … step of spelling out my name to the press corps.

    I still don’t know who asked, but obviously there’s a lot of Northwestern grads in the press corps and one of them said “proud Northwestern Wildcat.” We got back to (Joint Base) Andrews at like 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. or something, and I just slept in. I slept in till like 10 before going back to work. And I woke up to 300 emails and a bunch of missed calls. And that’s a little unusual.

    And Savannah Guthrie was calling and trying to get me on the show and I was just like “what the f— is happening?” I didn’t know at that point that Gibbs had done that and that was weird.

    Losing your anonymity is a little uncomfortable. And there were reporters calling my parents and my sister and I don’t blame them because you guys are just – the way this system works is you guys are desperate for news. But that was a little a little scary to lose your anonymity like that.

    But shortly after that, Favs named me his deputy and I moved over (from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building) to the West Wing into an office with him. That’s when I got to start working with Obama more closely. It was a flight back from LA, Favs was with him on Air Force One and he said, “Look, I’ve been with you for eight years now and I think it’s time for me to move on.”

    And Obama asked him, “Do you have anybody in mind to replace you?” And he said, “Yeah, I think it’s Cody.” Then Obama said, “I think that’s right.” It was as simple as that, but still, when he told me that when he got home, I was like, “You’ve gotta be kidding me!”

    CNN: How did that change the dynamic of your relationship with the President?

    Keenan: It’s hard to be speechwriter for somebody if you don’t spend a lot of time with them. And just the way the White House works, junior speechwriters didn’t get to spend a lot of time with him. Favs was good about making sure we got to if there was a big speech, but from then on, I was with Obama almost every single day. That’s really the best way to get into his head and be able to understand not just what he wants to say, but why. And that changed everything. I got email privileges to email him, I got walk-in privileges to the Oval and that just kind of vaulted me up the ranks, not just in title, but also as a better speechwriter for him.

    CNN: You reference “the muse” in the book – the moments when the President fully engaged on a speech you’d drafted and really elevated something in his own voice. Was that a crutch as a writer? Could you count on that if you were stuck or was that a risk you couldn’t take?

    Keenan: It was a risk and it always made me nervous when he’d say – and he didn’t say it often – but sometimes he’d say, you know, “We’ll see if the muse strikes.” And we were just like “Oh, no.” And sometimes it didn’t. But when it did, it would hit in a big way.

    Like Charleston, you know, I’m very clear about this in the book, he just kind of tore up the back half figuratively. And fortunately, the muse hit really hard. The speech that I’d spent three days agonizing over, he re-wrote in three hours and that came from a mixture of things. The muse hit for him, it was what those families did, forgiving the killer. It was his correspondence with his pen pal, Marilynne Robinson, who I didn’t know existed. And it was the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on marriage by morning and it just kind of gave him this open heart.

    But, man, there were times when I would turn in a draft and be like, God, I hope he can make this better.

    CNN: When he struck out the last two pages of the Charleston draft, I think you wrote that he just put a giant X through the pages – honestly, if an editor did that to me, I’d be ready to fight them. How do you react to that and not want to lose your mind?

    Keenan: I wasn’t ready to fight him because I knew he was right. And I knew when I turned it in, and I told him as much, that I just could not get it there. And it was his idea to use the lyrics to “Amazing Grace” not just to sing, but to build the structure to the back half of the speech.

    And again, it just sounds like Kool-Aid drinking, but this is the kind of boss he was he could have just given it back to me and said, you know, you need to do better. Or even worse, you could have just excised me from the equation. He could have given them back to Denis (McDonough, the chief of staff) or Valerie (Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser), and just said, “give this to Cody” and not talked to me at all. But the fact that he brought me in, walked me through them and told me, made me feel better and said, “Listen, we’re collaborators. You gave me what I needed to work with here.”

    I mean, just to take the little bit of time to do that makes all the difference in the world. It’s the difference between a speechwriter who loses his self-confidence forever, or one who just remains determined to keep doing better.

    CNN: Which I don’t think is necessarily the norm in terms of bosses in DC – which I guess I always had a sense of because you guys are all still so loyal to him, but this was one of the better anecdotal demonstrations of it that I’d read.

    Keenan: Yeah. It’s very rare in politics, but I think anywhere to have a boss like that. It’s just really special and makes a big difference to your team. We just had a wedding a couple of weeks ago, where two staffers got married to each other – Joe Paulson and Samantha Tubman – and Obama was there. You know, the fact that he flew across country just to attend their wedding is just to show you what kind of guy he is.

    CNN: But was there ever a time you – look, you say it didn’t bother you when he would cross out two pages or have three pages of handwritten notes because you knew he was right – but was there ever a time when you thought he was wrong?

    Keenan: It was pretty rare. But there were a couple of times, and he valued us pushing back on him. He liked it. He disdains groupthink. And it would really drive him nuts if everyone in the Oval would almost kind of nod and say I agree. I agree. Agree. He would find the person who didn’t, and he wanted to hear what that person had to say, and it didn’t necessarily mean he changed his mind, but sometimes he did.

    CNN: When did you actually know you want to write this book?

    Keenan: It’s interesting, not at the time. You know, you’re not thinking as you go through, OK, this is day six, you’re just living it with everybody else.

    And it really coalesced for me on the second anniversary of day 10 of the book, which is marriage equality and Amazing Grace and the White House lit up like a rainbow. Trump had done something that morning, who remembers what at this point. He was just pissing everybody off with an 8 a.m. tweet, and I realized it was the second anniversary of those 10 days, so I did like a mini tweet storm to kind of remind people about what happened in those 10 days … and what we were capable of and it just kind of took off.

    It was really like my first viral tweet and Esquire magazine wrote it up and that was the first time I thought that there’s a story here. I was still working for him. I worked for him for four more years and it didn’t feel right to write a book while he was paying me, so I didn’t start writing till 2021. But I started thinking about it in 2017.

    CNN: Were you pinging ideas off him at all or sending him drafts throughout? Or did you wait until it was done to show it to him?

    Keenan: I did. I told him all about it as I was thinking it through while I was still working for him. Then I left on New Year’s Eve 2020. And my wife got pregnant shortly after. Then the pandemic hit so everything kinda got put on hold. But I sent him a really early draft back in March and I took some risks. I knew that if there’s a book about him, it’s likely he’s going to read it quickly. And he got back to me within about four days.

    If you think that waiting for him to get his feedback on a speech draft is agonizing, try sending him your book. But he sent back nicer praise than he had ever sent me on speech. And he offered one edit for the book, just one, that actually really did make it better, because he just can’t help himself.

    But it was a relief to kind of get his stamp of approval, especially on the parts that I tried to be really honest about, which is what it was like to be a White speech writer writing for the first Black president I really wanted to make sure I didn’t get that wrong. And fortunately, to hear him say, “this is dead on,” was a nice thing.

    Keenan is seen on

    CNN: I was struck by that specific issue when I was reading. You’re very candid about your efforts to grapple with writing about race – particularly for the first Black president – as a White guy from the North Side of Chicago. It’s really the backdrop of the way you thread together the process of writing the Charleston speech. Was there ever a moment where you’ve felt comfortable with that dynamic, or you felt like you understood his perspective and voice so well that you weren’t going to have to grapple with that reality?

    Keenan: I think it’s related to imposter syndrome. And a lot of that actually became clear, too, after George Floyd, where we all tried to get better. And you can view yourself as being on the right side of these issues, but how do you really know if you’re actually doing injustice?

    To be a speechwriter you have to be able to write for anybody and it requires a sense of empathy and to be well read. But what does a White kid from the north side of Chicago really know about inhabiting the life of a Black man in America? There just – there are limits to the imagination. And so that’s why we’re trying to grab him before those bigger speeches and be like, “Help me with the story I’m trying to tell. Am I right? Is my take right on this or is my life experience getting in the way?”

    It helped that he was really our chief speechwriter, but he would also talk us through it and made sure that we were approaching these issues from the way he wanted us to approach them.

    CNN: Just a couple more before I have to jog over to Pebble Beach (on the White House North Lawn) and be on TV and you probably have another dozen events for your best-seller. Do you feel like you got better as a writer as the years went on?

    Keenan: Yes. You know, I look at my early stuff and I cringe. I still go back and edit some of our biggest speeches – that never goes away. I go back and edit my book, but I absolutely got better and that’s just a result of being around Jon Favreau, being around Barack Obama, being around my entire team – Ben Rhodes, Adam Frankel, Sarada (Peri) – everybody made me a better speechwriter. I’m very honest in the book, and I’m not just trying to be self-deprecating for self-deprecating’s sake. This was a hard, hard job. But I knew that by the end I was really good at it. That just doesn’t mean that you think you’re better than Barack Obama at this – you know you’re not. So, that’s what kind of always kept me on my toes and that’s why I stuck around for eight years.

    CNN: You don’t mention the current president a ton in the book, but you do mention his decision to get out in front of (President Obama) on gay marriage and I believe the reference was he was kind of like Kool-Aid man busting through the wall to announce his view – I think I remember that correctly.

    Keenan: *laughter*

    CNN: But unlike some in the administration – at least at the time – who weren’t pleased at all, you describe it in a way that seems to convey you found it somewhat endearing. And the context very much reflects of how his close friends/advisers describe how he operates – he’d had a personal experience a couple of weeks prior and just answered the question with what he was thinking.

    In that sense, how did you view him inside the White House when you were there, and how do you view him now?

    Keenan: The marriage equality thing was just Joe being Joe. I never saw – I was never like really in intense national security meetings with Biden and Obama. But I never saw Joe Biden to be calculating. He just does what he thinks is right. The people that need him are really what move him. There’s no way that Joe Biden sat there and calculated, “I’m going to come out before the President on this.” He was just with gay people and their kids and was like, “you know what, this is the right thing to do.” And as probably the highest, probably the highest-ranking Catholic in America, at least in politics, that makes a big difference. So, I love Joe Biden. He just governs with his heart, which I think is a great place for a politician to be.

    CNN: You also briefly mention Biden’s current (director of speechwriting) Vinay (Reddy) – you wrote he sent a thoughtful note to you before the Charleston speech. I’ve always had the sense that you have a similar approach to what Obama wanted, which is you’re just going to keep your distance from the folks that are in now because you dealt with plenty of people who thought they knew the best way to do things when you were there. Is that fair?

    Keenan: Absolutely. It drove me nuts whenever I saw pundits on TV saying look, here’s what Obama needs to say, here’s what Obama needs to say. We’ll figure that out. The last thing Vinay needs from me is me being out there saying, “Here’s what Joe Biden needs to say.” He knows. To be a speechwriter, it is hard to find the words sometimes, it is hard to juggle competing audiences and competing interests. Whenever Vinay has asked me for help, I have offered it, but otherwise I’m not going to jump in there.

    CNN: Last one, probably the most dangerous one: Do you feel like your reputation was bolstered or undercut by the admission that you listened to Taylor Swift’s “1989” on repeat while drafting the 2015 State of the Union address?

    Keenan: I have met people on tour who have proven it has bolstered (my reputation). I’m a full Swiftie-man now. My daughter was born to “Folklore.” That’s the album Kristen wanted playing when she was in labor. And you know what, her song “The One” puts Gracie to sleep instantly, so I will always be grateful to Taylor Swift.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A packed legislative to-do list awaits Congress when it returns to session after the midterms – and Democrats, who currently control both chambers, will face a ticking clock to enact key priorities if Republicans win back the House or manage to flip the Senate in the upcoming elections.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has predicted an “extremely busy” lame duck session – the period of time after the midterms and before a new Congress begins in January.

    “We still have much to do and many important bills to consider,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor at the end of September. “Members should be prepared for an extremely, underline extremely, busy agenda in the last two months of this Congress.”

    The jam-packed agenda for the lame-duck session includes: Funding the government to avert a shutdown before the end of the calendar year, passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the annual must-pass legislation that sets the policy agenda and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense, as well as a vote in the Senate to protect same-sex marriage and the potential consideration of other key pieces of legislation.

    Democrats are still limited in what they can achieve, however, given their narrow majorities in both chambers. With a 50-50 partisan split in the Senate, Democrats lack the votes to overcome the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold – and do not have the votes to abolish the filibuster. As a result, major priorities for liberal voters – like the passage of legislation protecting access to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade – will still remain out of reach for the party for the foreseeable future.

    Government funding is the most pressing priority that lawmakers will confront during the lame duck. The current deadline for the expiration of funding is December 16 after the House and Senate passed an extension to avert a shutdown at the end of September.

    Since the funding bill is viewed as must-pass legislation it will likely become a magnet for other priorities that lawmakers may try to tack on to ride along with it. It’s possible that further aid for Ukraine could come up as Ukraine continues to counter Russia’s invasion of the country. While that funding has bipartisan support, some conservatives are balking at the pricey contributions to Ukraine and may scrutinize more closely additional requests from the administration, a dynamic that is dividing Republicans on this key issue.

    Democrats also want more funding for pandemic response, but Republicans have pushed back on that request.

    One issue that may come up during the government funding effort is money for the Department of Justice investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    A House Democratic aide told CNN that final fiscal year 2023 funding levels have yet to be determined. Justice Department needs and resources are part of this ongoing conversation, but under the leadership of Rep. Matt Cartwright, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies, the House bill included $34 million that would allow DOJ to fund these prosecutions without reducing their efforts in other areas.

    House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro told CNN in a statement, “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House and Senate appropriations committees and passing a final 2023 spending package by the December 16th deadline.”

    Meanwhile, the Senate has begun work on the NDAA, and is expected to pass the massive piece of legislation during the lame duck. Consideration of the wide-ranging bill could spark debate and a push for amendments over a variety of topics.

    Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has called for punishing OPEC for its production cut by passing legislation that would hold foreign oil producers accountable for colluding to fix prices – and the senator has said he believes the measure can pass as an amendment to the NDAA. The legislation would clear the way for the Justice Department to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations for antitrust violations.

    Senate Democrats will also continue confirming judges to the federal bench nominated by President Joe Biden, a key priority for the party.

    A Senate vote to protect same-sex marriage is also on tap for the lame-duck session. In mid-September, the chamber punted on a vote until after the November midterm elections as negotiators asked for more time to lock down support – a move that could make it more likely the bill will ultimately pass the chamber.

    The bipartisan group of senators working on the bill said in a statement at the time, “We’ve asked Leader Schumer for additional time and we appreciate he has agreed. We are confident that when our legislation comes to the Senate floor for a vote, we will have the bipartisan support to pass the bill.” The bill would need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

    Schumer has vowed to hold a vote on the bill, but the exact timing has not yet been locked in. Democrats have pushed for the vote after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, sparking fears that the court could take aim at same-sex marriage in the future.

    The Senate could take up legislation during the lame duck in response to the January 6, 2021, attack by a mob of pro-Trump supporters attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    Over the summer, a bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election. The proposal would still need, however, to be approved by both chambers. Notably, the Senate proposal has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

    “I strongly support the modest changes that our colleagues in the working group have fleshed out after literally months of detailed discussions,” McConnell said at the end of September. “I’ll proudly support the legislation, provided that nothing more than technical changes are made to its current form.”

    If the bill passes the Senate, it would also need to clear the House, which in September, passed its own version of legislation to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election in the future by proposing changes to the Electoral Count Act.

    Passing a bill to to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks is a priority for a number of moderate House Democrats – who may continue to push for the issue to be taken up during the lame duck, though whether there will be a vote is still to be determined and other pressing must-pass items like government funding could crowd out the issue. The House did not vote on a proposal prior to the midterm elections.

    “It’s a complicated issue, as you can imagine, as a new rule for members they have to follow, and their families as I understand, so I think it deserves careful study to make sure if we do something, we do it right,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told CNN last month.

    Meanwhile, it’s not yet clear when exactly the nation will run up against the debt limit and it appears unlikely for now that Congress will act to resolve the issue during the lame-duck session, especially as other must-pass bills compete for floor time. But political battle lines are already being drawn and maneuvering is underway in Washington over the contentious and high-stakes issue.

    A group of House Democrats recently sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer calling for legislation to “permanently undo the threat posed by the debt limit” during the post-election lame-duck session. The letter, led by Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, was signed by several prominent House Democrats, including Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

    Biden on Friday gave a window into how he’s preparing for a looming political showdown over the debt ceiling, stating unequivocally that he will not relent to Republican lawmakers threatening to send the nation into default if he doesn’t meet their demands, but adding that he doesn’t support efforts from within his own party to abolish the debt limit entirely.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge who suspended abortion pill failed to disclose interviews that discussed social issues | CNN Politics

    Judge who suspended abortion pill failed to disclose interviews that discussed social issues | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The federal district judge who first suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the so-called abortion pill mifepristone failed to disclose during his Senate confirmation process two interviews on Christian talk radio where he discussed social issues such as contraception and gay rights.

    In undisclosed radio interviews, Matthew Kacsmaryk referred to being gay as “a lifestyle” and expressed concerns that new norms for “people who experience same-sex attraction” would lead to clashes with religious institutions, calling it the latest in a change in sexual norms that began with “no-fault divorce” and “permissive policies on contraception.”

    Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed federal district judge, made the unreported comments in two appearances in 2014 on Chosen Generation, a radio show that offers “a biblical constitutional worldview.” At the time, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit religious liberty advocacy group known before 2016 as the Liberty Institute, and was brought on to the radio show to discuss “the homosexual agenda” to silence churches and religious liberty, according to the show’s host.

    Federal judicial nominees are required to submit detailed paperwork to the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of their confirmation process, including copies of nearly everything they have ever written or said in public, in order for the committee to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications and personal opinions. Neither interview is listed in the paperwork Kacsmaryk provided to the Senate during his judicial nomination process, which first began in 2017.

    The radio interviews were not included in the 22 media works Kacsmaryk disclosed, which included three radio appearances and 19 written pieces.

    A spokesperson for Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN the interviews weren’t in their archived files from Kacsmaryk’s confirmation, which included all paperwork submitted for his nomination.

    In a statement sent to CNN, Kacsmaryk said he did not locate the interview when searching for media to disclose and he did not recall the interview.

    “I used the DOJ-OLP manual to run searches for all media but did not locate this interview and did not recall this event, which involved a call-in to a local radio show,” he told CNN. “After listening to the audio file supplied by CNN, I agree that the content is equivalent to the legal analysis appearing throughout my SJQ and discussed extensively during my Senate confirmation hearing. Additionally, the transcript supplied by CNN appears to track with the audio and accurately recounts my responses during the phone call—when quoted in full.”

    The Washington Post reported last week that Kacsmaryk removed his name in 2017 from a pending law review article criticizing protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions during his judicial nomination process, a highly unusual move for a judicial nominee.

    Kacsmaryk did not respond to the Post’s request for comment, but a spokesperson for his old employer First Liberty claimed Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution,” despite the final version being almost identical to the one submitted under Kacsmaryk’s name according to the Post.

    Kacsmaryk later submitted supplemental material in 2019 to the committee to reflect interviews and events he participated since in 2017, but neither of the 2014 radio interviews were included.

    Democratic senators grilled Kacsmaryk on his positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights during both his nomination hearing and in written questions in 2017.

    While Kacsmaryk worked at First Liberty, one of his colleagues, general counsel Jeff Mateer, was also nominated for a federal judgeship. But Mateer came under scrutiny in 2017 for comments unearthed during his confirmation process in which he once compared the US to Nazi Germany on Chosen Generation – the same radio program Kacsmaryk appeared on and whose interviews he did not disclose.

    Mateer’s nomination was later rescinded; Kacsmaryk was later confirmed in 2019.

    The interviews were shared by Kacsmaryk’s employer, the Liberty Institute, at the time on social media. A guest from First Liberty appeared once a week, according to the show’s radio host in the broadcast and archives available online.

    In one interview from February 2014, in response to a question on the “homosexual agenda,” Kacsmaryk expressed concerns that new social norms surrounding “same-sex marriage” and “people who experience same-sex attraction” would lead to clashes with religious institutions.

    “I just want to make very clear, people who experience a same-sex attraction are not responsible individually or solely for the atmosphere of the sexual revolution,” Kacsmaryk said. “You know it. It’s a long time coming. It came after no-fault divorce. It came after we implemented very permissive policies on contraception. The sexual revolution has gone through several phases. We just happen to be at the phase now where same sex marriages is at the fore.”

    “But through that progression or regression, I think you can see five areas where there will be a clash of absolutes between the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and the revisionist, redefined vision of marriage that you saw in last term’s Supreme Court opinions,” he said before outlining those areas as over tax exempt statuses, adoption services, federal government programs, and discrimination at universities.

    He appeared on the program to discuss the federal government’s view of same-sex marriage and opponents of it following the court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested opponents of same-sex marriage could be viewed as “hostile” enemies of the government in line with al-Qaeda, which Kacsmaryk agreed with.

    “Yeah, and I can speak from immediate firsthand experience,” he said, citing his work formerly in the Justice Department. “That is very much in vogue now in the federal government to characterize opposition to same sex marriage and related issues as irrational prejudice at best and a potential hate crime at worse,” he continued.

    “It really has infused the entire federal service top to bottom as the administration has declared that they will join this culture war, that there’s one side that is destined to win and that you’re on the wrong side of history in the federal government if you are on an opposing side,” he added.

    Kacsmaryk also appeared on the program in July 2014 to discuss an executive order signed by then-President Barack Obama that banned federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity which did not exempt faith-based groups.

    Kacsmaryk linked changes in Democrats’ views on the issue of religious freedom to the “emergence of this very powerful constituency in the LGBT community,” which he said the Obama administration made campaign promises to fulfill. Kacsmaryk said religious organizations entering into contracts with the federal government would have risk under the executive order and face a “real burden” for dissenting from “the new sexual orthodoxy” on gay rights.

    The new rules, Kacsmaryk suggested, were poorly written and didn’t differentiate between gay people who lived “celibate” lives and those who made being gay “a lifestyle,” in a discussion of how religious groups would comply with the new rules.

    “If you look at the letter that was issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, they point out that the category sexual orientation is problematic because it’s not defined,” he said. “Most Abrahamic faith traditions will draw a distinction between someone who experiences the same sex attraction but is willing to live celibate and somebody who experiences the same sex attraction and makes it a lifestyle and seeks to sexualize that lifestyle. Those are two different categories that most Abrahamic faith traditions recognize.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link