The President and his DoD have had far more power to determine the shape and implementation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy than they’ve ever admitted. The law in fact directs the DoD not to discharge a given person if their dismissal will harm the armed forces.

It is odd for an Atheist to be defending religious freedom. I have a very negative opinion of all religion, but I have a strong, well, faith, for lack of a better word in the idea that everyone should be allowed to practice or not as they choose. Neither I nor anyone else should be the arbiter of what others find comfort or direction or confidence in. We can argue about the basis of it, we can argue about the outcomes but in this nation, we all have the right to have our religious freedoms.

As the outbreak of Islamophobia has grown so has the hysteria from the Right on this issue. In Murfreesboro TN, where the construction site of an Islamic center was the victim of suspected arson, the Wingers have really lost their minds. Last week they were in court arguing for a judge to issue an injunction saying the zoning commission was wrong to allow the building of the Center. Their primary argument? That Islam is not a religion, but a political movement. From the Tennessean:

Mosque opponents say that Islam is not a real religion. Instead, they argued in a Rutherford County courthouse last week that the world’s second largest faith, with its 1.6 billion followers, is actually a political movement.

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law. Joe Brandon Jr., a Smyrna attorney representing a group of mosque opponents, argued that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. He said the Rutherford County Planning Commission erred on May 24 when it approved the mosque.
Brandon wants Chancellor Robert Corlew of the 16th Judicial District to issue an injunction stopping the mosque.

“Shariah law is pure sedition,” said Brandon in his opening statement Monday.

Noted Conservative Hack Jonah Goldberg posted a little article tearing into the idea that the Supreme Court is the place where we define what is and is not constitutional. He is defending the new radical Republican talking point that all legislation should have a constitutional justification attached to it. This is the Tenther’s (folks who think that the powers of the Federal Government are completely enumerated in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment gives all other powers to the states individually) favorite meme.

They would use this thinking to end the Federal minimum wage, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. All the big Tea Party faves have this idea, with Joe Miller, Sharon Angle and Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell really leading the charge.

This idea is nuts on the surface but it is packed full of nutty goodness as you get deeper as well. The whole push for “constitutional fealty” by the Right is a ruse and always has been. The reason that they want to return to so called original intent it so wipe out two centuries of case law that does not suit their radical agenda.

Extrajudicial Killing an Obama administration policy.

I will fight targeted assassinations even if the President is a Democrat.

Depending on what study and what definitional criteria one wants to use the number of LGTB citizens is between 4% and 20%. It does not matter at all to me what this number is as I have had gay and lesbian family members, close (best) friends and acquaintances all my life. They were never “my lesbian friend” or “my gay cousin” they were just the people in my life and that they were family or a good friend has always been a hell of a lot more important than who they liked to frolic under the sheets with.

Still the fact of their sexuality was always an issue. Even if I didn’t care, the rest of the world seemed to and this made them have to lead their lives differently for fear of being attacked or just legally discriminated against. It still breaks my heart on a daily basis to see good people who just want to live their lives like every other citizen having to hide or downplay what and who they are because of the irrational prejudice against them.

"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

Yesterday Judge Vaughn Walker brought down a decision that goes a long way (but not all the way) to addressing one of starkest bits of inequality, namely the denial by popular vote of the right of California gay citizens to marry. The ruling is only the first step as the intent of the lawyers filing it has always been to get to the Supreme Court of the United States and get a firm decision that all such bans are unconstitutional.

Documentary filmmakers and journalists may breathe a partial sigh of relief today as the Court of Appeals has issued a largely positive order in the case of documentary filmmaker Joe Berlinger. Attorney Michael C. Donaldson filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Writers Guild of America, East, as well as 22 other industry organizations and individuals, who saw an earlier court order for Berlinger to turn over footage he filmed making CRUDE, The Real Price of Oil as a grave threat to the future of investigative documentaries.

If the past is any guide, a lot will be said but no real insights will emerge from the Kagan nomination hearings.

Yesterday was a bad day for the First Amendment. The Roberts Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the material support law was, under the strict scrutiny test, constitutional. At issue was whether human rights groups can provide educational services to groups designated as terrorist without being in legal danger themselves. The High Court found that there was sufficient State interest in this area to limit free speech protections and limit them severely.

The Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR) were part of the legal team that brought the suit. They argued that the definitions of “material support” were overly broad and vague. Some of the words at issue were “expert advice”, “training”, “service” and personnel”. These words can cover a lot of situations that have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with bringing terrorist groups into the political process and ending their terrorist activities.

"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

A diary on which no one has written their outrage about

A Supreme Court decision on Monday stated that federal official could hold people who are considered “sexually dangerous” indefinitely. The idea of keeping sexually dangerous people off the streets is not a bad one until you think of the enforcement mechanisms. Who gets to decide who is sexually dangerous and who is it? Aren’t these the same people who go to work with politicians who themselves have committed sex crimes?