An amici brief from DC and other territories and states questions the federal government's position that you can discriminate against states so long as you meet rational basis:
There are others who know even more directly how offensively ahistorical this is, but, suffice it to say, this is complete bullshit: There was an entire infrastructure of laws passed and policies implemented stigmatizing people with AIDS — some of which still exist!
"For more than 20 years, people living with HIV or AIDS needed look no further than the United States' front door for a reminder of the stigma associated with their disease." abcnews.go.com/Politics/unite…
"The FDA initially banned gay and bisexual men from ever giving blood in 1983, then revised the lifetime ban in 2015 to a year's sexual abstinence." nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-ou…
My latest for @MSNBC looks at the Pentagon’s investigation into the August drone strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians, including 7 children, and what their conclusions say about how our military thinks about drone warfare: msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
“It is a horrifying wake-up call that comes as no surprise to those who have followed the advent and expansion of drone warfare. But, as with all recurring horrors, there are moments that prompt more attention than others — and sometimes even change.” msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
In the column, I discuss problems with the investigation, with the initial review of the strike (and the review of that review), and — ultimately — with the attack itself. msnbc.com/opinion/americ…
Merkley: “I have carefully considered Mayor Emanuel’s record … and I have reached the decision that I cannot support his nomination to serve as a U.S. Ambassador.”
Merkley’s statement comes as Emanuel’s nomination is set to be considered at today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meeting: foreign.senate.gov/hearings/busin…
So: Who else? How many? And how many GOP votes is he going to get? (At least one Republican said Rahm had his support during his confirmation hearing.)
When the Chief Justice posits that people would refer to your proposed outcome as "that crazy Supreme Court decision" IN THE MIDST OF arguments in your case, things probably aren't going well for you.
From today's very interesting First Amendment/censure/public bodies arguments in Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
Here's Kagan, following up in agreement with Roberts and questioning whether the respondent's position — arguing that the First Amendment limits his censure by a board on which he sits — works: