The Supreme Court’s landmark decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act stopped a deportation hearing for a binational same-sex married couple minutes after Wednesday’s ruling. Sean and Steven Brooks faced a deportation proceeding scheduled at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, knowing that Steven Brooks, a gay Colombian man legally married to a U.S. citizen, could be sent back because the federally-sanctioned Defense of Marriage Act legally recognized only marriage between a man and a woman.

A New York City immigration judge, Barbara Nelson, immediately adjourned Brooks’ deportation hearing after reading the Supreme Court ruling, specifically section 3 of DOMA which recognized only marriages between a man and a woman and granted federal benefits to such marriages. By striking down Section 3, the Supreme Court has allowed same-sex couples to receive more than 1,000 federal benefits and entitlements linked to marriage status.

“We knew we wouldn’t have a decision until 10 a.m. and Steven’s case was at 10:30 a.m. so we had to get the decision to the court,” Lavi Soloway, the immigration lawyer representing the couple, told MSNBC. “Literally, when it was posted to the SCOTUS website, we printed it, and had our intern from our law firm run five blocks up Broadway and hand the 77-page court ruling to the judge at the immigration court.”

After being married at City Hall shortly after the state of New York legalized same-sex marriage, Sean Brooks first filed a green card petition in 2011 for his husband Steven, who came to the United States in the 1990s when his family moved from Colombia. But U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the green card petition because Sean’s marriage to his Colombian partner did not federally exist.

Sean and Steven Brooks are one of 28,500 binational same-sex couples who no longer have to fear that DOMA will separate them. Nearly 11,500 same-sex couples exist in the U.S. in which neither partner is a citizen. With comprehensive immigration reform on thin ice in the halls of Congress, approximately 267,000 LGBT-identified individuals among the adult undocumented immigrant population eagerly anticipate federal recognition.

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

td11 wrote:because it supresses minority and low-income votes who overwhelmingly vote D

Well, that's the hope, I guess. I'm just not sure it's going to work that way--and no one else does either. I believe Obama won the states where voter ID was in place by 2012. Our local NAACP chair thinks it's quite possible that voter ID will in fact motivate black people to vote at higher rates than they have in the past. And again, given that the real decline in turnout is in white voters, there's reason to suspect these efforts may backfire.

At a conference, I asked someone who looked closely at Oklahoma how often people who lacked IDs really voted, given his findings that such people tend to be very socially disconnected. He said, obviously, they vote at very low rates, but no one really knows.

this is the monkeycage answer and that's fine, but there were numerous examples of republican state legislatures trying to push through voter ID requirements that would make it more difficult for ALL people to vote, but especially younger and poorer people. i don't think you can deny that.

but yeah, since there are no studies yet that prove anything 100%, let's come back to this in 2045 or whatever

td11 wrote:seeing some happy tweets/fb posts about immigration reform passing in the senate but it's gonna be heartbreaking for them to realize it has zero chance of getting through the house. the senate vote was just 2 short of the 70 needed to bypass the house

“Who are we to say that children born in the worst of circumstances can’t lead successful lives?” Perry asked in a speech at a convention held by the National Right to Life organization. “Even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She’s the daughter of as single woman, she was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate. It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example: that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential, and that every life matters.”

Davis responded to the Houston Chronicle, saying Perry’s statement “is without dignity and tarnishes the high office he holds. They are small words that reflect a dark and negative point of view.”

Davis started working when she was 14 to help her single mother and siblings; by 19 she was divorced with a daughter of her own. Living in a trailer park and “destined to live the life that I watched my mother live,” as she put it in a 2011 video, Davis was encouraged by a co-worker to go to community college. She worked two jobs and took paralegal classes, transferred to Texas Christian University, and after being the first in her family to get a bachelor’s degree went on to graduate from Harvard Law School with honors.

Legal sources tell NBC News that the former second-highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military is now the target of a Justice Department investigation into an alleged leak of classified information about a covert U.S. cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear program.
According to legal sources, retired Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been notified that he’s under investigation for allegedly leaking information about a massive attack using a computer virus named Stuxnet on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gen. Cartwright, 63, becomes the latest alleged leaker targeted by the Obama administration, which has already prosecuted or charged eight individuals under the Espionage Act.Last year, the New York Times reported that Cartwright, a four-star general who was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 2007 to 2011, conceived and ran the cyber operation, called Olympic Games, under President Bush. President Obama ordered the cyberattacks sped up, and in 2010 an attack using the Stuxnet worm temporarily disabled 1,000 centrifuges that the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.
The Times story included details of the Olympic Games operation, including the cooperation of Israeli intelligence. The story said that President Barack Obama had ordered the attacks, which began during the Bush administration, to continue even after Stuxnet “escaped” from the Natanz nuclear plant in Iran and began to spread via the Internet. The virus was first publicly identified by a computer security company in June 2010.
The story described meetings in the White House Situation Room and was based on 18 months of interviews with “current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program.” It credited Gen. Cartwright with presenting the original idea for Stuxnet to President Bush, said the NSA had developed the Stuxnet worm in tandem with the Israelis, and said thumb drives were first used to introduce the virus into the Natanz plant in 2008.“This leak was very damaging,” said former California congresswoman Jane Harman, now a member of the Defense Policy Board. “Clearly what was going on here was a method and it should have been protected and I think it’s had devastating consequences.”
President Obama said in June 2012 that his attitude toward “these kinds of leaks” was “zero tolerance,” and that they were “criminal acts.”
According to legal sources, the original FBI probe into the Stuxnet leak focused on whether the information came from someone in the White House. By late last year, according to legal sources, FBI agents were zeroing in on Cartwright, who retired from the military in August 2011.
Cartwright did not respond to repeated requests for comment. His attorney, former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig, said only, “I have no comment.”
The White House declined to comment, as did Justice Department officials.

td11 wrote:

td11 wrote:

td11 wrote:on cue
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/us-s ... ula/nYTnw/

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22683993 ... arts-today

i can't seem to post the link, but http://www.wral.com has this story

-snip-

pacino wrote:

The poll split a question about abortions after 20 weeks — an effort to see whether talking in the context of fetal pain changed the responses of Texas voters. It didn’t: 62 percent said they would support “prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks based on the argument that a fetus can feel pain at that point,” and that same percentage said they support “prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks.” Nearly half — 49 percent in the first question and 47 percent in the second — said they would strongly support those prohibitions.

they are coming from a medical falsehood. the fetus cannot feel pain. i guess that's before it's jackin' off, too. so, i mean, the entire concept is a falsehood, and it's sad enough people fell for it. be that as it may, the same poll cited that it was about a coinflip as to whether people actually wanted more legislation. and that is in texas.

As currently structured, citizens will need to present both proof of US citizenship and identification in order to obtain an EIC. While the card itself is free, applicants would need to pay up to $22 for a birth certificate as one of the options for obtaining an EIC. [...]

However, other issues stand even more starkly. According to Katherine Cesinger, spokeswoman for TxDPS, citizens will need to apply for EICs at a TxDPS drivers license office. There is no option for a mail-in application. You must show up, in person, to obtain an EIC.

But per the Press’s calculations, there are 70 counties within Texas that do not provide such offices. From Irion and Crockett Counties in Central Texas to La Salle and Duvall Counties in South Texas, TxDPS’s website shows that nearly 30 percent of Texas counties do not provide the necessary offices at which residents will have to arrive if they want to pick up an EIC.

However, other issues stand even more starkly. According to Katherine Cesinger, spokeswoman for TxDPS, citizens will need to apply for EICs at a TxDPS drivers license office. There is no option for a mail-in application. You must show up, in person, to obtain an EIC.

A raft of other uncertainties remain. Cesinger said she didn't know how many Texans would apply for the new cards or how many would need them. "There are no projections for either of those," she said.

She also said she was unsure as to how long it would take to receive the EIC following an application, or what kind of outreach programs, if any, her department would use to educate Texans as to the new regulations.

Senate Republican leaders have sent letters warning six professional sports leagues not to provide the Obama administration any assistance in promoting Obamacare.

The letters, dated June 27, warn the chiefs of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR that partnering with the administration to publicize the benefits of the health care law would damage their reputations.

“Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of this bill, it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX).

The letters come days after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she’s spoken with the NFL about potentially partnering to let people know the benefits of the Affordable Care Act ahead of the implementation of its major components. (She said there was no deal yet.) The Republican senators rattled off a slew of conservative arguments against the law, stressing polls that signal its unpopularity with the public.

The letter also suggests the Obama administration could be threatening the pro sports leagues to extract support for Obamacare:

We have long been concerned by the Obama Administration’s record of using the threat of policy retaliation to solicit support for its policies or to silence its critics. Should the administration or its allies suggest that there will be any policy consequence for your decision not to participate in their outreach efforts, we urge you to resist any such pressure and to contact us immediately so that we may conduct appropriate oversight.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told TPM the league has “no plans” to engage on Obamacare.

“We have responded to the letters we received from members of Congress to inform them we currently have no plans to engage in this area and have had no substantive contact with the administration about PPACA’s implementation,” McCarthy said in an email.

Asked about the suggestion in the letters that the administration may be threatening or pressuring the NFL, McCarthy responded, “Not correct. [Q]uite simply, the NFL, NBA and others were contacted by the administration. We made no commitments nor discussed any substantive details with the administration.”

McConnell’s spokesman Michael Brumas, asked to elaborate on the alleged threat, told TPM the senator “is not alleging the administration has threatened or pressured the sports leagues. See the next to the last graf of the letter which says ‘Should the administration,’ etc.”

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:the IRS targeted more conservatives!:

The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in their titles also included groups whose names included the words "Progressive" and "Occupy," according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.

The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use "key word" shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.

But the practice appeared to go much farther than that. One such "be on the lookout" list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama's health care law, and applications that dealt "with disputed territories in the Middle East."

so, it's not a political controversy, and never was. it's a process issue, one i'm not even sure is much of a problem since the exemption itself is crappy.

Groups involved more generally in carrying out the Affordable Care Act were also sent to the I.R.S. for “secondary screening.”

And “occupied territory advocacy” seemed subject to the most scrutiny of all.

“Applications may be inflammatory, advocate a one-sided point of view, and promotional materials may signify propaganda,” according to instructions with a lookout list.

The inspector general report that fueled the IRS tea party targeting scandal is "fundamentally flawed" because it failed to include details that progressive groups were also flagged for extra attention, a senior House Democrat said late Monday.

Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, is demanding answers from Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George about whether it investigated the use of search terms aimed at liberal organizations in the same manner as it probed the agency's oversight of groups that used terms such as "tea party" or "patriot" in their application for a tax exemption.

"The American public expects competent, impartial, unbiased, and non-political treatment from the IRS," Levin wrote. "That same standard is also applicable to you and your organization. Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way."

boy, i wonder how he forgot about those parts

We'll see what comes out tomorrow at the hearing, but groups with progressive in the title were still granted exemptions while the tea party groups were not for huge stretches of time. It could be they were terms added to lists later or flagged but processed more quickly. Based on outcomes, it's clear there was a different process for some right leaning groups compared to others.

The acting head of the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday that evidence so far shows only conservative groups underwent extra scrutiny cited by an inspector general's disclosure of the agency's targeting of applications for tax exempt status.

An initial report on the IRS targeting scandal this week by Daniel Werfel, the IRS principal deputy commissioner, led to the disclosure that IRS workers flagged both liberal and conservative groups when assessing their eligibility for the tax break available to social welfare organizations.

IRS screeners used conservative-themed criteria such as "tea party" on "Be on the Lookout" or BOLO lists to determine if groups underwent further review for political activity that would make them ineligible, according to Werfel and the inspector general who first revealed the targeting.

Another category of the BOLO lists also had liberal-themed criteria including "progressives," but that category didn't set off the automatic extra scrutiny for political activity faced by conservative groups, according to a letter to the panel this week by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George.

Under tough questioning Thursday at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Werfel acknowledged that the different BOLO categories meant liberal groups avoided the extra scrutiny cited by the inspector general that included processing delays and extensive questions perceived by conservatives as political intimidation.

Werfel repeatedly cautioned that his internal review was incomplete, and that additional information from continuing investigations by the FBI, the inspector general and congressional committees was needed to reach definitive conclusions.
He noted that the 80 groups that have waited more than 120 days for a final decision on their applications for a tax break included a diverse range of political leanings.
"I didn't want to leave the committee with the impression that we're not seeing diversity of political labels across the spectrum," Werfel said of the IRS targeting. "What I'm suggesting is more analysis -- significant more analysis -- is needed before we reach conclusions about what that means in terms of an IRS failure or an IRS issue."

At the heart of the matter is what kind of organization can qualify for tax-exempt status. Regulations limit such status to groups primarily involved in social welfare activities, while political groups are considered ineligible.
Confusion over defining what constitutes political activity versus social welfare activity contributed to the targeting by the IRS, Werfel said.
An IRS statement Monday said the "safe-harbor" option for self-certification would apply to groups that "certify they devote 60% or more of both their spending and time on activities that promote social welfare."
"At the same time, they must certify that political campaign intervention involves 40% or less of both their spending and time," the statement said. Applicants meeting those thresholds would get approval within two weeks of seeking self-certification, it said.

About 5 million stops have been made during the past decade. Eighty-seven percent of those stopped in the last two years were black or Hispanic. Those groups comprise 54 percent of the city population. Bloomberg says that comparison isn't appropriate. The racial breakdown of those stopped is "not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murder. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little," he said Friday on "The John Gambling Show." More than 90 percent of suspects in killings in the last two years were described as black or Hispanic, according to city officials. "The cops' job is to stop (people in) the groups fitting the description. It's society's job to make sure that no one group is disproportionately represented as potential perpetrators," Bloomberg said earlier in the show.