At DOMA Hearing, Chief Justice Suggests Gays Are Too Powerful For Equal Protection

During oral arguments this morning, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to at least entertain the argument by House Republicans that gays and lesbians are too politically powerful for constitutional protection.

Roberts suggested that gays and lesbians must be “politically powerful” because politicians are “falling all over themselves” to endorse gay marriage, according to a tweet by Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer. The brief by Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, had reasoned that gays and lesbians are winning political battles and “have the attention of lawmakers,” an absurd claim since the “power” assertion is factually inaccurate, and because such an argument would also cancel out protections for racial minorities and women.

Roberts and his fellow conservatives also expressed concern over the White House’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, with Kennedy calling it “very troubling” and Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing the Justice Department’s “new regime.”

By contrast, several of the court’s liberal justices expressed alarm over the impact of DOMA’s actual deprivation of federal marriage benefits on gays and lesbians, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the rights left for married couples after DOMA “skim milk” and questioning, “What kind of marriage is this?” Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed to evidence from a House of Representatives report that lawmakers passed DOMA with improper motives. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, repeatedly expressed a different concern with DOMA — that it impinged on state definitions of marriage.

View the original article here

Bias against Palestinians on display at hearing

By Amb. Maen Rashid Areikat - 02/06/13 04:25 PM ET

In an unfortunately predictable manner, yet another congressional hearing held on 5 February 2013 entertained biased, misleading, and inaccurate statements about what is happening in Palestine. The hearing was titled “The Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation: Threatening Peace Prospects,” and yet no Palestinian representatives were invited. It is important to delineate several matters of concern.

First, Hamas has acknowledged that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has the mandate to negotiate a final status agreement with Israel. Their only concern is that the final agreement be put to referendum.  Second, the reconciliation process is not complete. The PLO, chaired by President Mahmoud Abbas, has made it clear that any reconciliatory measures with Hamas must commit to garnering and sustaining the diplomatic efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel, bearing in mind the PLO’s previous agreements and accords with Israel. Third, reconciliation efforts have been supported by many allies of the United States in the region, including Egypt and Jordan, the only two countries that ratified and continue to hold permanent peace agreements with Israel. Finally, the Israeli leadership itself has repeatedly remarked that it cannot pursue a peace agreement with a fragmented Palestinian government.

Contrary to the statements made at the hearing, the above four points are sufficient proof of Palestinians’ commitment to reaching a just and lasting peace with Israel. The PLO has renounced violence, recognized Israel’s right to exist, and has engaged itself in a lengthy negotiation process for over two decades only to be met by Israeli breaches of signed agreements, continued violations of basic human rights, and a relentless campaign of settlement building and other facts on the ground that undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. Yet, in spite of the grim situation, the Palestinian leadership invited members of the new Knesset to have conversations with them on the political process.

This begs the question: why was a hearing held with such an alarming degree of misinformation? The answer is the absence of engagement and dialogue. Unfortunately it has become a habit of congressional hearings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to dismiss the Palestinian perspective entirely. Who benefits from such a misguided approach? It should be no surprise that dismissing the Palestinian view is a disservice to the American constituent, and runs contrary to the principles and purposes upon which the idea of “impartial” hearings is founded.

Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to visit Israeli and Palestinian leaders soon, to be followed by a visit by President Obama in the spring. While we await these visits with cautious optimism, one cannot deny that the continued dismissal of Palestinian perspective at the halls of Congress undermines the credibility of American efforts and threatens the United States’ geostrategic interest in reaching a just and lasting peace
between the Israelis and Palestinians.

We will have our differences; but that is more the reason to engage in direct and earnest dialogue. Without a comprehensive and representative outlook at the situation there can be no hope for sound policymaking. Absenting the Palestinian perspective or even using secondary or tertiary sources rather than directly using Palestinian voices defies reason. For our part, The General Delegation of the PLO to the United States is willing and ready to engage members of Congress in serious and constructive conversations in order to create a better understanding of Palestinian positions as well as the situation in our region. Only then would congressional hearings on Palestine be impartial.

Ambassador Maen Rashid Areikat Chief Representative of the General Delegation of the PLO to the U.S.

View Comments

View the original article here

Gibbs: Hagel seemed ‘unimpressive and unprepared’ for hearing

Comments begin at 3:34 mark.

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) seemed “unimpressive and unprepared” in his confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary last week.

Hagel faced a tough eight-hour grilling by the Senate Armed Service Committee on Thursday, as lawmakers pressed him over controversial past statements on Iran and Israel.

Gibbs, a close advisor to President Obama, said during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that Hagel’s performance was “disconcerting.”

“The disconcerting thing for anybody that watched it is he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that quite frankly he knew was coming,” Gibbs said.

Even as he criticized Hagel’s performance, however, Gibbs said pointed questions asked by GOP senators, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) like were “totally superfluous.”

Hagel endured his most heated exchange with McCain over the Iraq war surge, which Hagel had criticized as a senator and which McCain had backed.

“If you turned on C-Span and hadn’t watched TV in the intervening six years, you’d think we still had 150,000 troops parked in Iraq,” Gibbs said.  “The next Defense secretary is not going to deal with Iraq and the surge. This was a vanity thing for John McCain to try to prove to a former friend who disagreed with him that he was right on the surge and Chuck Hagel was wrong.”

Gibbs said he thought Hagel was correct to tell McCain “we’re going to let history judge Iraq.”

View Comments

View the original article here