Last Tuesday's other big story--alongside news of President Obama's announcement of Sonia Sotomayor to fill an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy--was the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold the legality of Proposition 8, a referendum narrowly passed by voters last November to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, even while ensuring the continued validity of the 18,000 or so same-sex marriage licenses issued in the six months prior to Election Day.
Needless to say, the court's 6-1 decision to affirm the right of voters to amend the state constitution to deny rather than expand rights is disappointing and troublesome. It now appears that, unless voters reverse their actions in a future statewide referendum, the only chance that Californian same-sex couples (as well as such couples in the dozens of other states with constitutional amendments banning marriage equality) will have to be granted equal rights is a successful challenge of the state law in federal court.
Indeed, within 24 hours of the court's ruling, such a lawsuit was filed on behalf of two California same-sex couples by the unlikeliest of bedfellows: attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against each other in the infamous 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively decided the outcome of that year's presidential election (and sealed the fates of hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the globe... but I digress). While I agree with the spirit in which this motion was filed, like many who look forward to a day when marriage equality is practiced nationwide and recognized at the federal level, I worry that this lawsuit may be greatly mistimed. Messrs. Olson and Boies seek to emulate the landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967 which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage; however, it is worth noting that the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court hardly resembles the Warren court of the civil rights movement's hey-day. In fact, it is entirely possible that a failure at the U.S. Supreme Court level will devastate the movement for equal rights and set it back at least a generation in large swaths of the country.
The debate within the LGBT rights community regarding the best tactics going forward--continuing to advocate for equal rights at the state and local levels while waiting for a more friendly Supreme Court versus filing lawsuits now in federal court--is likely to continue for some time. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, as I applaud Olson, Boies and their clients for confronting the matter head-on but also worry about the long-term consequences of failure. I suppose that I can only hope that they use their courtroom talents to the fullest and get it right the first time.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
And the winner of US Supreme Court Idol 2009 is...
Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama named the federal appeals judge as his pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court in a ceremony held this morning at the White House. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will become the first Hispanic and only the third female Supreme Court justice in US history.
Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.
That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.
I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.
Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.
That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.
I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
We'd almost forgotten the feeling...
Roger Federer defeated Rafael Nadal in straight sets, 6-4, 6-4, in today's final of the Masters 1000 event in Madrid, thereby winning his first title since his hometown tournament in Basel, Switzerland last October and beating Nadal on clay for just the second time. Granted, Nadal was almost certainly not in top gear, having won his last three tournaments and barely surviving a draining four-hour contest against Novak Djokovic in yesterday's semifinal. Still, a win is a win, especially against Nadal, on clay and in Spain. I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping this is a sign of the level of play we can expect at Roland Garros at the end of the month.
Some great highlights from today's final:
Some great highlights from today's final:
Monday, May 11, 2009
Comedian-in-Chief
President Obama was on his A-game at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday night:
Part 1
Part 2
Meanwhile, comedienne Wanda Sykes peppered her routine with a few, erm, risqué lines, but overall it was good for a few laughs:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
Meanwhile, comedienne Wanda Sykes peppered her routine with a few, erm, risqué lines, but overall it was good for a few laughs:
Part 1
Part 2
Sunday, May 10, 2009
On Mother's Day
If you're like me, you've probably, on more than a few occasions, given your mother a hard time--not because of any deep-seeded malice or resentment, but simply because that is the nature of relationships between mothers and their offspring. She'll call at the most inopportune times, ask seemingly inane questions about your daily routine and insist on babying you even if you've been legally eligible to live on your own for five-plus years. And still, you know that underneath it all, this is precisely why you love her.
My mom has been there literally since before day one, and has worked so hard every day thereafter, often sacrificing luxuries for herself, to provide for her family and thereby set a path for mine and my brother's success. For that, I am eternally grateful.
For all the complaining I do about having not yet landed that dream job out on the east coast, I can say with total sincerity that it is a joy to be home with Mom on Mother's Day for the first time since my senior year of high school. Here's hoping it's the first of another long string of such holidays together.
A very happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.
My mom has been there literally since before day one, and has worked so hard every day thereafter, often sacrificing luxuries for herself, to provide for her family and thereby set a path for mine and my brother's success. For that, I am eternally grateful.
For all the complaining I do about having not yet landed that dream job out on the east coast, I can say with total sincerity that it is a joy to be home with Mom on Mother's Day for the first time since my senior year of high school. Here's hoping it's the first of another long string of such holidays together.
A very happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Fed up
Being from the great city that is Chicago, I am more than familiar with the concept of the loyal yet continually disappointed sports fan. The Bears' Super Bowl drought is nearing the quarter-century mark; the Bulls are less than a shadow of the Jordan-led dream team that spoiled us with six national championships back in the 1990s (although this season's performance, ended yesterday with a hard-fought conclusion to a scintillating first-round playoff series with the defending champion Boston Celtics, provides some hope for the future); and of course, our Cubbies, the most lovable of losers (man I hate that cliché) are 101 years removed from their last World Series victory.
That having been established, those of you who know me know that I readily admit to being, at best, a fair-weather fan when it comes to those team sports that dominate the psyche of many Americans. My true passion lies with the sport of tennis. An avid follower of the game since age eleven, I love to play and immediately became a devoted follower of Pete Sampras. After his fairy tale career capping win at the 2002 U.S. Open, I thought I'd be hard pressed to find another player whose game and attitude could so capture my imagination, whose approach to tennis was so direct and whose playing style made it look so ridiculously easy. And then along came Roger Federer.
Simply put, Roger is Pete with a much more complete repertoire. I could elaborate on the fundamental soundness of every stroke in his arsenal or his deceptively deft footwork. I could sing praises to his unnatural ability to keep his eye on the ball at every single moment--even as his racket makes contact--and his perfectly calm facial expressions compared to the contortions all other top players exhibit while toiling on court. He is, in many ways, the perfect player, and up until a couple years ago, he proved it with his results.
How times have changed. Through 2007, even a modestly attentive tennis fan was shocked each time Roger lost a match, save maybe for those encounters with Rafael Nadal on clay. In the months since, however, there has been a shift almost completely in the opposite direction--it is now a pleasant surprise when he wins even the least prestigious of tournaments.
It is clear that this troublesome trend started in early 2008, when he lost his Australian Open title to Novak Djokovic, only to reveal several weeks later that he had in fact been suffering from a moderate case of mononucleosis. Fine. But even after he claimed to have been given a clean bill of health, the losses continued to mount, against his top rivals and ATP journeymen alike. Alarm bells truly started to sound when he lost his most beloved Wimbledon crown--he had won the title five years running--to top rival Nadal. It was, by all accounts, a devastating blow that helped ensure Rafa's takeover of the number one spot later that summer. In fact, the only large bright spot for Roger in all of 2008 (in singles, anyway--he did manage a very impressive gold-medal effort in doubles at the Beijing Olympics with countryman Stanislas Wawrinka) came at the U.S. Open, where, seemingly out of nowhere, he summoned his old dominance and romped to a thirteenth major title. Eight months later, though, that remains his largest recent accomplishment, and the losses sadly have continued to pile up.
I am not so much disappointed that he is losing. All great champions hit rough patches, and given what Roger has achieved already at age 27, it is understandable that the pace at which he adds to his trophy cabinet would decline. What bothers me much more is how he is losing. In several of his recent losses, especially those to top 4 players Djokovic and Andy Murray (who combined now account for four of his six losses this year, with Nadal beating him in the Australian Open final and Wawrinka winning against him for the first time after an admittedly half-hearted effort in Monte Carlo), he has actually played brilliantly, even like the Roger of 2006... for a set, anyway. He might start off well in the second set as well, but then inexplicably commences a barrage of the ugliest unforced errors that at times rival those of the average club player. He then inevitably loses his confidence and his drive to find a second wind, and by the time the match is over, I cannot help but be thankful that the torture session has ended. It is as if he puts himself in position to go for the kill, and then succumbs to an overwhelming sensation of doubt that paralyzes his genius. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it can be quite scary to witness.
Roger insists that he does not need a coach to guide him at this stage in his career. That may have been an acceptable argument when he was winning two or three Slams and four Masters 1000 events every year, but now it comes across as arrogant and reeks of denial. Results do not lie. Roger faces increasingly insurmountable mental battles with himself every time he walks on the court against these guys, and with each loss his confidence takes another hit. Now that he has just gotten married and has a baby on the way, it appears likely, if history is any predictor, that his game will simply continue to slide.
I have to admit, I nodded in agreement after reading the following comment on his Web site (triggered by his most recent woeful loss to Djokovic on clay in Rome):
"Tired of watching you lose -- get your head straight -- nothing wrong with your game that a clear head won't fix -- get a coach and a sports psych and get back on track -- you are not a quitter and that is what I saw today! Shame on you Roger -- if your love and passion for the game is gone then retire -- otherwise stop being so stubborn -- what you resist persists -- and your stubbornness is a sign of resistance -- you want to beat Nadal? you want to be #1 again? then get your head fixed. Losing to Djokovic is a joke -- but until you get your head on straight -- the joke is on you."
He needs to change his outlook, be it through a coach, a sports psychologist, or sheer inner determination to win. But change he must, and until he acquiesces, he will continue to waste the potential of these last prime years of his career. And if wasting his potential is satisfactory for him, then I agree: he may as well retire and save us all the emotional torment of watching him tarnish his legacy.
That having been established, those of you who know me know that I readily admit to being, at best, a fair-weather fan when it comes to those team sports that dominate the psyche of many Americans. My true passion lies with the sport of tennis. An avid follower of the game since age eleven, I love to play and immediately became a devoted follower of Pete Sampras. After his fairy tale career capping win at the 2002 U.S. Open, I thought I'd be hard pressed to find another player whose game and attitude could so capture my imagination, whose approach to tennis was so direct and whose playing style made it look so ridiculously easy. And then along came Roger Federer.
Simply put, Roger is Pete with a much more complete repertoire. I could elaborate on the fundamental soundness of every stroke in his arsenal or his deceptively deft footwork. I could sing praises to his unnatural ability to keep his eye on the ball at every single moment--even as his racket makes contact--and his perfectly calm facial expressions compared to the contortions all other top players exhibit while toiling on court. He is, in many ways, the perfect player, and up until a couple years ago, he proved it with his results.
How times have changed. Through 2007, even a modestly attentive tennis fan was shocked each time Roger lost a match, save maybe for those encounters with Rafael Nadal on clay. In the months since, however, there has been a shift almost completely in the opposite direction--it is now a pleasant surprise when he wins even the least prestigious of tournaments.
It is clear that this troublesome trend started in early 2008, when he lost his Australian Open title to Novak Djokovic, only to reveal several weeks later that he had in fact been suffering from a moderate case of mononucleosis. Fine. But even after he claimed to have been given a clean bill of health, the losses continued to mount, against his top rivals and ATP journeymen alike. Alarm bells truly started to sound when he lost his most beloved Wimbledon crown--he had won the title five years running--to top rival Nadal. It was, by all accounts, a devastating blow that helped ensure Rafa's takeover of the number one spot later that summer. In fact, the only large bright spot for Roger in all of 2008 (in singles, anyway--he did manage a very impressive gold-medal effort in doubles at the Beijing Olympics with countryman Stanislas Wawrinka) came at the U.S. Open, where, seemingly out of nowhere, he summoned his old dominance and romped to a thirteenth major title. Eight months later, though, that remains his largest recent accomplishment, and the losses sadly have continued to pile up.
I am not so much disappointed that he is losing. All great champions hit rough patches, and given what Roger has achieved already at age 27, it is understandable that the pace at which he adds to his trophy cabinet would decline. What bothers me much more is how he is losing. In several of his recent losses, especially those to top 4 players Djokovic and Andy Murray (who combined now account for four of his six losses this year, with Nadal beating him in the Australian Open final and Wawrinka winning against him for the first time after an admittedly half-hearted effort in Monte Carlo), he has actually played brilliantly, even like the Roger of 2006... for a set, anyway. He might start off well in the second set as well, but then inexplicably commences a barrage of the ugliest unforced errors that at times rival those of the average club player. He then inevitably loses his confidence and his drive to find a second wind, and by the time the match is over, I cannot help but be thankful that the torture session has ended. It is as if he puts himself in position to go for the kill, and then succumbs to an overwhelming sensation of doubt that paralyzes his genius. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it can be quite scary to witness.
Roger insists that he does not need a coach to guide him at this stage in his career. That may have been an acceptable argument when he was winning two or three Slams and four Masters 1000 events every year, but now it comes across as arrogant and reeks of denial. Results do not lie. Roger faces increasingly insurmountable mental battles with himself every time he walks on the court against these guys, and with each loss his confidence takes another hit. Now that he has just gotten married and has a baby on the way, it appears likely, if history is any predictor, that his game will simply continue to slide.
I have to admit, I nodded in agreement after reading the following comment on his Web site (triggered by his most recent woeful loss to Djokovic on clay in Rome):
"Tired of watching you lose -- get your head straight -- nothing wrong with your game that a clear head won't fix -- get a coach and a sports psych and get back on track -- you are not a quitter and that is what I saw today! Shame on you Roger -- if your love and passion for the game is gone then retire -- otherwise stop being so stubborn -- what you resist persists -- and your stubbornness is a sign of resistance -- you want to beat Nadal? you want to be #1 again? then get your head fixed. Losing to Djokovic is a joke -- but until you get your head on straight -- the joke is on you."
He needs to change his outlook, be it through a coach, a sports psychologist, or sheer inner determination to win. But change he must, and until he acquiesces, he will continue to waste the potential of these last prime years of his career. And if wasting his potential is satisfactory for him, then I agree: he may as well retire and save us all the emotional torment of watching him tarnish his legacy.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
So long Souter
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter revealed yesterday his intention to retire after nearly two decades on the nation's highest bench at the end of the current session in June. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, Souter disappointed many hard-line conservatives over the years as it became apparent in numerous Court decisions that he was, well, not one of them. In cases involving such hot-button issues as abortion rights, school prayer and affirmative action, Souter repeatedly sided with the more progressive wing of the Court. Having enjoyed his job but despised the city in which he worked, he now looks forward to a quiet retirement alone in his beloved New Hampshire.
There was widespread speculation that one or two justices would retire soon, although most of the attention was focused on 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's oldest justices. Thus, Souter's announcement comes as a bit of a surprise. Nevertheless, it adds to the long laundry list of responsibilities already assigned to President Obama--resolving the economic and financial crises, handling two wars, monitoring the oh-my-god-run-for-your-lives-it's-a-killer-pandemic-oh-wait-maybe-it's-not-so-bad swine flu situation, etc.--the task of naming someone to America's highest court.
Conventional wisdom says he will choose a woman (perhaps even Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States) to mitigate the shame of having just one female justice. I certainly think that will be the case. Beyond that, though, it really is anyone's guess. Some minority groups have started to actively lobby the White House to name a woman of color to the Supreme Court, which would be a first. Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is starting to pressure the President to name a Hispanic to the Court, another first. Regardless of whom Obama chooses, though, the new justice is not likely to change the political ideological balance (for lack of a better term) of the Court. Still, these decisions are always surrounded by excitement and intrigue because each justice--conservative, moderate or liberal--brings a unique personality and background to the bench. I personally find it fascinating to observe how each justice views his or her role on the Court and how each approaches his or her duty to interpret the law and the Constitution of the United States. For me, these occasions in Washington are right up there with presidential inaugurations--sometimes significantly better.
I have complete confidence that the President will tap a supremely qualified individual to replace Justice Souter, and with the Democrats in the Senate all but assured of having 60 seats by the time the confirmation vote takes place, he should have no trouble getting his nominee seated. Let me know if anyone wants to start a pool on potential nominees.
There was widespread speculation that one or two justices would retire soon, although most of the attention was focused on 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's oldest justices. Thus, Souter's announcement comes as a bit of a surprise. Nevertheless, it adds to the long laundry list of responsibilities already assigned to President Obama--resolving the economic and financial crises, handling two wars, monitoring the oh-my-god-run-for-your-lives-it's-a-killer-pandemic-oh-wait-maybe-it's-not-so-bad swine flu situation, etc.--the task of naming someone to America's highest court.
Conventional wisdom says he will choose a woman (perhaps even Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States) to mitigate the shame of having just one female justice. I certainly think that will be the case. Beyond that, though, it really is anyone's guess. Some minority groups have started to actively lobby the White House to name a woman of color to the Supreme Court, which would be a first. Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is starting to pressure the President to name a Hispanic to the Court, another first. Regardless of whom Obama chooses, though, the new justice is not likely to change the political ideological balance (for lack of a better term) of the Court. Still, these decisions are always surrounded by excitement and intrigue because each justice--conservative, moderate or liberal--brings a unique personality and background to the bench. I personally find it fascinating to observe how each justice views his or her role on the Court and how each approaches his or her duty to interpret the law and the Constitution of the United States. For me, these occasions in Washington are right up there with presidential inaugurations--sometimes significantly better.
I have complete confidence that the President will tap a supremely qualified individual to replace Justice Souter, and with the Democrats in the Senate all but assured of having 60 seats by the time the confirmation vote takes place, he should have no trouble getting his nominee seated. Let me know if anyone wants to start a pool on potential nominees.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
