Bob Schwartz

Category: Media

March 26, 2013

The Briefs on Marriage Equality

Amicus Brief
Today begins two days (March 26 and 27) of arguments before the Supreme Court on two related cases about marriage equality. One concerns Proposition 8, California’s voter-passed initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

The question presented on appeal in that case is this:

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The other case concerns the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents extension of various federal benefits to same-sex couples.

The question presented on appeal in that case is this:

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It similarly defines the term “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State

It is usual in important cases to have non-parties submit position papers to the Court, known as amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs. The more significant or contested the controversy, the greater the number of individuals and organizations who want to offer their views—legal, social and otherwise—to help the Court decide. These briefs may be of various value to the Court, but they are all offered in friendship. These friends are often giving a bit of unsolicited advice, as friends do.

Whatever their value, these briefs are fascinating reading. Not unexpectedly, the number of amicus briefs in these cases is extraordinary: 96 in the Proposition 8 case, 80 in the DOMA case.

We will not be able to watch these historic arguments live, or even listen to them live. For reasons surpassing all understanding (something about tradition or about dignity or about lawyers—or even Justices—showboating for the media), cameras are not permitted in the U.S. Supreme Court. With all due respect—lawyers are bound to say that, since the First Amendment will not protect us from punishment for bringing disrepute on our judicial biggers and betters—there are probably plenty of calendars in and around the Supreme Court to indicate the year and century (2013, 21st).

Even if we are stuck only getting reports from the front line, there is something to do in the meantime. In fact, even after we do get the transcripts and audio of the arguments (remember, no cameras, ever), we can read all of the briefs in the case. There are the briefs from the parties to the cases and there are the 176 briefs from helpful friends. These friends include, among many of the prominent, famous and infamous, 50 U.S. Senators and 172 U.S. House members.

You can find the Proposition 8 briefs online

Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al.

You can find the DOMA briefs online

United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.

In case you have decided not to dip a toe into the amicus waters, following is a list of all the briefs. But please do give it a try. Some of it will be a tough legal slog for non-lawyers, so you might skip those parts. But some will be essential historical, political, social and cultural analysis and commentary. Whether or not you agree with all these “friends”, you will come away with an informed view of all the positions, from the most solid to the wildest.

Browse the list of briefs below. It might be educational and fun. And if you do read a few of them, you might have even more fun. Maybe even legal fun. Yes, there is such a thing. Just ask the Justices.

Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. (Proposition 8)

Merit Briefs

  • Brief for Petitioners, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al
  • Brief for Respondents, Kristin M. Perry
  • Brief for Respondent, City and County of San Francisco
  • Reply Brief for the Petitioner, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al

Amicus Briefs

  • Brief for the American Civil Rights Union in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal
  • Brief for the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Association for Marriage And Family Therapy, the National Association of Social Workers and its California Chapter, and the California Psychological Association in Support of Affirmance (Addressing the Merits)
  • Brief for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Hollingsworth and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (Addressing The Merits) (Also Filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Catholics for the Common Good and the Marriage Law Project in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Petitioner
  • Brief for the Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Declaration Alliance, Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, English First, and Protect Marriage Maryland PAC in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for the Coalition of African American Pastors USA, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, the Frederick Doublass Foundation, Inc., and Numerous Law Professors in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal
  • Brief for David Boyle in Support of Petitioners, on the Non-Jurisdictional Issues
  • Brief for Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in Support of Petitioners in Support of Reversal
  • Brief for the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal or Vacatur
  • Brief for Equality California in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the Family Research Council in Support of Petitioners Addressing the Merits and
  • Supporting Reversal
  • Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Petitioner
  • Brief for GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality (Gay And Lesbian Medical Association) Concerning the Immutability of Sexual Orientation in Support of Affirmance (Addressing the Merits)
  • Brief for David Benkof, Robert Oscar Lopez, and Doug Mainwaring in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal
  • Brief for Helen M. Alvaré in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Supporting Reversal (Addressing the Merits) (Also Filed in 12-307
  • Brief for the High Impact Leadership Coalition in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for International Jurists and Academics in Support of Petitioner Hollingsworth and Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing The Merits And Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Leon R. Kass, Harvey C. Mansfield and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief of Liberty Counsel, Inc. and Campaign for Children and Families in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for the Lighted Candle Society in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Matthew B. O’Brien in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives Addressing The Merits and Supporting Reversal (Also Filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Minnesota For Marriage in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for National Association of Evangelicals; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America; and Truth In Action Ministries in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Patrick Henry College in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D. in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal
  • Brief for Scholars of History and Related Disciplines in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for the States of Indiana, Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin in Support of the Petitioners (Addressing the Merits)
  • Brief for Social Science Professors in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for the State Of Michigan in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for Thirty-Seven Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint in Support of Petitioners
  • Brief for the Thomas More Law Center and Chuck Storey, Imperial County Clerk, in Support of Petitioners (Addressing the Merits)
  • Brief for United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal
  • Brief for Utah Pride Center, Campaign for Southern Equality, Equality Federation and Twenty-Five State-Wide Equality Organizations (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Catholic Answers, Christian Legal Society, and Catholic Vote Education Fund in Support of Petitioner Hollingsworth and Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group and Supporting Reversal (Addressing the Merits) (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Dr. Paul Mchugh in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advocacy Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (Also Filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Liberty, Life and Law Foundation and North Carolina Values Coalition in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation, Ward Connerly, Ron Unz, Glynn Custred, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in Support of Neither Party
  • Brief for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Concerned Women for America in Support of Reversal (Addressing the Merits)
  • Brief for Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for American Anthropological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, California, and Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, M.D., in Support of Respondents and Affirmance, Addressing California Proposition 8’s Stigmatizing Effects
  • Brief for Adoption and Child Welfare Advocates in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the Northern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Law Professors Concerned with Representative Democracy in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for American Companies in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Oranizations and Change To Win in Support of Respondents and Suggesting Affirmance
  • Brief for the American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., American Ethical Union, the Center for Inquiry, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, and Society for Humanistic Judaism, in Support of Respondents (Addressing the Merits)
  • Brief for the American Jewish Committee in Support of the Individual Respondents on the Merits (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for American Sociological Association in Support of Respondent Kristin M. Perry and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Also Filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Anti-Defamation League Et Al. in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Et Al., in Support of Respondent
  • Brief for Beverly Hills Bar Association, et al., in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the State of California, et al in Support of Respondents and Affirmance
  • Brief for California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Law Professors Concerned With Representative Democracy in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for California Council of Churches, et-al in Support of Respondents and Urging Affirmance
  • Brief for the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for California Professors of Family Law in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Columbia Law School Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic and the Society of American Law Teachers in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Arthur Miller in Support Of Plaintiffs-Respondents Urging Affirmance
  • Brief for Dr. Maria Nieto in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Edward D. Stein, Joanna L. Grossman, Kerry Abrams, Holning Lau, Katharine B. Silbaugh and 32 Other Professors of Family Law and Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Family Equality Council; Colage; Our Family Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network; the Center on Children and Families; the Child Rights Project; and Sarah Gogin in Support of Respondents Perry, Stier, Katami, Zarrillo, City and County of San Francisco, and Edith Schlain Windsor, in her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Addressing The Merits And Supporting Affirmance (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Garden State Equality in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Gary J. Gates in Support of Respondents (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, Sarah H. Cleveland, Laurence R. Helfer, and Ryan Goodman in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Hon. Judith S. Kaye (Ret.), Profs. Stephen Gillers, Charles G. Geyh, and James J. Alfini, and Mark I. Harrison in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic in Support of Respondents (On The Merits)
  • Brief for International Human Rights Advocates in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Jonathan Wallace, Meri Wallace and Duncan Pflaster in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Kenneth B. Mehlman in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Bar Associations and Public Interest and Legal Service Organizations in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Marriage Equality USA in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for National Center for Lesbian Rights in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the National Organization for Women Foundation and the Feminist Majority Foundation in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for National Women’s Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars of Sexual Orientation and Gender Law, and Women’s Legal Groups in Support of Respondents (On The Merits)
  • Brief for the Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Political Science Professors in Support of Respondents and Affirmance Addressing Political Power of Gay Men and Lesbians
  • Brief for Rev. Rick Yramategui, Rev. Herb Schmidt, and Rev. Darrell W. Yeaney in Support of Respondents’ Position on the Merits
  • Brief for the Southern Poverty Law Center in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the State of California in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies in Support of Respondents Kristin M. Perry, Et Al., and City and County of San Francisco, Urging Affirmance
  • Brief for the United States in Support of the Respondents
  • Brief for Walter Dellinger in Support of Respondents on the Issue of Standing
  • Brief for William N. Eskridge Jr., Rebecca L. Brown, Daniel A. Farber, and Andrew Koppelman in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund on the Issue of the Special Interest of Women as a Gender in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, Ash Bhagwat, Lee Bollinger, Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael C. Dorf, Lee Epstein, Barry Friedman, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Lawrence Lessig, William Marshall, Frank Michelman, Jane S. Schacter, Suzanna Sherry, Geoffrey R. Stone, David Strauss, Laurence Tribe, And William Van Alstyne Addressing The Merits And Supporting Affirmance (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Matthew B. O’Brien in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (also filed in 12-307)
  • Brief for Westboro Baptist Church in Support of Neither Party Suggesting Reversal

United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al. (DOMA)

Merit Briefs

  • Brief for Petitioner United States (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Petitioner United States (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Respondent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Respondent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Court-Appointed Amica Curiae (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Reply Brief for Court-Appointed Amica Curiae (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Reply Brief On Jurisdiction for Respondent The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Of The U.S. House of Representatives
  • Reply Brief on the Merits for Respondent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives
  • Reply Brief for Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Reply Brief for the United States (on the Jurisdictional Questions)

Amicus Briefs

  • In Support of Petitioner United States and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for 172 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for 278 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Change to Win, and the National Education Association in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for the American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., American Ethical Union, the Center for Inquiry, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, and Society for Humanistic Judaism in Support of Respondents (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the American Jewish Committee in Support of Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the California Medical Association, the National Association of Social Workers And its New York City and State Chapters, And the New York State Psychological Association in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for American Sociological Association in Support of Respondent Kristin M. Perry and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Also Filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for the Anti-Defamation League in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Bishops of the Episcopal Church in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington and the District Of Columbia; the Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Manhattan Conference of the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the Rabbinical Assembly; the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College; Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld of Shaarey Tphiloh; the Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association; United Church of Christ; the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Affirmation; Covenant Network of Presbyterians; Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns; Methodist Federation for Social Action; More Light Presbyterians; Presbyterian Welcome; Reconciling Ministries Network; Reconciling Works: Lutherans for Full Participation; and Religious Institute, Inc. in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for the Center for Fair Administration of Taxes (CFAT) in Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Petitioner United States (On the Jurisdictional Questions)
  • Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, Ash Bhagwat, Lee Bollinger, Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael C. Dorf, Lee Epstein, Barry Friedman, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Lawrence Lessig, William Marshall, Frank Michelman, Jane S. Schacter, Suzanna Sherry, Geoffrey R. Stone, David Strauss, Laurence Tribe, and William Van Alstyne in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Dr. Donna E. Shalala, Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, Togo D. West Jr., Kenneth S. Apfel, Sheldon S. Cohen, Rudy F. Deleon, Jamie S. Gorelick, Michael J. Graetz, Dr. John J. Hamre, Benjamin W. Heineman Jr., Kathryn O. Higgins, Constance Berry Newman, and Harriet S. Rabb in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for the Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality California, Equal Rights Washington, One Iowa, Equality Maryland, Vermont Freedom to Marry, Massequality, New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition and Equality Maine in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Family Equality Council; Colage; Our Family Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network; the Center on Children and Families; the Child Rights Project; and Sarah Gogin in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)(Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Family Law Professors and the American Academy Of Matrimonial Lawyers in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Federalism Scholars in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for Former Federal Election Commission Officials in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Former Federal Intelligence Officer in Support of Petitioner United States and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Former Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle, Christopher J. Dodd, and Alan K. Simpson on the Merits in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Former Senior Justice Department Officials and Former Counsels to the President in Support of Petitioner United States (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality Concerning the Immutability of Sexual Orientation in Support of Affirmance (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Gary J. Gates in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. in Support of Petitioner Unite States and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Historians, American Historical Society, et al. in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the Honorable John K. Olson in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for the Honorable John K. Olson in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Honorable Lawrence J. Korb, Radm. Thomas F. Atkin, Bg. Roosevelt Barfield, Dr. Coit D. Blacker, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Richard Clarke, Hon. William Cohen, Cdr. Beth Coye, Hon. Russell D. Feingold, Bg. Evelyn Foote, Ltg. Robert G. Gard, Jr., et al. in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Institute for Justice in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Los Angeles County Bar Association and Armed Forces Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for Family and Child Welfare Law Professors in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Bar Associations and Public Interest and Legal Service Organizations in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for National Women’s Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars of Sexual Orientation and Gender Law, and Women’s Legal Groups in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for New York, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia, in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for OutServe-SLDN Inc. in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the Partnership for New York City in Support of Respondent Windsor and Affirmance of the Second Circuit (on the Merits)
  • Brief for Political Science Professors in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Professors Nan D. Hunter, Suzanne B. Goldberg, Kathryn Abrams, Katherine M. Franke, Burt Neuborne, and Angela P. Harris Addressing The Merits in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor
  • Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders (Sage), the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the American Society on Aging, the National Hispanic Council on Aging, the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies in Support of Petitioner United States of America and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor

 

  • In Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
  • Brief for the American Civil Rights Union in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for the Beverly Lahaye Institute and the National Legal Foundation In Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Catholic Answers, Christian Legal Society, and Catholic Vote Education Fund in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also Filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, et al., in Support of Respondent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Fdn., U.S. Justice Fdn., Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Fdn., The Lincoln Institute, Public Advocate of the U.S., Declaration Alliance, Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, English First, English First Fdn., CLDEF, Protect Marriage MD PAC, Delegate Bob Marshall, and Senator Dick Black in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Jurisdictional Question)
  • Brief for Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Public Advocate of the U.S., Declaration Alliance, Western Center for Journalism, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, English First, Protect Marriage Maryland PAC, Delegate Bob Marshall, and Senator Dick Black in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Concerned Women for America in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for David Boyle in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Dovid Z. Schwartz in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
  • Brief for Dr. Paul McHugh in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advocacy Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for the Family Research Council in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
  • Brief for Helen M. Alvaré in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also Filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Indiana and 16 Other States in Support of Respondent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for International Jurists and Academics in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Law Professors in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Liberty Counsel in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Liberty, Life and Law Foundation and North Carolina Values Coalition in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Manhattan Declaration in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Matthew B. O’Brien in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)(Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for National Association of Evangelicals; the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; the Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America; and Truth in Action Ministries in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for National Organization for Marriage in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Social Science Professors in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits) (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for United States Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Saxby Chambliss, Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Mike Crapo, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelbe and Roger Wicker in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (On the Merits)
  • Brief for Utah Pride Center, Campaign for Southern Equality, Equality Federation and Twenty-Five State-Wide Equality Organizations (Also filed in 12-144)
  • Brief for Westboro Baptist Church in Support of Neither Party Suggesting Reversal (On the Merits)
Leave a comment
March 14, 2013

The Saints Francis

St. Francis of Assisi
Right now, there are millions of words being written and spoken about who Pope Francis is and what kind of Pope he will be. Read and listen with care and a bit of skepticism, knowing that some (but not all) have an agenda or a bit of rosy vision, and knowing that almost all of the “experts” got this papal selection wrong. The fact is that predictions are all we have at the moment, but they will fade in the shadow of what the Pope actually does or doesn’t do and accomplish.

Instead or in addition, spend some time with the saints, particularly the various Saints Francis. Even for us non-Catholics and non-Christians, the saints are an enormously interesting, educational and in some cases enlightening phenomenon. If you don’t have some appreciation for the saints, whether or not you believe the intrinsic or underlying theology, you cannot understand the Catholic Church. Besides that, in the world of religion, not just Catholicism, the lives of the saints are just plain entertaining and their teachings often edifying and inspiring.

Here is the list of Saint Francis variations, taken from the SPQN site, a go-to location for summary saint information and references:

Francis Gil de Frederich
Francis Isidore Gagelin
Francis Jaccard
Francis Jerome
Francis Johnson
Francis Man
Francis Mary Paul Libermann
Francis Page
Francis Palau y Quer
Francis Patrizzi
Francis Pontillo
Francis Possenti
Francis Regis Clet
Francis Rogaczewski
Francis Seelos
Francis Solano
Francis Solanus
Francis Trung Von Tran
Francis Webb
Francis Xavier
Francis Xavier Bianchi
Francis Xavier Can Nguyen
Francis Xavier Mau
Francis Xavier Seelos
Francis de Capillas
Francis de Geronimo
Francis de Hieronymo
Francis de Montmorency Laval
Francis de Sales
Francis di Girolamo
Francis of Assisi
Francis of Girolamo
Francis of Nagasaki
Francis of Paola
Francis of Saint Michael
Francis of Sales
Francis, Caius
Francis, Gaius
Francisca Aviat
Francisca de Ambrosia
Francisca Salesia
Francisca Salesia Aviat
Francisco Castells Brenuy
Francisco Ferro, Ambrosio
Francisco José López-Caamaño García-Pérez
Francisco Marto
Francisco of the Child Jesus
Francisco Palau y Quer
Francisco Pascual Sánchez
Francisco Shoyemon
Franciscus de Hieronymo

The most-discussed and obvious of the lives behind Cardinal Bergoglio’s groundbreaking choice of name (he is the first Pope Francis) is Francis of Assisi. His turning from a worldly life to a mission of simplicity, service, peace and, of course, living with nature led to his founding of one of the Church’s most significant orders (the Franciscans) and indirectly to the founding of another by his star student (the Poor Clares). He is also a patron saint of dozens of occupations, causes and places, including

against dying alone
against fire
animal welfare societies
animals
birds
ecologists
ecology
environment
environmentalism
environmentalists
families
lace makers
lace workers
merchants
needle workers
peace
tapestry workers
zoos
Italy
Colorado
Ahuacatlán, Mexico
Assisi, Italy
Freising, Germany
Massa, Italy
Nambe Indian Pueblo
Quibdo, Choco, Colombia
San Pawl il-Bahar, Malta
Sante Fe, New Mexico
Sorbo, Italy
Denver, Colorado, archdiocese of
Kottapuram, India, diocese of
Lancaster, England, diocese of
Metuchen, New Jersey, diocese of
Salina, Kansas, diocese of
San Francisco, California, archdiocese of
Sante Fe, New Mexico, archdiocese of
Viana, Angola, diocese of

But he is not the only Saint Francis with a substantial presence in the Church. Saint Francis de Sales, for example, is the namesake of schools worldwide, founder of his own order (the Salesians), and in 1923 was named patron saint of writers and journalists (and presumably bloggers) by Pope Pius XI.

However you are celebrating the upcoming St. Patrick’s Day—if you are—you might start your study of the saints with him.  But don’t stop there. Take this opportunity of a new Pope to learn about the Saints Francis, from the big names to the lesser known but still worthy ones. You’ll find it a special experience, no matter what your spiritual perspective, and maybe much more fun and useful than listening to the earnest babble of certain media talking heads.

1 Comment
January 30, 2013

If We Could See the Children of Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook School
Early in the Iraq War, President Bush tried to block taking pictures of the arrival of the coffins of fallen soldiers at Dover Air Force Base. The proposal was couched as a gesture of respect to the families, but the real point was to shield citizens from the ultimate cost of war.

There are different opinions on the impact of viewing carnage, fictional and real. Does constant exposure immunize us from taking violence seriously? Would we pursue wars so readily, or at least try to better distinguish the necessary from the chosen, if we were bombarded by those images? If we saw footage of the early days of the camps in real time, would we have allowed the Holocaust to proceed?

The images of the children killed at Sandy Hook School in Newtown are blocked from us. This choice is almost beyond argument. We have heard the reaction of those who did witness the aftermath, and even those who have participated in war said that scene was worse. We are protecting the dignity of those lives unlived and respecting the immeasurable grief of the families. Our imaginations are already enough to rend our hearts.

And so instead we have pictures of those children as they are remembered, beautiful angels, joy and potential, and we have the testimony and imploring of their parents. But somehow, this doesn’t seem to be quite enough to stop abstract arguments about the essential value of the Second Amendment, how it must continue unconditioned even by sensible restrictions that meet moral, practical and constitutional muster. First they come for my AR-15, this line goes, and next the deer and the police will be hunting me.

There is a way to end this argument, though for good reasons we will not do it. If we ever get to see the killing field at Sandy Hook, there will be little more talk of a free trade in assault weapons and big ammunition clips. There may be talk, but it will be silenced by a new and more powerful outrage. The NRA might try to keep repeating a mantra that is already falling on more deaf ears, and some of their political operatives will follow. But the vast majority of Americans will move from just saying the right thing to a pollster to demanding that the right thing be done. Now.

If we could, as we won’t, see the children.

1 Comment
January 7, 2013

Adorable Animals Instead of Politicians

John Boehner - Golden Retriever Puppies
It’s a hard life for a political junkie. Not because politics is difficult to find these days. To the contrary, it is everywhere, all the time. If politics is the drug, there are dealers literally giving it away—begging you to take it—at millions of media storefronts. It’s like Amsterdam, where women are on display behind glass and drugs flow like water—except that it’s all free.

The problem isn’t supply. The problem is that once you’re hooked, after a while you no longer get the thrill you once did. In fact, you often feel pretty bad. But by that time, it’s too late.

Last year was the best and the worst of times for political junkies. Not only was it an election year; it was an election year like none other. Talking heads couldn’t stop talking and we couldn’t stop listening and retorting. But it didn’t make us feel good. Whether we liked the outcome of the elections or not, we felt icky, cynical, pessimistic. Maybe, we hoped, we could get a break, enjoy some spiritual renewal as we celebrated somebody’s—anybody’s—savior being born, and could start a new year clean.

No such luck. Politically, the year ended at a low point, and with the new year, the chances of climbing out of the gutter seem slim. If political junkies could only distance themselves from these shenanigans (a great word Joe Biden used last week), maybe we could clear our heads a little.

Unfortunately, with so many serious issues at stake, staying away seems unlikely. Instead, here is a radical solution that might just help.

Every time a politician is mentioned or shown, imagine an adorable animal. Nothing fierce, nothing threatening, nothing ugly. Something unbearably cute and irresistible, guaranteed to bring a smile, however fleeting, to your face. (Note: If you think that the politician mentioned is adorable, cute and irresistible, no substitution is necessary.)

This is loosely based on various cognitive therapies, but the truth is that there is no real science behind it. On the other hand, there is nothing to lose either. If you’re addicted to politics, very little is going to lift you up right now. Any way you look at it, there are too many politicians and not enough adorable animals. This is just a small step to redress the balance in your unbalanced life.

Leave a comment
December 17, 2012

The World Makes Sense Of America, One Front Page At A Time

COL_EC
The Newseum in Washington, D.C. is America’s news museum. It is a valuable resource that fortunately offers a lot of online content. One of its focuses is the still alive and kicking medium of print newspapers, and the Newsuem offers something that highlights one unique feature of these supposed media dinosaurs. Each day the Newsweum collects the front pages of hundreds of American and global papers and makes them available digitally.

For particular eventful days, like 9/11, the Newseum archives those front pages for posterity. The archive for Saturday, December 15, 2012, the day newspapers first reported about Sandy Hook, is particularly enlightening. Most nations had at least one front page featuring the story. American gun culture is so singular, even in places undergoing short-term or protracted states of war, that the stories mix perplexity with maybe some sense of “we’ve got plenty of problems, but this ain’t one.”

Even for those who love a well-crafted Web page or mobile screen, newspaper front pages remain an expressive art form, a story before and within the story. This is at its truest and most challenging in the face of big events.

The one above is from Medillin, Colombia. Medillin is the country’s second largest city and the infamous home of the Medillin drug cartel, which for about two decades terrorized the nation. Medillin is no stranger to brutality and guns.

The headline reads: “Golpe Al Alma de Estados Unidos”. Blow to the Soul of the United States.

Here are a few more:

Austria
Austria
Has America Learned from the Pain This Time?

PanamaPanama
Massacre
BelgiumBelgium
Bloodbath in Kindergarten
BrazilBrazil
Why?

Leave a comment
December 5, 2012

Citizens United Lives: Money Will Still Buy Elections

Thomas Nast
In the aftermath of the election, a certain joyous complacency has set in regarding Citizens United and the impact of Big Money on the electoral process. A derisive attitude of “epic fail” has attached to Sheldon Adelson, Karl Rove and all the others who seemingly wasted their billions (or other people’s billions) on influencing the results. Some have wondered out loud about how much real good those billions would have done for a country and world in need.

In fact, the money was merely mismanaged, channeled into outdated and ineffective strategies, and thereby wasted. But that will not last. There are plenty of talented operatives and strategists out there, even now working on better ways to address electoral problems using modern means. Yes, they are outnumbered by old school consultants relying on some combination of charm, reputation and useless technique, but like the blind squirrels, even Big Money will find the acorns sometimes.

And when the billionaires do find the operatives working on the cutting edge of 21st century electoral influence, what many feared would happen in the 2012 election—but didn’t—will eventually happen. Elections will be bought, even on behalf of those candidates who appear to some as unqualified and even clownish.

It’s time to stop laughing at Karl Rove’s misfortunes and start doubling up on the efforts to neutralize the impact of Citizens United. Proposals are out there, ranging from enhanced disclosure to a constitutional amendment. Whatever the approach, pursue it now. It’s the only way to avoid the Wednesday morning in November we didn’t have, the one where we wake up shaking our heads and asking: How in the world did that happen?

Leave a comment
November 24, 2012

Have Morsy Morsi Mursi

 


It is Gadhafi, Qaddafi, Kadafi, Gaddafi, Gadafy all over again. Except that the former Prime Minister of Libya is dead, while the President of neighboring Egypt is very much alive and at the center of global affairs.

The English version of the official Egyptian information website lists the President as Mohammad Mohamed Morsy al-Ayat. That is the way they are writing the name in the Latin alphabet. And therein lies a problem.

Egypt, Libya and most other countries in the region are Arabic-speaking and Arabic-writing. As with Hebrew—another important language in the region, though with far fewer speakers—transliterating the words into English spelling and vocalization is an adventure, and sometimes a pretty imprecise task.

News organizations seem to have settled on a consensus for the spelling of his first name as Mohamed—though as one of the most popular names in the world, it has naturally led to variants including Mohammad, Muhammad, Muhamme, Mohamed, Mohammed.

(For language junkies, other common Arabic names share the three-consonant root of  H-M-D, meaning “praise.” This is at the base of many commonly-heard names beside Mohamed, including Hamid, Ahmed, Mahmud, and others that are often in the news.)

What news organizations can’t seem to agree on is how to spell the President’s last name. As mentioned, the official Egyptian site says “Morsy,” so CNN, Time and a few others are going that way. The BBC and Reuters have decided on “Mursi” (it must be a Brit thing, some special privilege left over from colonial days, though the BBC has taken the extra step of adding an “m” to his first name: Mohammed).

By and large though, according to the New York Times and most others, the President of Egypt is Mohamed Morsi.

Does it matter? How we deal with him and his country matters much more in this dynamic time than how we spell his name in English, just as it is more important to act wisely than to spell correctly when dealing with China or any of the other countries that don’t speak English and don’t even bother to use our alphabet. It’s just a nice lesson in globalism, about how what we know is small compared to what we have to learn.

4 Comments
November 15, 2012

More Proof That Baseball Is Better Than Politics


The political polling analyst Nate Silver is something of a hero, both for his accurate predictions and for his amazingly clear explanation of the statistics that lead to his seemingly prescient conclusions. To paraphrase Barack Obama talking about Bill Clinton’s ability to make complex budget math simple, Nate Silver should be the Secretary of Explaining Things statistical.

Those of us who have followed Nate’s career, even before the New York Times made him and his Five Thirty Eight blog a must-read fixture, know that his roots are not in politics but in the art and science of baseball stats. That’s why it was wonderful to see him switch gears yesterday from the election to the most contentious baseball argument of the moment: who should be this year’s American League Most Valuable Player, an award voted on by the Baseball Writers of America?

To make this basic for non-baseball fans, two players in the league had historic, exceptional seasons. Miguel Cabrera, playing for the pennant-winning but World Series-losing Detroit Tigers, was the first player in forty-five years to win the Triple Crown, leading the league in Batting Average, Runs Batted In and Home Runs. Twenty-year-old Los Angeles Angels rookie Mike Trout not only had one of the best first seasons ever (unanimously winning Rookie of the Year award), he had one of the best seasons period. Of the so-called five tools (hitting for average, hitting for power, baserunning, throwing and fielding), few players of his age have ever exhibited such an array of gifts.

Yesterday, the Major League Baseball Network convened a conclave of baseball experts for a one-hour debate on the matter; that’s how significant it is (at least to lovers of the game). And yesterday Nate posted The Statistical Case Against Cabrera for M.V.P.

The point here is neither Nate’s argument nor the merits of the debate (Cabrera will most likely win, though the best outcome, given how micrometer-close it is, would be for a shared award). The point is that soon after the blog post, hundreds of comments arrived. Not just a few interesting comments mixed with uninformed, borderline psychotic rants, as we’ve come to expect from political posts. This was an amazing collection of intelligent, articulate, deeply researched responses, offering perspectives that even the most attentive fan might not have considered.

That’s why we are happy that Nate returned, at least for the moment, to baseball. And that’s why baseball is, inarguably, better than politics.

Leave a comment
November 14, 2012

The Story of the Generals: Prurience or Public Interest? Desperately Needed Break?

 

I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very frightening me.
Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody

Responsible media personalities have had to admit that they are hanging on every detail of the The Story of the Generals, even as they question whether private behavior, however crazy, however famous the players, rises above the level of celebrity gossip.

That’s a great and important question—in general. But in this particular case, something is happening. The details are growing exponentially, to the point that every story about it, even in this up-to-the-microsecond digital news age, is old the moment it is published. And practically all of the revelations have a public facet. It was tantalizing to learn that Jill Kelley had an identical twin sister who, among other things, was involved in a bitter child custody battle that ended with her losing custody and being branded “psychologically unstable” by the judge. It was another thing entirely to learn that both General Petraeus and General Allen had written letters to the court supporting her. And it was still another thing to learn that this sister’s ex-husband at one time worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

On the public-private scale, stories all deserve the benefit of the doubt that leans toward privacy, and it’s better to err on that side. That’s what all of us would want for ourselves and our families. But this story sits at a previously unknown nexus of the strange personal and strange public. It is sui generis (and if it turns out not to be one of a kind, we are in serious terra incognita). We are stuck being unable to extricate prurience from public interest until we know it all, or at least much more. The evidence is compelling that there is something here we might deserve to care about as citizens, not just as voyeurs.

One of the other factors that plays into the fascination with this story is that we need a civic break. That is no comfort for the genuine pain that surrounds it, nor is it an acceptable excuse for prying. But it is a fact. We are supposed to immediately care about how we will resolve the looming fiscal crisis, about who is in leadership positions in Congress, about why Mitt Romney lost and Barack Obama won, about who will be running in the 2016 Presidential race, etc. Enough, for just this moment, is enough. Yesterday brought two horrific reports, one from Arizona about a Romney supporter who ran over and critically injured her husband in a parking lot because he had failed to vote, another from Florida about a man who committed suicide because Obama was re-elected.

That’s a reason we can’t get enough of this story, and miraculously, the story keeps growing to distract us in unimaginably original ways. And who knows? Maybe while we are so distracted, those who are elected to solve our problems—and a few who lost their jobs because they didn’t—will take the opportunity while we aren’t looking to start solving them in a cooperative way. That would be a much shinier and more substantial story to mesmerize us.

1 Comment
October 30, 2012

Des Moines Register Endorses Richard Nixon

 


The story of the Des Moines Register’s endorsing Mitt Romney—the first time the newspaper has endorsed a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972—has been covered with entirely the wrong emphasis.

The point is not Mitt Romney’s potential for success in the office or Barack Obama’s supposed failures.

The point is that the Des Moines Register endorsed Richard Nixon. Yes, that Richard Nixon.

The Register was far from alone among major newspapers endorsing Nixon that year. Unfortunately, no archive has been found with the particular words of praise and support the newspaper used, though the search continues. It would be lovely to read those words—and then to compare them to the actualities of Nixon’s truncated term in office.

Absent that record, it is a good guess that the Des Moines Register did not predict that Nixon would lead a criminal conspiracy from the Oval Office, and that the cover-up of that behavior would include the undermining of the U.S. Constitution. That would not make for a very effective endorsement. Nor did the newspaper likely mention his nickname “Tricky Dick”, an allusion to his reputation for deviousness and ruthlessness.

The well-known moniker began not with his 1968 presidential campaign, nor with his 1962 gubernatorial campaign, nor with his 1960 presidential campaign, nor with his 1952 vice-presidential campaign, but with his 1950 senatorial campaign. By the time of the 1972 campaign, Nixon had been touted by some respectable people as “Tricky Dick” for 22 years.

For whatever reason, the Des Moines Register refused to believe it. They endorsed Nixon, and though we can’t really blame them for the election results—the late George McGovern’s historic loss—they didn’t help, and the rest is history.

Leave a comment