Jimmy McMillan And “The Rent is Too Damn High Party” Is Back!


 

By Jueseppi B.

 

800px-Mcmillan

Jimmy McMillan promoting his The Rent Is Too Damn High Party.

 

 

The Rent Is Too Damn High Party is a political party in New York that has nominated candidates for mayor of New York City in 2005 and 2009, and for governor and senator in 2010. Jimmy McMillan was the mayoral candidate both times as well as a candidate for governor. In 2005, he received more than 4,000 votes, and more than 40,000 in 2010. The party has three registered members in the state. McMillan himself is registered as a Republican (previously a Democrat) for the purposes of running in that party’s primary elections.

 

 

Platform

 

As its name implies, the central tenet of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party is that rent in the city of New York is too high for its residents, and it should be lowered to relieve financial stress, end poverty and increase employment.

 

One of the taglines for the party is “breakfast, lunch, and dinner”, indicating that the party seeks to end hunger and poverty in New York City. The party sought to win “without a single vote from upstate New York.” The party website included a picture of New York with a giant “X” marked over upstate. McMillan surmises that reducing rent would “create 3 to 6 million jobs,” freeing up capital to give businesses a chance to hire people. This would, in turn, increase tax revenue. The party is in favor of writing off all taxes owed to the state, cutting property taxes for homeowners, consolidating the rent boards in New York, seizing unoccupied apartment buildings, reforming the state court system, and providing tax credits for commuters and free college tuition. The party opposes any cuts in spending related to education and elderly care.

 

McMillan was not opposed to same-sex marriage in the 2010 gubernatorial debate, replying to a non-rent-related question on the matter by saying: “if you want to marry a shoe, I’ll marry you.” McMillan has specifically voiced opposition to sex reassignment performed without the consent of the intersex individual, stating on his website: “They are normal human beings [...] just born different.”

 

On the topic of religion and family, McMillan’s website states “we need more reliance on the moral laws brought by religion and not limit out goodwill to our neighbors and co-workers to what the law demands alone.” One of the party’s platforms involves “restoring family values,” specifically desiring to ensure that one parent can remain at home to watch children.

 

 

Previous elections

 

For the 2009 mayoral campaign, part of the party’s name consisting of the word “damn” was removed from the official ballot on account of the name being 17 letters, two more than legally permissible under state board of elections guidelines. McMillan objected to the change, stating that he purposely used the profane word “damn” for its shock value. In 2009, Salim Ejaz ran for the party for the position of City Controller, without an endorsement from McMillan.

 

The word “damn” was restored to the party’s ballot line in 2010 by shortening “too” to “2″. McMillan ran for governor on the line, while Joseph Huff ran for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Kirsten Gillibrand.

 

 

See also

 

 

The Rent Is Too Damn High Party’s Jimmy McMillan at the NY Governor Debate

 

Uploaded on Oct 18, 2010

October 18, 2010 — In a debate expected to be dominated by top New York governor candidates Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino, Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party provided the fireworks. Watch his inspired views on karate, gay marriage, and, well, rent.

 

 

 

 

 

Jimmy McMillan Debate

 

Uploaded on Oct 18, 2010

Yawn, besides the occasional quip from the fomer prostitute, the NYS Gubernatorial debate was a snooze fest, save for the greatness that is Jimmy “Papa Smurf” McMillan of the “Rent is Too Damn High” Party. It’s mostly about rent to Jimmy, but it’s also about hunger. The audio sucked already, and the short echo near the end isn’t my fault! http://www.tommunisms.com For the shoe marriage clip, click this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEcIhB… and yeah, I made a quickie t-shirt…http://www.cafepress.com/tommunisms/7…

UPDATE:
Well, it seems Jimmy knows why the rent is too damn high: he blames the Jews:http://www.jewlicious.com/2005/10/whe…
Jimmy also says an orthodox Jewish cabal planned 9/11. It could be just the Agent Orange affecting his mind, but this does take away from his goofy charm.

 

 

 

 

 

From The Grio:

 

Jimmy ‘The Rent is Too Damn High’ McMillan talks running for mayor of New York City

402528_176619879142958_864642698_n
jimmy_mcmillan_in_car2011-med-big
402528_176619879142958_864642698_n

Jimmy ‘The Rent is Too Damn High’ McMillan became a household name in 2010 when he ran for governor of New York against major contenders such as now-governor Andrew Cuomo.

 

His political mantra —  ”the rent is too damn high” – resonated with many. Although his first fifteen minutes of fame eventually petered out, his slogan still has the juice to fuel his bid in New York’s 2013 mayoral election.

 

McMillan is back with the same catch phrase, this time delivered over a banging hip-hop track. As his rap anthem “Rent is Too Damn High” (produced by web site Animal NYC) states, he is “back on the scene” looking “lean and mean” — and is apparently just as popular as ever.

 

 

McMillan: An ‘American defender’

“I’m an American defender. I don’t make no apologies for serving my country,” the self-described Vietnam war veteran said when he stopped by theGrio’s newsroom last week, an acoustic guitar strapped to his chest.

 

He was greeted with the warm enthusiasm reserved folk heroes in these halls. As he sat down to perform an “unplugged” version of his single, McMillan described the attention he still receives when he walks city streets as “crazy.”

 

Does this make him the best person to run New York City among a wide field of experienced politicos? Maybe, maybe not. But he may have the name recognition necessary to make a big splash during his second brush with viral fame. McMillan’s video for “Rent is Too Damn High” has garnered more than 641,500 views on YouTube since it began circulating last week.

 

 

RELATED: Jimmy ‘The Rent Is Too Damn High’ McMillan releases rap anthem

 

 

People definitely know who he is. And to hear Jimmy tell it, they also love him.

 

“I’m 66 years of age and I’ve been single for thirty years. Now I can get a girlfriend if I want one,” McMillan said of his local celebrity.

 

According to the martial arts teacher, women follow him asking, “can I have your autograph?” Men say, “can I take your picture?” Kids follow shouting, “let me touch your beard!”

 

And of course the question “whatchu gonna do to lower the rent!?” is often hurled at him, even late at night, the candidate for mayor said.

 

 

It’s about “changing the game”

But to him, running for the mayor of New York City is as much about disrupting the status quo of the political process as it is about holding public office.

 

“I’m not a politician. I’m here to change up” what McMillan called “the old attitude” and address “a bunch of lies that they’re telling.”

 

Some of those “lies,” he says, include landlords overcharging renters by raising rents too much relative to the renovations they may implement, which they are allowed to do by a limited percentage by law. McMillan also tasks politicians to stop focusing on creating low income housing, when it would be better to revise housing laws to improve existing stock and prevent people from being evicted.

 

While McMillan still asserts that the rent is too damn high, he also intends to use his 2013 run for mayor to awaken people to the fact that they have voting options — including, of course, the Rent is Too Damn High party.

 

 

Have Democrats and Republicans failed us?

McMillan believes that Democrats and Republicans have failed the American people after having had ample opportunity to improve the economy — and of course, housing costs.

 

“What I do in the city of New York is going to send a domino effect across the country,” McMillan told theGrio. “I’m here to represent the people.”

 

Look out for part two of our video interview with Jimmy McMillan later this week. Will his political agenda inspire a new perspective on the political system.

 

 

Thank you The Grio.

 

 

101019_mcmillan_ap_392_regular

 

 

blogger4peacelogo

 

gg

 

nitt_action_blog_image

 

obamabottomlogo2

 

 

From Fox News…. (Of All Places): “3 more suspects taken into custody in Boston bombing case”


 

By Jueseppi B.

 

Dzhokahar in Times Square (2)

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (r.) was photographed in New York‘s Times Square last year with two of the latest suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing investigation, Azamat Tazhayakov (l.) and Dias Kadyrbayev (c.).

 

From of all places…..Fox News:

 

3 more suspects taken into custody in Boston bombing case, police say

 

Published May 01, 2013

FoxNews.com

Three new suspects have been charged in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing for conspiring to get rid of an incriminating backpack full of gutted fireworks belonging to their friend after learning he was a suspect in the April 15 terror attack, according to an FBI affidavit released Wednesday.

 

Dias Kadyrbayev, Azamat Tazhayakova and Robel Phillipos, all described as friends of Tsarnaev at UMass-Dartmouth, allegedly went to Tsarnaev’s dorm and took a laptop, the backpack and some Vaseline that may have been used in making the deadly pressure cooker bombs that killed three and injured more than 200 at the race. The affidavit filed in support of a complaint said Kadyrbayev was the one who carried out the disposal of the backpack.

 

“Kadyrbayev knew when he saw the empty fireworks that Tsarnaev was involved in the Marathon bombing,” the affidavit reads. “Kadyrbayev decided to remove the backpack from the room in order to help his friend Tsarnaev avoid trouble.”

 

The three acted on April 18, three days after the bombing and hours after investigators aired surveillance footage identifying Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan as the suspects in the bombing, though not by name, according to authorities. Phillipos first saw footage depicting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the news Thursday, and told Kadyrbayev over the phone that he suspected their friend was the bomber. When Kadyrbayev later texted Tsarnaev and said he bore a resemblance to the subject of an intense manhunt, Tsarnaev allegedly sent back a chilling response: “Lol, You better not text me.”

 

The exchange came just before 9 p.m. on April 18, a few hours before the Tsarnaev brothers would carjack a Chinese immigrant, murder an MIT police officer and engage in a wild shootout with police through the streets of Cambridge and Watertown, police say. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died April 19, after a shootout hours after authorities showed the brothers on surveillance video and named them as suspects.

 

Although the three new suspects initially appear to have stonewalled authorities, Phillipos came clean in a fourth interview, conducted April 26. He confessed that the three took the backpack out of their friend’s dorm room, according to the affidavit. Phillipos allegedly told investigators that the two others “started to freak out” after seeing Tsarnaev identified on television.

 

Prior to the latest development, authorities had named only the brothers as suspects in the bombing at the finish line of the world famous race.

 

Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov, who are both from Kazakhstan, faced an immigration hearing earlier Wednesday morning, sources said. Phillipos was to be arraigned on the new charges Wednesday afternoon.

 

Kadyrbayev’s attorney Robert Stahl says his client will be transported to the federal courthouse later Wednesday to appear on new criminal charges. On Friday, Yerlan Kubashev with the Consulate General for Kazakhstan in New York confirmed in a statement to Fox News that the consulate is helping the young men with legal representation. Both Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov will plea not guilty, according to their attorneys.

 

Kubashev said the two men are “shocked at the bombings,” and “they express sorrow to the bombing victims and their families.”

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is in a prison hospital after being wounded in the shootout with police as he and his brother made their getaway attempt. He is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, a crime that carries a potential death sentence.

 

 

Authorities have searched the Rhode Island home of the parents of Katherine Russell, Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s widow.

 

 

Fox News’ Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

 

Thank you Fox News

 

6a661fce4f3ee63d87f8440fe5aa8bf3

 

Terrorist & Ex-wife

 

 

21c231ec170a01c21949cd5af0a2637b

 

Terrorist & Mother

 

 

2013-04-25T150627Z_621379974_GM1E94P1P1W01_RTRMADP_3_USA-EXPLOSIONS-FATHER

Terrorist mother

 

ap-russia-boston-suspects-4_3_r536_c534

Terrorist Mother

 

 

 

cd282957a4e0d50d2f0f6a706700dae8

The Terrorist Brothers

 

 

 

boston-marthon-victims

The victims of The Boston Marathon Bombing…….8 year old Martin Richard of Dorchester, Mass, 29 year old Krystle Campbell of Arlington, Mass. and 23-year-old Chinese national Lu Lingzi.

 

 

 

gg

 

blogger4peacelogo

 

obamabottomlogo2

 

 

TheObamaCrat™ Soapbox: Miranda versus The Public Exception


 

By Jueseppi B.

 

cellimage

 

 

The American Moron has shown it’s ugly uneducated head once again. Commenting and offering up opinionated feces on subjects they know jack about. The latest is The Public Exception.

 

 

Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg

 

 

 

First lets start off with what Miranda is:

 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5–4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights.\

 

The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to “Miranda,” or “Mirandizing” a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with theMiranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.

 

As of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins (June 1, 2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but choose not to “unambiguously” invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and which may be used in evidence.

 

 

Now lets see what this Public Exception is all about:

 

Public safety exception

 

The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of “public safety“. This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.

 

The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, “The gun is over there”. The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because “[i]n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer”. Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in “a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda”.

 

The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety. Under this exception, to be admissible in the government’s direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be “actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist,” and must be focused and limited, involving a situation “in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.”

 

In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions in terrorism cases, stating that the “magnitude and complexity” of terrorist threats justified “a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case,” continuing to list such examples as: “questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might pose an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks.” A Department of Justice spokesman described this position as not altering the constitutional right, but as clarifying existing flexibility in the rule.

 

 

I sincerely hope this lesson in The Supreme Court Ruling help the American Moron

 

Now for those of you who have been screaming since Saturday morning because you are all butt hurt that the killer of 8 year old Martin Richard, Lu Lingzi, in her middle 20′s, Krystle Campbell, 29, & Sean Collier, 26 will NOT be Mirandized, but instead the Public Exception will be used, here;s why:

In the case of 19 year old terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Public Exception rule will be used because if Mr. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were allowed to “lawyer up”, he then could not be questioned about the possibility other explosive devices are hidden around Boston, and disclose those hidden bombs location.

 

 

If Mr. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, were mirandized as would be a common criminal, and a lawyer were allowed to advise his client to “clam up”, then the FBI, who head this investigation, could not ask questions that may or may not lead them to other bombs hidden thus allowing them to explode, further endangering citizens of Boston….hence the Public Exception for public safety rule.

 

 

I do hope this explanation is crystal clear to all you morons bitchin about this killer terrorist rights as an American.

 

 

us_0419_4TH_VICTIM_480x360

 

krystle-campbell_martinrichard_lingzilu_620x350

 

 

Are you same moronic Americans bitchin about the rights of Martin Richard, Lu Lingzi, Krystle Campbell & Sean Collier? If you are, I’m not hearing that bitchin.

 

 

This announcement started a firestorm of U.S. Constitution idiots:

 

 

BOMBING SUSPECT and MIRANDA WARNING

 

A Justice Department official stated Friday night that the Boston bombing suspect was not given his Miranda warning because the government is invoking a public safety exception.

 

That official and a second person briefed on the investigation says 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be questioned by a special interrogation team for high-value suspects. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the information publicly but this was confirmed at a Press Conference Friday night by the Federal Prosecutor for the Boston area. This can be used to encourage the suspect to give information on others who might still be involved in a much wider plot. Also by the Federal government prosecuting this case they can seek the death penalty.

 

The public safety exception permits law enforcement officials to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation of a suspect and allows the government to introduce the statement as evidence in court. The public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger. After this unwarned interrogation of the suspect, the Miranda Warning will be given before any further questioning.

 

Tsarnaev is currently under armed guard at a Boston hospital and is reported in serious condition and unable to be interrogated Saturday. He has yet to be charged but prosecutors do not appear to have a shortage of federal laws at their disposal.

The most serious charge would be the use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people, which carries a possible death sentence. Three people died in the twin explosions in Boston and more than 180 were injured.

 

Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, and it remains to be seen whether the administration would try to persuade a jury to sentence Tsarnaev to death.

 

 

Guns_God_Country_Flag

 

 

Now I know the idiots screaming U.S. Constitution have not read it concerning Public Exception because they were too busy searching for the segment on Miranda, and when they found the Miranda passage, they stopped reading…..had they bothered to read the entire section……You get My Drift.

 

 

 

Now lets review some facts and put lies & misinformation to bed:

 

The parents of the terrorist bombers say…..

 

They Were Framed? Mother & Father Of Boston Bombing Suspects Speak Out!

 

Published on Apr 19, 2013

They Were Framed, FBI Knew About Them 4 Years Ago: Mother & Father Of Boston Bombing Suspects Speak Out!

 

 

 

 

First off, The FBI and Boston law enforcement officials never killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his brother Dzhokhar ran over him with the stolen SUV, according to doctors who attended to him and pronounced him dead at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital.

 

Second off, Tamerlan, the innocent son described by dear old mom in the above video, was wearing a suicide bombers vest when the law enforcement officers got to his dead body. Sounds not too innocent to my ears.

 

Next I’ve read and listened to average Americans say that these “young boys” are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Thats so stupid that I will only say this: If your family member, friend, school mate, co-worker were named Martin Richard, Lu Lingzi, Krystle Campbell or Sean Collier, tell me exactly how you would think about innocent until proven guilty with all the evidence that is public knowledge?

 

tsarnaev_on_boat_620x465

 

untitled-1

 

526499_10151562016644445_1384254377_n

 

array500

 

Further view of Suspects 1 and 2 together

 

bomber-suspect-2-best

 

xboston-bombing-suspect-photo.jpg.pagespeed.ic.sA2_Dnld1L

 

white_hat3

 

suspect2-a-512x640

 

 

 

 

boston-marathon-explosions

 

dzhokhar_martin_richard_bomb_11

 

dzhokhar-tsarnaev-running-from-bombing

 

 

 

If Dzhokhar & Tamerlan Tsarnaev are innocent, somebody explain to me why they both would engage thousands of law enforcement personnel in, not one but, two gun fights where hundreds of rounds of ammunition were exchanged?

 

Is that the actions of innocent average young men out for a Friday night drive?

 

I am consistently amazed at the blatant stupidity of American opinion.

 

 

Who do you grieve for…..

 

041713-national-boston-marathon-bomb-fatality-martin-richard-8-year-old

 

17martin_cnd-popup

 

BH_RoBgCEAAx1O2 - Copy

 

 

 

Who do you cry for…

 

enhanced-buzz-18591-1366203155-7

 

enhanced-buzz-24546-1366203156-1

 

lingzi-lu-1

 

 

Who do you want justice for…

 

bfda4fadd01e3e0c2f0f6a70670043c2

 

krystle-campbell-300

 

 

OR are you concerned for these “innocent good guys”, as described by friends & mom/dad who obviously didn’t know what these two were capable of…….

 

49988

 

boston-bombing-arrests

 

Tamerlan-Tsarnaev_2541372b

 

 

 

 

Sometimes, most times, I am ashamed to be labeled an American.

 

Being American is surely nothing to be proud of these days.

 

 

photo-12

 

BIQ6XSWCEAAWVEK

 

unafraid

 

tumblr_mlbe118qBp1r1ye13o1_1280

 

cropped-boston-celebrates-capture-use

 

blogger4peacelogo

 

obamabottomlogo2

 

 

 

Ms. Edith Schlain Windsor Versus The United States, et al.


 

By Jueseppi B.

 

 

17_FEA_DOMA1

 

 

 

 

United States v. Windsor is an appellate case pending in the United States Supreme Court of a lawsuit in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York‘s decision in Windsor v. United States, which found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, as it defines the term marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”.

 

 

Background

In 2007, Edith “Edie” Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership. Canada’s first openly gay judge, Justice Harvey Brownstone officiated. Windsor had first suggested engagement in 1965. Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. After Spyer’s death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance of her wife’s estate. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.

 

Windsor approached several gay rights organizations, all of whom turned her down. She was then referred to Roberta Kaplan, at the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who had unsuccessfully argued the case challenging the inability of same-sex couples to marry in New York before the New York Court of Appeals in 2006. “When I heard her story, it took me about five seconds, maybe less,” said Kaplan, who was joined in Windsor’s case by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

 

 

05_Flatbed_WEB - NOVEMBER

 

 

 

Windsor v. United States
US-CourtOfAppeals-2ndCircuit-Seal.png
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Argued September 27, 2012
Decided October 18, 2012
Full case name Edith Schlain Windsor, in

Her Capacity as

Executor of the Estate of

Thea Clara Spyer,

Petitioner v. United States, et al.

Citations 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012)
Prior history Summary judgment for Windsor,

833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y.)

Subsequent history Certiorari granted on

December 7, 2012 (12-307)

Related cases
Holding
Section 3 of DOMA is subject to intermediate scrutiny and

does not

withstand that review; as such it violates the Fifth Amendment

sequal protection guarantee.

Panel membership
Dennis Jacobs, Chief Judge, and Chester J. Straub, and

Christopher F. Droney

Case opinions
Majority by Jacobs
Joined by Droney
Concurrence/dissent by Straud

 

 

 

120927-doma-hmed12p.photoblog600

 

 

 

Lower courts

District Court

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, in conjunction with the ACLU, filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Windsor as executor of Spyer’s estate.

 

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding two lawsuits challenging DOMA section 3, Windsor and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. It explained that the Obama administration had determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, and therefore it could no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA’s section 3.

 

The administration intends to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court. On April 18, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG), filed a motion asking to be allowed to intervene in the suit “for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III” of DOMA. Department of Justice attorneys did not oppose the motion.

 

Windsor’s attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment on June 24. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a brief supporting Windsor’s claim on July 26, arguing that DOMA Section 3 cannot survive the scrutiny used for classifications based on sex and constitutes “an intrusion on the power of the state to define marriage.” On August 1, BLAG filed a brief opposing Windsor’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that sexual orientation is not subject to heightened scrutiny.

 

On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that, based on rational basis review, section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied in the case as it violated plaintiff’s rights under the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered Windsor receive the tax refund due her. The plaintiff said afterward, “It’s thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers.”

 

 

Edith Windsor, Thea Spyer

 

 

Court of Appeals

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2012, despite its approval of the ruling, to facilitate BLAG’s defense of the statute. BLAG filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s Second Circuit appeal on July 19, claiming the DOJ lacks standing because it prevailed in the District Court. Windsor’s attorneys filed a petition of certiorari before judgment with the Supreme Court on July 16, 2012, asking for the case to be considered without waiting for the Second Circuit’s review, citing the plaintiff’s age and poor health. Despite the Supreme Court filing, the Second Circuit on August 3 scheduled oral arguments for September 27. The DOJ replied to BLAG’s motion to dismiss on August 3, asserting (1) its standing as an “aggrieved party” because the District Court’s stay prevents DOJ from taking steps to cease enforcement of section 3 of DOMA and (2) that its participation ensures consideration of the constitutional issue if the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court determines that BLAG lacks standing.

 

On September 27, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs and Judges Chester J. Straub, and Christopher F. Droney heard arguments in the case. On October 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. The majority opinion stated, “It is easy to conclude that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination.” Thus they were part of a quasi-suspect class that deserves any law restricting its rights to be subjected to intermediate scrutiny. Because DOMA could not pass that test, Judge Jacobs wrote, it is unconstitutional under the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. It was the first federal court of appeals decision to hold that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.

 

 

Supreme Court

Following Windsor’s petition for certiorari before judgment and before the Court of Appeals ruled, the Department of Justice on September 11, 2012, filed its own petition for certiorari before judgment with the Supreme Court. After the appellate ruling on October 18, the parties filed supplemental briefs.

 

On December 7, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, now United States v. Windsor, accepting the DOJ’s petition. In addition to the question presented by the DOJ, whether section 3 of the DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment‘s guarantee of equal protection, the court also asked the parties to brief and argue two other questions: whether the government’s agreement with the Second Circuit’s decision deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether BLAG has standing, i.e., the legal right to be involved in the case, under Article III of the Constitution. On December 11, the Supreme Court appointed Vicki C. Jackson, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, as anamicus curiae to argue the two additional questions it posed.

 

BLAG did not comment on the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Windsor noted in a statement that when she and her partner met nearly 50 years before that they both never dreamed their marriage would land before the Supreme Court “as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens.” Noting that her deceased wife would be proud Windsor added, “The truth is, I never expected any less from my country.” BLAG filed its own petition for certiorari on December 28 to enable the court to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA section 3 if it decides the DOJ’s agreement with the 2nd Circuit’s decision deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear the DOJ’s petition. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 27, 2013.

 

 

edith-windsor-and-thea-spyers-great-american-love-1-27289-1364398783-11_big

 

 

edith-windsor

 

 

EdithWindsor_SCOTUS

 

 

thea1

 

 

 

 

Edith Windsor And Thea Spyer’s Great American Love Story

 

You probably already know that Edith Windsor is the history making plaintiff in today’s Supreme Court case, but how much do you know about the whirlwind romance that started it all?

 

 

Photo Source: blessblessproductions.comvimeo.comdailykos.com, Eduardo Munoz / Reuters,

 

 

After divorcing her husband, Edith asked her friends to, “Take me where the lesbians are.”

 

As she describes it, when she went to the movies, she secretly identified with movie star Dick Powell, not with his co-star Ruby Keeler. After less than a year of marriage, she asked her husband for a divorce.

 

 

edith-windsor-and-thea-spyers-great-american-love-1-27289-1364398783-11_big

 

 

 

 

She went back to school at NYU to gain a mathematics degree and went on to work for IBM.

 

She had originally graduated from Temple University.

 

 

enhanced-buzz-23320-1364251034-2

 

 

 

 

The first night Edith met Thea Spyer they “danced a hole through the bottom of one of Edie’s stockings.”

 

They met in 1963 at Portofino, a New York restaurant where lesbians felt free to openly congregate.

 

 

 

enhanced-buzz-28394-1364251326-2

 

 

 

 

 

Thea was her intellectual match, a psychology Ph.D from Adelphi University.

 

enhanced-buzz-23807-1364393876-2

 

 

 

 

 

After first meeting, it would take them 2 years to start dating.

 

 

enhanced-buzz-23540-1364250649-13

 

 

 

 

 

Thea gave her a circle pin adorned with diamonds instead of an engagement ring.

 

 

enhanced-buzz-8484-1364309231-21 (1)

She proposed in classical fashion, dropping down to one knee and asking for Edith’s hand in marriage.

 

 

 

She still wears it today.

She still wears it today.

Image by Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

They were globetrotters, traveling as often as they could.

 

Thea is pictured on a trip to Suriname. The pair traveled to Europe as often as possible.

 

 

They were globetrotters, traveling as often as they could.

They bought a rental in the Hamptons in order to have a place of their own to escape to.

They bought a rental in the Hamptons in order to have a place of their own to escape to.

Their love never waned over 42 years…

 

For more than four decades, they lived together in an apartment on Fifth Avenue near Washington Square.

 

Their love never waned over 42 years...

Source: dailykos.com

…quite a long engagement.

 

...quite a long engagement.

A love story so cinematic, it was made into a feature length film:

 

The award-winning 2009 documentary film, Edie and Thea: A Very Long Engagement by Susan Muska and Gréta Olafsdóttir.

Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement

 

Uploaded on Jun 14, 2009

Trailer for the documentary film “Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement,” a true love story about two New York women whose relationship spans over four decades. Film premieres in June 2009. By Bless Bless Productions, original music by Karl Henry.

 

 

 

Source: youtube.com

Thea was diagnosed at 45 with multiple sclerosis. Edie took early retirement to become her full-time caregiver.

 

As her condition worsened Thea was restricted to crutches, and later a wheelchair. By 2002, Spyer was diagnosed with a cardiovascular condition called aortic stenosis. At that point, Spyer was quadriplegic and got around by using an adjusted mouse to maneuver her wheelchair.

Thea was diagnosed at 45 with multiple sclerosis. Edie took early retirement to become her full-time caregiver.

Source: newyorker.com

Dressed up as newlyweds for Halloween:

When Thea’s doctor told her she had under a year to live, they flew to Toronto to be legally wed.

 

On May 22, 2007, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married by Canada’s first out gay judge, Justice Harvey Brownstone.

 

Edith Windsor And Thea Spyer's Great American Love Story

Thea passed away only 21 months after the wedding.

 

Not only did she have to cope with Spyer’s death, she was also was forced to pay more than $350,000 in federal estate taxes because the federal government didn’t recognize her marriage to Spyer.

Thea passed away only 21 months after the wedding.

Edith refers to the years before they were married as, “just dancing”.

Edith refers to the years before they were married as, "just dancing".

Source: youtube.com  /  via: npr.org

Edie had a heart attack a month later. She recovered to fight the injustice she sees in the federal law that does not recognize her marriage.

Edie had a heart attack a month later. She recovered to fight the injustice she sees in the federal law that does not recognize her marriage.

Image by Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Edith has been an outspoken gay rights activist all her life.

 

She will serve as Grand Marshal of NYC LGBT Pride this year.

 

Edith has been an outspoken gay rights activist all her life.

She has a life-size photo of Thea in their apartment, which she admits she sometimes leans up against to tell her about the progress of the case.

 

 

She has a life-size photo of Thea in their apartment, which she admits she sometimes leans up against to tell her about the progress of the case.

Image by Richard Drew / AP

 

 

 

The Following Photographs by Macey J. Foronda

 

enhanced-buzz-wide-1212-1357852109-6

 

 

enhanced-buzz-wide-16373-1357851073-16

 

 

enhanced-buzz-wide-17502-1357880985-3

 

 

enhanced-buzz-wide-20856-1357852466-5

 

 

 

qvegs

 

 

equalityforall

 

 

130326-scotus-gay-marriage-its-time

 

 

blogger4peacelogo

 

 

DAP-EMAIL-HEADER-4

 

 

obama-logo-head (3)

 

 

Obstructionist Make My Ass Sick: Statement By The POTUS On Withdrawing the Nomination Of Caitlin Halligan


 

By Jueseppi B.

 

 

barackshouse3

 

 

 

 

The White House  Office of the Press Secretary

 

For Immediate Release  March 22, 2013
 
 
 
 
 
527538_3297557136274_530686939_n
 
 
 
 
 

Statement by the President on the Withdrawal of the Nomination of Caitlin Halligan

 

Today, I accepted Caitlin Halligan’s request to withdraw as a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of Senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination.  This unjustified filibuster obstructed the majority of Senators from expressing their support.  I am confident that with Caitlin’s impressive qualifications and reputation, she would have served with distinction.

 

The D.C. Circuit is considered the Nation’s second-highest court, but it now has more vacancies than any other circuit court.  This is unacceptable.  I remain committed to filling these vacancies, to ensure equal and timely access to justice for all Americans.

 

 

BDzYmJrCMAAN8Ol

 

 

 

 

Presidential Withdrawal Sent to the Senate

 

WITHDRAWAL SENT TO THE SENATE:

Caitlin Joan Halligan, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, vice John G. Roberts, Jr., elevated, which was sent to the Senate on January 4, 2013.

 

 

baracksigniture

 

 

This sickens me. President Of The United States, Barack Hussein Obama, has not the right to select his appointees for positions he deems these people qualified because of racist, ignorant dumbass Congressmen & Senators obstructing The Presidents choices.

 

 

fa3c5a334a873c47e13bb29597a37c2e

 

 

Every past POTUS has had smooth sailing when it comes to picking personnel for their cabinet.

 

Except this Black American President.  

 

Remember when the Senate approved Clarence Thomas?

 

There is no reason Ms. Caitlin Halligan should NOT be U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit Judge.

 

 

BF_o62TCIAIOOZk

 

 

 

blogger4peacelogo
 
 
 
 
 
 
DAP-EMAIL-HEADER-4
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama-logo-head (3)
 
 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,489 other followers

%d bloggers like this: