On Wednesday, Feb. 23, I appeared in the lead segment on Capital Insider, the 8 p.m. show on TBD TV, Channel 8, in the District. I was far from perfect, but it was a great experience and host Morris Jones was gentle on me. If the video does not appear below, try here.

So, I can always come home to Law Dork.

Here is the surreal: Rachel Maddow noting that Kerry Eleveld and I had what has been characterized as a “testy” exchange with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) before showing the clip and bringing on Mike Almy, who I mentioned, to talk about how exactly McCain was wrong.

Here it is:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rep. Skelton (D-MO)

A letter was emailed late last night to Get Equal, sent from Baghdad by a gay, Missouri soldier currently on his second tour of duty, according to Get Equal. The soldier writes that he is facing discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and had asked that Get Equal deliver the letter to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO).

Referencing DADT-repeal opponent Skelton’s remarks about a DADT-free world — “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” — the soldier wrote:

I come in from a long day out in the streets of Baghdad and see on television my representative, my voice, condemning the act of acknowledging my existence. . . .

I will continue fighting for your freedom congressman, will you cease blocking mine?

There’s not much more to be said than that.

The full letter, provided by Get Equal, follows after the jump.

* * * * *

June 17, 2010

Representative Ike Skelton
US House of Representatives
2206 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2504

Dear Representative Skelton,

It was in Ray County, Missouri that I first decided that I would join the Army. I was sitting on the pond dock at my father’s home, and came to the realization that my life was not heading anywhere that I wanted it to. I had no way to pay for college, and it seemed I would be stuck in that town not amounting to much. I went and spoke with a recruiter in Liberty, Missouri and eleven days later I was sitting at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

Nearly four years later, I do not regret that decision. I am now sitting in Baghdad preparing to redeploy back to the United States for a second, and final time. I can honestly say I am proud of the work we have done here. I look at the Iraqis that I personally helped train as a member of the Military Transition Team and can rest assured that we are leaving the area in capable hands. Through serving the country in the United States Army I have become more patriotic than I knew possible.

However, my pride in the Army and what we stand for has been yanked away. One of the first lessons that I learned after joining the Army was the importance of Integrity. I have served our great country honorably in two deployments. I have earned eight awards and have a clean record. I was one of the first responders to Muqdadiyah in 2007 when then President Bush ordered the surge, where my unit spent fifteen months in various provinces. I returned again nine months ago to finish what we started and am proud to be a member of the last combat brigade operating in theatre.

Although my record is untarnished, there is one thing separating myself and the rest of ‘America’s hero’s.’ Though I have less than a year left before my contract has been served, I was informed that the Army is considering discharging me under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, and this hurts extensively. My command realizes and respects the efforts and contributions to my unit and the fact that we are low-manned. It seems that they are holding out as long as they can on my discharge process, waiting for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be repealed.

I can understand if your views are against gay and lesbians in general, but sir you must realize your unique role in the United States. Were it not for uncomfortable truths there would be no need for you at all. As a representative of the State of Missouri and a leader in Congress’ role pertaining to the Military, it is imperative that you not succumb to weak leadership. However, I find it disturbingly necessary to remind you today of your job and that is to open national discussions on issues to find the best resolution. That is your job, and were it not, there would be no need for Congress.

Congressman Skelton, I demand that you apologize for your remarks. You need to recognize the disrespect that you issued to the gay and lesbian soldiers, like myself, who are currently serving regardless if we are recognized or not. I demand that you look at this from my perspective. I have spent the majority of my adult life fighting for a war in which you sent me to. I am fighting for your safety and freedom, and for every “mommy and daddies” seven year olds’ freedom and safety. I come in from a long day out in the streets of Baghdad and see on television my representative, my voice, condemning the act of acknowledging my existence.

Congressman regardless of your personal views on the issue, we are serving now. To be disrespectful to us is not only intolerant but ignorant. We deserve at the bare minimum an honest assessment and a fair judgment on the matter. In order for this to happen you, as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, must allow these discussions to take place. I will continue fighting for your freedom congressman, will you cease blocking mine?

United States Army (Specialist E4)
Baghdad, Iraq

Thank you, Mr. President. My question is about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal compromise amendment that faces House and Senate votes as early as this afternoon. Adm. Mullen said yesterday of the conditions in the amendment, “That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change.”

Earlier, and repeatedly, however, Sec. Gates said of the study, “This is not a question of if, but how.”

Which is it, Mr. President, and is your understanding of the compromise that the certification is discretionary? And, if so, why is that discretion necessary if the study truly is only looking into how to implement repeal?

But, I did not get to ask my question, so, it remains unanswered.

Here is the background, from my two reports at Metro Weekly on Wednesday: “Discretion Required,” about the impact of the amendment, and “Digging Into the Details,” which looks at the Senate vote count and features my interviews with Reps. Murphy and Frank on the House side.

About 9:30 p.m. Monday night, two people stand looking at the White House from the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Yes, I have been a bad Law Dork.

But, I’ve been writing plenty, at Metro Weekly, where I had been freelancing, then was working part-time, and — finally — earlier this year started working full-time.

On Monday, for example, I began with “DADT Talks at White House and on Hill,” covering the meetings regarding a possible “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy repeal compromise. Then, I followed up with the brief “Pushing Forward on DADT Repeal Compromise,” addressing a letter sent to the White House from the leading trio of pro-repeal lawmakers. Finally, I ended the day with “White House Signals Support,” which covered the Administration’s endorsement of the repeal compromise and several LGBT groups’ reactions to that support.

Unfortunately, days like that have left me with little time to devote to Law Dork.

I do, however, ask that you continue to check out my work, which is published nearly daily (if not multiple times a day, sch as Monday) at MetroWeekly.com and, if you live in the D.C. area, each Thursday in print. Also, if you’re not following me on Twitter and you want to keep up with me, you should be following me. Finally, I will update here as I find reasons (and time!) to do so, which is primarily when non-LGBT topics or Ohio-centric issues come to the fore.

If you have any other ideas of how I can use this space — I’m thinking about a weekly photo journal update, perhaps — please leave the idea in the comments section.

Thanks to everyone who has been so truly supportive of me as I spent the past 15 months feeling my way out and about back in the blogosphere, then on Twitter and, eventually, to D.C. It’s been — and will doubtless continue to be — quite a ride, so please do keep up!

Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner: Starting dominoes or playing chicken? (Photo c/o The Plain Dealer.)

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner just sent out her thank-you message to her email list from her unsuccessful U.S. Senate primary against Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, now Ohio Democrats’ nominee to face Rob Portman in the fall.

She’s not happy. And, progressive as ever.

With no mention of Lee.

In her words:

Dear [name],

Thank you for your amazing support of my race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Ohio.

Our campaign broadened the progressive base in Ohio. We fought to make people matter more than money. We were outflanked in money, endorsements and establishment pushback.

With the support of a broad and diverse group of activists and supporters like you who helped us get our message to other Ohioans, we pulled off a campaign that has amazed many.

We were outspent 4 to 1 overall and on broadcast media 100% to 0. We can take what we learned and help new candidates of all races, nationalities, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and age become part of our government, so that our government looks and thinks more like us. Please keep up the fight. You can be certain I will.

Thank you again for all you have done.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Jennifer Brunner

Former Vt. Gov. Howard Dean, speaking in Lafayette Park in support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal on Sunday.

I asked Howard Dean — former chair of the Democratic National Committee — about his views on party primary endorsements on Sunday. I decided to hold off on publishing Dean’s response until after tonight’s races because: (1) I don’t think it would have made a difference in any of the party primary races at this point and (2) I think it is an important question that Democrats should look at now and consider before the next election.

The take-away, and key for me is when he opposed party primary endorsements from the national party because “there has to be some place where everybody who’s a Democrat can come and feel like they’re being treated fairly.”

Here is Dean’s response, in full on primary endorsements by the national party organizations:

The DSCC and the DCCC always used to do that when I was running the DNC. I never approved of it, and we never did it. In fact, I actually had something put in the bylaws that said no officer of the DNC could write a check or make an endorsement in a primary.

I think there has to be some place where everybody who’s a Democrat can come and feel like they’re being treated fairly, and I always thought that should be the DNC. So, that’s why I sort-of have this thing that I — there are a few primaries that I’ve gotten into, but very few. Actually, the only two I can think of are because the person running was the former chair of my campaign in the state. And, I, they stood up for me when times were tough, and I thought I owed it to them to stand up for them.

But otherwise, I try to stay out of primaries, still, because of the way I looked at it as, when I was chair of the DNC. And I don’t think the DS[CC] and DCCC should get into primaries either. But, they do, so they do. And DFA does, so, that’s fine.

I’m honestly not sure what I think about tonight, but I do think this is different from last month’s actions.

I actually think it might have been smarter, politically, for the group than the previous GetEqual-related actions. Although disrespectful to President Obama, it was certainly not of the “arrest risk” level of the other actions. That’s a big difference from the first day of actions. This was a brief, targeted action that, in the larger scheme of things, was minimally disruptive.

Also, and more importantly, this was a presidential event with many people in attendance, so there is mainstream press being forced to write about this. The pool report, circulating at this time, talks about the disruption in pain-staking (for the White House) detail.

The downside of this action is that Sen. Boxer had her event, I think unfairly, targeted and tarnished. I’m not quite sure of the advantage gained by putting a damper on a potentially vulnerable, pro-LGBT elected official’s fundraising event.

Also, this was directly aimed at Obama, as opposed to more generally at the White House or Congress. While that could — and likely is — seen as a positive for GetEqual’s supporters, I’m not sure Obama wants DADT repeal any more after tonight. Maybe he will do more, and maybe that’s enough to call this a success, but I can’t imagine that it made him more eager personally to support LGBT equality. I’m not sure about that, but I still think that’s the downside in taking on the President in this way.

Another potential downside is that this wasn’t an LGBT event. This is the first test of how GetEqual’s message translates outside of the LGBT community — both in the progressive community generally and across the nation. So, while watching LGBT coverage of this event will be important, I’m going to pay close attention to non-LGBT media’s coverage of tonight’s action.

Finally, there is the downside that comes along with the hecklers’ veto. Tonight’s hecklers chose — with no consultation and with no accountability — to take action of their own behalf that will, in many forms, be reflected on many folks seeking an end to DADT and advancement of other LGBT equality legislation. That is not their fault, and it is not something for which they should be blamed. But, it will happen, and others who are ambivalent about, supportive of or oppose their actions will be explaining this action to others.

Maybe that’s fine. Maybe the answer is simply, “It wasn’t me.” Perhaps the response is, “Do you disagree that LGBT people deserve full equality now?”

These are difficult issues in a righteous struggle. Tonight, I think, was a slightly different animal than last month’s actions and worthy of examination on its own merits.

Johnsen

Today was a day for celebrating the service of Justice John Paul Stevens.

Today was a day for considering the impact of Stevens’ work on American law.

Today was a day for contemplating who could enter the Court in the fall and take his vote, if not his place.

Today was not a day for questioning whether the President would have the wherewithal to make his constitutional vision a part of America.

And yet, with the end-of-the-day announcement that Dawn Johnsen, the president’s nominee to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, was withdrawing her name from consideration because of Senate inaction, that question — among legal thinkers on the left and the right — has been pushed into our focus as this week draws to a close.

Do not misinterpret my concern. I have argued — and still believe — that a convincing case could be made that a recess appointment is inappropriate for the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, particularly when, as Johnsen noted in her statement today, a goal that she brought with her to the nomination was the depoliticization of the OLC.

My specific concern is not only that she has withdrawn, although that fact upsets me greatly. The very serious concern I am discussing here is an admittedly more political one — that the White House allowed this to happen today.

Dawn Johnsen’s principled stand against executive overreaching was what led presidential power critics like Glenn Greenwald to be thrilled with her nomination.

There is no such thing as take-out-the-trash day for legal-political blogger-critics. The OLC job is out of the way enough that John Yoo is still teaching and Jay Bybee was able to leave the executive and enter the judiciary without incident, despite the questionable — if not actionable — activities in which they engaged while working there. Among those people for whom this position matters, though, there was no real benefit to be gained by making this move today.

There are, however, two important and related but distinct disadvantages.

For the administration, on this day, to allow for the Johnsen news to disempower liberal legal thinkers and advocates is an incalculably short-sighted political misstep. It is right at this very moment when the administration needs these people most. To allow for Johnsen’s nomination to come to an end today can only be offset with the news of a Supreme Court nominee likely to gain as much praise on the legal left as did Johnsen. (The only sure bets there would be Pam Karlan or Goodwin Liu, in my view.)

What’s more, this has empowered the very people on the legal right who the administration has the least interest in seeing empowered today. There is nothing to be gained by having the opponents of Dawn Johnsen’s nomination coming down off the ego and power of victory right as they are gearing up to come at Obama’s nominee — regardless of who it is — with all their might.

As everyone at this point is well aware, I have significantly more trust in the Obama administration’s legal strategies and political tactics thus far than have many others. I have criticisms, but I also believe that much of their work has been done with a keen eye both to the legal and political realities of the system in which they find themselves.

This afternoon’s announcement about Dawn Johnsen, however, gives me pause just as the administration is asking liberals — and the nation — to trust Obama’s judgment the most, as he selects his second lifetime-tenured nominee for the high court.

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens sits for a new group photograph, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009, at the Supreme Court in Washington. (Photo from AP/Charles Dharapak.)

One of the ten-ton elephants or bombshells or other colorful journalistic euphemisms awaiting us in the SCOTUS vacancy weeks ahead following the announcement today that Justice John Paul Stevens will retire is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Judging by his words today, the unpopular decision may be a key part of President Obama’s summer political strategy.

Earlier this spring, when Justice Stevens took significant time to read from his blistering dissent in Citizens United, speculation ensued about whether Stevens was reaching the end of his time on the high court. In part, he wrote:

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

. . . .

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate[s] corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti , 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

Then, shortly thereafter, in President Obama’s State of the Union address, Obama registered his opposition to the decision — directly to several of the justices in attendance. As the NYT’s Linda Greenhouse wrote:

Mr. Obama’s words were sharp, echoing his earlier criticism of the court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case to strike down the limits that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law placed on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” He urged Congress to “pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.”

Then, there was Justice Alito’s response at the speech and Chief Justice Roberts’s response following the speech.

With Stevens due to retire, the President shot one more arrow directly at the Citizens United opinion, saying this afternoon of his pick to replace Stevens:

It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

So, that’s a key qualification now.

ALSO:

• For my take on the contributions that Justice Stevens made to LGBT equality while on the Court, here’s my article at Metro Weekly.
• Ari Shapiro — in his first solo day covering the White House for NPR — takes on the vacancy and what it means for Obama.
• Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog gets in his first take.
• The Washington Post talks to Jonathan H. Adler, Erwin Chemerinsky and Walter Dellinger about how Obama should make his pick.