Top 5 Ways to be an LGBTQIA+ Ally Now That “No Gays Allowed” Mike Pence is Trump’s VP pick:

#1: Register and vote

#2: Register and vote


#3: Register and vote


#4: Register and vote

Please share this simple #1-2-3 with anyone who says “voting doesn’t matter”

#5: Register and vote





How Three Fierce Female Justices Took Control of the Supreme Court
When the Supreme Court last heard oral arguments in a landmark abortion case, it was April 1992, the case was Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Sandra Da ...

“On one side, you have a group of testy male justices needling a female lawyer for Texas clinics about whether it was even appropriate for them to hear this appeal. On the other, you’ve got four absolutely smoking hot feminists pounding on Texas’ solicitor general for passing abortion regulations that have no plausible health purpose and also seem pretty stupid.

It felt as if, for the first time in history, the gender playing field at the high court was finally leveled, and as a consequence the court’s female justices were emboldened to just ignore the rules. Time limits were flouted to such a degree that Chief Justice John Roberts pretty much gave up enforcing them. I counted two instances in which Roberts tried to get advocates to wrap up as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor simply blew past him with more questions. There was something wonderful and symbolic about Roberts losing almost complete control over the court’s indignant women, who are just not inclined to play nice anymore.“

Happy #InternationalWomensDay and #WomensHistoryMonth!

Today, in honor of International Women’s Day, we’re honoring some smart ladies  — Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

When Kagan was appointed in 2010, it ushered in the first time in U.S. history that three women have served on the Supreme Court bench. Learn more about them here.

Watch this space: We’ll be featuring more women who have been essential to history. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat for more updates throughout the month of March. In the meantime, take our quiz to test your knowledge of Women’s History Month.


Someone made Lego versions of the Supreme Court’s female justices

Sadly, however, the Legal Justice League set isn’t for sale. While she did submit the concept to the fan-based Lego Ideas branch, Weinstock explains it was rejected on the basis of the company’s “no politics or political symbols” rule.

Full story at avclub.com

Ignorance Of The Law Is No Defense For You, But According To The Supreme Court, It Is For The Cop Who Arrests You

Ignorance Of The Law Is No Defense For You, But According To The Supreme Court, It Is For The Cop Who Arrests You

If you get caught going 75 mph in a 65 zone, you will get a ticket, even if you never saw the sign saying the speed limit changed and even if you had reason to believe it hadn’t. According to the Supreme Court, though, the cops don’t have to know the law like you do.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court argued that it’s okay for the cop to pull you over for thinking you are violating the law, even…

View On WordPress

Made with WordPress

The four female justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.  

From left to right: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan.

Who runs the world? Girls. 

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow a county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds to continue to deny marriage licenses to all couples, gay or straight.

In June, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The new case from Kentucky, Davis v. Miller, was the court’s first opportunity to consider whether government officials may refuse to comply with the Obergefell decision on religious grounds.

The case concerns Kim Davis, an elected clerk in rural Rowan County, Ky. After the state’s governor instructed county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples, a federal court rejected Ms. Davis’s argument that she should be excused from the obligation given her religious beliefs.

Ms. Davis’s lawyers filed an emergency application on Friday with Justice Elena Kagan, the member of the Supreme Court who supervises cases arising from the judicial circuit that includes Kentucky. She referred the matter to the full court.


The New York Times“Supreme Court Rules Kentucky Clerk Must Let Gay Couples Marry.”

And go to Hell, Ms. Davis.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Officiates Same-Sex Wedding for Third Time

Last weekend, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated a same-sex wedding for the third time. Ginsburg became the first Supreme Court Justice to officiate a same-sex wedding in 2013, when she officiated the wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser and economist John Roberts. She officiated the wedding of Michael Widomski and David Hagedorn later that year. Ginsburg has been vocal about her support for marriage equality in the past. In June 2013, Ginsburg joined the majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. She also has done interviews in the past stating her support for loving, committed same-sex couples nationwide. In 2014, Justice Elena Kagan officiated a same-sex wedding for the first time. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan will have a chance to decide in favor of marriage equality again this year, with the historic marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges before the Supreme Court. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected in June.

Justice Ginsburg Hands Surprise Victory To Consumers Over Big Business
An effort to gut one of the most important mechanisms the law uses to deter businesses against widespread violations of the law failed on Wednesday.

“Prior to today, there was good reason to believe that this defendant would prevail — and class action defendants would win the right to shut down class actions by buying off named plaintiffs. The Roberts Court has historically shown considerable hostility towards class actions. And a majority of the Court appeared skeptical of Gomez’s arguments when the case was argued. Mr. Gomez, who didn’t exactly experience a crippling injury, also isn’t the most sympathetic plaintiff — although a loss by Gomez could have had sweeping consequences for all other class action plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court rejected this attempt to limit the class action. Quoting from a previous dissenting opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, Ginsburg explained that “an unaccepted settlement offer—like any unaccepted contract offer—is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. As every first-year law student learns, the recipient’s rejection of an offer ‘leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made.’” Thus, when Gomez decided not to be bought off by the defendant, the case had to proceed as if the defendant’s offer never happened. “

The Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of Patriarchy, Not Democracy

I know that Supreme Court rulings aren’t everyone’s cup of tea - but this morning they made two decisions that really hurt women.

First, the court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that “closely-held” corporations, such as Hobby Lobby, can refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control based on owners’ religious beliefs. Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor partially joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a 35-page dissent against the majority decision of the five conservative, male justices.

Most analyses of this case will parse the law and, in doing so, make no challenges to two fundamental assumptions: 1) that the law and the Court are both “neutral” to begin with and 2) that we should not question the closely held religious beliefs of judges and politicians, even when those beliefs discriminate openly against women. This is a judgment. And judgments come from norms. And norms are based on people’s preferences. The Court is made up of people who have beliefs, implicitly or explicitly expressed.

In the practice of many religions, girls’ and women’s relationship to the divine are mediated, in strictly binary terms, by men: their speech, their ways of being and their judgments. Women’s behavior, especially sexual, is policed in ways that consolidate male power. It is impossible to be, in this particular case, a conservative Christian, without accepting and perpetuating the subordination of women to male rule. It is also blatant in “official” Catholicism, Mormonism, Evangelical Protestantism, Orthodox Judaism and Islam.

The fundamental psychology of these ideas, of religious male governance, does not exist in a silo, isolated from family structures, public life or political organization. It certainly does not exist separately from our Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia, for example, makes no bones about his conscientious commitment to conservative Catholic ideals in his personal life and the seriousness of their impact on his work as a judge. There are many Catholics who reject these views, but he is not among them. These beliefs include those having to do with non-procreational sex, women’s roles, reproduction, sexuality, birth control and abortion. The fact that Scalia may be brilliant, and may have convinced himself that his opinions are a matter of reason and not faith, is irrelevant.

The Hobby Lobby decision displays the profound depth of religious and male norms that deny women autonomy and the right to control our own reproduction. See the entire post at TIMEIdeas.

Second, the Harris v. Quinn decision weakened the already very limited ability of hundreds of thousands of U.S. domestic workers to collectively bargain for higher wages. As Sheila Bapat explains in her Talking Points Memo piece, “the Court is analyzing the First Amendment in a way that further entrenches the notion that domestic work is not “real” work. It is a blow to significant progress made by the domestic workers’ movement and public sector unions to show that domestic labor is indeed real labor, worthy of the same economic protections as other work.”

Photo credit: Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images via TIME

The Return of the D.I.Y. Abortion
Fewer clinics, more Google searches for alternative methods.
By Seth Stephens-Davidowitz

DURING oral arguments last week before the Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Elena Kagan noted that she was struck by the clear relationship between abortion restrictions in Texas and the closing of abortion clinics. “It’s almost like the perfect controlled experiment as to the effect of the law, isn’t it?” she said. “It’s like you put the law into effect, 12 clinics closed. You take the law out of effect, they reopen.”

How women respond to these closings, however, is another story.

We do not have large enough surveys to discern behavior in different states or to track how it has changed over time — and in any case, people may not feel comfortable sharing the truth in a survey.

Google searches can help us understand what’s really going on. They show a hidden demand for self-induced abortion reminiscent of the era before Roe v. Wade.

This demand is concentrated in areas where it is most difficult to get an abortion, and it has closely tracked the recent state-level crackdowns on abortion.

In 2015, in the United States, there were about 119,000 searches for the exact phrase “how to have a miscarriage.” There were also searches for other variants — “how to self-abort” — and for particular methods. Over all, there were more than 700,000 Google searches looking into self-induced abortions in 2015.

For comparison, there were some 3.4 million searches for abortion clinics and, according to estimates by the Guttmacher Institute, there are around one million legal abortions a year.

The 700,000 searches included about 160,000 asking how to get abortion pills through unofficial channels — searches like “buy abortion pills online” and “free abortion pills.”

There were tens of thousands of searches looking into abortion by herbs like parsley or by vitamin C. There were some 4,000 searches looking for directions on coat hanger abortions, including about 1,300 for the exact phrase “how to do a coat hanger abortion.” There were also a few hundred looking into abortion through bleaching one’s uterus and punching one’s stomach.

The same five conservative SCOTUS Justices: Antonin ScaliaSamuel Alito,Chief Justice John RobertsClarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy voted again in favor of the rich and the corporations. Money is speech now too…  Justices Ruth Bader GinsburgElena KaganSonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyervoted against it. 

“Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”
- Justice Breyer in his dissent

BREAKING: Supreme Court to Act on Kentucky Same-Sex Marriage Fight
The U.S. Supreme Court faces the first religious objection to reach the justices since same-sex marriage was declared a constitutional right.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week faces the first religious objection to reach the justices since the decision declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

A county clerk in Kentucky is asking for relief from a lower court order directing her to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Her lawyers filed an emergency application directed to Justice Elena Kagan, who handles such requests from that part of the country.

Related: Kentucky Clerk Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Gay Marriage Case

Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, “holds an undisputed sincerely held religious belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, only,” her lawyers say in their application.

The requirement to issue same-sex marriage licenses “demands that she either fall in line (her conscience be damned) or leave office (her livelihood and job for three-decades in the clerk’s office be damned).”

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s June 26th gay marriage ruling, Kentucky’s governor, Steve Beshear, ordered all the state’s county clerks to comply with the decision and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

When Davis refused, citing her religious objection, couples seeking licenses sued, and a federal judge ordered her to comply. Last week a three-judge panel of the Sixth Court of Appeals agreed.

“It cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court,” the appeals court said.

Justice Kagan could act on the request herself or refer the application to the full court.