Ten years ago I died. Today, I live.

good advice from Sessions to Yates, which he should take

Sessions did not “testify,” per se, yesterday. He offered a defense of himself, free of the annoyance of cross-examination and kept his consistently partisan blinders as high as always.

I have no doubt that he does not question his own integrity.

That was believable. And not shocking.

I think this Jeff Sessions was actually the best counter-argument to yesterday’s Jeff Sessions. It’s oddly on point. (And prescient, as well.)

Sens Feinstein & Moseley-Braun – Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing

The opening statements of the first two women senators to ever serve on the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun’s statement was unexpectedly moving.

History, my friends. True history.


I don’t see any way this doesn’t end up in front of SCOTUS

Case Name Sarsour v. Trump IM-VA-0005
Docket / Court 1:17-cv-00120 ( E.D. Va. )
State/Territory Virginia <!—->
Case Type(s) Immigration
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration/Refugee Orders
Case Summary


This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

read more >

This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The plaintiffs are Muslim Americans residing in the U.S. Many are public figures in the U.S. or have otherwise prominent roles in their communities. Many are executive members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Some are students, and others are asylees. Still others are at risk of not being reunited with their families.

The complaint argues that one of the purposes of the executive order is to “initiate the mass expulsion of immigrant and nonimmigrant Muslims lawfully residing in th

e United States by denying them the ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration benefits afforded to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Moreover, it argues that the Executive Order applies only to Muslims. As such, the executive order has an illegal purpose and effect, and violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause and right to free exercise of religion, Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The complaint seeks class declaratory and injunctive relief as well as jury demand. The case is ongoing.

I’m still advocating for David C. Frederick. We want David Frederick arguing this. Trust and believe.


SCOTUS: Justice Ginsburg was a trailblazer of women’s rights as an advocate in early ’70’s


Frontiero v. Richardson


Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Argued the cause for the appellants

Samuel Huntington Argued the cause for the appellees

Ruth Bader Ginsburg for American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court

Facts of the case

Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support. Frontiero’s request for dependent status for her husband was turned down.


Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?


Oral Argument: 17 January 1973

This case was a turning point in sex discrimination cases and the first case (of many) to argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court by an amazingly convincing young female attorney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (as amicus curiae for American Civil Liberties Union, by special leave of Court.) She does not disappoint.

on 14 May 1973 the court decided 8-1 in favor of appellants in what would be a stark turning point in sexual equality/discrimination cases; a cause that now Ruth Bader Ginsburg would take up again and again; and win again and again.

It is interesting to look back at how one of the most influential and respected Jurists of our time began her career, but also to see the genesis of this area of law at a time when narrowly conscripted roles of women and men went from being taken for granted to being questioned for the first time in any real way in society, but what is most interesting is just how vital the unquestionably persuasive power of this young female attorney was in changing minds in real time on the opinions of the supreme court justices she argued in front of.

(Side note: the single dissent in this ruling came from Justice Rehnquist.)


Nobody Wanted to Take Us In: Lizzy Ratner in The Nation and on Democracy Now

Nobody Wanted to Take Us In


Lizzy Ratner was interviewed by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now! today about her beautifully written and powerful piece, Nobody Wanted to Take Us In: The Story of Jared Kushner’s Family, and Mine in The Nation where she is a Senior Editor.

The piece begins:

In my aunt’s house, in the bedroom where 
I’ve often slept, there’s a framed photo of a ship’s manifest that I love to stare at. The ship was the RMS Aquitania, a Cunard ocean liner with an inky-black hull that was famous for its four smokestacks; its picture hangs in the bedroom, too. I can spend long minutes looking at these photos, first the ship, then the manifest, with its clutter of blocky print that draws my eyes up, down, and across the page until they finally settle on the name I’m always looking for: Ozcar Ratowzer. The print tells me that he was a worker from the town of Bialystok in Poland. If I trace down the column labeled “race or people,” I come to the word “Hebrew.”


Although the interview on Democracy Now! wasn’t long, it was powerful.

Amy Goodman, referring to The Nation article:

You quote the head of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, HIAS, [Mark Hetfield] who says, ‘The way we describe ourselves is that we used to resettle refugees because they were Jewish; now we resettle refugees because we are Jewish.’

Lizzy Ratner:

“There’s another amazing quote I just want to end with. Mark Hetfield also said, you know, ‘For us to come here, for us’—and he’s referring to Jewish people at this moment. But for Jews to say, We’re here now. It’s OK to close the doors on other people, is morally reprehensible.’  And I don’t think I could have ever said it better.”

I couldn’t agree more. It is a beautiful thing that is opening up in the face of all this darkness. To see African-Americans fighting for Latinos fighting for Jews fighting for Muslims fighting for Christians fighting for Native Americans – and leading the way are women – is an amazing thing like nothing I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. We all understand that this is not for fame or fortune or ego. We all understand that this fight is a fight for life itself.

We understand that if we lose this fight there may not be another one.

And we understand that if any of us lose we all lose.

We understand that everything – everything – is on the line.

And we understand that our only hope lies in complete solidarity.


Each day love gets stronger.

Can you feel it?

Can you feel it?

Love wins. Never doubt that.


Love wins.