Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has introduced a bill that would repeal the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act:

Civil Rights advocates and LGBT Americans herald new legislation to overturn one of the nation's most discriminatory laws

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), with a total of 91 original co-sponsors to date, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.

The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.

The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation’s leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples. Read on...

This legislation is long overdue. Three cheers for Rep. Nadler and the other Democratic co-sponsors in the House! Pam's House Blend has a list of responses from the LGBT community. You can read them here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (109)

PLAYS: (168)

From The Ed Schultz Show, Jerrold Nadler says the appointment of a Special Prosecutor doesn't go far enough and that the law is that when torture occurs under American jurisdiction there must be an investigation of everyone who may have been involved and if warranted prosecutions. Nadler expressed concern that we aren't being aggressive enough and limiting the investigations too much. He also adds this:

Nadler: We are well into territory already, where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate and the people around him, because of in the Iran Contra, we're getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.

Schultz: Yep.

Nadler: If high officials violated the law here, if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc., they've got to be prosecuted to show that no one is above the law.

I agree with his point that no one is above the law. I disagree that we're "getting into territory" where high officials take it for granted that they will never be held accountable for their law breaking. We're well past that point now.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1639)

PLAYS: (1690)

Lou Dobbs and Co. (in this case, "reporter" -- and we use the term very loosely indeed -- Drew Griffin) have earned a new title: Masters of the Well-Beaten Mummified Horse Corpse:

In March, a House subcommittee looking into lessons learned from the 2008 election, heard from a Republican lawyer from Pennsylvania, accusing ACORN of a multitude of violations. In response, Democratic Congressman John Conyers, a fierce partisan who defended ACORN during the presidential campaign, surprised fellow members when he called the accusations a pretty serious matter. Conyers asked New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler to conduct a subcommittee hearing on ACORN. Here is what happened next.

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Let me just say that I would certainly consider a hearing on ACORN, if I ever hear any credible allegations.

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN: Whoa. Wait a minute. This is a member of the bar here that got a successful partial injunction against ACORN.

NADLER: The chairman makes a good point and we will certainly consider it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRIFFIN: Lou, they didn't apparently consider it very long. Congressman Nadler's office tells us there will be no hearing on ACORN. When we asked why, we were told Congressman Conyers changed his mind. When we looked for a statement there, this is what we got from Congressman Conyers' office.

"Based on my review of the information regarding the complaints against ACORN, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." That's just about a month after he called the whole affair "pretty serious." Lou?

DOBBS: Obviously Congressman Conyers is not the only fierce partisan on that committee -- a stunning reversal and no further explanation.

GRIFFIN: Nope, we actually asked for an interview. We asked for an explanation of this very statement which says really nothing at all, what kind of evidence they reviewed that changed his mind. This is all we got in return, Lou.

DOBBS: Drew, thank you very much and ACORN is -- well I think we would have to say an interesting and unique organization that deserves a lot more attention, if not investigation on the part of all of us.

What Dobbs and Griffin seem to have trouble wrapping their little heads around is the reality that there's no there there.

Even in cases like the Nevada prosecution, the problem appear to be an issue regarding individual miscreancy more than organizational corruption. And how serious is the problem, exactly?

Continue reading »

April 21, 2009 MSNBC Countdown

DOWNLOAD (26)

PLAY (50)

Jerrold Nadler on Countdown discussing what will be done if Karl Rove again refuses to honor subpoenas and appear before Congress.

DOWNLOAD (27)

PLAY (57)

Keith talks to Rep. Jerrold Nadler about Rove's claims of executive privilege and what the process will be if he again refuses to appear before Congress, this time with a new Attorney General's office to enforce contempt charges.

DOWNLOAD (35)

PLAY (68)

From Democracy Now Dec. 23, 2008.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Congressman Jerrold Nadler. He represents New York’s Eighth Congressional District. It goes from the Upper West Side down right to Ground Zero.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: To, in fact, Coney Island.

AMY GOODMAN: In Brooklyn.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of districts, are you interested in the Senate seat?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Certainly.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is the politics that goes on behind this?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s very hard to know. This is an appointment. It’s entirely internal to Governor Paterson’s head. So one doesn’t really know what the politics is. Obviously, the people supporting Senator—I’m sorry, the people supporting Caroline Kennedy think that a public campaign would be helpful. Other candidates have not been doing it. I have not been doing a public campaign. And no one really knows.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you talked to Governor Paterson privately?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you think Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be senator?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s up to Governor Paterson to decide, and I’m not going to comment on that. All I’ll say is that I think that’s the wrong question, and the press has been asking the wrong question. The question should not be is Caroline Kennedy or any other individual, for that matter, qualified, because the assumption there is if you meet the certain minimum qualification, you’re entitled to the seat. The question ought to be the same question anyone hiring someone for any responsible job would ask, and that is, is this person the most qualified of all the available candidates? That’s the relevant question.

AMY GOODMAN: And why do you think you’re the most qualified?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, I think all the candidates think they’re the most qualified. I think my record in Congress is a very progressive and forward-looking record. I think I’ve shown very good judgment. I was one of the few downstate people who voted against the war, against the PATRIOT Act. I’ve taken a leadership role on civil liberties, on economic development. And I led the battle against the—I led the battle for eight years against the Bankruptcy, so-called, Reform Act of 2005, which we now recognize as probably responsible for maybe a third of the foreclosures that are going on in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Which Vice President-elect Joe Biden championed.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, he supported it. About a third of the Democrats in the House voted for it. And I think my record on economic development in New York, in terms of port development and transportation, has been a very far-seeing record. But, you know, all of this is for the Governor to weigh, and other candidates have other merits and other accomplishments, and he’s got to weigh all of them.

AMY GOODMAN: In terms of how you fit in with the new Obama administration, the path you’re taking now, pushing, for example, 1531, which would—well, which urges President Bush not to pardon people, this is not the path of the Obama administration.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, we don’t know what the path of the Obama administration is, as I said earlier. We will see. I certainly hope that the new administration will recognize, and there are comments from the President-elect and from Eric Holder, who’s going to be the new Attorney General, and from other people, all over the lot on this, frankly, so it’s impossible to predict. But I would hope that they would recognize a necessity to investigate whether crimes were committed and, if they were, to prosecute them, and not—more to the point, not to hold high government officials automatically exempt from the normal processes of justice, because to do that is to loosen the bonds that protect us all.