White House rejects gay judicial nominee

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Washington Blade

The White House has rejected the recommended nomination of a New York attorney who would have become the first openly gay man to sit on the federal bench, because of comments he reportedly made about the Pledge of Allegiance and Christmas that were deemed anti-Christian.

In February, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recommended the nomination of Daniel Alter to serve as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Presidents traditionally follow the guidance of senators from the state where there’s a vacancy for judicial nominations.

But informed sources told the Washington Blade that the White House rejected Alter’s nomination because of remarks he reportedly made regarding a case challenging inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In addition, the White House reportedly objected to remarks that Alter made suggesting that merchants not wish shoppers “Merry Christmas” during the holidays.

In a 2005 article published by Cybercast News Service, Alter is quoted as saying that a general holiday greeting is more appropriate and inclusive for retailers as opposed to saying “Merry Christmas.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/10/20/white-house-rejects-gay-judicial-nominee/

[polichick]

1. Oh boy, it just keeps on coming. nt

[uppityperson]

25. More from OP link about not overcoming filibuster and 1st Amendment/terrorism issues

"Alter was previously an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and specialized in First Amendment and terrorism issues.
(Clip)
But based on those reported statements, the White House and Schumer determined that Alter wouldn’t be able to reach the 60-vote threshold needed in the Senate to overcome a filibuster of his nomination. It’s unclear when the decision to reject Alter was made.

[Better Believe It]

53. What filibuster .... the pretend phantom kind that can be easily ended under Senate rules?

[Newsjock]

2. What the holy hell?

No pun intended, of course.

I can't wait to see how the usual suspects defend this.

[Cleobulus]

3. Must "protect" Christianity at any cost, even against the GLBTQ people...

This is a classic example of why religious people are dangerous, they put their superstitious beliefs above people, and its disgusting.

[HillWilliam]

60. Or as it seems, *especially* against GLBTQ people.

There's more than a bit of history with this administration. They say one thing and do quite the opposite when it comes to us. Repeatedly. We've come to expect it.

[Iowa]

4. K&R...

[foxfeet]

5. K&R nt

[Tx4obama]

6. The article says....

Schumer’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. A White House spokesperson declined to comment. Alter also declined to comment for this story.
----
So, considering that the main people involved in this have not commented - I'd take whatever the UN-named sources say with a bucket of salt ;)

[democrat_patriot]

7. So this has nothing to do with the fact that he's gay?

Misleading title. His being gay is irrelevant, and just added to make Dems angry.

[Cleobulus]

12. The reason given is fucking atrocious enough as it is. n/t

[Nite Owl]

16. All the reasons

give this lifelong, committee holding dem damned angry.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Some of us are equaly angry --

it appears this decision was made to protect the sanctity of "christianity". Both are offensive.

[JackRiddler]

27. No, it's because religious fanatics perceived him to be harming their imaginary sacred cows.

And so the Democrats in this case decided to fold. What a great reason.

I would guess that more accurately, the apocalypse fundamentalists at CNS kept a fat file of imagined slights to their jealous god on this gay judge and brought it out when he was appointed.

[Bluebear]

34. 'and just added to make Dems angry' - duh, the headline is from a gay paper

Do you not want them to cover news about gay men and women?

[Kweli4Real]

44. No ...

Thrown in there to give DUers yet another reason to gripe about the Obama administration, as if many here would need one ...

And of course, based on some of the posts ... It worked like a charm!!!

[Bluebear]

45. You're better in hibernation, unfortunately.

[MNBrewer]

61. The Obama administration keeps providing plenty of reasons

They certainly didn't need any help in that arena from the OP hehe.

[Jamastiene]

67. The title mentions that the man is gay.

It is NOT misleading. The man really is openly gay. That would make him a gay man.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Alter has no chance of being approved by The Judiciary Committee due to GOP obstructionism.

Republicans will make sure that anyone who made alleged "anti-Christian" remarks will never sit on the federal bench.

If the Senate does not confirm Martinez or Jackson, the president will have to pick nominees again for confirmation by the new Congress that takes office in January.

The fate of Democrat Obama's nominations would be uncertain if Republicans, after the November elections, replace Democrats as the majority party in the Senate.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he is “strongly pushing for a vote on Mr. Martinez before the end of the year, and I hope that the Judiciary Committee moves quickly to hold a hearing on Judge Jackson’s nomination.

"But I’ve been very concerned with the slow pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate, especially the partisan obstruction of Mr. Martinez," Udall said. "We have a judicial emergency in Colorado because two seats have been open for almost two years, and we need to seat both nominees soon.”

http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_2024969e-cc47-11df-ac7b-001cc4c002e0.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. And that says it all. The obstructionism in the Senate is the problem.

They are holding up MOST if not every single Obama nominee. They would hold this one up, too!

[ClarkUSA]

26. You got that right. Nominating someone with Alter's history is a no-go from the get-go.

[Radical Activist]

36. And once again Obama will get the blame

from the crowd who think there's only one elected official in America.

[QC]

40. No, he gets the blame for folding faster than Superman on laundry day

every time a Republican raises an eyebrow in his direction.

But I guess he has to try to please them, otherwise they might stop cooperating with him and obstruct his entire agenda, right?

[Radical Activist]

46. Yeah, like when he said he was giving up on repealing DADT.

oh wait...nevermind.

[QC]

47. He says a lot. n/t

[Radical Activist]

48. Right. Words don't matter unless

it's something offensive.

[QC]

50. No, words don't matter when they are contradicted at every turn by one's actions. n/t

[Radical Activist]

52. Every turn like continuing to implement the repeal of DADT

appointing more LGBT officials than any other administration, speaking out against prop 8, and extending same-sex partner benefits to federal employees. Every turn huh?

[MNBrewer]

62. how is Obama continuing to implement the repeal of DADT?

[Kweli4Real]

49. I Think Rather Than Trying To Please ...

the republicans, President Obama is being true to who he is ... who he said he was all along ... a president of all the people.

Whether we like it or not, it is the President's job to represent all of the people while pursuing heis party's agenda. Wasn't that what pissed most of us off most about the previous administration?

[QC]

51. Should he represent the Klan? Aryan Nation?

Or is it only homophobic bigots who should be treated with such tender solicitude?

[Kweli4Real]

63. Actually yes ...

the President "represents" the a$$holes of the aryan nation, if only to support their right to free speech.

[QC]

64. Yes, he should defend their right to free speech, but should he also

allow them to deprive others of their rights?

What is happening here is that real people are having their careers destroyed every day. It's a lot more than bigots not being allowed to express their bigotry.

[Tesha]

42. Well he is the "Fierce Advocate in Chief" and the nominal head of the Party. (NT)

[Greyhound]

66. Run away from the fight (again), suffer the consequences.

Stupid or complicit? We all get to decide.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Yet when religious people call us 'vampires' and 'child killers'

Obama and his wife leap up to declare that those hate preachers are their friends, and good, moral people.
The hypocrisy is revolting. Just beyond compare, really.

[savalez]

10. Can you support your statement with an example?

[Cleobulus]

11. Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren, forgot them? n/t

[savalez]

15. non sequitur...

and hardly a "leap" of President Obama and "his wife".

I also agree with the democrat_patriot's post about waiting for more info before jumping to conclusions. So... I'm out.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Michelle announced that Donnie McClurkin was her favorite

singer of religiuos music at the time he was being used as surrogate on the Obama campaign. McClurkin is the pinnicle of invective breathers, a man who verbally attacks individuals as well as entire minorities using the very worst possible language. It is just a fact. They did not have to emply him, they did not have to praise him, and that goes for her as well as him. She is also accountable, as are we all. If you lack information, you should not bicker but go seek information.
I have never said an untrue thing about the President or his allies, although his allies say absolutely vile things about my community, regularly, professionally even. If you do not like that, take it up with the President, I wish that you would.

[Bluebear]

35. Good.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. And his view when the vile invective of those men was pointed

out to him was that we all have to speak our minds and find a way to get along. Even though they said horrible, inciteful things, and this nominee gave his opinion on a holiday greeting. They get to spit venom, and we are told to shut up, every single time.

[Javaman]

13. That separation between church and state just got a bit narrower.

Thank you, right wing! Oh wait this was the WH, just WHAT was I thinking...

[realisticphish]

14. no, it's still the right wing

or, rather, Obama pandering to them, as if it will change their votes

[Javaman]

20. He seems to enjoy failing each time he tries that.

My hope is that some day Obama will realize how stupid this tactic is, but alas...

[Tesha]

43. I'm guessing he'll finally realize a whole lot of things...

...Wednesday morning, November 3rd, 2012.

A wee bit too late (for all of us), of course.

Tesha

[CreekDog]

19. The White House is afraid that the Republicans might use the truth against a nominee

Well, I wouldn't be so sure. :eyes:

[Tx4obama]

23. The article cites UNNAMED sources. I don't believe any of it & it shouldn't be in LBN. n/t

[wolfgirl]

24. Why is it that

Unnamed/anonymous sources get us so riled up. The WH/Admin as well as Sen Schumer have provided no comment on the rejection of this recommendation. Being GAY may have nothing to do with the decision not to accept Sen Schumer's recommendation. For all we know, the WH/Admin has someone else in mind for the position already.

Stop jumping to conclusions over Unnamed/anonymous sources!




(edit for typos - oops)

[QC]

28. No matter who wins the elections, the Republicans still end up running the country. n/t

[spanone]

29. i don't see where his sexuality is mentioned at all. misleading headline

[QC]

30. That's the actual headline on the article. n/t

[Bluebear]

32. Misleading!!!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

31. Yes, shame on a gay paper mentioning the man is gay in its headline

[Ignis]

37. RTFA

Here's the first paragraph again:

The White House has rejected the recommended nomination of a New York attorney who would have become the first openly gay man to sit on the federal bench, because of comments he reportedly made about the Pledge of Allegiance and Christmas that were deemed anti-Christian.

What was unclear? :shrug:

[Bluebear]

39. It's misleading!!!!!

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Ignis]

41. On a quest for the truth, one man stands alone!

;)

I don't get it. Personally, when I see something in newspaper or journal that I find factually incorrect, I write to the editors.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/contact-us/

I must be doing something wrong. :shrug:

[GoneOffShore]

33. Why can't we eat Republicans? Aren't they the other white meat?

[TK421]

38. You'll get some nasty gas....and the meat would be totally spoiled rotten n/t

[GoneOffShore]

58. Not if they're free range and caviar fed.

[Better Believe It]

54. It's clearly because he's gay. Alter said nothing even remotely offensive to anyone .....

except the most extreme right-wing politicians and fundamentalists. So before the extreme right-wing fanatics begin a political campaign against Alter, the White House decides cave in early by throwing Alter under the bus! That's my take on it. BBI


Here's what Daniel Alter actually said according to the article:

In a 2005 article published by Cybercast News Service, Alter is quoted as saying that a general holiday greeting is more appropriate and inclusive for retailers as opposed to saying “Merry Christmas.”

“It seems both from a business … and a community perspective, that if merchandisers were going to do that … they would try to wish those in the community who may not share in celebrating Christmas a happy holiday as well,” Alter is quoted as saying.

“Our diversity has made us great and will continue to make us great and <'Merry Christmas'> undermines both the holiday spirit as well as the message I think Americans should be sending to each other,” Alter reportedly continued.

Additionally, in a 2004 article published in The New Republic, Alter is quoted as saying the U.S. Supreme Court case Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow “was a good case at the wrong time.” The case challenged use of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

The article reported Alter was “relieved” the Supreme Court decision “left open a window for future challenges.” The Anti-Defamation League had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Newdow case.

“When the right case does come along,” Alter reportedly said, “We’re there.”

Why does the Obama administration seem to capitulate to right-wingers on presidential appointments given the slightest excuse?

[xchrom]

65. +1

[ProudDad]

55. Translation

None of the best people could get 60 votes in the Senate...

And, of course, that 60 vote requirement is BULLSHIT and could be changed by the Dem "leadership" if they had the balls to do it!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barack_America]

57. So, does Obama know about the separation of church and state & the 1st amendment?

It seems not only O'Donnell is ignorant of these things.

[Unvanguard]

59. Choosing judges has to do with politics as well as merit.

I have no objection to this.