Barack Obama | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8 | Supreme Court

President Obama Considering Filing Brief in Prop 8 Case: VIDEO


President Obama was asked directly by KGO-TV's Dan Ashley in an interview last night whether he would file an amicus brief in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court as the February 28 deadline approaches.

Said Obama:

"The solicitor general is still looking at this. I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process particularly when we're not a party to the case. I can tell you, though, obviously my personal view, which is that I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights and be treated like everybody else. And that's something that I feel very strongly about [and] my administration's acting on wherever we can."

Obama's remarks coincide with an Associated Press report in which an anonymous White House source indicated that the President was weighing the decision:

A final decision on whether to file a brief has not been made, a senior administration official said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is consulting with the White House on the matter, said the official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to address the private deliberations publicly.

While the Justice Department would formally make the filing, the president himself is almost certain to make the ultimate decision on whether to file.

Watch the interview, AFTER THE JUMP....

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. President Obama's wish for minimum interjection on SCOTUS decision would have been quite admirable and worthy of his office, IF the Supreme Court was entirely ruled by like-minded objective judges. Which unfortunately, and to the detriment of the American people, it is so very-much NOT.

    So Mr. President, interject as much as your love for us dictates.

    Posted by: Maguitac | Feb 21, 2013 10:24:01 AM

  2. Obama's hesitancy to "interject" himself is specious. He interjects himself into everything else on this planet--particularly when the downtrodden or alleged downtrodden are Black. This is just Obama's true homophobic colors showing through again--he truly hates Gays. If he were truly for equality for "our Gay brothers and sisters," he would have already had his SG file a brief arguing for complete equality. He also would have done numerous other things to effect equality--such as issuing the ENDA-type executive order and righting the wrong of the discharge of 14000+ innocent Gay Americans under DADT whose lives remain shattered--that he refuses to do.

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 10:33:28 AM

  3. @James 1) He still very well may file, so your comment is premature and silly 2) his record on LGBT issues, while, gasp, politically over-cautious, has been leaps and bounds better than any of his predecessors. I could live with that kind of "hate".

    Posted by: mike | Feb 21, 2013 10:46:29 AM

  4. Why would the Supreme Court have any interest in the President's opinion, especially when the President is currently looking for an end run on the Court decision in Heller?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 21, 2013 10:56:29 AM

  5. "He interjects himself into everything else on this planet--particularly when the downtrodden or alleged downtrodden are Black."

    Oh, really. Ask Tavis Smiley and Cornell West about that.

    Y'all make up sh.t.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 21, 2013 11:06:31 AM

  6. Mike: Black apologists said the same thing to Black civil-rights leaders and activists like MLK, Jr.: "you're so silly, you should be patient." Impatience when it comes to equality is a virtue. Gay Americans shouldn't have to suffer one more day--let alone one more month--in second-class citizenship.

    Your argument that Obama is commendable because he is less homophobic than his predecessors is equally not credible and what is "silly" here, not my condemnation of Obama. Obama kicked out some 800 innocent Gay Americans from the Military, for one thing alone. He's basically done nothing more than any other president to effect equality and nothing less to effect discrimination. Indeed, as "evolutions" go, Obama is even far behind rabid segregationist George Wallace, who after becoming a born-again Christian actually apologized for his discriminatory actions, and took concrete actions as governor to effect equality, such as appointing Blacks to his cabinet.

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 11:15:42 AM

  7. James, I'm not sure that obvious racist hyperbole is the best way to make your case (once again) against President Obama, but your blind hatred seems to get the best of you.

    The president can certainly be criticized if no brief is filed, but to claim he "truly hates Gays" just sounds insane.

    And it's not about whether the SC has an interest in his opinion--it's about him using his power to make a statement about the trajectory of equality. Anyone who thinks the SC isn't aware of that is fooling themselves.

    Posted by: Ernie | Feb 21, 2013 11:17:33 AM

  8. JAMES E.

    Your ignorance of the facts on this issue has parlayed into statements that mirror your lack of knowledge of a constitutionally elected presidency. In the mere instances that the President has injected his opinions, those circumstances have not been on cases [before] the Judiciary.

    Next time get your facts correct before displaying such arrogance of ignorant stupidity!

    Posted by: BRAINS | Feb 21, 2013 11:18:42 AM

  9. The way I understand it, the filer of an amicus brief is never a party to the case.

    Posted by: rustytrawler | Feb 21, 2013 11:25:46 AM

  10. I certainly equally have no respect for George Wallace or Barack Obama--both of whom at one time at least championed discrimination against innocent people under one form of morality or another. Nor do I have any respect for anyone who apologizes for or praises them to any degree--it is that very appeasement that makes their discrimination possible in the first place.

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 11:26:22 AM

  11. Ernie: I'm definitely sure that your comment--which is the racist one here--does not diminish my argument one iota, and in fact strengthens it. As an Obama supporter you can't effectively defend Obama's indisputable acts of discrimination and failure to enact equality measures, so you have to resort to ridiculous ad hominem false accusations of racism which only serve to highlight the Obama legacy of discrimination. NO one who subscribes to MLK, Jr.'s philosophy of equality takes seriously accusations like yours that critics (like me) of Obama are racist simply because we criticize Obama who is Black.

    Nor does anyone who has half a brain take seriously your assertions of "blind hatred" and "insanity" on my part for stating that Obama "hates Gays." I don't "hate" Obama at all, much less "blindly" hate him. I condemn him for his discrimination against Gays (and others) and failure to enact equality measures, and that condemnation is based on irrefutable facts which I have sufficiently described. I guess you Ernie must "love" David Dukes--if to condemn bigots is in your eyes to unforgivably "hate" them.

    "Brains" (whoever that is): Your comment makes no sense. You seem to say, as best I can translate your nonsense, that I don't understand separation of powers, that Obama can't interject in a court case, and that in any instances of interjection to which I may have referred it was not a court case. I will simply say, "Brains," that you are the one who understands neither history nor separation of powers. Go do your homework before you presume to lecture me about understanding things.

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 11:48:26 AM

  12. Get back on the lithium James. To say Obama "truly hates gays" is just not based in any form of reality.

    Posted by: Not that Rob | Feb 21, 2013 11:52:37 AM

  13. Not that Rob: Thanks for proving my point about the Obama movement--again. In response to my well-supported arguments on this post, all you have--like all any Obama supporter ever has on this site--are snarky comments from the shadows of internet anonymity. Nothing factual. Nothing credible. Nothing intelligible. Like all of your fellow posters, you don't even believe in your comments enough to put your name to them. In a way, I don't blame you--your uninformed comments are so embarrassing that no one would want to be associated with them. That is surely why you hide behind names like "Brains" (what an oxymoron) and "Not that Rob." You must be the "other Rob."

    And, of course, having no effective argument, you too had to resort to ad hominem false accusations like "get back on the lithium James." Oooohhhhh. You make it too easy, Not that Rob, to completely refute you. "Sticks and stones....," Not that Rob. Your comment is also telling of your status as an Obama supporter. Homophobes often falsely accuse Gay people of having mental-health issues. You perfectly represent that homophobe Obama, Not that Rob.

    Finally, Not that Rob, to discriminate against anyone is the essence of hatred. And Obama has discriminated against Gays plenty. Again, using your rationale--not mine--people like David Duke must "love" Black people, etc.

    You talk of "reality." "Reality" is, for example, the 14000+ innocent Gay Americans--including 800 discharged by Obama--whose lives remain shattered to this day. It is you, Not that Rob, who needs to come back to reality....

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 12:17:26 PM

  14. James, honey,I don't know who sol you that batch of tina but if it were me(and once upon a time it would have been) but don't take any more hits.


    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 21, 2013 12:27:25 PM

  15. Chitown Kev: Sweetie, doll, honeybunch,whatever, thanks for proving my point. Your argument in support of Obama is, like your fellow posters' comments, 1) not intelligible--I have no idea what "tina" is (I assume it is a drug)--and 2)not credible as yet another hyperbolic falsehood. Kev, it definitely shows in your (lack of) argument that you used drugs before as you seem to admit. Again, thanks for the confirmation of my argument....

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 12:42:32 PM

  16. James, who's supporting Obama...I'm not...I would simply like for you to support a few of your own statements with evidence.

    "He interjects himself into everything else on this planet--particularly when the downtrodden or alleged downtrodden are Black."

    You say that based on what, exactly?

    Now yes, he recently visited Chicago with all the gang shootings and what not but only after Chicago activists had been pressing him for a year and him going to Aurora, CO and Newtown, Connecticut.

    You put statements out there James, be prepared to support them and there's no way you can support that statement.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 21, 2013 1:00:04 PM

  17. Chitown Kev: Do you seriously think I am going to engage someone in debate who, originally in response to my initial argument above, hyperbolically falsely accused me of doing drugs....? Obama's despicable record as president is a serious matter (as is any president's), and any debate thereon requires something more than name-calling, etc. that Obama's supporters (and many Republicans and their supporters as well) engage in. I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone when that person won't even acknowledge facts or reasonable arguments. You want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like one to begin with.... You may not support Obama,as you claim, but you are just like him. You want no accountability for your actions. I'm not going to spend half an hour outlining "facts" of my particular assertion you want evidence on, only to have you tell me I've taken too many "hits" on "tina"--again, whatever that is. That's the downside of the snarkiness that so many posters on this site love to engage in--they can't be taken seriously, even when they want to be taken seriously. Too bad.

    Posted by: James E. Pietrangelo, II | Feb 21, 2013 1:32:02 PM

  18. anyone who thinks Obama "hates gays" has been blinded by their own fury and is refusing to see reality.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 21, 2013 1:38:12 PM

  19. Oh look. Another thread that's destroyed by a troll.

    Hopefully Barack files the brief. We want to see Prop 8 go down with the broadest ruling possible. I don't know much about law but I have to imagine the President's impact would go a long way here.

    Posted by: Francis | Feb 21, 2013 1:42:50 PM

  20. While my argument was in the form of ad hominem, you really think that your arguments were based on anything other than emotion?

    "This is just Obama's true homophobic colors showing through again--he truly hates Gays."

    Now Obama hasn't done everything to my own persoanl set of specifications as far as gays are concerned, true enough, but there's no way that I could look at his policies and says that "he hates gays"

    and even if he did, what does that have to do with black people (a number of whom say the exact same thing that you said...Derrick pointed out two examples.

    Again this is an fear based argument that only white people make...

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 21, 2013 2:06:19 PM

  21. Some people are lonely and want attention so badly they manufacture incendiary comments just to coax responses; just like the toddler who acts bad just to get attention. Any attention is good, even negative.

    It's sad, really. And I feel bad for people who are that lonely and possible mentally ill. We should try and be patient with them, send ehugs and hope they find fulfillment that eludes them.

    Meanwhile, not sure if O inserting himself is all that wise. All the conservatives hate him and it's a miracle roberts sided with him on health care. I'm afraid, just like congress, having an opinion will just reinforce the opposite opinion by those who resent him.

    Posted by: dms | Feb 21, 2013 2:19:05 PM

  22. @DMS

    The thing is when it comes to Proposition 8, every couple in the state of California already has all the rights that straight couples have in that state with one exception; a gay couple can't call it a marriage...that's the only difference.

    I'm not sure what narrow legal argument the president could make as it regards Prop 8.

    DOMA is the bigger kahuna and he's already on record as against DOMA.

    Posted by: Chiown Kev | Feb 21, 2013 2:27:48 PM

  23. Funny how Buzzfeed/Geidner got this story precisely wrong as "President refuses to say..."

    He refused to say *no* and left the door open. If the answer is actually no, then it doesn't matter when you say no. If it's yes, you need to have the details ready, and they likely don't. The administration has lots of options in deciding which issues to address and what arguments to make.

    People seem to be getting better at *interpreting* what Obama says -- as Tony Kushner recently advised everyone to -- instead of reacting like Pavlov's dog.

    Posted by: Chuckles | Feb 21, 2013 2:55:44 PM

  24. Obama must be getting ready to do something which will give his Liberal-Progressive supporters heartburn. Gays are the only group he caters to in order to burnish his "liberal" credability. I'm expecting a massive Obama push to cut Soc Sec & Medicaid entitlements any day now.

    Posted by: mikeflower | Feb 21, 2013 5:28:41 PM

  25. Obama is a president for all and respects human rights which are gay rights

    Posted by: Jordan | Feb 22, 2013 4:35:45 AM

Post a comment


« «Jon Stewart Demolishes 'Hypocrite' John McCain and His 'Junior High School-Level Pettiness': VIDEO« «