Washington Post Columnist "Angry" With Injunction Banning DADT

Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart is "angry" with federal judge Victoria Phillips's order that enjoins the military from enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although Capehart agrees with the "fairness" of the ruling, he believes that Congress should repeal the statute:

[T]his ruling makes me angry. Not because I disagree with the action taken, per se. But because the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" ought to be done by Congress. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to act.

It is not entirely clear whether Capehart is simply angry that Congress "failed to act" or whether he believes that the court should have waited for Congress to act. If Capehart is angry with Congress alone, then I agree with his position.

If Capehart, however, believes that the court should have waited for Congress to act, then I must dissent from this position. People have made similar arguments in other contexts. For example, conservatives, including members of the Supreme Court, have argued that the Supreme Court should have declined to find a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy in Roe v. Wade. At the time, conservatives argued that the democratic process -- not courts -- should resolve the matter. Similarly, conservatives have criticized court rulings that invalidate laws banning same-sex marriage, and they have expressed a preference for legislative action instead.

Judge Phillips, however, did not "repeal" DADT. Instead, she enforced the Constitution. Generally, judges should not wait for lawmakers to act before they remedy violations of the law. This argument is even more compelling when the same legislature (Congress) enacted the unconstitutional law in the first place. I commend the judge's ruling -- even though I think parts of it are subject to criticism, if not reversal. Congress has delayed justice in this area far too long.

Federal Judge Enjoins DADT, But Ruling Not Flawless

A federal judge in California has declared Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the anti-gay policy. The judge held that the policy violates the Due Process and First Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. Both the opinion and the injunction are available online.

I have read the injunction and the 86-page opinion. Although I agree that DADT is unconstitutional (and homophobic), the judge's ruling is not without weaknesses. There are three elements to the decision that could result in a reversal.

First, the court does not substantially discuss "deference" to the military. Although military deference has often resulted in unjust rulings, it is still a doctrine that the Supreme Court applies in cases challenging both military practices and federal statutes regulating the military. I would like to have seen more discussion of this subject in the opinion.

Second, the court applied "heightened scrutiny" to determine whether the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Heightened scrutiny refers to a more rigorous judicial test that usually applies when important rights are at stake or when the government is engaging in certain impermissible forms of discrimination.

The court reasoned that the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and Ninth Circuit caselaw mandate the application of heightened scrutiny. It is unclear, however, whether Lawrence requires the application of heightened scrutiny. At least one federal appeals court has ruled that it does not, and many progressive legal scholars have, in fact, condemned the case for not being as serious about anti-gay discrimination as many commentators believe it is. Furthermore, the specific Ninth Circuit test is not widely applied in constitutional cases, and this could present problems if the litigation reaches the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment ruling also raises questions. Several other courts have denied that DADT raises First Amendment questions. These courts reason that admissions of sexual orientation simply inform the military that the individual fits within a prohibited class of service members. I do not believe that the issue is this simple, and neither does the federal judge in California. Nonetheless, I suspect that the government will contest this portion of the ruling as well.

There is one additional issue that I do not believe will lead to a winning argument for the government. The court's injunction permanently enjoins the military from enforcing DADT. The government argued that the court should have issued a more discrete injunction and enjoin enforcement of the policy only against members of The Log Cabin Club (the conservative gay organization that brought the litigation). Although some conservative caselaw calls for limited injunctive relief, precedent supports generalized injunctions in these circumstances.

In sum, I agree with the outcome of the case of much of the court's reasoning. I have only highlighted these weaknesses to inform readers who abhor the policy that the fight against it is not over.

Gators Pull Off Victory Despite Very Sloppy Offensive Performance

The Florida Gators opened its football schedule at home playing Miami of Ohio. Although the Gators won 34-12, the offense played awful football.

Several commentators have rushed to blame Florida's offensive performance on the absence of Tim Tebow. Some of these same commentators, however, likely predicted that Tebow would fail in the NFL, and they probably harshly criticized him during his time at Florida.

Analysts who watched the game looking to understand what actually happened will resist the kneejerk "post-Tebow" script. Quarterback John Brantley actually did a decent job for his first start. Some of the veteran offensive players, however, had an inexcusably terrible performance. Mike Pouncey, for example, had over a dozen bad snaps, which made it hard for Brantley to utilize his powerful throwing arm. Also, several offensive players fumbled the ball, resulting in Gator turnovers.

The strongest element of the game was the defense. Despite numerous turnovers and mistakes by the offense, the Florida defense prevented Miami from going into the endzone.

Thankfully for the Gators, the team was able to escape this miserable performance with a victory. In addition, the Gators will have a week to correct mistakes and get ready for SEC play. Alabama is only two weeks away for Florida.

UPDATE: This analysis at Bleacher Report gets it right.

Jan Brewer: No More Debates!

Jan Brewer's horrendous performance in the recent Arizona gubernatorial debate has become an Internet sensation. Brewer stumbled during her opening statement. She sat silent and uncomfortable or nearly ten seconds, unable to recall what she should say. And she repeatedly used incorrect grammar, describing what "we have did" for Arizona.

Brewer has now called it quits: no more debates. Brewer says she cannot perform well in an "adversarial" process (so why does she want to govern one of the largest states in the nation). She also foolishly admitted that she agreed to the debate only to qualify for state campaign assistance. Translation: I do not want the voters to realize that I have no answers when my ideas are challenged, but thanks for the campaign funding.

Here is video footage of Brewer's awful opening statement.

Progressive Coalition Planning March on Washington, October 2, 2010

One Nation Working Together, a coalition of dozens of organizations and individuals, is sponsoring a march on Washington scheduled for October 2, 2010. The organization's webpage contains a tab labeled "What We Stand For," which includes the following statement:

We all deserve a just and fair chance to achieve the American Dream. Our national identity is rooted in the ideal that all people – regardless of race, class, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, heritage or ability – should have the opportunity to fulfill their potential.

One Nation Working Together will chart a bold, pragmatic path toward a more unified, sustainable, prosperous future by building support for these core principles and policy ideals.

The website also says that conservatives, liberals, progressives and moderates are all members of the organization. The list of "endorsing organizations," however, are predominately liberal and progressive groups. It is great to witness some visible social movement activity from the left.

Tim Tebow Will "Likely" Play Against Steelers

According to the Denver Post, Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow will likely play in tonight's preseason finale against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Tebow sustained an injury to his ribs during the first preseason game.

Unfortunately for the Broncos, however, many other players will remain sidelined with injuries. Also, for those Tebow fans out there, he is not expected to enter the game until around the fourth quarter.

Tim Tebow: Will He or Won't He Play?

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is still nursing bruised ribs he sustained nearly two weeks ago during a preseason game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Tebow suffered the injury during a touchdown run on the last play of the game. Tebow compiled the best statistics of all of the rookie quarterbacks who played during week one of the preseason.

Since that time, however, Tebow has missed a preseason game against the Detroit Lions, but he returned to practice this week. Nevertheless, according to the Denver Post, it remains unclear whether or not he will play during the next game against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Kentucky Lawyer Faces 6-Month Contempt Sentence For Obeying The Law

Amelia Mikki Adams, a Louisville, Kentucky, lawyer, received a 6-month contempt sentence for refusing to reveal the name of her minor client to a judge. Adams represented "J.J.," a 17-year-old female, who sought judicial approval of her decision to have an abortion.

According to Supreme Court precedent, states can require minors to obtain parental consent prior to having abortions. These states, however, must provide a "judicial bypass" option for mature minors to seek an abortion without parental consent.

During the bypass hearing, J.J "testified that her parents drink to the point of intoxication every day, leaving her and a younger sister to make their own meals and take care of themselves. . . ." The judge ruled that she was mature enough to have an abortion without parental consent.

Later the judge demanded that Adams reveal J.J's name, saying that she wanted to report the parents for child neglect. Adams refused because Kentucky law allows for anonymous bypass hearings and because ethical rules for attorneys prohibit attorneys from disclosing confidential client information. Although state law requires persons to report suspected incidents of child neglect or abuse, the law contains an exception for abuse learned of through an attorney-client relationship.

After the judge continued pressing for the information, Adams told the judge that she only knew her client's first name. Adams, however, immediately withdrew this comment, stating that she misspoke. The judge, however, later sentenced Adams to 6 months of incarceration for misleading the court and for failing to reveal J.J.'s name. The contempt ruling is currently under appeal, and the judge has stayed the contempt ruling pending appeal.

My Take

While Adams was wrong if she intentionally mislead the judge, the judge's request seems to violate Kentucky's bypass statute and its attorney ethical rules (which are similar across the nation). This alone would probably provide a basis for the appeals court to reverse the contempt ruling.

Improper Procedure Finding Contempt?

There is another possible angle that the appeals court could consider, but which media accounts have ignored. There a several kinds of contempt -- coercive and compensatory civil contempt and criminal contempt. Furthermore, contempt can be direct, or in the presence of the court, or indirect, taking place outside of court.

If a court imposes imprisonment or a fine under circumstances where the individual has no way to avoid the penalty, this constitutes criminal contempt. Contrast this with the situation where the court imposes a daily fine or jail term in order to coerce compliance with its orders (coercive civil contempt).

Supreme Court precedent requires courts to extend more due process to persons charged with criminal contempt. Although Kentucky law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permit summary proceedings for direct criminal contempt, these rules exist to prevent disruption to the legal proceeding. Although the facts of this case are unclear, it seems that the proceeding was virtually over and the court had already rendered its decision when the judge found Adams in contempt.

Under circumstances such as these, it is unclear whether a summary proceeding without notice or a hearing is permissible. As the Supreme Court held in UAW v. Bagwell, the leading case on this issue:

Summary adjudication becomes less justifiable once a court leaves the realm of immediately sanctioned, petty direct contempts. If a court delays punishing a direct contempt until the completion of trial, for example, due process requires that the contemnor's rights to notice and a hearing be respected. There "it is much more difficult to argue that action without notice or hearing of any kind is necessary to preserve order and enable [the court] to proceed with its business. . . ." Direct contempts also cannot be punished with serious criminal penalties absent the full protections of a criminal jury trial (italics added).

Because the facts surrounding the contempt ruling are not thoroughly reported in press accounts, it is unclear at this point whether the Kentucky judge complied with Supreme Court doctrine. Adams could also argue that the 6-month sentence constitutes a serious penalty under the circumstances. Regardless, Adams has a great basis for an appeal, given the weight of law that leans to her side.

UPDATE: This article was edited for clarity.

Another Mississippi School Makes Headlines for Bigotry: Racially Segregated Student Council Positions

Another school in Mississippi is making the headlines for its bigotry. Earlier this year, a Mississippi school infamously told a lesbian student that she could not attend the school prom with her date. After the student sued the school, it canceled the prom. Facing national criticism and a lawsuit, the school resorted to trickery. It threw a sham prom for the lesbian and a few other students, while their classmates went to the real prom.

Now, another Mississippi school is making headlines for its bad behavior. MSNBC reports that Nettleton Middle School in Nettleton, Mississippi, has racially segregated the student council positions at the school. According to a memorandum that school officials distributed to students, only whites can run for the position of president. Only blacks can run for Vice President of the 8th grade class, while only whites can run for that position in 6th and 7th grade. The positions of "Secretary-Treasurer" and "Reporter" are similarly segregated. If this news is true, it proves, once again, that there are places in this country where the legal command of Equal Protection means nothing at all.

UPDATE: MSNBC reports that the school has invalidated the policy. Now, it will allow all students to run for the office they choose. Interestingly, school officials say that they rotate the races each year and use the policy to ensure minority representation. If this is the school's actual goal, it is legitimate. Nevertheless, it is carried out in a very bad manner. Furthermore, if black students cannot get elected without this policy, then it appears that white students, who outnumber blacks, are engaging in racialized voting (which exists even for adults). The students need lessons on tolerance, not division.

So-Called "Holdout" Blagojevich Juror Speaks Out

Media headlines describe JoAnn Chiakulas as the "holdout" juror in the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. This label, however, implies that she acted unreasonably when she decided that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blagojevich conspired to sell the US Senate seat that President Obama once held.

Now, Chiakulas has told her side of the story during an interview with the Chicago Tribune. Based on this interview, Chiakulas seems quite reasonable and professional.

Chiakulas comes across as a very level headed and conscientious juror. She tells the Chicago Tribune that "I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury. . . .I didn't believe it was the correct vote for me."

The Chicago Tribune explains why Chiakulas believed that the prosecution failed to meet its burden:

Chiakulas said she found Blagojevich's recorded statements on the Senate vacancy to be so scattered and disorganized that his actions did not reach the level of a criminal conspiracy.

One day he chattered about being the Indian ambassador, for example, then in the next conversation he discussed another plan. In the space of a few weeks, he talked about appointing, among others, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Oprah Winfrey or himself.

She said she never saw him formulate a clear plan to sell the seat.

Chiakulas also described tension in the deliberation room, as other jurors tried to pressure her into voting guilty on the conspiracy charge. She also said that some of the women jurors felt that some male jurors did not respect their opinions:

Other jurors have acknowledged pressuring Chiakulas to change her vote on the Senate seat, with one man going so far as to switch chairs so he could "look her in the eyes" during deliberations. She was yelled at and told she wasn't being logical, jurors said.

One person asked the judge for a copy of the juror's oath, implying that Chiakulas wasn't fulfilling her obligation. Chiakulas and at least two other female jurors said they felt belittled and questioned whether their gender had something to do with their treatment.

Chiakulas did not have kind words for Blagojevich, whom she described as "narcissistic" and as an "idiot." Ultimately, she voted her conscience after agonizing over the evidence for weeks. The media should salute Chiakulas for standing her ground and for doing precisely what jurors are supposed to do.

Reuters: Wyclef Jean Ineligible to Run for Haiti Presidency

Reuters is reporting that hip hop star and aspiring politician Wyclef Jean failed to meet eligibility requirements to run for president of Haiti. Election officials released their ruling Friday evening.

I Can See The First Amendment From My Front Porch: Palin's Botched Defense of Dr. Laura

Sarah Palin recently defended Dr. Laura Schlessinger after she had a sudden bout of N-word diarrhea during her radio show. After the public outcry, Schlessinger ended her radio program, but she screamed foul play, arguing that her constitutional rights were violated.

Professor Palin offered her trademark "common sense" advise to Schlessinger in a series of Twitter posts. In so doing, Palin proves, yet again, that common sense is merely an excuse for not reading.

Palin sent the following message to Schlessinger:

“Dr.Laura: don't retreat ... reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")"

She then posted a follow-up:

“Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles,so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice, America!)"

Apparently, the Bloggacuda does not know much about the First Amendment, because Schlessinger's right to free speech remains fully intact. The First Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to free expression, has fully rebutted Palin's botched constitutional analysis. The organization also makes the interesting argument that while Palin often criticizes the government for trampling upon the Constitution, it is clear that she lacks a basic understanding of some of its central principles.

As a Professor of Constitutional Law, I could write more on this issue, but the First Amendment Center does a great job. Here is a clip from the article:

• The First Amendment protects us from the government, and not from other Americans who disagree with what we have to say. “Congress shall make no law” — the first five words of the First Amendment — say it all: No government body can limit our rights to speak out. In this case, there’s no government action, just public outrage and pressure.

• Boycotts are also protected by the First Amendment. Dr. Laura complains about being “bullied” by those who might pressure her radio affiliates or advertisers, but boycotts are a time-honored use of the First Amendment. . . .

• Efforts to punish controversial speech comes from the right and the left. It’s true that liberal organizations are attacking Dr. Laura for use of the racial epithet, just as conservative organizations burned Dixie Chicks CDs when Natalie Maines told a London audience that she was embarrassed that President Bush came from Texas. . . .

• Dr. Laura’s First Amendment rights are alive and well. Although she’s leaving her radio show, she says she’ll continue to share her views through public speaking, TV interviews, in print, online, and in a new book due in January, all made possible by the First Amendment.

So, is Palin wrong again? You betcha!

Howard Dean's Epic FAIL: Former Governor Refuses to Back Down From Opposition to Mosque

Howard Dean has published a statement on Salon.com that forcefully defends his controversial statements regarding the Cordoba House (or so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"). Yesterday, Dean said that the mosque proponents needed to compromise and that they should pick another site. Today, facing heated criticism from progressives, Dean has defended his comments.

Dean claims that he supports religious freedom and says that it is undeniable that the mosque proponents have the right to build near ground zero. Dean, however, argues that they should accept a compromise:

My argument is simple. This Center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are "justified" or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully whether they are right or whether they are wrong.

Dean also tries to rebut the assertion that his arguments could justify other forms of intolerance, like homophobia and racism:

This has nothing to do with the right to build and unlike same sex marriage or the civil rights movement it is not about equal protection under the law. The rights of the builders are not in dispute. This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides.

Epic FAIL
Dean's arguments, to use the vernacular of a younger generation than my own, are an epic FAIL. I do not doubt that Dean agrees that the individuals have a right to build the mosque. Dean also concedes that many individuals oppose the mosque because they are bigots.

Dean's arguments, however, fail to persuade me because he wants a group of seemingly well intentioned religious individuals to capitulate to irrational fears, bigotry, and "emotions" of individuals who oppose the mosque. No tangible evidence or logical argument can link mosque proponents with the 9/11 attackers.

Religious bigotry, however, makes it impossible for many mosque opponents to distinguish Cordoba House proponents from the radical individuals involved in 9/11. Rather than countering this bigotry, Dean argues that Muslims should acquiesce to its existence. This is hardly an emancipatory rhetoric.

Dean also fails in his effort to distinguish this discussion from other civil rights issues. Many bigots have said "I am not a racist, but. . . ." Others have said, "I have nothing against gay people, but. . . ." During the Civil Rights Movement, many liberals (e.g., President John F. Kennedy) claimed to agree that racism and segregation were wrong, but they urged black leaders to accept compromise, modify their demands, wait until society was more understanding, and refrain from protest. Thurgood Marshall famously said that the Negro waited nearly a century for Americans to respect the constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection. Further compromise was unacceptable.

The same twisted logic that Marshall rejected pervades discussions of Islam in this setting. It also serves as the basis for Dean's comments. While many people who oppose the mosque might stop short of explicitly denying that its proponents have the right to do so, this distinction is meaningless. By linking all Muslims with 9/11, the mosque opponents render their professed religious tolerance a nullity. Dean, who once excited progressives with his position on social issues, should be ashamed of his stance towards the mosque.

UPDATE: Howard Dean conducted an interview with Glenn Greenwald on this subject. During the interview, he tried to walk away from his argument that moving the mosque would be a "better idea." Instead he said he simply seeks discussion and compromise. Dean also criticized progressives for being inflexible.

Dean denied Greenwald's assertion that his arguments mirror efforts to get civil rights leaders to curb their activism due to social pressure. I highly recommend that Dean read Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter From A Birmingham Jail. It discusses the issue of delay, compromise, the fear of white moderates, and injustice.

Tim Tebow Hurt; Misses Second Practice

Former Florida Gators and current Denver Broncos rookie quarterback Tim Tebow apparently injured himself during last Sunday's preseason game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Tebow suffered bruised ribs and has been wearing extra protection for his abdomen.

PS: As an avid Gator sports fan and native of Gainesville, Florida, I exercise executive authority to introduce occasional sports news on this otherwise legal and political blog.

Do Americans Really Believe in Religious Freedom and Equality? (UPDATED)

After President Obama defended the right of the planners of the Cordoba House (the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque") to locate their religious center near the site of the former World Trade Center, he received criticism from progressives and conservatives. Both sides argued that he should comment on the wisdom of the project -- rather than limiting his position to a discussion of religious freedom and equality.

Is Religious Tolerance A "Nonissue"?
Many of Obama's critics cited a Fox News poll, which shows that 61% of Americans believe that the Cordoba House proponents have the "right" to locate the building near Ground Zero. Although the poll shows that more than 1/3 of Americans do not recognize the constitutional rights of the Cordoba House proponents, Obama's critics argue that this poll proves that religious freedom is a nonissue.

According to Obama's critics, he had taken a safe and cowardly position (yet again). Sarah Palin, via Facebook, demanded that Obama state what he believed "should" occur. Ben Smith of Politico described the rights question as a "trivial" point.

The assumption of these commentators is plain: Americans widely support religious freedom and equality, but they split on the wisdom of the Cordoba House. The rhetoric of opponents of the religious center, however, reveals that many of them actually do not support religious freedom.

People Do Not Like To Reveal Bias in Polls
Critics who cite polling data which purport to show that Cordoba House opponents support religious freedom surprisingly view the polls uncritically. A wealth of analysis establishes that people feel uncomfortable revealing their personal biases and bigotry in polls. Accordingly, when pollsters ask respondents whether they generally support "equality" or whether they oppose "discrimination," overwhelmingly, the respondents favor equal treatment. Yet, when pollsters ask them more specific questions related to equality, the numbers change.

For example, polls show that a large majority of Americans do not believe that sexual orientation alone should justify discrimination. Nevertheless, many of these same respondents disagree with same-sex marriage or believe that gays and lesbians should not teach children.

There is nothing unique about religion that would preclude a similar pattern in polls related to religious tolerance. Indeed, a new Time Magazine survey suggests that on specific questions regarding religious tolerance and Muslims, many Americans support unequal treatment.

Here are some results from the survey:

Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President — slightly higher than the 24% who mistakenly believe that the current occupant of the Oval Office is himself a Muslim. . . .

And while more Americans are open to the idea of having a mosque built in their neighborhoods than near Ground Zero, it's still not an overwhelming majority; 55% of respondents say they would favor the construction of an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from their own homes, and an equal number say they believe most Muslims are "Patriotic Americans."

The poll results belie the assumption that Americans consistently support religious freedom and equality. Instead, significant numbers of Americans harbor biases against Muslims (including a growing number who wrongfully believe Obama himself is a Muslim).

Cordoba House Opponents Stereotype Muslims As Terrorists
Cordoba House opponents also contradict their own message of religious tolerance by stereotyping Muslims as terrorists -- and in particular, the 9/11 attackers. According to the Time Magazine survey, 70% of Americans believe that building the Cordoba House near Ground Zero "would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center."

There is absolutely no evidence that links planners of the Cordoba House with the World Trade Center or terrorism. Indeed, the proponents say that they want to construct the center as a gesture of goodwill.

Nonetheless, large numbers of Americans believe that the mere presence of a center dedicated to Islam would constitute further harm to the victims of 9/11. Only a prejudicial view that associates Muslims with terrorism could explain this belief. Many people who claim that they support the rights of the Cordoba House planners, but who feel that the project should not go forward, likely harbor biases against Muslims.

Final Take
Critical readers should not take general polling data on religious tolerance at face value. Instead, they should analyze the public's views on specific questions related to tolerance. Emerging polling data suggest that while large numbers of Americans claim to support religious freedom, they also hold stereotypical views of Muslims.

President Obama entered this political thicket by expressing support for religious freedom and equality. Yet, liberals and conservatives criticized his approach as moderate and evasive. They also treated religious freedom as a nonissue. Both sides need to reevaluate their arguments.

When liberals dismiss religious freedom as an irrelevant issue, they trivialize the manifestation of anti-Muslim bigotry, which they claim to oppose. When conservatives, moderates and liberals associate a Muslim community center with the harm of 9/11, they betray their own stated commitment to religious tolerance.

UPDATE: The Time Magazine and Fox News polls both confirm that around 1/3 of Americans seemingly would deny many rights to Muslims. The same amount profess religious tolerance and have no problem with the Cordoba House. Another one third profess religious tolerance but disagree with the Cordoba House. Progressives have accepted at face value the religious tolerance of the latter group. Uncritical acceptance of this group's professed religious tolerance is a foolhardy way to approach to the issue.

UPDATE II: A new poll by The Economist provides even stronger evidence of anti-Muslim sentiment among Americans.

Do Not Forget: 50,000 Troops Will Remain in Iraq

The media is reporting that the last combat brigade will soon leave Iraq. Some commentators are declaring an official end of the war.

Yet, lost beneath the headlines and fanfare is the following fact: around 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq. The government is not describing them as combat troops. Instead, it is calling these soldiers advisers, as the Washington Post reports:

By the end of this month, the United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops.

The Iraq War will continue to exact financial and physical costs on the United States and the people of Iraq.