Michael Walter Fitzgerald, Fourth Openly Gay Judicial Candidate, Nominated By Obama

President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that he is nominating Michael Walter Fitzgerald to serve as a judge on the federal court for the Central District of California. Fitzgerald is the fourth openly gay judicial candidate Obama has nominated.

"I am honored to nominate Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court,” Obama said in a statement. "His impressive career stands as a testament to his formidable intellect and integrity. I am confident he will serve the people of California with distinction on the District Court bench."

A congressional source familiar with the vetting process tells the Los Angeles Times that he doesn't expect Fitzgerald's sexual orientation to stand in the way of his confirmation by the Senate.

On Monday, Paul Oetken became the first openly gay man confirmed by the Senate to serve as a federal judge.

Another gay judicial nominee, Alison Nathan, was favorably reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Edward DuMont still awaits consideration by the committee.

Comments

[Crawfish Festival]

06:00 PM on 07/22/2011

I cannot understand how gay rights can be compared with civil rights.......or when gay rights is made into a civil rights issue.

Civil Rights are for ALL people.

[Crawfish Festival]

04:25 PM on 07/22/2011

Is this the same Fitzgerald - that was a US Attorney - who handled the investigation and prosecution of the sale of Obama's former US senate seat from Illinois?

Just asking.

[Jason N]

03:19 PM on 07/21/2011

Nope. Obama ordered his DOJ to appeal and ask for a stay, so that HE could get credit for it's passage. It than failed to pass twice through his preferred method, attaching it to defense. He wouldn't support a stand alone bill until it was pushed by Liebermann and Collins and appeared poised for passage. Oh, and his DOJ is still defending DADT in court, there was an article about this less than 3 days ago on this very site.

Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Status: In the works

Can't say anything here, I guess "in the works" could be realistic. But I don't buy it. Let's look at his "support" when it came to DADT. During the first cloture vote, Pres. Obama made not a single call to a Senator or Rep, communication office confirmed this. He did however make a call to the WNBA champions. I guess if that's the support we can expect for DADT, this should be status failed.

The other is broken, and I'll give him hate crimes, even though it passed without his help (it had already passed the House and Senate before he took office once).

[MardiGrasGirl]

07:27 PM on 07/21/2011

When it comes to civil rights, you don't ever get exactly what you want because its always a work in progress. There is always a benchmark.

It's always good to keep the person you helped to elect on their toes, but to be outright dismissive of anything they have done is outrageous. I remember all the hyperbole on this site before DADT was signed by Obama. It was fever pitch, rabid, and vile against Obama. When he signed it, crickets! Meanwhile on the other side, the person leading in the Republican hunt for the White House and her gay husband, consider the gay lifestyle an abomination that can be cured by men just touching breasts.

Attitudes change with time and my advice to you is to stick with the person most willing to do something for your cause. Did it ever occur to you that he has to do some things a certain way because the other side is against anything he wants? He should and will get credit for all that he has done for gay rights because he could have easily used his veto pen- Bush would have.

[Jason N]

03:28 PM on 07/22/2011

"When he signed it, crickets!"

You must live in a dream land. Many here said then the same things I'm saying now. "Thanks for signing it, but you really did nothing but stand in the way of getting this repealed" (and he continues to do so, DADT could already be gone but now we're waiting to hear if Panetta will certify the repeal today and that there's not a single incident in 60 days, otherwise... right back to where we were before). He appealed the court case why? Give me one, single solitary reason, when the military said they'd abide by the order and started making changes to policy did Obama step in and halt the end of DADT JUST so he could see his version of repeal fail in yet another Senate vote? ONE reason for that other than petty politics.

[Jason N]

03:19 PM on 07/21/2011

For the Poitifcat posters, that site is full of it. Here's why:

Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity
Status: Stalled

Stalled? I haven't heard the word ENDA come out of his mouth since taking office. Barney Frank had to come out and ask why the President hadn't addressed the issue. In the same interview, he said Obama was basically hands of on DADT which leads to...

Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
Promise: Kept

Promise kept? DADT is still the law of the land, right now, as I type this. Despite a "repeal" bill passing the House and Senate and being signed by President Obama, it's still the law. Why is this you ask? Because President Obama insisted on giving the Joint Chiefs final say on when repeal takes place. Not to mention, were it not for LCR's lawsuit, DADT "repeal" would most likely now be back in committee. There had been literally no progress on the bill until a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional and ordered the military to halt discharges immediately. DADT done with, right? (cont.)

[kylenevin1]

04:12 PM on 07/21/2011

Again I will say the following, To all of you who are part of an oppressed group, especially LGBT, and those who believe in equal rights for all, hence the Constitution, by bashing Obama you are falling into the GOP's propaganda. Who would you support, the GOP that is controlled by the Evangelicals that only seek to use you as fuel for their furnace, or not vote which is a vote for the GOP? What is your viable option? As I have said, I dont agree with everything President Obama has or has not done, but I do know in my 40 years of voting, he has done more than any President before him. Think before you run your mouth.
Where and who is your viable option before you continue to split the Democratic Party and remember the key word is viable. Please give me an option.

[Jason N]

04:18 PM on 07/21/2011

" Who would you support, the GOP that is controlled by the Evangelica­ls that only seek to use you as fuel for their furnace, or not vote which is a vote for the GOP?"

A not vote is not a vote for the GOP, nor is a vote for the Green Party. Further more, when the GOP lead by evangelical hero George W. Bush had the reigns of the entire federal govt., what anti-gay legislation did they pass? I'm sorry, I'm done with being scared into voting for the GOP, when the "scare" never happens when the GOP gets elected. Give me a reason to vote FOR the Democratic party, not AGAINST fear of possible GOP reprisals (that have no historical basis).

[rockysparks]

08:06 AM on 08/04/2011

The federal government --- whether its the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court --- is a massive FAIL. Just because Obama is a nice guy and all the Party of NO potential candidates are pinheads, goons and scummy tools of the Big Business establishment, we're supposed to excuse his wishy-washy leadership? Obamapologists play the only card they have --- "Obama's not as bad as THEM" --- to try to squelch any criticism of his wishy-washy record.

[mystshy]

02:07 PM on 07/21/2011

so whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt,,,why is gay a voter moment now????????????????

[shannonlegrand]

01:34 PM on 07/21/2011

He didn't follow thru with Don't ask Don't tell so I guess this is a consolation prize.....the election will be here before you know it. How strategic....

[lipstickpig]

01:10 PM on 07/21/2011

But will their partner be able to visit them in the hospital and have a say so on their health care ? will they get to file joint tax returns? will they get to collect retirement funds from a deceased lover? Repeal DOMA ! Then I will be interested

[MardiGrasGirl]

07:29 PM on 07/21/2011

Keep your vote. Let Michelle Bachmann repeal DOMA.

[lipstickpig]

12:58 PM on 07/21/2011

Well it's kinda a start ! What about following thru with Don't askl Don't tell?
DOMA? You have used the gays to get elected and really have not followed thru with your promises!
The country also needs Jobs ! NOT WAR ! Bring our troops home and pay them ! Stop the corporations running this country !
Mr President I'm not digging you and will be looking for others to get the work done !

[Michael Ludin]

12:46 PM on 07/21/2011

Can we please shhhssshhhsssshhh a little about this. We don't want to wake up the loonies. It should be a non-news item, just as finally it is a non-important criteria to qualify for appointment.

[Chester Copperpot]

01:34 PM on 07/21/2011

Too late brah, they are out in full force...just mention gay, black or anything ethnic and they flock to it like a car accident.

[rockysparks]

08:08 AM on 08/04/2011

Or like the cast of Zombieland, out for a fresh feeding ...

[Terry Batko]

12:43 PM on 07/21/2011

kinda makes me wonder if he is trying to swing the gay vote for his next election, or when he "changes" his address

[orbitxal1]

12:43 PM on 07/21/2011

I'm sure these nominees may be qualified in judicial and law experience, but there are are also moral and ethical standards of the general society that also should be considered.

[Jason N]

01:12 PM on 07/21/2011

" there are are also moral and ethical standards of the general society"

No, there are not. The SCOTUS made this clear in Lawrence v. TX. Personal and religious animus have no place in a secular society governed by laws.

[Bpers2001]

01:18 PM on 07/21/2011

Being LGBT is neither immoral or unethical, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[MGWilson]

12:42 PM on 07/21/2011

I'd like to see him put a couple of gay or lesbian judges up for the SCOTUS. Gays tend to see things from outsite the box.

[Crawfish Festival]

05:53 PM on 07/22/2011

such as Sotomayor or Elena Kagan?

[mjegan59]

12:27 PM on 07/21/2011

Who cares? Seriously...why is this news? We are a nation of all ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, ages, languages, etc., why should our courts look any different from us? The only thing I want to know about his nether regions is whether this guy has the [guts] to support the little guy against corporate interests.

[duckpuddle]

01:09 PM on 07/21/2011

I care. Gay people have been excluded for position of power for ever. Its nice to see the change.

p.s. being gay has surprising little to do with sexual organs.

[Crawfish Festival]

05:54 PM on 07/22/2011

ps = Huh?

[RusStyles]

12:20 PM on 07/21/2011

One person wrote: "Thank you Mr President." A slew of other posters must find something moan and whine about. I think that's how they get their rocks off..This president has done more for gay rights than all past presidents combined; yet the complaints keep rolling in...From both sides. Neos think he's ruining the country's family values and the other side think he's not doing enough, fast enough...Or that his motives are strictly political.

[Jason N]

01:38 PM on 07/21/2011

"This president has done more for gay rights than all past presidents combined"

You all can say this till your blue in the face, it really doesn't mean jack. So he's done more than nothing, boy, thanks. HE, candidate Obama, said he'd be a fierce advocate for gay rights. Are you aware fierce is considered gay slang? I know, he meant the textbook definition of fierce right, he never would've used gay lingo to garner votes right? So HE said he'd be an advocate, couched that advocacy in gay slang meaning exceptionally or extraordinarily; and now we're supposed to sit back and watch his fence straddling and waffling and just say nothing? Just take the crumbs he throws (and yes, they've been mostly crumbs and he's done none of the heavy lifting to get the big items, DADT and Hate Crimes, passed)? So again, considering all that, AND considering he said WE would be needed to keep his feet to the fire to keep him in action, why should the gay community shut up and take the pittance given us?

[RusStyles]

02:09 PM on 07/21/2011

Well, you go ahead and continue bashing this president if you're unhappy with his efforts, and give him zero credit for anything he's to promote gay equality.

[1hotgolfer]

06:05 PM on 07/21/2011

Many of us here participate to share and become enlightened. Can you PLEASE enlighten us with SPECIFICS...just what does this man have to do what you'd accept...WHAT? Please, no more talking points/rhetoric...specifics, please!!

[MardiGrasGirl]

07:39 PM on 07/21/2011

I'm with you Rus. You can't please everybody and they think if you aren't working on their causes 24/7, they don't care about you.

Should I be offended or hurt that he isn't working on black female issues all the time? No, and if anybody responds, "At least you can get married or have all your rights", there are still social, health, economic, and other issues that impact black women more than other groups.
Obama will do what he needs to do. Two and a half years--- I think he moving at a good pace to get things done.

Fanned.

[RusStyles]

09:42 PM on 07/21/2011

Fanned back!

[1088]

12:13 PM on 07/21/2011

With a Republican President, all will be gone with one signing of the PEN! Just remember that!

[duckpuddle]

12:47 PM on 07/21/2011

wrong

[duckpuddle]

01:10 PM on 07/21/2011

Wrong.

Laws cannot be revoked by the executive. And judges need to be impeached to be removed.

[Jason N]

01:22 PM on 07/21/2011

Revoked, no. Changed... different story, and Pres. Obama tends to think so:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

"Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing. "