via chris geidner @chrisgeidner - Tumblr Blog

Taking Care — Of Ourselves And Of One Another

One of the best things that I have learned in sobriety, something that struck me to my core, is that I don’t need to be perfect — because I never can be perfect so long as I am a human.

That was as earth-shattering as it was obvious, and it helped make a new life possible for me. For me, dealing with my alcoholism means doing what I need to do to stay sober — above all else — and dealing with my bipolar disorder means listening to my body and taking the steps I need to take to keep myself where I want to be: healthy and relatively stable. For a long time, I thought I had to do everything perfectly. That just left me more upset with myself — and in a much worse place than when I started. Now, I try my best. I try to make progress each day, knowing that no days will result in perfection.

Some days are really shitty because that’s where I’m at. And that’s OK. I try to take it easy — doing what I need to do, but no more. And, if I have to take some of those need-to-do tasks off the plate, I’ll do that. Some days are really shitty because shitty things happen. Like today. And I can’t change that. But, what I can do, and have done, is learn what I need to do in those times. I need to be honest with myself, I need to chill. For me, I also need to try to force myself to exercise.

Some days are amazing. I enjoy them. I also appreciate them. I also, though, need to remember that work that it took and takes to get there. And I need to remember the help that I always have had around me to save me when I needed saving.

Finally, some days are just days. And, trust me, nothing is weirder for a bipolar alcoholic. I don’t think I experienced very many days that were just days until, probably, 2011. Now, I’ve grown to appreciate them, too. Honestly, I’m so blessed to have them.

More than 20 years ago, I was hospitalized — voluntarily, but with strong encouragement from loved ones. My life changed, and ultimately improved, as I grew to understand depression and then my bipolar diagnosis in the months that followed. More than 8 years ago, one of my best friends — though not my first friend to do so — talked with me about what he believed to be my problematic drinking. My life changed, and ultimately improved, when I acknowledged that day that he was right.

Neither of those moments were the moments that instantaneously fixed things. But they were each a start. And they were starts that came from loved ones being willing to talk with me about these important issues — and ask me if I needed help.

If you’re suffering: Reach out, ask for help. If you can’t do that, that’s OK! Do what I did so often, hidden under the covers: Google around, see what others have done — meetings, therapy, exercise, groups, pets, honesty, healthy eating, time in the sun.

And, if you think a friend might be suffering: Ask. Talk with them, without judgment. Let them know you care, and offer them your help if you can. Heck, you can google around together for possible options if you don’t know them yet. I have days, still, when one of a handful of my closest friends — when they know things aren’t well — will sometimes give me the best advice: “Do you think you can get out of bed?” And some days, still, that’s exactly what I need.

It can get better — even though life can still be a helluva thing some days. Each day, though, is worth living — and leads to the next, which could be even better still.

Some news!

I am joining the national security team at BuzzFeed News to broaden our coverage of — as my new editor Mark Seibel put it in the staff email — "the Trump administration's legal entanglements and complexities." The past year has shown us how key such coverage is to the country (and world) and I look forward to working with our fantastic nat sec team.

Don't worry, though, #lawdork folks: My title remains legal editor, my focus is the law, and I'll continue to be our BuzzFeed News Supreme Court correspondent.

Only sad thing here is that I will miss working for Katherine Miller, who has been such an incredible editor — both at helping me develop and write some great stuff but also at, like, dealing with me — but I'm glad I still have her as a colleague!

Anyway, all of this is basically to say: Send me your scoops! Talk with me. Let's get lunch. Or talk on Signal. Or meet in a clandestine location.

Seriously, tho.

Tips. Scoops. Let's go.

1988.

2017: What A Year

I’ve already summed up my reporting from the year over in a thread that starts here on Twitter, but here are the 10 stories I’m most proud of from the year that comes to a close today. Many of these step back from the day-to-day coverage that constitutes some of what I think is my most important work — on topics like the various iterations of the travel ban, Arkansas’ April executions, and the week of the Donald Trump Jr. emails — but these are the stories that stand alone and stand up to cover a key issue in a definitive way, often in more extended form, or break significant news on a big story.

1. The Supreme Court Will Lean Conservative Again (Jan. 9)

2. Administration Lawyers Are Arguing A Lawyer’s Letter Overrules The Executive Order Trump Actually Signed (Feb. 10)

3. No, Impeachment Doesn’t Work That Way (May 23)

4. Trump Loves Old School, Tough-On-Crime Policies. So Criminal Justice Liberals Are Going Local. (June 12)

5. The President Actually Has Enormous Power To Pardon Basically Whomever He Wants (Aug. 3)

6. A Top Lawyer Has Asked The Supreme Court To Hear A Major Death Penalty Case (Aug. 15)

7. Trump Administration Launches Broad New Anti-Leak Program (Sept. 13)

8. How The 25th Amendment Actually Works — And What Nobody's Ever Figured Out (Nov. 1)

9. The Secretive Office In Charge Of Congressional Workplace Complaints Is Dodging Key Questions About How It Operates (Nov. 26)

10. Key Officials Push Back Against Trump Campaign’s Claim That A Federal Office Illegally Turned Over Emails To Special Counsel (Dec. 16)

Classic Jake.

hellyeahrihannafenty

Tom Holland does Rihanna’s “Umbrella” on Lip Sync Battle

dr0wnedperfectionist

I’m literally zendaya reacting like he didn’t have to go that hard and yet..

kcuahd-deactivated20190911

This is what America needs.

The Last Five Years

Five years ago today, I began working at BuzzFeed.

“[N]ot sure where you are going to sit – we are jammed! – but your computer is on my desk,” Ben Smith, our editor-in-chief throughout my entire time here, wrote to me about the NYC office the afternoon before I started.

I was the 127th employee at BuzzFeed, the 49th editorial-side employee, and the 2nd employee at our first bureau: DC.

Now, BuzzFeed has more than 10 times as many employees, there are multiple US bureaus, and BuzzFeed exists around the world.

The time that has passed since I left Metro Weekly (my first home in my post-law school DC journalism adventure and a place to which I will always be grateful) to start at BuzzFeed on July 16, 2012, has led to a story that I wouldn’t have believed if you had told me it. It has been a remarkable five years, and I am so grateful that I have been privileged to cover them at BuzzFeed (now, BuzzFeed News, per my business cards).

That first day, I wrote about the Defense of Marriage Act — specifically, a case brought by Edith Windsor challenging the law. (I already had published one story with BuzzFeed, the week before I began, also about DOMA.)

It would be a sign of things to come. In the months that followed, of course, the Supreme Court would agree to hear Edie’s case, and I had the chance to profile her, and talk with her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, as well. (Before the arguments, I talked with Evan Wolfson and Andrew Sullivan about the path they and the country had traveled on marriage. Later that summer, I also had the chance to spend the day in Maine with Mary Bonauto, one of the key figures in the marriage equality story.)

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down DOMA’s ban on federal recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages led — more quickly than most of us imagined — into a year of nearly constant court rulings on various states’ marriage laws, with the high court initially putting cases off, but eventually leading the story back to the Supreme Court.

As 2015 began, I returned to my home state of Ohio to profile Jim Obergefell — the lead plaintiff in the lead case before the justices. The Supreme Court, in June, ruled 5-4 against the states’ marriage bans, bringing marriage equality to all of America.

In 2015, I also told previously untold stories from the past 30 years of LGBT history. I told the story from the Reagan White House of how Nancy Reagan had turned down Rock Hudson’s plea — months before he would die of complications from AIDS — for help from Paris. I also told stories from the Clinton White House — of the record from White House documents about the reasons why President Clinton supported DOMA in 1996 and the time when White House staff briefly considered recommending that Clinton shift his position on marriage equality in 2000.

As my time at BuzzFeed News progressed — starting after the DOMA decision in 2013 — I was given the opportunity to expand my writing into the broader legal world, being named legal editor. (Over the years, Tony Merevick, Dominic Holden, and now David Mack and Nidhi Prakash have stepped up to cover the ever-evolving world of LGBT news reporting, which has been essential to me feeling comfortable moving into other work. Dominic, who I’ve now worked closely with for several years, is an amazing reporter who has taught me much.) As part of that new role, I started covering more and more of the Supreme Court’s work, and I began taking a closer look at criminal justice and election law issues. (I traveled with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to Alabama in 2016, as she focused on re-entry efforts for those people in — and released from — federal prisons.)

I’ve spent a lot of time over the past three years delving into what’s happening with the death penalty in America (along with two other incredible reporters, Chris McDaniel and Tasneem Nashrulla). I’ve covered the Supreme Court, individual justices, those who are working to end it, and those states trying to carry out executions. This April, for example, I extensively covered the attempt by Arkansas to carry out eight executions over the course of two weeks.

I also, though, have stayed with one of the stories that has captured my attention since I was at Metro Weekly: The legal fight seeking protection for LGBT people from discrimination under existing civil rights laws.

And, there is the court itself. In 2016, I covered the first unexpected story of the year: Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. I was in the Rose Garden for DC Circuit Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the vacancy left by Scalia’s death, a nomination that led to my May 2016 interview with President Obama about the nomination and the Supreme Court more broadly.

Of course, Garland never reached the Supreme Court. Donald Trump won the presidential election — meaning the court, which had briefly appeared to be preparing itself for a liberal ascendancy, would lean conservative again.

Then-Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed, and the court has — for the most part — shifted accordingly.

I am humbled to get to cover the Supreme Court on a nearly daily basis. I’ve learned so much from many folks who have been covering the justices for decades, and I am incredibly thankful to them for welcoming me into the small group of reporters who look into all of the ins and outs of the high court.

Then, and finally for now, there is Donald Trump.

The Trump presidency has provided me with a lot to do. The stories that I feel I cover best are those at the intersection of law, politics, and policy — and the young Trump administration has given an almost unending supply of important stories to tell on that front. From the Emoluments Clause to wild impeachment claims, the Constitution itself has been front and center in unexpected ways in 2017. In terms of Trump’s actions, my focus has been on his executive orders. I have had extensive coverage (along with the fantastic Zoe Tillman) of both iterations of the travel and refugee ban, as well as the sanctuary cities order.

There will, doubtless, be much more to come, and I am thrilled to be at BuzzFeed News, with the co-workers and editors I have, to cover this time.

In these past five years at BuzzFeed, I’ve written 1,607 posts. Averaging out to about 320 a year, that’s, on average, one every weekday over the past five years and one each weekend since I started. (Of course, in some of these past 250-plus weeks, I’ve written more than 10 stories. Some weeks, I’ve written only one or two stories. A precious few weeks, I’ve even taken off — something I plan to do this summer again! But, I digress.)

In any event, it’s been a wild ride, and I’m forever grateful to Ben for offering me a spot at BuzzFeed, to Jonah for building this place, and to Ben, Shani, John, McKay, Katherine, Kyle, CJ, Kate, Sarah, Steve, Lisa, Tom, Miriam, Jon, David, Jason, and Michelle for editing my work at different points (and different times!) all these years. (I’m so grateful, too, to all of my family and friends, who have supported me throughout all of this — including my working ridiculous hours on ridiculous stories (see, e.g., this past week).)

Here’s to Monday, the next scoop (email me!), the week ahead, and the next five years.

Posted by: Chris / 6/04/2003 06:03:00 PM

My first Law Dork blog post, from way back when ...

Some Keys to Lawrence v. Texas: Sexual Orientation, Sex Equality, and Equal Protection By Chris Geidner* (c) 2003 by the author. Steve Sanders’s article on Lawrence v. Texas does an excellent job of detailing the two main “solutions” to the “problem” facing the Supreme Court in the case. See Steve Sanders, Supreme Court Review: Lawrence and Garner v Texas, Michigan Bar Journal, May 2003, available at http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID= 569&volumeID=43. There are, however, a few points of clarification/disagreement I would like to offer into the mix. First, I believe Sanders discounts the Sixth Circuit’s application of Romer v. Evans, 517 US. 620 (1996), when he characterizes the appellate court as “all but brush[ing Romer] aside” in Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997). Although the Sixth Circuit may have misread Romer (as I discuss below), it certainly did not ignore the high court’s opinion. The appellate court actually spent a good deal of its Equality Found. opinion distinguishing the holding of Romer and Colorado’s Amendment 2 from the Cincinnati Charter Amendment at issue in the case. See Equality Found., 128 F.3d at 294-301. The distinctions were discussed in detail: “[U]nlike Colorado Amendment 2, which interfered with the expression of local community preferences in that state [and deprived a politically unpopular minority, but no others, of the political ability to obtain special legislation at every level of state government, including within local jurisdictions having pro-gay rights majorities], the Cincinnati Charter Amendment constituted a direct expression of the local community will on a subject of direct consequences to the voters [and opponents of that strictly local enactment need not undertake the monumental political task of procuring an amendment to the Ohio Constitution as a precondition to achievement of a desired change in the local law, but instead may either seek local repeal of the subject amendment through ordinary municipal political processes, or pursue relief from every higher level of Ohio government including but not limited to Hamilton County, state agencies, the Ohio legislature, or the voters themselves via a statewide initiative].” Id. at 297. Second, Sanders argues in his equal protection discussion that “in Texas, two men engaging in certain behavior results in a crime; change one of the participants to a woman and, even though the behavior stays the same, the crime disappears.” He uses this analysis as a reason why the Supreme Court should move sexual orientation equal protection analysis up to intermediate scrutiny. This portion of his analysis actually supports a different conclusion: that in a case such as this sexual orientation discrimination is actually sex discrimination. Such is the position taken by the National Organization for Women in its amicus brief filed in Lawrence. This position also has been argued for as the “miscegenation analogy” by several academics, including Andrew Koppelman and more recently Marc Spindelman, because of the parallels in the analysis to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). See Andrew Koppelman, The Miscegenation Analogy: Sodomy Law as Sex Discrimination, 98 Yale L.J. 145 (1988); Marc Spindelman, Reorienting Bowers v. Hardwick, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 359 (2001). Finally, in any discussion about whether the Supreme Court is ready to move sexual orientation up the equal protection analysis scale, it is important to note the Court in Romer did not decide what level of scrutiny sexual orientation should receive. This is more aptly the point on which lower courts should be criticized for their reading of Romer. See, e.g., Equality Found., 128 F.3d at 294 (“[T]he Court [in Romer] … resolved that the deferential ‘rational relationship’ test … was the correct point of departure for the evaluation of laws which uniquely burdened the interests of homosexuals.”). Rather, the Supreme Court specifically avoided a determination on what equal protection level is appropriate for sexual orientation-based classifications: “[I]f a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 631-32 (emphasis added). This misreading was pointed out in an amicus brief filed with the Court in Lawrence on behalf of the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association and several other organizations. In fact, these areas are where the Supreme Court has its biggest opportunities. Although Sanders is correct that at oral arguments Paul Smith kept his answers “modest,” both the sex-discrimination and heightened-scrutiny arguments are noted in the Petitioners’ briefs to the Court. And while a substantive due process argument or Romer-style equal protection argument might still yield a victory for Lawrence and Garner, eventually the matter of what level of equal protection analysis is appropriate for sexual orientation-based classifications needs to be decided at the Supreme Court level. The two Romer-majority “swing” voters (Justice O’Connor and the opinion’s author, Justice Kennedy) are as aware as Court watchers are of the likely impact a Bush nomination to the Supreme Court will have on the future success of sexual orientation claims. See Richard Goldstein, What Gay-Friendly Republicans?, in The Village Voice, June 4-10, 2003, available at http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0323/goldstein.php (discussing the anti-gay records of President Bush’s judicial nominees). Romer was decided only a decade after Justice White’s majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Perhaps, the seven years since Romer have been long enough (and the future makeup of the Supreme Court near enough in their minds) that Justice Kennedy and maybe even Justice O’Connor will be ready in Lawrence to announce that sexual orientation-based classifications are properly analyzed at an intermediate level of scrutiny – as sexual orientation-discrimination claims themselves or as a type of sex-discrimination claim. * = The author is a student at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

My Favorite Stories From 2016

It was a busy year. Here are some of my favorite stories from 2016 — with particular attention to those stories whose relevance will continue into the new year.

I have to start by highlighting my interview with President Obama, as well as my earlier interview with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. They were great opportunities, and I am grateful that I had the chance to ask both of them important questions regarding significant national legal issues.

The big legal story of the year, of course, began unexpectedly on Feb. 13, when Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at a ranch where he was staying in Texas. That night, I wrote, “The Fight Over Scalia’s Replacement Will Make The Supreme Court Bigger Than Ever,” a story that I think holds up quite well as the vacancy he left remains as we head into 2017. I also published a story highlighting Scalia’s first and last arguments at the court — 40 years and one day apart.

The fight over the vacancy, and President Obama’s eventual (and ultimately unsuccessful) nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for the seat, was the next big Supreme Court story. Until it was not.

With Hillary Clinton expected to win the presidential election, however, the Supreme Court — and Garland’s nomination — likely would have been back in the spotlight after the election. Until Donald Trump won — and everything changed. (It’s not just Scalia’s seat, of course: Zoe Tillman took a look at the 100+ seats waiting to be filled besides the Supreme Court vacancy.)

One of the most important death penalty developments of 2016 came just 12 days into the year. With its decision in Hurst v. Florida, I wrote, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Florida ‘Jury Recommendation’ Death Sentencing Scheme.” That has led to significant fallout in Florida, but also in Alabama (and on the Supreme Court) and Delaware (where the state's Supreme Court effectively ended the death penalty there).

In July, I wrote, “Practically Speaking, The Death Penalty Is Disappearing In The United States” — a story that Chris McDaniel and I followed up on after Donald Trump’s presidential election victory.

Relatedly, in December, I wrote, “Federal Judge Criticizes Death Penalty — But Concludes Only Supreme Court Can End It.”

When it came to LGBT stories, most of my focus in 2016 was on transgender rights — particularly the G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board case, which took off with an April appeals court ruling in the favor of the transgender student. That, however, led to an unusual stay at the Supreme Court this summer before the justices agreed this fall to hear the case.

In October, Dominic Holden and I published a three-part series on transgender rights in America. One of my articles in the series — “The Stories Behind America’s Transgender Progress In The Law” — focused the evolution of the legal theory for transgender protections under existing civil rights law in the past five years.

My other article in the series — “How The Obama Administration Delayed Transgender Workers’ Protections For Years” — focused on my extensive multi-year reporting on the Labor Department and how it delayed announcing a decision on whether it would provide transgender protections under an existing executive order.

Thanks for reading, sharing, commenting, being a source, or whatever you might do that led you to read this post. For my part, I am grateful for the job and co-workers I have and looking forward to the stories — known and unknown — that I and my BuzzFeed News colleagues will be pursuing in the new year.

As the year comes to a close, I just wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude. The year was a difficult one for many — and I have had my share of difficulties in 2016 — but it also was a year that I accomplished many professional and personal goals and continued to grow in appreciation for all that I have been given. My family and friends have been incredible to me, my work on my physical health led me to complete a half-marathon and reach the goal weight that I thought was unrealistic when I set it, and my professional life included the highlights of interviewing President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the experience of covering a Supreme Court in flux and a trip on Air Force One. We never know what tomorrow will bring, but I am so grateful, as 2016 ends, for sobriety, my physical and mental health, my family and friends, the opportunities in my life, and the possibility of becoming — and desire to be — better.

I have spent the past 16 years living with bipolar disorder, the past 6.5 of them — as of Dec. 27 — also sober. It has been a series of journeys and lessons — and, yes, hills and valleys — and I still am learning every day how to live, succeed, thrive, and be happy given the limits I have. It’s not always easy (in fact, at times it’s been downright awful), and my mental health issues have been a topic that I’ve not discussed as often or as openly as I have my sobriety. But, I felt that it was only appropriate as I end today to be fully honest about that part of my life as well. I am so grateful to all of those who have given me help over the past 16 years (and earlier, no doubt), as I’ve learned to live an incredible life — not despite, but because of, my differences.

A life second to none. I am so grateful for the opportunities I am given in this wild and unexpected life I am living. Seven years ago this month, I had just recently moved to DC with no job, some good friends, a blog, and a desire to do something that mattered. I had just covered my first story as a freelancer in the city. I never could have imagined what would follow. I couldn't have comprehended the possibility that I would spend a day toward the end of the presidency that was just beginning when I moved to DC traveling with that president — who signed a law repealing "don't ask, don't tell" — to a key military base to serve as part of the pool of reporters who cover all of the president's actions — and is there to report on whatever might happen, given that the nation's leader is the person we are charged with covering. It is humbling. It also, of course, was incredibly wonderful. To have experienced flying on a presidential trip on Air Force One, it made me so very grateful for my parents. I grew up in Austintown, Ohio — a suburb of Youngstown, Ohio — and flying on Air Force One isn't an ordinary part of what is expected from life. And yet, I was blessed with parents who somehow gave me the belief that someday something like that could happen. On Tuesday, it did. For that, I am grateful.

When I got back to DC on Thursday night, I knew that I was returning to take on what could be a far different job than that which I thought I would be taking on in the coming years. It is still unclear what that means precisely, and I don’t yet quite grasp how all of this fits into my understanding of this country that I cherish; its people who I love; and its institutions and laws that I have covered, with respect but not deference, for these past seven years. I don’t know the answers, but I do know that I will try my best to stay true to the values that have imbued my writing since the day I started Law Dork in 2003: I will hold those in power to account for their actions, while attempting to be fair and open to learning why I could be wrong. And then I will tell you, my friends and readers, what I find. (at Union Station, Washington D.C.)

Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, before an interview with Jon Ralston.

Seven years ago tonight, I arrived back in DC — with no job, little money, and the generosity of friends to provide a home. What a completely unexpected ride followed. I am full of gratitude tonight — proud of what I have been able to accomplish; ever thankful that I found a path to sobriety; and, as always, looking forward to "what's next." I also am constantly aware of all of the help I received and needed to get me here (and will need every day going forward), so, to so many of you, thank you.

"8-30-94 ... I think that I've known I was gay since I learned what it means." I wrote those words to my best friend nine months before I shared them with her. In all, there were 10 letters in the package that I ended up giving to her as we graduated from high school. I was frightened; I had no idea what sort of life I would live if I came out as gay. It's been more than 22 years since I wrote that first letter, a little more than a year before I would meet my first boyfriend, two years before DOMA would become law, and so on and so forth through thousands of personal and very public happenings — events that at times overlapped between personal and public, in part due to the very blessed life I have lived. I was correct; I had no idea what sort of life I would live after I came out as gay. As Nathan Fain wrote at the height of the AIDS crisis, "I am fortunate history chose to put me here to see it all, to remain alive this long. I am grateful. I wish for nothing more than to be only what I am." I, too, am grateful — not only that I have been here to see it all, but that I have been privileged enough to do so as an out gay man, loved by his family and friends since the very beginning. I know that makes me very privileged indeed, and so I hope that my work over the past years has done a little bit to make some things easier for other queer people so that they, too, can celebrate #NationalComingOutDay as I do today.

#nationalcomingoutday

Tonight, I published my big story at @buzzfeednews on Tim Kaine and his extensive experience on both sides of the death penalty: He defended death-row inmates and oversaw executions. Check it out.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

via chris geidner