Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) became the latest Democrat to support repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell yesterday, telling local Alaskan television that “it’s time to move on and change the policy.” “When you look at the militaries of Canada, and Great Britain and Australia, thy don’t have any policies like this. We serve arm-in-arm with them. Right on the front lines, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. It has not caused any disruption of how we perform our duties“:

BEGICH: It’s clear that they are going to look at this issue, they’re going to look at it over a short period of time, but it’s clear that it’s kind of done it’s time. It’s beyond it’s time. It has a lot of ways, people are now re-looking at it because it is time to make the change and so depending on how it’s laid out, and the military leadership has been supportive, in general — there are some who are not supportive at this point, I think it’s done it’s time. It’s time to move on.

Watch it:

Last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and 12 other Democrats — including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) — introduced legislation that would halt the discharges of gay and lesbian service members and replace DADT with a new nondiscrimination policy that “prohibits discrimination against service members on the basis of their sexual orientation.” Begich did not endorse Lieberman’s bill, however, and his office told me that he “supports the current course of reviewing how DADT will be repealed and taking part in the actions of Congress,” but “has not signed on to Lieberman’s bill.”

That legislation, called the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, mirrors Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) repeal bill in the House but goes several steps further, laying out a timeline for repeal and setting benchmarks for the Pentagon’s ongoing review of the policy. On Monday, nine additional senators joined as co-sponsors, increasing the count to 23.

Democrats hope to include the repeal legislation in this year’s defense authorization act, but the Pentagon’s year-long review of the policy could push back this goal. During his interview, for instance, Begich predicated his support for repeal on the military’s recommendations. “I think the military brass is going through a proper procedure to make sure that they can do it in a way that doesn’t disrupt the process of what they’re doing today,” he said.

Next Thursday, retired Marine general John J. Sheehan, former Air Force major Michael D. Almy, and former Navy lieutenant Jenny Kopfstein will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Sheehan will testify in favor of maintaining the policy, Almy and Kopfstein in favor of repealing it.” Kopfstein, a lesbian and former Navy surface warfare officer separated under the law, and Almy, who’s gay and served as an Air Force communications officer for 13 years, will discuss their discharges under the policy.

Over in the comments section of my post about Gov. Bob McDonnell’s new executive directive, Basil takes me to task for overstating the importance of the governor’s proclamation:

The “executive directive” has no legal import, it is still perfectly legal and laudable in Virginia for state agencies to discriminate against state employees (or students) on the basis of sexual orientation. Absent legislation, which McConnell has consistently opposed, that remains the case. Even an executive order, although better than a directive, would probably provide no legal protection. This directive provides no legal recourse for victims of discrimination, other than a possible appeal to a governor with a long distinguished track record as a homophobe.

I tend to agree with most of this. I don’t think that McDonnell is very interested in protecting gay and lesbian state employees from discrimination and suspect that he issued this directive in response to the public outcry surrounding Cuccinelli’s order. After all, McDonnell’s February 5th executive order intentionally excluded sexual orientation from protection and the governor agreed with Cuccinielli on the school policy issue until the position just became politically untenable. And so, he responded not with a call for the legislature to pass an LGBT inclusive discriminatory measure or a revised executive order, but with a watered-down directive that does not require state agencies to take any additional actions than those already in place under the US Constitution. Certainly, this is something less than full commitment.

Also, a constitutional expert I spoke to tells me that McDonnell’s statement that “‘[d]iscrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution” is a very generous interpretation of Supreme Court precedent. The Court has said that some anti-gay discrimination lacks a rational basis, but the law has to be pretty egregious before if it hits this wall.

Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner sums it up like this: “The law, by the governor’s own words, is the same on March 11 as it was on March 9. There is no protection provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia or Gov. McDonnell to LGBT people other than the slight protection already provided to them by the U.S. Constitution.” But I think McDonnell’s attempt to distance himself from Cuccinelli is significant. It underscores the effectiveness of campus and state-wide organizing in (at the very least) slowing down McDonnell’s moralistic crusade and certainly complicates Cuccinelli’s effort to change state school’s non discrimination policies.

The Associated Press reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court has chastised Superior Court Judge James N. Citta, who “belittled an immigrant defendant’s poor English skills and compared another defendant to O.J Simpson.”

Citta demeaned a Mexican immigrant who, after pleading guilty to violating his parole, explained that he failed to follow its terms because he didn’t speak or understand English and was provided with a parole officer who couldn’t speak or understand Spanish. According to the official complaint filed against the judge, Citta responded by engaging “in a gratuitous diatribe about immigration and his opinion of illegal aliens”:

CITTA: Now so let me understand this. Not only do we have to let him come into the country illegally and stay here, not only do we have to provide him with public assistance, not only do we have to provide him with free health care, not only do we have to provide him with a free attorney when he gets in trouble, now he wants a bilingual probation officer, because otherwise it’s inconvenient for him.

Well I think it’s a miracle you haven’t been sent back to Mexico as a result of being placed on probation and being charged with these crimes in the first place. If it was up to me, I’d take you just as you’re dressed and bound right now and have you escorted back to Mexico forthwith and forget the prison term, but it’s not.

In another instance, Citta compared defendant Earl Peeples to O.J. Simpson and “berate[d] the defendant at length”:

CITTA: You look up domestic violence in the dictionary, your picture should be next to it. The only difference between you and O.J. Simpson is he had more money and he got off for some reason in a land of fruits and nuts.

The complaint filed against Citta accused him of “creating an appearance of racial or ethnic bias.” In its decision, New Jersey’s high court’s Disciplinary Committee wrote, “We find that [Citta's] remarks were not only inappropriate but highly objectionable, at least outwardly indicative of bias, and wholly unbefitting a court of law.” In a letter to the court, Citta defended his words. Citta indicated that he was simply trying “to make a point” using language that those before him could understand. Citta, a judge in the criminal division of Superior Court, also wrote that his handling of “the most horrific, sadistic, and emotionally charged criminal trials and sentencings” was not his choice and that it has “exacted a toll which, on occasion, has led me to say things better left unsaid.”