“Daniel Alter couldn’t be a more perfect choice.  He is a brilliant attorney who possesses the knowledge, balanced views and temperament required of a federal judge,” Schumer said in a statement. “His outstanding leadership skills, his commitment to justice, and his extensive experience make him an exceptional choice for a position on the federal bench.  I’m proud to nominate Daniel Alter. Period. But I am equally proud to nominate him because he is a history-maker who will be the first openly gay male judge in American history.”

According to the statement, Alter is a graduate of Columbia College and Yale Law School. He served for six years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York where he specialized in first amendment and terrorism issues.

“It is rare to find a candidate with both the raw intelligence and the practical experience of Mr. Alter,” Schumer said. “Mr. Alter is not only a highly qualified candidate for the Southern District Court and a lawyer whose views have been tempered by a broad range of experiences in the public and private sectors, but a candidate who would enhance the diversity of the federal bench. I have often said that I strive to appoint those with three qualities: excellence, moderation and diversity, and Mr. Alter fits that prescription to a ‘T.’ ”

The Human Rights Campaign applauded the nomination.

“Daniel Alter is eminently qualified for a position on the federal bench. America is taking a step forward toward equality by evaluating an individual based on his accomplishments and without regard to his sexual orientation,” said HRC president Joe Solmonese in a statement. “We commend Senator Schumer for his historic recommendation, and look forward to the President’s nomination.”

The move comes on the heals of controversy over the orientation of Judge Vaughn Walker, a gay man, who is presiding over the Proposition 8 case in California.

Now, in a somewhat surprising partnership, two other legal heavyweights have entered the fray to challenge Proposition 8 at the Federal level.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies were on opposite sides of the landmark 2000 Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, but they’ve now joined forces for a project under the auspices of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Olson and Boies will be representing two same-sex couples who plan to file suit after being denied marriage licenses in California after Proposition 8 passed in November.

What makes Olson and Boies’ case distinct from the cases that recently appeared before the California Supreme Court is that they filed in U.S. District Court in California, arguing that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection provisions.

While the conservative make-up of most federal courts after 8 years of Bush appointments means this case doesn’t seem particularly likely to prevail, Olson and Boies’ partnership is living proof that we all really can just get along.

Last night I was at a Human Rights Watch dinner in Chicago. We were there to meet two activists, one from Burma and one from Uzbekistan, who were recipients of awards for their work in conjunction with HRW. But a portion of the evening’s program focused on what to do about Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.

It’s easy to be in favor of closing down Gitmo. Even the President-Elect thinks it’s high time that place disappeared. But the question remains: What to do with all those prisoners?

Some will be shipped back to their home country. Some will be released into the United States because there is little or no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part, but a large number are in limbo. They can’t go home and they are potentially guilty of crimes that preclude their release into the United States.

Noises in government have indicated that national security concerns will encourage a plan that includes secret trials, new processes for determining guilt or innocence that don’t involve the public.

There has also been talk of moving those convicted Gitmo prisoners into a new facility on American soil.

Now, concerns about national security are hard to argue with. They don’t tell us what needs to be secured so we can’t assess whether the sacrifice of legal protections are worth it. Those in the know say that the general protections of Federal courts are insufficient.  I’m not in the know, so what can I say in return?

Still, I encourage all of us, as the Gitmo plans move forward, to demand that Federal court become the forum for any trials resulting from the facility’s closing. If national security is a concern, require that the government prove to the electorate why Federal safeguards are insufficient.

It’s not because we know that the court is necessarily the right place for highly classified information, but if the national security excuse is never challenged it will continue to be a catch-all phrase that permits a constant erosion of civil rights.