Brewer vetoes voucher expansion — for now
April 5, 2012
by
by David Safier To my surprise, Brewer vetoed the bill that would have expanded the "empowerment scholarship accounts" to include students at D or F schools, gifted students and children of people in the armed forces. Right now, they only apply to students with learning disabilities and, I believe, children in foster homes. My surprise … Read more
Right-wing pearl clutching over SCOTUS
April 4, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The conservative talking point du jure that has all the right-wing propagandists clutching their pearls and feigning outrage, ranging from the inflamatory Rush Limbaugh to the always lame neoconservative opinion writers at the Washington Post (e.g., Ruth Marcus republished today in the Arizona Daily Star) is that President Obama: (1) threatened the U.S. Supreme Court; (2) threatens the "separation of powers;" and, naturally (3) the former law professor doesn't know constitutional law. (Always diminish him and attack his legitimacy — that is how the right-wing politics of personal destruction works).
First of all, these propagandists of the right-wing noise machine know neither the finer points of constitutional law nor their American history. They are propagandists after all.
Secondly, President Obama merely made the observation that the Supreme Court has traditionally exercised judicial restraint and deference to the legislative acts of Congress.
The quote that has the right-wing propagandists clutching their pearls and feigning outrage is:
I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress…
I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step…
As I said, we are confident this will be over — this will be upheld. I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency.
Here are just a few of the Rules of Statutory Construction that "Professor" Obama clearly had in mind:
- "When testing the constitutional validity of statutes, courts shall presume the statute to be valid."
- "Every act of the legislature is presumed to be constitutional, and the Constitution is to be given a liberal construction so as to sustain the enactment in question, if practicable."
- "When the constitutionality of an act is challenged, a heavy burden of proof is thrust upon the party making the challenge. All laws are presumed to be constitutional and this presumption is one of the strongest known to the law."
There is a strong historical comparison to the hostility President Obama faces from the "Felonious Five" conservative judicial activists of this Supreme Court to the conservative judicial activist Supreme Court that existed in President Franklin Roosevelt's first term. Andrew Cohen, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and a legal analyst for 60 Minutes, makes the case in an analysis at The Atlantic, For Barack Obama, Law Professor, the Time to Lecture Is Now (excerpts):
When President Obama on Monday (and again on Tuesday) offered his own legal analysis, when he accurately identified the hypocrisy the health-care law's defeat would reveal about "judicial activism," he raised for renewed public consideration the question of what a president should or should not say while a Court case is pending.
* * *
In this context, and especially compared with the past, what President Obama said was a virtual mash note to the justices.
“Three Sonorans” blog pulled from the Tucson Citizen
April 4, 2012
by
by David Safier If you look for the Three Sonorans blog on the Tucson Citizen website, you'll find a gray page with this on top: This user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available. The quick summary is, Tucson Citizen editor Mark Evans has gotten lots of complaints about … Read more
President Obama finds his inner FDR
April 4, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
On November 24, 2008, TIME magazine ran the cover to the right. This is whom a majority of Americans hoped they had elected.
But Barack Obama spent much of his term in office trying to be a "post-partisan" president, one who negotiates in good faith and always seeks compromise to find common ground solutions on which all sides can come to an agreement. Oy!
In Obama's defense, this was the first time in American history that a minority party soundly rejected by voters in an electoral landslide simply refused to acccept the legitimacy of the winner of the election or to acknowledge the mandate that comes with such an electoral landslide. This is something that previous American presidents enjoyed. President Obama had a reasonable expectation of cooperation by historical precedent and American tradition.
But Republicans adopted a haughty sense of entitlement or divine right to lord over us, even as a vanquished minority party soundly rejected by the electorate. From President Obama's first day in office the Republican Party's official strategy was to "just say no" to the agenda of the majority Democrats. It was a strategy of stasis and political gridlock. The anti-government Republicans would cause the government to fail and then blame that failure on President Obama. Their only agenda, as the Septegenarian Ninja Turtle Mitch McConnell said, was "to defeat Barack Obama."
Keep in mind that this came at a time when the world's financial system was melting down and the world's economy was slipping into a global great depression with thousands of Americans losing their jobs weekly as a result of the failure of faith based supply-side "trickle down" GOP economics. Republicans actively sought to undermine the government's economic rescue efforts and cause it to fail, at the expense of the American people.
Again, this is the first time in American history — at least since the Confederate states seceeded from the Union during Abraham Lincoln's interegnum — that such a thing had occurred.
One cannot fault President Obama for keeping faith in our system of government, and believing that he could negotiate in good faith and seek compromise to find common ground solutions on which all sides could come to an agreement, especially during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
One could not reasonably foresee that a far-right conservative "Tea Party," financed by far-right conservative billionaire businessmen and promoted by the propagandists of the conservative media noise machine and a complicit corporate media echo chamber, would declare a second "Civil War" against the American government ("WE the people") only weeks after President Obama was sworn into office. Such an insurrection had not occurred since Abraham Lincoln.
Rep. Ted Vogt’s ‘tort reform’: Vulnerable adults don’t need no stinkin’ lawyers!
April 4, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
A lawyer friend sent me a link to this article last week. Bill would limit awards in elder abuse suits:
A bill making its way through the legislature would limit awards of attorney fees in abuse cases involving the elderly and vulnerable adults.
House Bill 2560, sponsored by Republican Ted Vogt out of Tucson, removes the ability for the court to order the payment of attorney fees in civil claims related to the care of vulnerable adults.
Supporters say it is an attempt to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary attorney fees that are crippling care homes and taking advantage of vulnerable adults.
John Scott Williams with Fellowship Square, a care home in Mesa, said it will speed up the process for those truly injured.
"Now the attorneys looking at the case will say 'is this worth our time and effort,'" he said. "It won't limit any cases except for those frivolous."
"It is a bad bill," said Phoenix attorney Craig Knapp. "Why should the victim who has been abused and neglected be responsible for the expense?"
Before I had a chance to look into this bill, it had already passed the legislature and been signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer. New law alters attorneys' pay in adult abuse cases:
Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill into law Tuesday that changes the way attorneys are paid in cases involving adult abuse or neglect.
The Star reports on Hicks’ Daily Show appearance, then tears him a new one in the editorial
April 4, 2012
by
by David Safier
Man!
When I got up this morning, I planned to write more about Hicks' comic stylings on the Daily Show and add some other comments Hicks made earlier, like the way he connected TUSD middle school students going into a UA Mexican American Studies class to the alleged sexual abuse at Penn State. "And then I'll write," I thought, "and then I'll write . . ."
But first, I open the Star, take a few sips of coffee . . . and there on Page 2 is an Alexis Huicochea article about Hicks' Daily Show appearance — a decent piece of reporting — followed a few pages later by another Alexis Huicochea article about Sean Arce not having his contract renewed — again a decent article which includes the award Arce received from the Zinn Education Project. So far, so good.
And then — BAM! An editorial with the following subhead and head:
The more I read, the more I kept thinking, "Great stuff! I have almost nothing to add."
Almost nothing (though I'm sure I won't be able to restrain myself later today). Let me just add one quote from Hicks on a friendly website, the Arizona Daily Independent, where he is given all the rope he needs to hang defend himself against the Recall Hicks efforts. At one point he talks about how important it was to get rid of the MAS program.
"This is about kids," said Hicks. "This is about the exploitation of children by political predators."
He just can't stop himself from comparing the MAS administrators and teachers to sexual predators.
Excerpts from the Star editorial are below the fold — though you should really just read the whole thing.
Unite Against the War on Women March April 28, 2012
April 4, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The job interview to which no woman should ever be subjected. Unite Against the War on Women March Saturday, April 28, 10:00 a.m.: The national "Unite Against the War on Women" March, sponsored by UniteWomen.org at the AZ State Capitol Building – House Lawn, 1700 W. Washington. Help defend women's rights and … Read more
(Update) Rosemont Copper sued again
April 3, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Update to Rosemont Copper sued again. Press release from Save the Scenic Santa Ritas:
Rosemont Copper CEO Admits Company Didn’t File Disclosures in Arizona
(Tucson, Ariz) – Rosemont Copper CEO Rod Pace is now admitting the company did not disclose a corporate bankruptcy of two of its key officials to Arizona authorities. Pace acknowledged that Rosemont’s parent company, Vancouver-based Augusta Resource Corporation, reported to Canadian regulators that two of its top officers had been involved in a corporate bankruptcy. He claimed, however, that Rosemont is not required to make those disclosures in Arizona.
“The evidence and Arizona law plainly show that such disclosures are required,” said Vince Rabago, attorney for Save the Scenic Santa Ritas (SSSR), which filed the formal complaint last Thursday with the ACC and other prosecutorial agencies requesting an investigation of Rosemont Copper.
“Proper disclosure is the foundation for investor trust,” said Sheila Dagucon, former NASDAQ Vice-President responsible for regulatory activities, and SSSR Board member, now practicing law in Sonoita, AZ. “Corporate disclosure provides the transparency critical to capital formation.”
“When disclosure regulations are ignored, the results can be devastating to investors and the general public, as we too often have seen,” Dagucon added.
