Civil & Human Rights

President Obama’s statement on Senate passage of immigration reform

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From the White House: Statement by President Obama on Senate Passage of Immigration Reform:

Statement by President Obama on Senate Passage of Immigration Reform

Today, with a strong bipartisan vote, the United States Senate
delivered for the American people, bringing us a critical step closer to
fixing our broken immigration system once and for all.

I thank Majority Leader Reid, Senator Leahy, Senator
Schumer, and every member of the ‘Gang of Eight’ for their leadership,
and I commend all Senators who worked across party lines to get this
done.

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise.
By definition, nobody got everything they wanted.  Not Democrats.  Not
Republicans.  Not me.  But the Senate bill is consistent with the key
principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have
repeatedly laid out.

If enacted, the Senate bill would establish the most
aggressive border security plan in our history.  It would offer a
pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in
this country illegally – a pathway that includes passing a background
check, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, and then going to
the back of the line behind everyone who’s playing by the rules and
trying to come here legally.  It would modernize the legal immigration
system so that it once again reflects our values as a nation and
addresses the urgent needs of our time.  And it would provide a big
boost to our recovery, by shrinking our deficits and growing our
economy.

Today, the Senate did its job.  It’s now up to the House to do the same. 

Read more

‘Gang of Eight’ comprehensive immigration reform bill approved by U.S. Senate

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This afternoon the U.S. Senate passed the “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration reform bill. Steve Benen reports, Senate approves comprehensive immigration reform, 68 to 32:

Following months of bipartisan negotiations, the U.S. Senate easily
approved landmark immigration legislation with a 68-to-32 vote. In
recognition of the seriousness with which Senate leaders took the issue,
members took the unusual step of voting from their desks.

In the
end, 14 Senate Republicans joined Senate Democrats in support of the
proposal. Despite the so-called “border surge” and other provisions
secured by GOP senators, 32 of the 46 Senate Republicans — about 70% of
the caucus — still voted against the bill. (In 2006, 21 GOP senators voted for comprehensive immigration reform, suggesting, despite electoral pressures, the party is slowly becoming more hostile on the issue, not less.)

Immediately
after the Gang of Eight’s bill was approved, Dream Act kids in the
Senate gallery could be heard chanting, “Yes we can.”

Read more

Research data proves the Supreme Court is wrong

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This reporting by Morgan Kousser at Reuters blows away the disingenuous sophistry of Chief Justice John Roberts in Shelby County v. Holder (and echoed by every pundit in the conservative media entertainment complex right-wing noise machine). Gutting the landmark civil rights legislation:

The Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision on Tuesday essentially cast aside the key component of the nation’s most important civil rights legislation.

The five “conservative” justices castigated Congress for putting too much emphasis on history by failing to update the “coverage formula” in Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 4 specifies which states and local jurisdictions must “pre-clear”
with the Justice Department or the Washington district court all
changes in election laws – anything from adding voter ID regulations to
redistricting. Areas now subject to this federal oversight have had a
substantial history of voter discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing for the 5-4 majority, conceded
that the Voting Rights Act is largely responsible for a decline in
blatant voting racial discrimination efforts. Yet he declared the
federal oversight program “unconstitutional”
on the grounds that it did not reflect “current conditions.” Instead,
he invited this most dysfunctional of Congresses to “draft another
formula.”

But the chief justice is wrong.

Read more

Fallout from Shelby County v. Holder decision

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If you were upset with the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, you should be outraged at the court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, crippling the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The “Felonious Five” conservative activist Justices of the Court demonstrated in orders today just how far they intend to go in applying this decision — it is now open season for GOP voter suppression and gerrymandered redistricting.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:

The Supreme Court, acting swiftly to promote further review of voting
rights under federal law, told lower courts on Thursday to take a new
look at two Texas cases involving a photo ID law for voters and a new
set of redistricting plans for the state’s delegation in Congress and
for members of the two houses of its state legislature.

In both cases, the Justices wiped out lower court rulings that had
refused to give legal clearance to the photo ID law and the new election
districting plans. The lower courts are now to apply the Supreme
Court’s ruling on Tuesday in Shelby County v. Holder,
(docket 12-96), striking down one key part of the Voting Rights Act of
1965.  Because the Supreme Court’s actions did not resolve the cases
finally, the two Texas laws at issue will now remain in legal limbo, at
least for a few weeks.

Read more

Supreme Court denies appeal in Brewer v. Diaz (same-sex domestic partner benefits)

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
6a00d8341bf80c53ef01901df0a0f0970b-piThursday’s orders by the Supreme Court came in the final round of
actions it planned to take in the 2012-13 Term. Orders List (.pdf).

One day after issuing two historic
rulings on same-sex marriages, the Court denied review of two cases from
Arizona and Nevada that posed tests of state laws that treat gays and
lesbians less favorably than straight couples.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:

The Arizona case (Brewer v. Diaz,
12-23) was a plea by state officials for permission to enforce a law
enacted by its legislature in 2009, taking away health benefits for
same-sex state employees who were not married but were legally “domestic
partners.” The law accomplished that result by defining “dependent”
for purposes of the benefits as “a spouse,” meaning a legally married
wife or husband.

Since a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution limits
marriage to “one man and one woman,” same-sex couples are not eligible
to marry in Arizona, so the redefinition of “spouse” to exclude domestic
partners shut out couples who were not eligible to marry.  The Ninth
Circuit Court barred enforcement of that law, and the state had
appealed, arguing that its law was actually neutral, and thus should
satisfy constitutional demands for legal equality.

The Ninth Circuit Court ruling stands, barring enforcement of the Arizona law.

Read more