Civil & Human Rights

Gov. Jan Brewer: Racial discrimination doesn’t ‘take place any longer’

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans truly live in an alternate universe reality. Governor Jan Brewer actually asserted with a straight face that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in this state.

This is the woman who used the racially divisive SB 1070 to get elected to the governor’s office (SB 1070 was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional).

This is the state where crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio was just recently found by the federal court to have engaged in a policy of unlawful racial profiling (he is appealing).

This is the state where nativist anti-immigrant politicians like J.D. Hayworth, Russell Pearce, and Andrew Thomas are celebrated as heroes by conservatives in the GOP.

This is the state where Tom “banned for life by the SEC” Horne and John Huppenthal, and editor and columnist Doug MacEachern at The Arizona Republic, have engaged in unhinged demonization (criminalization) of Latino students in Tucson for ethnic studies programs at TUSD.

Jan Brewer is delusional.

RAW Story reports, Arizona governor: Racial discrimination doesn’t ‘take place any longer’:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on Tuesday said the Voting Rights Act had “hampered” the state and was pleased to see a key provision of the civil rights law struck down.

* * *

When asked why Arizona shouldn’t be required to have its voting laws precleared, Brewer said racial discrimination was no longer a problem in the state.

Read more

Justice Scalia tells a funny (I’m not laughing)

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In reading this morning’s opinions, I could not believe my eyes when i read this line from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent (.pdf) in U.S. v. Windsor:

“This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power
of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to
pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the
predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to
decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the
Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased
root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.””


6a00d8341bf80c53ef0147e1453cac970b-320wiSeriously? 24 hours earlier, Scalia did not hesitate to gut the singular most important piece of civil rights legislation in U.S. history, the capstone of the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Scalia did not hesitate to stab “a dagger in the heart” of this “democratically adopted
legislation,” approved by the elected representatives of Americans who
are able to “govern themselves.”

Following 21 days of testimony at hearings and thousands of pages of
documentary evidence, Congress passed the 2006 Reauthorization by a vote of
98-0 in the Senate, and 390-33 in the House.  It did so based on
statutory findings that “without the continuation of [the Act’s]
protections, racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of
the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have their
votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in
the last 40 years.” Among other findings, Congress relied on the existence of so-called
“second generation” discriminatory practices in covered jurisdictions,
including at-large elections and racial gerrymandering, which have the
effect of diluting minority voting power. (h/t Brennan Center for Justice).

Read more

President Obama’s statement on same-sex marriage rulings

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage today. Statement by the President on the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act:

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of
Marriage Act.  This was discrimination enshrined in law.  It treated
loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class
of people.  The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country
is better off for it.  We are a people who declared that we are all
created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as
well. 

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal
treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now
be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last,
will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and
supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones
treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change
for the better. 

California Gov. Jerry Brown: counties must issue marriage licenses

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Same-sex marriages may resume in California as soon as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals terminates its stay order after the case is remanded back to the court from the U.S. Supreme Court, with an order to vacate the appeal. California Governor Jerry Brown has directed that counties must comply with state … Read more

Supreme Court strikes down Section 3 of DOMA, sends Prop. 8 back to California

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualThe constitutional rights of same-sex couples advanced incrementally today, but it was not a landmark decision establishing a bright-line constitutional equal protection right to same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court today in United
States v. Windsor struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy, as he has in other gay rights cases, wrote the majority opinion of the court, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The court held that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by Fifth Amendment equal protection. "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

What is important in this decision is that the court adopts a "heightened scrutiny" standard of review, rather than the "rational basis" standard of review previously applied by courts in these cases. Justice Kennedy writes there is a "careful consideration" standard: In determining whether a law is
motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual
character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive
under these principles.