Civil & Human Rights

The City of Bisbee wins (sorta) on civil unions

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago, Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne was threatening to sue the City of Bisbee over a newly enacted civil unions ordinance, at the prompting of Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP).

It looks like the Mullah will not get her lawsuit to call down hellfire on gay couples who want to make a public commitment to one another, and the City of Bisbee wins (sorta) on its civil unions ordinance. The city will just need to tweak its ordinance. Cities, AG strike deal on rights of partners:

Attorney General Tom Horne said Monday he won't challenge city ordinances, like the one passed in Bisbee, that detail the rights of those in civil unions.

Horne said there's nothing wrong with cities requiring hospitals to let partners visit or even those in registered unions getting family rates at the local swimming pool.

But he objected to a provision in the new Bisbee ordinance that mentioned seven specific rights, like community property and inheritance. Horne said that made it seem like those who register as partners get those rights despite specific state statutes reserving them to married couples.

Bisbee withdrew its new ordinance earlier this month after Horne threatened to sue the city.

After a closed-door meeting Monday with attorneys representing Bisbee and other cities, Horne acknowledged domestic partners do, in fact, have those rights. In fact, so does every other couple in Arizona, whether registered in a civil union or not.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of Alabama anti-immigrant law

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ALEC model legislation for the anti-immigrant crusade of Kris Kobach, legal counsel with the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the author of Arizona's SB 1070, is losing in court. Federal courts have made it clear that federal law preempts the field in immigration law. Only federal gov't, not states, can enforce immigration laws, Supreme Court says:

The Supreme Court made it clear Monday that enforcing immigration laws is reserved for the federal government, not the states.

By
an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected a request from Alabama to revive
part of a 2011 law designed to drive out illegal immigrants. That year
saw a wave of new laws in Republican-controlled states where lawmakers
decried perceived federal inaction. Alabama's was deemed the toughest.

State officials said if federal authorities were not going to arrest illegal immigrants, their police would take on the task.

But
the Obama administration went to court to challenge these laws, arguing
that federal immigration policy trumped state efforts. The
administration said it was targeting criminals, gang members and
smugglers, not the millions of otherwise law-abiding but undocumented
immigrants who live and work in this country.

The administration
won a major victory last year when the Supreme Court struck down most of
Arizona's immigration enforcement law, known as SB 1070. In a 6-3
decision, the justices agreed that Washington, not the states, gets to
decide how to enforce the immigration laws. The opinion rejected the
idea that states could make immigration violations a crime under state
law.

Rep.Trent Franks still fancies himself ‘Mayor’ of Washington, D.C.

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is not channeling Joe McCarthy with his Islamophobia conspiracy theories about how the Council on American Islamic Relations tried to plant "spies" in the national security apparatus, House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies, or claiming that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today (why? Because "abortion!"), or declaring that President Obama is one of the most dangerous enemies facing America today and "an enemy of humanity", or threatening to impeach President Obama over his refusal to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, this Christian Right anti-gay, anti-abortion zealot fancies himself the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., proposing to outlaw the constitutional right to a safe abortion in the District.

As the Washington Post editoiralized last year, The House tramples again on the District's rights:

THE ISSUES ADMITTEDLY are not normally
the domain of a member of Congress. But D.C. residents who wanted to
discuss problems of city potholes, rat infestations and broken
streetlights with Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) were trying to make an
important point. If Mr. Franks is so interested in running the affairs
of District residents, as evidenced by his effort to restrict their abortion rights, then let him deal with all the other issues of local government.

No surprise that Mr. Franks locked his doors to last week’s protest by D.C. Vote and turned off his phones.
Nor is it any surprise that his noxious bill to restrict the
constitutional rights of women in the nation’s capital is likely to
advance. It’s pretty clear that the rights or wishes of D.C. residents
matter little on Capitol Hill, particularly to members of the House
Republican majority.

Down with Drones: Protest at Ft. Huachuca Today

by

by Pamela Powers Hannley Southern Arizona peace activists have organized a anti-drone protest outside of Fort Huachuca today, Monday, April 29. Drones are a big deal in Southern Arizona. Ft. Huachuca, Davis-Monthan, Raytheon, the University of Arizona, and Cochise College– all have a piece of the military industrial complex's drone pie, and if our esteemed … Read more

What is wrong with America in one photo

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a guest of Bill O'Rielly at the FAUX News Fraudcasting table, at the 2013 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. For those of us who have to actually read the transcripts of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, Scalia asks questions based upon willfully ignorant information he obviously learned from watching FAUX News, with a disturbing regularity.

Screenshot from 2013-04-28 13:43:14

And why is this important?

Gary May writes at the Washington Post, Scalia’s limited understanding of the Voting Rights Act:

In the debate over the future
of the Voting Rights Act, it sometimes becomes apparent that certain members of the
Supreme Court are either oblivious to our nation’s recent history or
willfully ignore it. Justice Antonin Scalia
made this abundantly clear in his comments during the Feb. 27 oral argument in
Shelby County v. Holder, statements that he repeated in a speech on April 15.

To Scalia, the Voting Rights Act — especially Section 5,
which requires covered states to submit any changes in voting practices
to the Justice Department or a Washington court for approval — is a
“racial entitlement” and a violation of state sovereignty. In his view,
it unfairly and unnecessarily treats seven Southern states, plus Alaska,
Arizona and parts of six others, differently from states not covered by
the act. This month, according to the Wall Street Journal, he called
the act a form of “racial preferment” that affected only African Americans while ignoring the white population.