Civil & Human Rights

Supreme Court argument recap in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lyle Denniston has a recap of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning of Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case. Argument recap: Does “may only” mean “shall only”?

Anyone entering the Supreme Court’s chamber Monday morning expecting
constitutional drama over the right to vote had to come away quite
disappointed.  It took all of fifty minutes of a one-hour argument to
get to any constitutional issue, most of the Justices wanted to focus on
what “may only” means in a federal law, and one Justice pronounced the
current federal-state voter registration regime “a crazy system.”  In an
era when very heated debates over curbing voters’ rights regularly
occur in political circles, there was none of that as the Court heard Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (12-71).

At the center of the case is an Arizona law, approved by the state’s
voters nine years ago, that requires a would-be voter seeking to
register to show proof of U.S. citizenship as an additional requirement
besides submitting a federal form which includes a question — enforced
by possible perjury prosecution — asking whether or not one is a
citizen.

Republican empathy and narcissism

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) revealed that his son is gay and that he has now decided to support gay marriage. Some are praising him for his "courage," and others (namely the "God hates gays" crowd) are condemning him for his reversal — Portman was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have to agree with Jonathan Chait, Rob Portman, Gay Marriage, and Selfishness:

The triumph of the issue
relies upon the changing of minds — some thanks to force of argument,
others to personal contact with gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors.
From that standpoint, Portman’s conversion is a Very Good Thing.

And yet as a window into the working of Portman’s mind, his
conversion is a confession of moral failure, one of which he appears
unaware.

John Nichols: Don’t Let the ‘Crooks’ Roll Back Years of Progress (video)

by

JN-close106-sm72-sigby Pamela Powers Hannley

Author and historian John Nichols warned a packed house of Tucson progressives and unionists that now is not the time for complacency. Now is the time to rise up and fight against the forces of greed who are trying to rob the American people of their rights and their earned benefits.

Nichols, writer for The Nation and frequent commentator on MSNBC, held the audience in wrapped attention for 90 minutes as he carefully explained what the current Washington DC budget and debt reduction talks could mean for the American people if right wing conservatives like Congressman Paul Ryan and the Fix the Debt Coalition get their way.

The Fix the Debt Coalition is a group of 127 billionaires, "lesser millionaires", and corporate CEOs who are rolling out a $60 million advertising campaign to promote the new Simpson-Bowles Plan for debt reduction, according to Nichols. The original Simpson-Bowles Commission– dubbed the Cat Food Commission because of its cuts to senior citizen benefits– was infamously unpopular when it was proposed originally. The Simpson-Bowles redux may be even worse.  

How would the billionaires' club "fix the debt"? By reducing Social Security payments to the elderly and disabled, by raising the eligibility age for Medicare, by dramatically cutting Medicaid support for the poor, by eliminating the Affordable Care Act and changing Medicare to a voucher program for future recipients, by imposing austerity on 99%, and by [wait for it] lowering taxes on billionaires and corporations. 

"They are proposing to take from our vulnerable seniors, from our disabled– and let's be honest they're probably going to take the lunch money from the poor kids. They're going to take all that, so they can give the rich guys a tax cut," Nichols warned. More details and a video clip of Nichols' talk after the jump.


Progressives Shut Out of Koch Brothers Medicaid Forum

by

Loft2013-03-07-2-sm72-sigby Pamela Powers Hannley

Thanks to publicity on this blog, social media, and e-mail blasts, progressives and other Democrats came to the Americans for Prosperity "public forum" on Medicaid expansion last night at The Loft Cinema. Too bad we couldn't get in.

Approximately 20 pro-healthcare reform advocates, plus six journalism students, and two bloggers were shut out of the tightly controlled forum. In addition, City Councilman Steve Kozachik was "uninvited" to participate in the panel. Although public announcements of the event in the Tucson Weekly, the Arizona Daily Star, and the Pima County GOP website didn't say that reservations were required, the only people who were admitted were those who RSVP'd to the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity e-mail blast, linked to this article.

The only two members of Progressive Democrats of American (PDA) Tucson who were admitted are both doctors. (Of course, they were not wearing PDA Healthcare Not Warfare stickers. None of us holding the banner in front of The Loft or trying to distribute Healthcare Not Warfare stickers got in.)

After the jump, read a first hand account by Dr. Eve Shapiro, head of PDA Tucson's healthcare reform issue organizing team, and more about Koz and job creation with Medicaid expansion.

Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Former president Bill Clinton has a guest opinion in the Washington Post today, It’s time to overturn DOMA:

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that
was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the
union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal
right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result,
was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite
draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their
March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill
known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to
enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have
ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these
circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535
members of Congress.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court,
and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the
principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above
all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the
act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those
principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.