Civil & Human Rights

‘CCA, go away’: Florida residents say ‘no’ to nation’s largest deportation center (video)

by

No ccaby Pamela Powers Hannley

Private prisons are a "infecting our nation like a virus," according to Florida activists who are fighting against the construction of one of the nation's largest immigrant deportation centers. 

From their website…

We do not agree with the federal government privatizing our immigration detention centers throughout the nation when there is clear evidence that privatizing our prisons creates a clear public safety threat. For ICE to continue to privatize these institutions and bring this safety threat through their "secure communities Initiative" to our community is unacceptable. Depriving someone of their liberty is a non-delegable governmental function and privatizing of such a function is infecting our nation like a virus.

What about Arizona? Governor Jan Brewer and many in the Arizona Legislature are loyal private prison boosters— to the detriment of our residents. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) runs six private prisons in Arizona. In addition to the well-know immigrant detention centers, CCA also runs DUI prisons. CCA likes to have all of their beds full. Is it any wonder, then, that Arizona has some of the toughest immigration laws and toughest drunk driving laws? Watch anti-CCA protesters in Florida after the jump.

No orders from the Supreme Court today on same-sex marriage petitions

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: I had expected to see some orders today. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog reports Again, no gay marriage orders: The Supreme Court on Monday released additional orders from its Friday Conference, but the list did not include any action on the ten cases dealing with the same-sex marriage issue.  It now appears that … Read more

U.S. Supreme Court allows challenge to Affordable Care Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed
an appeal by Liberty University to go forward with new challenges to two key
sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and
employer mandates to have insurance coverage. Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSbog,
Way cleared for health care challenge (UPDATED):

The Court did so by returning the case of Liberty University v. Geithner
(docket 11-438) to the Fourth Circuit Court to consider those
challenges.  The Court last Term had simply denied review of Liberty
University’s appeal, but on Monday wiped out that order and agreed to
send the case back to the appeals court in Richmond for further review.

* * *

The Court’s decision last Term on the new health care law upheld,
under Congress’s power to tax, the requirement that virtually all
Americans have health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty.   That is the
individual mandate.  The law also contains a somewhat similar mandate,
requiring all employers with more than fifty employees to provide them
with adequate insurance coverage.  The Court had declined to rule on
that issue last Term.

U.S. Supreme Court considers appeals of DOMA and Caifornia’s Prop. 8

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to wade into historic and controversial territory. The Court is considering 10 petitions for review today regarding same-sex marriage, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The orders granting or denying certiorari are likely to be announced on Monday.

Tim Goldstein at SCOTUSblog has posted this wonderfully written commentary. History:

At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions
raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage. 
These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever
considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore
and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of
the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to
recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that
five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of
the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social
institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment.  The
plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an
irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law.  On the other hand,
that describes some moral judgments.  The Constitution does not forbid
every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some
grave ones) themselves, legislatively.