Read Blog for Arizona | Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint for more about Courts & Law

9th Circuit Court of Appeals to hear same-sex marriage appeals on Monday

September 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Media advisory from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Live Video Streaming of Oral Arguments in Gay Marriage Cases

On September 8, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the Hawaii, Idaho and Nevada gay marriage cases. The arguments will begin at 1 p.m. in Courtroom One of the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, 95 7th St., San Francisco.

The court strongly encourages interested persons to use the Internet to watch the oral arguments via live video streaming from the courtroom. To access the stream, visit the court website – www.ca9.uscourts.gov – and click on the link under the beige-colored bar labeled “Live Oral Arguments.” Streaming will commence a few minutes prior to the start of the proceedings.

Public seating in Courtroom One will be extremely limited and likely to be quickly filled. Those unable to get a courtroom seat will be able to watch live video in viewing areas elsewhere in the building. This will be the same video streamed to Internet viewers.

Thank you.

The Immigration Debate – Part 2

September 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

On Saturday, President Obama announced that he would delay taking executive action on immigration reforms until after the November election, deferring to the concerns of vulnerable Democrats in this midterm election.

And why are Democrats vulnerable in midterm elections? Because the so-called “Rising American Electorate” (unmarried women, young voters, minorities), key constituencies to Democratic electoral success in presidential election years, fail to show up consistently to vote in midterm elections. The Rising American Electorate and Midterm Drop-off. That’s right Democrats — those of you who cannot be bothered to vote in midterm elections — you are the reason why.

The Washington Post reported, Obama to delay executive order on immigration:

President Obama will postpone action on his promise to remake federal immigration policies through executive authority until after the midterm elections in November, the White House announced Saturday, acquiescing to Democrats’ fears that such a move would damage their prospects for maintaining control of the U.S. Senate.

The Immigration Debate – Part 1

September 8, 2014September 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Things you never see reported in the Arizona media because it does not fit their GOP-friendly media narrative. [Update: See the “editorial opinion” of The Arizona Republic obviously written by Doug MacEachern, Executive order a bad idea – now or later in which he asserts “a legally dubious executive order” that will lead to “a full-blown constitutional crisis” and “prod Republicans into impeachment overreach.” All GOP talking points, all the time.]

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post reported last week, Lawyers agree: Obama has broad authority to act on deportations:

With Obama administration officials debating how aggressively to use unilateral action to shield people from deportations, more than 100 immigration law professors have signed a letter to the President (.pdf) arguing that he has expansive legal authority to act to temporarily protect additional groups from removal — and that this authority is rooted in statute, court opinion, regulations, and precedent.

The letter (.pdf), which was shared with this blog before its release, is designed to make the case to media and opinion-makers that Obama has maximum legal room to maneuver — which could shape how much political space the administration thinks it has on this difficult and explosive decision.

The letter — which was distributed by the American Immigration Council and the National Immigration Law Center — was signed by over 130 professors, attorneys and experts, some from the major Ivy League law schools, and others from border and red states that are relevant to the politics of this decision.

Federal judge enjoins GOP voter suppression in Ohio

September 4, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Ari Berman of The Nation reports on today’s decision in Ohio. Ohio Early Voting Cuts Violate the Voting Rights Act:

Ohio keeps trying to cut early voting and the federal courts keep striking the cuts down.

Last year, Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature cut a week of early voting and eliminated the “Golden Week” when voters can register and vote on the same day during the early voting period. GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted also issued a directive prohibiting early voting on the two days before the election, and on weekends and nights in the preceding weeks—the times when it’s most convenient to vote.

Today a federal court in Ohio issued a preliminary injunction against the early voting cuts, which it said violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, ordering Ohio to restore early voting opportunities before the midterms. “African Americans in Ohio are more likely than other groups to utilize [early] voting in general and to rely on evening and Sunday voting hours,” wrote District Court Judge Peter Economus, a Clinton appointee. As a consequence, the early voting cuts “result in fewer voting opportunities for African Americans.”

7th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin

September 4, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Wow! That didn’t take long. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on August 26, 2014 heard heard oral arguments in the same-sex marriage appeals of Baskin et al. v. Bogin, 14-2386, 14-2387, 14-2388 (Indiana), and Wolf et al. v. Walker, 14-2526 (Wisconsin).

This afternoon, conservative icon Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion for the unanimous court finding the Same-sex marriage bans in Indiana, Wisconsin unconstitutional:

A federal appeals court in Chicago has upheld lower court decisions that same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin are unconstitutional.

The swift decision comes just little more than a week after the 7^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments at which lawyers for the two states often found themselves on the defensive amid tough questioning from the three-judge panel.

In a 40-page unanimous opinion, Judge Richard Posner wrote that the key arguments supporting the ban — that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children — is “so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

“To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents,” Posner wrote. “The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional.”