Courts & Law

‘Ancestral rights’? Welfare cowboy Cliven Bundy is a fraud

by

The conservative media entertainment complex-invented wingnut hero of the moment is welfare cowboy Cliven Bundy of Nevada, who does not recognize the U.S. government because he claims “ancestral rights” to the federal land on which this freeloader grazes his cattle without paying any grazing fees. Former Montana Governor and rancher Brian Schweitzer: Cliven Bundy is ‘a grifter’.

nevada“Ancestral rights”? Seriously, Dude? If you want to talk about “ancestral rights,” then let’s bring in the Native American tribes who actually have a claim of ancestral rights to the land. Hello!

Finally, some real reporting from KLAS in Las Vegas that exposes Cliven Bundy for the fraud that he is. I-Team: Bundy’s ‘ancestral rights’ come under scrutiny:

The I-Team dug into century-old records to examine Bundy’s claims.

* * *

His cattle, until recently, roamed freely on land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Before the roundup that sparked protests, confrontations and [militia] gunmen taking a bridge, Bundy explained his “ancestral rights” to the I-Team.

“I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements,” Bundy said.

Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Read more

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action

by

The U.S. Supreme Court today overturned the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down Michigan’s Proposition 2, the so-called “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” (2006) promoted by anti-affirmative action proponent Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute.

Similar Ward Connerly measures were enacted in California, Proposition 209 (1995), in Nebraska, Initiative 424 (2008), and in Arizona, Proposition 107 (2010).

Think Progress reports, The Supreme Court Didn’t Kill Affirmative Action Today, But It Came Close:

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in higher education Tuesday morning, in the latest ruling to effectively weaken affirmative action without killing it.

The ruling has significant policy repercussions: It means Michigan’s public universities no longer have the discretion to decide whether they want to use affirmative action policies to diversify their student bodies; they are banned by state law from considering race in admissions.

Read more

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona appeal of SB 1070

by

SB1070Arizona’s lawless legislature and Attorney General Tom “banned for life by the SEC” Horne have lost in court again.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Arizona’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the harboring provision of SB 1070. SB 1070 Harboring Provision Won’t Be Restored by U.S. Supreme Court:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Arizona’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that blocked a provision of Senate Bill 1070.

Despite the high court’s big 2012 ruling on SB 1070, several provisions of the law weren’t at issue in that case, and the American Civil Liberties Union and others have since been fighting court battles involving those other provisions. In this case, the harboring provision of SB 1070 has been defeated.

A federal district court had issued the injunction against the provision, which was upheld by an appeals court in October, and now won’t be an issue for the Supreme Court.

Read more

Update on 10th Circuit Court same-sex marriage appeals

by

EqualThe Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Kitchen v. Herbert (Utah) last week, and heard oral arguments in Bishop v. Smith (Oklahoma) on Thursday.

The Denver Post reports that the defendants in Bishop argued the issue of standing rather than the merits of the case. Procedural tiff could foul Oklahoma lesbian couples’ marriage quest:

Oral arguments before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday had less to do with weddings than whether the plaintiffs sued the wrong person — again.

“We don’t believe the plaintiffs have standing,” said Jim Campbell, attorney for defendant Tulsa County Clerk Sally Smith.

But plaintiff attorney Don Holladay, who represents two Oklahoma lesbian couples, suggested an ironclad reason they sued Smith: a 10th Circuit panel of judges ordered them to sue the clerk in 2009.

The argument looms large because if the defense is correct, then the plaintiffs’ court odyssey that began in 2004 will have been in vain.

“If the court agrees on our issue, that will end the case,” Campbell said.

* * *

Plaintiffs, who also include partners Susan Barton and Dr. Gay Phillips, first sued Oklahoma’s governor and attorney general the day after voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Nov. 3, 2004.

But in 2009, the first panel of 10th Circuit judges to review the case ruled that they shouldn’t have named the governor and attorney general as defendants. So plaintiffs then sued Smith instead.

In January, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern struck down Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban, but in his ruling he pointed out that they should have sued the governor and attorney general.

Read more

“Due process? What due process? We’re rescuing hookers!”

by

Certain areas of Phoenix have a problem with prostitution and sex workers are often trafficked into it so some (I assume) well-intentioned people came up with a diversion program which is not without its critics: Project ROSE (Reaching Out on Sexual Exploitation) is a collaboration between the Phoenix Police Department and Arizona State University School … Read more