Courts & Law

Action Alert: CAP abortion bill in the House today

by

Your work is not done now that Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed the Religious Bigotry bill from Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). The Committee of the Whole (COW) in the House is debating the CAP bill for surprise inspections of abortion clinics,HB 2284 (.pdf) TODAY. This bill is really about harassing … Read more

Federal Court rules Texas ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

by

The dominoes of discrimination continue to fall. Think Progress reports, Federal Judge Rules Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional:

6a00d8341bf80c53ef01901df0a0f0970b-piA federal judge has ruled (.pdf) that Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, the state’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and therefore “demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.” Garcia stayed his decision pending appeal, so same-sex couples cannot begin marrying yet.

* * *

The ruling would prevent the state from enforcing its 2003 law and 2005 constitutional amendment that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. Voters passed that amendment by a 3-to-1 margin, but a plurality of Texans now support marriage equality.

According to the ruling, not only are these families denied benefits under the law, they are also subjected to “state sanctioned discrimination, stigma, and humiliation,” explaining: “In this case, it is clear that Plaintiffs suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment under the law on the basis of their sexual orientation, and this stigmatic harm flows directly from Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage.” Garcia cited Windsor, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, noting that not recognizing same-sex marriages “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Read more

Making sense of the legal analyses of SB 1062

by

There are a couple of legal analyses out today that attempt to make the point that SB 1062, the Religious Bigotry bill, is just not that big a deal. Wrong.

Howard Fischer has a report captioned in the Arizona Daily Star, Outcry over Arizona’s SB 1062 overshadows bill’s limited power. Howie relies on former ASU Law Professor Paul Bender, who comments “My summary is: It means almost nothing.””[T]he main thing people miss is, there’s no right of action against a bigot in the first place,” Bender said. “The bigot doesn’t need this.”

Howie cites the “three part test” contained in SB 1062:

The law provides a three-part test that someone seeking to use the shield would have to establish in court.

First, the person’s action or refusal to act “is motivated by a religious belief.” Second, that belief must be “sincerely held.”

And third, there would need to be proof that being forced to do something “substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”

It is that last provision that prevents SB 1062 from being a catch-all for any religious claim.

But Howie never asks the all important question: “How has this three part test been used in real world practical application?”

Read more

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature loses in court, again (part the infinity)

by

6a00d8341bf80c53ef01910386dd8c970c-piYou may recall that on the opening day of the legislative session this year, lobbyist Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), and her allies in the anti-choice, anti-constitutional rights for women movement suffered a major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona’s petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature’s 20-week abortion restrictions, Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).

On Monday, lobbyist Cathi Herrod and the CAP and its legal partner in the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist movement, the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), suffered another major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona’s petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Betlach v. Planned Parenthood (13-621) striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature’s attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. U.S.  Supreme Court won’t revive Arizona abortion law:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a move to resurrect an Arizona law that would have disqualified abortion providers from receiving public funding for other medical services.

The high court declined to hear Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked the 2012 law.

Read more

The Arizona Republic advocates for wage theft from retirees

by

ScreenshotDidn’t I tell you the editorial board of the Arizona Republic will have a sad over this ruling? Arizona Supreme Court smacks down Arizona’s lawless legislature, again: “State lawmakers cannot balance the budget by limiting pension benefit increases for retired judges, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.”

Sure ‘nuf, here is the “editorial board” of the Arizona Republic arguing in favor of wage theft from retirees — keep in mind this is deferred compensation that these employees bargained for in good faith and have earned by performing their end of the bargain. They are entitled to receive payment in exchange for their performance. Reform pensions or lose them:

The Arizona Supreme Court just handed an enormous past-due bill to taxpayers.

The state Legislature’s attempt in 2011 to rein in the costs of poorly performing pension plans is unconstitutional, according to the justices. The Arizona constitution forbids reducing public-pension benefits, which effectively means that no matter how high the costs go, taxpayers simply will have to find a way to pay them.

Read more