Courts & Law

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

by

6a00d8341bf80c53ef019103bb1102970c-piOur Tea-Publican lawless legislature has lost in court, again. This time it was our lawless legislature’s attempt to overturn the constitutionality of the voter-approved citizens initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), to determine redistricting election boundaries rather than the state legislature. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (CV12-01211-PHX-PGR).

I have previously explained that, based upon case law precedents, this should be a no-brainer for the court in favor of the AIRC. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. And it was, except for Justice Paul Rosenblatt, who agreed with part of the ruling, but argued the citizen initiative wrongly removed any power lawmakers would have to influence how the politically sensitive lines are drawn in his dissent. Justice Rosenblatt is simply wrong. It happens.

Read more

Public Citizen events for ‘Son of Citizens United’ decision day in McCutcheon

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

McCutcheon v. FEC, aka "Son of Citizens United" was heard on the second day of the U.S. Supreme Court's term back in October. Court observers believe that a decision in this case could be announced as early as next week when the Court returns from hiatus. Public Citizen is organizing events around the country to coincide with the announcement of the decision in "Son of Citizens United."

Press release: Nationwide Rapid Response Planned for U.S. Supreme Court’s McCutcheon Ruling:

Activists Are Organizing More Than 100 Rallies for the Decision Day

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Hundreds of activists nationwide are planning rallies, protests and other events in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which could be decided as soon as the week of Feb. 24. More than 100 events are being organized in some of the largest cities around the country, to take place on the day of the ruling.

The events range from press conferences and rallies to petition drives, to be held in cities including Baltimore, Md.; Chicago, Ill.; Denver, Colo.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, Calif.; New York, N.Y.; San Diego, Calif.; San Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; and Washington, D.C.

Oregon AG will not defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban in court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oregon is the latest state to announce that it will not defend its same-sex marriage ban in court because it is unconstitutional in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Oregon ends defense of marriage ban:

EqualState officials in Oregon notified a federal court on Thursday that they will no longer defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following similar switches by state officials in Nevada and Virginia.  The Oregon filing (.pdf) came in one of two consolidated cases in Eugene challenging the state ban, which was imposed by voters in 2004.

The key statement in the new Oregon document, which was in the form of an Answer to one of the lawsuits, said state officials “will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation.  Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review.”  The paragraph added, though, that they would continue to enforce the ban as a legal duty unless and until it were struck down in court.  Officials had not made that statement in their response in December to the other case in the pair that are now being considered together.

Amicus brief urges U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

During yesterday's House debate of the Religious Bigotry bill, Tea-Publicans made several references to the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354) case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear with the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356) case in oral arguments scheduled for March 25, 2014.

Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Tea-Publicans wielded "RFRA" like a sword in their arguments in favor of their Religious Bigotry bill.

Well, this amicus brief filed in these cases should cause their self-righteous hypocrite butts to pucker. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com writes, Bold challenge to a law on religion:

Arguing that Congress has gone too far to push aside the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in religion cases, a loose coalition of child welfare organizations, survivors of clergy child sexual abuse, and non-believers has urged the Justices to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it rules on a new dispute over the federal health care law.

The amicus brief, written by a prominent academic authority on religion and the law, Cardozo Law School’s Marci A. Hamilton, seeks to add a bold new dimension to the Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate.”

Arizona Supreme Court smacks down Arizona’s lawless legislature, again

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

PensionsOur lawless legislature has lost yet another case in court, this time over the Elected Officials Retirement Plan (specifically retired judges). This is the second time in recent years that the Arizona Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional attempt by Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature to reduce benefits to retirees of public employee pension plans. I am sure the editorial board of the Arizona Republic will have a sad over this ruling.

Howard Fischer reports, AZ Supreme Court: Judges’ pensions can’t be cut:

State lawmakers cannot balance the budget by limiting pension benefit increases for retired judges, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The justices said a voter-approved section of the state constitution makes public pension plans a contractual relationship. More to the point, that provision says benefits “shall not be diminished or impaired.”

Justice Robert Brutinel, writing for the unanimous court said that language applies not just to what retired judges were getting at any one time. He said it also means lawmakers cannot tinker with already existing formulas that determine how much those benefits will increase each year.

Thursday’s ruling puts a damper on efforts by legislators to sharply restrain the obligations of the state to finance existing public pensions. But it does not bar lawmakers from setting new rules for those who have not yet become judges.