Courts & Law

Virginia is for Lovers: Court hearing on same-sex marriage tomorrow

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports on the latest from Virginia, Race on same-sex marriage cases runs through Virginia:

The race to get the Supreme Court to decide whether it is unconstitutional for states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples may run through Virginia.

* * *

Equal[T]he Virginia cases are moving quickly, and some lawyers are hopeful they emerge through the appeals process as favored vehicles for an ultimate decision by the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski ruled Friday that a suit brought by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers in Harrisonburg on behalf of four lesbians should become a class action covering Virginia’s estimated 15,000 same-sex couples who might want to marry. [Harris, et al. v. McDonnel, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virgina – Harrisonburg Division (Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00077)]

And Tuesday, in a courtroom just over 200 miles away in Norfolk, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen will consider for the first time Virginia’s startling reversal of the commonwealth’s legal position on same-sex marriage. [Bostic v. Rainey, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia – Norfolk Division (Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-395)]

New Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) said the state’s ban, approved by voters in 2006, is unconstitutional and cannot be defended.

Stop pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits: Repeal the remnants of SB 1070

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's lawless legislature does not hesitate to piss away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court. It does this all the time, and frequently loses in court. The real losers in the end are Arizona's taxpayers who have to pay the attorneys fees and court costs for these ideological extremists.

Our lawless legislature — the Tea-Publican leadership — currently has three lawsuits in court challenging the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), the citizens initiative that created it, and the 2012 redistricting maps. This is a purely partisan endeavor that the Arizona GOP should be paying for out of its own deep pockets, not the taxpayers of Arizona.

Presente_LicensePlateAZ_300pxThe most recent example of our lawless legislature pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court is the continuing litigation over the remnants of SB 1070, most of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which came with a warning from the Court that it would strike down the remainder of the law when a proper case and controversy under the remaining provisions of SB 1070 reached the Court. The writing is on the wall.

This week, the legislature approved using taxpayer money to pay the court costs of Republican politicians — some of whom are no longer in the legislature — in response to discovery requests in the litigation over SB 1070. Lawmakers approve funds for SB 1070 defense:

Saying they were protecting the legislative process, the House and Senate voted along party lines Thursday to hire a lawyer to help them fight subpoenas over the state’s controversial 2010 immigration law.

The legislation sets aside up to $100,000 to contest a request by the American Civil Liberties Union for the personal emails and other correspondence between some current and former lawmakers and those who might have helped them craft or line up votes for SB 1070.

Nevada’s defense of same-sex marriage ban crumbles in Sevcik v. Sandoval

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualA Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week in the case of SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, holding that prospective jurors may not be excluded from a jury because of their sexual orientation, has undermined the state of Nevada's defense of its same-sex marriage ban in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, 9th Circuit Docket No. 12-17668.

(Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, and SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories is controlling precedent in the same-sex marriage lawsuit recently filed in Arizona.)

Jess Wegman explains in Nevada’s Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage ‘No Longer Tenable’:

On Jan. 21, Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, filed a brief strongly defending the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, which is being challenged in federal court by a group of same-sex couples.

Three days later, she did an about-face.

The brief’s arguments, she said in a statement, were “likely no longer tenable” in light of a ruling issued by the federal appeals court in San Francisco on the same day the brief had been filed.

The statement reads:

Las Vegas, NV – Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto released the following statement regarding Nevada’s same-sex marriage case:

“A potentially significant case was decided by the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday of this week, the same day that a brief was filed on behalf of the State in Nevada’s same-sex marriage case. The Ninth Circuit’s new decision, entitled SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, appears to impact the equal protection and due process arguments made on behalf of the State. After careful review of the SmithKline decision these arguments are likely no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit.

This office will conduct further review over the weekend in order to evaluate the State’s argument in light of SmithKline. We will be discussing this with the Governor’s Office next week.”

SCOTUS keeps injunction in place in Little Sisters until the 10th Circuit rules on the merits

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a temporary injunction on New Years' Eve in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, to an objection by an order of Catholic nuns who minister to the elderly that they do not want to sign EBSA Form 700 claiming an exemption for a religious organization, which would allow their employee health insurance provider to provide contraception coverage under the ACA "contraception mandate" to their employees.

The Little Sisters' health plan administrator, Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, also objected to the “contraceptive mandate” and said it would not incorporate it in the Little Sisters plan. Federal law exempts “church plans” from the ACA mandate, so there will be no contraception coverage in the health care plan.

The Little Sisters are objecting to completing paperwork.

The theory goes that even filing the EBSA Form 700 would make the Little Sisters a part of the scheme, and thus draw them into support for abortions or abortion-related services. (Somehow they equate contraception with abortion; not all contraception is an aborticide). It is an absolutist extreme position.

It is an extreme position not shared by American Catholics. Most American Catholics don’t consider birth control to be a threat to their religious belief. In fact, 82 percent of Catholics say contraception is “morally acceptable,” according to a Gallup poll from May 2012. Catholic support for birth control is a mere 8 points below the 90 percent of non-Catholic Americans who have no moral objections to birth control.

Government Watchdog: NSA spy program is illegal and should be shut down

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The big story today is that the independent federal privacy watchdog, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, has concluded that the National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal” benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down. No shit!

I said that back in 2005 when the New York Times first revealed the secret spy program of the Bush-Cheney regime. Congress, rather than impeach the Bush-Cheney regime for the most extensive violations of the U.S. Constitution ever, passed laws ex post facto to make the existing illegal spy program "legal" and to give it the imprimatur of congressional approval. The telecommunications companies that cooperated with the illegal spy program were given immunity from civil liability. "Nothing to see here, move along."

The New York Times reports today, Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End:

The findings are laid out in a 238-page report, scheduled for release Thursday and obtained by The New York Times, that represent the first major public statement by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress made an independent agency in 2007 and only recently became fully operational.

The report is likely to inject a significant new voice into the debate over surveillance, underscoring that the issue was not settled by a high-profile speech President Obama gave last week. Mr. Obama consulted with the board, along with a separate review group that last month delivered its own report about surveillance policies. But while he said in his speech that he was tightening access to the data and declared his intention to find a way to end government collection of the bulk records, he said the program’s capabilities should be preserved.

The Obama administration has portrayed the bulk collection program as useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential abuse. But in its report, the board lays out what may be the most detailed critique of the government’s once-secret legal theory behind the program: that a law known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation, can be legitimately interpreted as authorizing the N.S.A. to collect all calling records in the country.

The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.”