Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This reporting by Morgan Kousser at Reuters blows away the disingenuous sophistry of Chief Justice John Roberts in Shelby County v. Holder (and echoed by every pundit in the conservative media entertainment complex right-wing noise machine). Gutting the landmark civil rights legislation:

The Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision on Tuesday essentially cast aside the key component of the nation’s most important civil rights legislation.

The five “conservative” justices castigated Congress for putting too much emphasis on history by failing to update the “coverage formula” in Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 4 specifies which states and local jurisdictions must “pre-clear”
with the Justice Department or the Washington district court all
changes in election laws – anything from adding voter ID regulations to
redistricting. Areas now subject to this federal oversight have had a
substantial history of voter discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing for the 5-4 majority, conceded
that the Voting Rights Act is largely responsible for a decline in
blatant voting racial discrimination efforts. Yet he declared the
federal oversight program “unconstitutional”
on the grounds that it did not reflect “current conditions.” Instead,
he invited this most dysfunctional of Congresses to “draft another
formula.”

But the chief justice is wrong.

Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If you were upset with the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, you should be outraged at the court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, crippling the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The “Felonious Five” conservative activist Justices of the Court demonstrated in orders today just how far they intend to go in applying this decision — it is now open season for GOP voter suppression and gerrymandered redistricting.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:

The Supreme Court, acting swiftly to promote further review of voting
rights under federal law, told lower courts on Thursday to take a new
look at two Texas cases involving a photo ID law for voters and a new
set of redistricting plans for the state’s delegation in Congress and
for members of the two houses of its state legislature.

In both cases, the Justices wiped out lower court rulings that had
refused to give legal clearance to the photo ID law and the new election
districting plans. The lower courts are now to apply the Supreme
Court’s ruling on Tuesday in Shelby County v. Holder,
(docket 12-96), striking down one key part of the Voting Rights Act of
1965.  Because the Supreme Court’s actions did not resolve the cases
finally, the two Texas laws at issue will now remain in legal limbo, at
least for a few weeks.

Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Thursday’s orders by the Supreme Court came in the final round of
actions it planned to take in the 2012-13 Term. Orders List (.pdf).

One day after issuing two historic
rulings on same-sex marriages, the Court denied review of two cases from
Arizona and Nevada that posed tests of state laws that treat gays and
lesbians less favorably than straight couples.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:

The Arizona case (Brewer v. Diaz,
12-23) was a plea by state officials for permission to enforce a law
enacted by its legislature in 2009, taking away health benefits for
same-sex state employees who were not married but were legally “domestic
partners.” The law accomplished that result by defining “dependent”
for purposes of the benefits as “a spouse,” meaning a legally married
wife or husband.

Since a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution limits
marriage to “one man and one woman,” same-sex couples are not eligible
to marry in Arizona, so the redefinition of “spouse” to exclude domestic
partners shut out couples who were not eligible to marry.  The Ninth
Circuit Court barred enforcement of that law, and the state had
appealed, arguing that its law was actually neutral, and thus should
satisfy constitutional demands for legal equality.

The Ninth Circuit Court ruling stands, barring enforcement of the Arizona law.

Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans truly live in an alternate universe reality. Governor Jan Brewer actually asserted with a straight face that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in this state.

This is the woman who used the racially divisive SB 1070 to get elected to the governor’s office (SB 1070 was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional).

This is the state where crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio was just recently found by the federal court to have engaged in a policy of unlawful racial profiling (he is appealing).

This is the state where nativist anti-immigrant politicians like J.D. Hayworth, Russell Pearce, and Andrew Thomas are celebrated as heroes by conservatives in the GOP.

This is the state where Tom “banned for life by the SEC” Horne and John Huppenthal, and editor and columnist Doug MacEachern at The Arizona Republic, have engaged in unhinged demonization (criminalization) of Latino students in Tucson for ethnic studies programs at TUSD.

Jan Brewer is delusional.

RAW Story reports, Arizona governor: Racial discrimination doesn’t ‘take place any longer’:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on Tuesday said the Voting Rights Act had “hampered” the state and was pleased to see a key provision of the civil rights law struck down.

* * *

When asked why Arizona shouldn’t be required to have its voting laws precleared, Brewer said racial discrimination was no longer a problem in the state.

Read more