Courts & Law

Justice Scalia tells a funny (I’m not laughing)

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In reading this morning’s opinions, I could not believe my eyes when i read this line from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent (.pdf) in U.S. v. Windsor:

“This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power
of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to
pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the
predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to
decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the
Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased
root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.””


6a00d8341bf80c53ef0147e1453cac970b-320wiSeriously? 24 hours earlier, Scalia did not hesitate to gut the singular most important piece of civil rights legislation in U.S. history, the capstone of the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Scalia did not hesitate to stab “a dagger in the heart” of this “democratically adopted
legislation,” approved by the elected representatives of Americans who
are able to “govern themselves.”

Following 21 days of testimony at hearings and thousands of pages of
documentary evidence, Congress passed the 2006 Reauthorization by a vote of
98-0 in the Senate, and 390-33 in the House.  It did so based on
statutory findings that “without the continuation of [the Act’s]
protections, racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of
the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have their
votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in
the last 40 years.” Among other findings, Congress relied on the existence of so-called
“second generation” discriminatory practices in covered jurisdictions,
including at-large elections and racial gerrymandering, which have the
effect of diluting minority voting power. (h/t Brennan Center for Justice).

Read more

President Obama’s statement on same-sex marriage rulings

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage today. Statement by the President on the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act:

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of
Marriage Act.  This was discrimination enshrined in law.  It treated
loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class
of people.  The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country
is better off for it.  We are a people who declared that we are all
created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as
well. 

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal
treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now
be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last,
will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and
supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones
treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change
for the better. 

California Gov. Jerry Brown: counties must issue marriage licenses

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Same-sex marriages may resume in California as soon as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals terminates its stay order after the case is remanded back to the court from the U.S. Supreme Court, with an order to vacate the appeal. California Governor Jerry Brown has directed that counties must comply with state … Read more

Supreme Court strikes down Section 3 of DOMA, sends Prop. 8 back to California

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualThe constitutional rights of same-sex couples advanced incrementally today, but it was not a landmark decision establishing a bright-line constitutional equal protection right to same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court today in United
States v. Windsor struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy, as he has in other gay rights cases, wrote the majority opinion of the court, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The court held that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by Fifth Amendment equal protection. "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

What is important in this decision is that the court adopts a "heightened scrutiny" standard of review, rather than the "rational basis" standard of review previously applied by courts in these cases. Justice Kennedy writes there is a "careful consideration" standard: In determining whether a law is
motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual
character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive
under these principles.

John Nichols: US Needs 3 Constitutional Amendments to Save Our Democracy (video)

by

Flag-99-862-sig-sm72by Pamela Powers Hannley

One hundred years ago, at the dawn of the last American Progressive Era, the United States was a very different place– a place of inequality, discrimination, and wealth disparity, author and historian John Nichols told a gathering of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) in June.

Although slavery had been abolished in 1865 (#13), the rights of citizens were established in 1868 (#14), and the right to vote for all men was established in 1870 (#15), the majority of Americans could not vote.

At the turn of the last century, women and adults 18-21 years of age were barred from voting, and because of racist, state-level machinations and poll taxes, many African Americans and poor Americans of any color also were kept from voting. In addition, citizens didn’t have representation in the US Senate, since Senators were chosen by robber barons in back room deals (not elected by the people).

This sounds all too familiar, doesn’t it? Are Republicans trying to take our country back to 1900? Consider these current scenarios:

The energy and activism of the Progressive Era (1900-1929) brought many positive changes and new Constitutional Amendments; it’s up to those of us in the New Progressive Movementto fight back against new regressive and discriminatory laws to save our country. 

Videos and details after the jump.