Courts & Law

U.S. Supreme Court places new limits on discrimination claims

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelThe U.S. Supreme Court this morning ruled on Fisher v. Universtiy of Texas, the affirmative action case which has been pending since last October. In a 7-1 decision (Justice Kagan is recused in this case), Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the court, with Justice Ginsberg the loan dissenter.

The Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit court's grant of summary judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded back to the Fifth Circuit, because the circuit court did not apply the strict scrutiny standard of review articulated in the Grutter and Bakke affirmative action cases in granting summary judgment. "The
reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity."

There was a concurring opinion by Justice Scalia, who said that because the petitioner did not ask the Court to overrule Grutter, he joins the opinion of the Court in full. This is a hint to the petitioner to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Grutter when this case returns to the Supreme Court after a decision on remand.

There was also a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas who, unlike Justice Scalia, did not want to wait for procedural due process. Justice Thomas said that he was ready to overrule Grutter now.

SCOTUS Watch: Final Week

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelThe U.S. Supreme Court has saved its most controversial cases for the last week of the 2012 term. Monday is orders and opinions day, and an additional opinions (and possibly orders) day is likely to be announced on Monday. The Court has eleven merit decisions to announce this week — it is unlikely that all eleven will be announced on Monday.

Kedar Bhatia at SCOTUSblog.com has a summary of the eleven merit decisions of the 2012 term to be announced this week. Merits cases remaining for October Term 2012. Here are the cases to watch:

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin 11-345 – Affirmative Action in college admissions.

Vance v. Ball State University 11-556 – Supervisor liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District 11-1447 – Land use takings claim.

Shelby County v. Holder 12-96 – Voting Rights Act Section 5 preclearance constitutional challenge.

Governor Brewer signs the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The era of bipartisan good will over the passage of the Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration/expansion plan did not even last a full week. Today Governor Brewer demonstrated her partisan hackitude by signing the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Brewer signs election overhaul bill:

Gov. Jan Brewer signed a far-reaching
elections bill that will help weed inactive voters from the Permanent
Early Voter List, prohibit political organizations from collecting early
ballots en masse and impose stricter legal standards on citizen
initiatives.

* * *

Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said
HB2305 remedies a lot of problems that Brewer faced during her six years
as secretary of state.

“It is a critical election reform measure that will help ensure that
the vote counting doesn’t drag on for weeks and weeks after every
election,” Benson said. “In many cases these have been long-running
problems in the state of Arizona.”

But opponents of the legislation, including legislative Democrats and
Latino activists, allege that the bill is intended to suppress
Democratic and minority votes. Early ballot collection and PEVL sign-ups
have been a staple of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts for years.

The bill makes it Class 1 misdemeanor for campaigns or political
organizations to collect voters’ early ballots. Voters can still
designate someone to return their ballots to election officials if they
want, but political organizations can no longer collect large numbers of
ballots as they have in the past.

The real IRS Scandal: Legal challenge to 1959 IRS regulation re: 501(c)(4) tax exempt status

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks as if MSNBC host of the The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell, tax analyst David Cay Johnston (and I) finally have the attention of someone in Congress about The real IRS scandal: the ease with which political organizations have been abusing the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

Paul Blumenthal writes at the Huffington Post, Chris Van Hollen: IRS Rules To Be Challenged In Court:

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Tuesday that he and two campaign
finance watchdog groups would sue the IRS, challenging regulations that
allow nonprofit groups to be involved in politics if they're "primarily"
devoted to a social welfare purpose.

Van Hollen said he and watchdog groups Campaign Legal Center and
Democracy 21 would sue to clarify an IRS regulation that he said was at
odds with the law, which requires certain groups to "exclusively" engage
in social welfare to earn nonprofit status. The IRS regulation
permitting groups “primarily” engaged in social welfare allows the
organizations to participate in an undefined amount of political
activity, said the congressman, a leading advocate of campaign finance
reform and ranking member of the House Budget Committee.

The 1959 IRS regulation has become an issue since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door for nonprofit groups organized under section 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) of the tax code to raise and spend corporate and union money on elections without disclosing donors. The scandal involving the agency's singling out conservative groups applying for nonprofit status has increased attention to the regulation, especially among Democratic lawmakers.

The GOP war on women to appease the crazy base

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

TalibanRemember when the TanMan, Weeper of the House John Boehner, proclaimed that Tea-Publicans were all about creating jobs? Yeah, still waiting.

When they are not wasting time on meaningless symbolic votes to repeal "ObamaCare" for the 39th time to give every member of their caucus a chance to vote against it, they are wasting their time on other meaningless symbolic votes to appease the crazy base, like this.

On Tuesday, House Republicans wasted the day approving the most restrictive
anti-abortion bill considered in Congress in the last decade, the unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. U.S.
House passes bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy:

The House approved legislation Tuesday that would ban abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy, the most sweeping abortion restriction to pass any chamber of Congress in a decade. The vote was 228 to 196.

For those of you scoring this bill, six Republicans voted against it, and six Democrats voted for it — Henry Cuellar (D-TX 28), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL 3), Jim Matheson (D-UT 4), Mike McIntyre (D-NC 7), Collin Peterson (D-MN 7), and Nick Rahall (D-WV 3) — canceling each other out.

Under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, abortions
can be performed until the point when an individual doctor determines a
fetus’s viability, which is generally defined as up to 24 weeks of
gestation. After that point, the government can prohibit the procedure
as long as it provides sufficient safeguards for the mother’s health and
well-being.

* * *

Tuesday’s vote marks the first time Congress has voted to redefine the point where a fetus becomes viable [in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the real reason for doing this.]