Courts & Law

Religious bigotry rears its ugly head in the Arizona Legislature

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this month I told you about the bill by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park) to make it illegal for government to “require a minister to solemnize a marriage inconsistent with a minister's sincerely held religious beliefs.” A solution in search of a non-existent problem. As I said at the time:

I commend Rep. Montenegro for trying to keep his measure as narrow as possible. The New Mexico wedding photographer case he cites is an example of an individual claiming an overly broad definition of "religious liberty" to essentially assert a license to discriminate against members of the public.Whitye-only This is a slippery slope which can easily be abused to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex and religion simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious beliefs." If this wedding photographer had refused services to African-Americans or Jews, or to Arab-Americans and Muslims instead of "the gays," he would have been rightly condemned as a bigot. A "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.

Rep. Montenegro's restraint is not shared by Arizona's most corrupt state senator, Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler), who uses his position to write charter school bills to steer state funding to his Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization to benefit himself financially. It's like writing checks to yourself. Unbelievably, this allegedly does not violate Arizona's ethics rules for legislators. (See Steve Murtarore at the Arizona Eagletarian for the latest self-dealing by Sen. Yarbrough, regarding a KPHO Channel 5 investigation by Morgan Loew. Is Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough's approach the only thing corrupt in the Arizona Legislature? and Will you tolerate Steve Yarbrough's brazen self-service?)

Federal Court Ruling: Is this Beginning of the End for Net Neutrality?

by

We-the-persons750-sig-sm72-b-wby Pamela Powers Hannley

If you don’t like the way Facebook shovels advertising and promoted posts into your “news feed”, instead of the latest photos of your friends’ vacations, you’re really not going to like the new and improved Internet.

Yesterday, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t have the power to regulate net neutrality. What does this mean for you? Internet providers like Verizon can now cut deals with corporate giants to accelerate their content, while leaving non-commercial Internet content–like those pesky independent blogs– in the dustbin of a Google search.

From Think Progress…

Net neutrality rules were issued by the FCC to prevent broadband providers from favoring some content over other content, potentially even their own. As the two-judge majority explains, “a broadband provider like Comcast might limit its end-user subscribers’ ability to access the New York Times website if it wanted to spike traffic to its own news website, or it might degrade the quality of the connection to a search website like Bing if a competitor like Google paid for prioritized access.”

Even as they struck down these rules Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit judges concede that this concern is real, writing, “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” The problem, however, derives from an earlier FCC decision that even advocates of net neutrality like Free Press president Craig Aaron say was a failure of FCC leadership to “ground its Open Internet rules on solid legal footing.” [Emphasis added.]

Gov. Brewer doesn’t ‘get’ the concept of federalism

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Governor Jan Brewer clearly doesn't "get" the concept of federalism, co-equal branches of government, and judicial review. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of Arizona's abortion law appeal in Horne v. Isaacson on Monday, Brewer's PR guy Howie Fischer wants us all to know that: The high-court decision drew derision … Read more

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona’s abortion law appeal

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: For those of you heading up to the Capitol this morning for the Stand With Arizona Women rally, there is breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court. Arizona's petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's 20-week abortion restrictions, Horne … Read more

In the U.S. Supreme Court this week

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court at its Conference on Friday considered the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's 20-week abortion restrictions, Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).This case was not among the eight cases granted immediately after the Conference on Friday. Additional orders from the January 10 Conference are due on Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.

Monday is also the first day of the January sitting.On Monday the Court will hear oral arguments in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the challenge to the constitutionality of the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB. The patrician prevaricator for the plutocracy, George Will, clutches his pearls and whines mightily about the president's recess appointments, while ignoring the unprecedented partisan obstruction of the president's appointments by the Tea Party tyranny of the minority in A defining moment for the Court, while the New York Times editorializes today, correctly, Protect the President’s Appointments. That's a big "screw you George Will."

On both Tuesday and Wednesday one or more opinions in argued cases are expected to be announced. The campaign finance case of McCutcheon v. FEC heard in October? It's possible.