Courts & Law

Obama administration files Supreme Court briefs to challenge constitutionality of DOMA

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the Obama adminstration filed its briefs in U.S. v. Windsor. The brief of the Obama administration on the constitutionality of DOMA is here, and its brief on its right to pursue an appeal on DOMA is here. The brief for the House Republican leaders on their standing to appeal
and their challenge to the government’s right to appeal is here.

Lyle Denniston breaks down the position of the Obama administration at Scotusblog.com, DOMA: U.S. takes tough line on marriage denial:

The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights
for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of
those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against
gays and lesbians still continues.  The brief cited California’s flat
ban on such marriages — Proposition 8 — as an example of the ongoing
problem of bias against homosexuals.

In the context of the brief, the brief references to California’s
Proposition 8 were subtle and fleeting, but they immediately raised the
question of whether the administration was getting into position to come
out directly, next week, against that voter-approved ballot measure. 
It has not yet taken a position on the proposition’s constitutionality,
and that is not an issue in the case in which the new document was filed
— United States v.Windsor (12-307).

In a separate administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor
case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the
constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is properly
before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case.  That 1996 law’s
Section 3 barred legally married same-sex couples from any federal
benefits or programs based on marriage.

Citizens United 2.0 – U.S. Supreme Court to lift aggregate limits to campaign contributions?

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelOn Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536), a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court could open the door to even more money in politics than it did in its disastrous 2010 decision, Citizens United v FEC. If the court sides with the challengers in McCutcheon v FEC, political power and influence in America will further be concentrated in the hands of wealthy elite plutocrats.

Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog.com provides a brief summary, Campaign donation issue reopened:

Giving itself the option of changing its mind on government power to
limit campaign contributions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set the stage
for review of the constitutionality of a specific donation ceiling set
by federal law, but a larger issue looms in the background. Since the
Court’s landmark opinion in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo,
it has always given government more leeway to control contributions to
candidates or political organizations than over spending by candidates
or by independent political activists. That differing
constitutional treatment potentially is at stake in the new case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536).

The biggest threat to the Voting Rights Act is the U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelOn Wednesday, February 27, The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a constitutional challenge to Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended). Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic has a beautifully written history of the Voting Rights Act and the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. After 50 Years, the Voting Rights Act's Biggest Threat: The Supreme Court (excerpts):

At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, the justices of the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case styled Shelby County v. Holder, one
of the most anticipated of the current Term. Agreeing to review an
argument made by an Alabama county that it ought finally to be free from
one of the key requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the
justices will have an opportunity both to lead and to follow the nation
as it roils anew in political and legal battle over the rights of the
poor, the ill, the young, the car-less, the black, the Hispanic, and the
Native American to vote.

Nearing its 50th birthday, the act has become a part of our national lore. One of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement (and of the Johnson Administration),
it was designed by its creators to finally give meaningful legal
remedies to minority citizens — blacks, mostly, but not exclusively —
who for generations had been precluded from voting (or from having their
votes fairly counted) by a dizzying flurry of discriminatory state
practices. The act didn't just expand the scope of existing federal
civil rights laws. It completely changed the dynamic between voters and
state and local governments. And the results are indisputable: There is
far less discrimination in voting today than there was half a century
ago — and many millions more minority voters.

Arrests, deportations, protests: Is Tucson an immigrant-friendly city or not?

by

On Sunday, Tucson Police and the Border Patrol arrested Rene Meza Huertha, in front of his wife and children, and arrested activist Raúl Alcaráz Ochoa, who was trying to prevent the arrest of Huertha. This action by TPD is in direct violation of the City Council's vote in August 2012– making Tucson an "immigrant friendly" city. From the Arizona Daily Star…

"We don't want people to feel fear when traveling to work, to school, to the store," [City Councilwoman Regina] Romero said before the meeting. "We also don't want people to be afraid to call the police to report a crime."

She said a conversation now will begin among the city, immigrant communities, businesses, the Tucson Police Department and others about how to make the city more welcoming.

Activists are calling for a protest and press conference today, Monday, February 18 at 4 p.m., outside of TPD. 

On a related note, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Links, Derechos Humanos, and other immigrant supporters, including the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, will hold a press conference and protest of Operation Streamline on Tuesday, February 19, at 12:30 at the Federal Courthouse. The Operation Streamline action leads up to a Congressional hearing on this policy on February 22 in DC. Details and background on both of these actions after the jump.

No sympathy for the devil

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Joseph Ratzinger aka "Joey Rats," better known today as Pope Benedict XVI, announced that he is resigning from the Papacy on Monday. I didn't even know that was a possibility, I had to look it up. The last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415 as part of a political settlement to end the Western Schism when there were three claimants to the throne: the Roman Pope Gregory XII, Avignon Antipope Benedict XIII, and Pisan Antipope John XXIII.

Canon law does not specify any particular individual or body or people to whom the pope must manifest his resignation (Judy Blume's book title immediately popped to mind: "Are you there God? It's me, Margaret" — I quit), but Pope Celestine V in 1294 issued a solemn decree declaring it permissible for a pope to resign, and then he immediately resigned — "I'm outta here!"  Since Celestine's decree was never revoked, he set a precedent for a valid papal resignation. Who knew? They didn't teach us Vatican palace intrigue in my Catholic catechism classes.

"Joey Rats" was the Vatican enforcer for Pope John Paul II — who is no saint — before ascending to the throne himself. He was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as  the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (yes, that Inquisition). It was his job to cover-up the numerous pedophile priest sex crimes and to reassign these priests to enable them to avoid criminal prosecution. "Joey Rats" had compassion for the sinner priests, but apparently not so much for their innocent victims. (I went to Catholic school with some of these victims).