Courts & Law

Our society must move beyond violence against women

by

Domestic violence_20b10e08caby Pamela Powers Hannley

This week the story of domestic violence charges against former Mexican American Studies (MAS) Director Sean Arce bubbled up on the Arizona Daily Independent (ADI) blog and on Facebook, where discussions continue to roil. Prior to ADI's initial blog post on December 27, 2012, rumors were swirling around regarding what happened on December 9, 2012, the night Arce and his compadres celebrated his birthday. Now we have ADI's account– written from the police report and reaction from people across the political spectrum, including this blogger. Unfortunately, none of the lame stream media outlets have chosen to cover this story.

Did Arce aggressively confront his ex-wife in a local restaurant? Did he follow her home, break into the house, and break windows– causing Essence Arce to flee? That is for the courts to decide, but, in my opinion, the police report (which alludes to dried blood on Arce's hands when he was arrested) is very damming. 

My goal here is not to try Arce's case in the court of public opinion, but to point out that IF the domestic violence charges against him are true, we have yet another local case of a powerful man abusing his power and acting in a violent or at least highly inappropriate manner toward women. In recent months, Arizona has seen SIX powerful men charged with domestic violence or sexual harassment.

Women are murdered every day in this country by husbands, lovers, and former partners. In the workplace, women are subjected to harassment and discrimination. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. For more details, continue reading after the jump.

Blogging like a fugitive

by

McAfee-smby Pamela Powers Hannley

In recent months, John McAfee's life has been the stuff B movies are made of.

In a nutshell, the expatriot anti-virus software pioneer had six guard dogs and "a contingent of armed guards" patrolling his estate in Belize; his neighbors didn't like the aggressive, barking dogs, and one filed a formal complaint; the dogs were poisoned; a few days later the neighbor was shot dead; McAfee went into hiding– including burying himself in his yard (to hide from police in Belize) and faking a heart attack (to be released from jail in Guatemala).  

As if that's not enough to keep a guy busy, apparently McAfee had the time to blog during his ordeal. 

Ragan's PR Daily says that bloggers can take a few queues from McAfee's blog to spice up their writing. How does one "blog like a fugitive"? Read tips from the article after the jump. (Image: John McAfee on his property in Belize. Credit: Brian Finke.)

The Filibuster in Federal Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This might prove interesting — or not. While the plaintiffs' arguments are correct, I suspect the Court will grant the motion to dismiss, taking the easy way out by citing separation of powers doctrine and comity between the branches of government to say that this is a political question for which the Court lacks the power to compel the Senate to do anything. Senate filibuster faces federal court challenge:

Even as Democrats are pushing to change the rules of the Senate, a federal court plans to consider a legal challenge to the chamber’s rules Monday.

Four House Democrats and the nonpartisan political reform group Common Cause are suing to end the use of the filibuster, calling it “an accident of history,” and unconstitutional “because they are inconsistent with the principle of majority rule.”

The Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), John Lewis (Ga.) and Mike Michaud (Minn.), are joined by three other challengers, Erika Andiola, Celso Mireles and Caesar Vargas, who Common Cause says are being “denied a path to American citizenship” because of repeated filibusters of legislation that would grant young people brought to the United States illegally an opportunity to apply for citizenship. 

In court papers, the group argues that the filibuster “replaces majority rule with rule by the minority” by requiring at least 60 senators to vote to end debate on a bill.

Update: Arizona same-sex partner benefits case held by U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The U.S. Supreme Court did not include Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, et al.,  Petitioners v. Joseph R. Diaz, et al. (12-23), the the Arizona state workers' benefits case, in its orders list this morning. SCOTUSblog.com live blog suggests that the Arizona same-sex marriage/domestic partner case will apparently be held for … Read more

U.S. Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court waited until late in the day to take advantage of the Friday news dump.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it will consider whether California’s
ban on same-sex marriage (Prop. 8) is constitutional, HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL. (12-144), and whether Congress may
withhold federal benefits from legally married same-sex couples (Section 3 of DOMA) by
defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL. (12-307). Supreme Court says it will hear same-sex marriage cases:

The court will hear arguments in the spring about about one of the
country’s most politically divisive social issues, with a decision by
June.

[According to SCOTUSblog: The arguments very likely will be March 25-27, and a
decision is very likely around June 27.]

The court will examine a key section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage
Act. The Obama administration announced in 2011 it was abandoning
defense of the law, and a string of lower courts has said it is
unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are
legally married in the states where they live while offering them to
opposite-sex married couples.

This marks the first time the
justices will hear arguments relating to same-sex marriage. Because the
DOMA case concerns couples who already are married under state law, the
case they selected would not require an answer to the broader
constitutional question of whether homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

The court also said it would review a lower court’s decision to
overturn Proposition 8, in which California voters in 2008 amended the
state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage.