Courts & Law

SCOTUS appears ready to punt on California’s Prop. 8

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case involving a challenge to California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. It appears as if pre-hearing legal analysis questioning whether the parties have proper legal standing to be litigants before the Court may carry the day after all. Justice Kennedy openly questioned "Why are we here?," indicating that the Court may punt on a decision on the merits and instead issue a procedural ruling.

The argument transcript is here (updated link). Argument audio  is here. (h/t SCOTUSblog.com).

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog.com has posted his first impression of The Proposition 8 oral argument:

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument.  The
bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the
five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly
will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8
is constitutional.

Well this should be fun . . .

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian first cousin, Jean Podrasky, will be attending Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s arguments before the Supreme Court on gay marriage. She should wave and blow a kiss to her cousin, "Hi Johnny!"

John Aravosis posts, Justice Roberts’ lesbian cousin will attend Tuesday’s Supreme Court gay marriage arguments:

Podrasky,
who lives in the San Francisco Bay area with her partner Grace
Fasano, announced the news in a blog post at the National Center for
Lesbian Rights.

I know that my cousin is a good man. I feel confident
that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting
of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve
to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law. I
believe he understands that ruling in favor of equality will not be out
of step with where the majority of Americans now sit. I am hoping that
the other justices (at least most of them) will share this view, because
I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly
affected by their rulings.

California election watchdog does what Arizona legislature refuses to do to protect its own GOP operatives

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this month, Cronkite News reported No state law on 'dark money' coming this legislative session:

For all of the controversy during the last election over the
influence of so-called dark money in politics, the Arizona State
Legislature is unlikely to produce any laws on the subject this session.

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, introduced the only bill
addressing dark money, one that would have increased disclosure
requirements for groups making such donations, but it didn’t receive a
hearing.

Farley said that the “future of our democracy” depends on citizens
knowing who is funding campaigns, something that certain corporations
can keep secret because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

“I just think that we owe it to our voters to do everything we can to
reveal as much as we can about where it comes from,” he said during a
recent Senate Elections Committee session on Citizens United.

Redistricting trial in U.S. District Court this week

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The lawyers/lobbyists of the GOP's secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust take their wild conspiracy theories about the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) to court today in U.S. District Court. These hucksters are challenging the state legislative districts which they believe should have been gerrymandered to create a permanent Republican majority in perpetuity because, after all, it is the divine right of Republicans to lord over us all.

Based upon the biased reporting of Howard Fischer today in the Arizona Daily Star, Arizona redistricting challenge heads to US court today, it appears that lawyer/lobbyist David Cantelme from FAIR Trust is pinning his hopes on  the claim that population deviation between the districts is a violation of law. He apparently believes that state legislative district populations must be strictly equal.

Challengers are pinning their hopes on the fact that 30 districts
crafted by the Independent Redistricting Commission are not all equal in
population.

Attorney David Cantelme contends the differences were
done "deliberately, intentionally and in violation of the
one-person/one-vote principle."

The goal of the commission, he charges, was to cluster as many
Republicans as possible together in districts, leaving the other,
underpopulated districts with more Democrats than otherwise would occur,
giving Democrats an unfair and illegal advantage in electing their own
candidates to the Legislature.

Historic civil rights arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court this week

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelThis week historic civil rights arguments will he heard in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the rights of gays and lesbians to marriage equality. On Tuesday, the Court will hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, and on Wednesday the Court will hear United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Spectators started camping out in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday for the handful of public seats available to these historic arguments. You can be certain that both pro and anti gay marriage demonstrators will be out in force in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday to create a circus atmosphere for the Beltway media villagers.