Prominent Republicans sign onto amicus brief to overturn California’s Prop. 8

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In other U.S. Supreme Court news on Tuesday, 75 Republicans signed on to an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to make same-sex marriage constitutionally protected in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage:

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter:
Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one
of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court,
brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does,
that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of
gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances
conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual
freedom.”

The Voting Rights Act is imperiled by the conservative activist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On the same day that a statue honoring Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks was unveiled in Statuary Hall at the Capitol, Rosa Parks statue unveiled at Capitol, paying tribute to a woman whose name became synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement, down the street the "Felonious Five" conservative activists of the U.S. Supreme Court were signaling their willingness to legislate their ideological views from the bench and to disregard the legislative judgment of the people's representatives in Congress by striking down the enforcement mechanisms of the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, echoing the segregationists' battle cry of "states' rights." Supreme Court conservatives express skepticism over voting law provision:

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices strongly suggested
Wednesday that a key portion of the Voting Rights Act is no longer
justified, and that the time had come for Southern states to be freed
from special federal oversight.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Solicitor General
Donald B. Verrilli Jr. whether it was the federal government’s
contention that “the citizens in the South are more racist than
citizens in the North.”

Verrilli said that was not the government’s argument, but that
Congress decided in 2006 that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was
still needed to protect the voting rights of minorities. The section
requires nine states, mostly in the South, and local governments in
other states to “pre-clear” any changes in voting laws with federal
authorities.

U.S. Supreme Court cements the Surveillance States of America

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment has been on life support since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush-Cheney regime instituted a massive electronic surveillance program in secret that was warrantless, bypassing the FISA Court, that monitored Americans’ electronic communications. It was unconstitutional and illegal. When this electronic surveillance program was exposed by the media, Congress retroactively "legalized" it in 2008. The FISA Amendments Act. (Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution). The FISA Amendments Act was renewed in 2012 with the support of the Obama administration.

AIRC Update: State and Federal Court Cases Headed for Trial

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The attempts by the Arizona Republican Party Caucus and its secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust to overturn the redistricting by the Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission (AIRC) are headed for trial  soon. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Courts: redistricting lawsuits to move forward, commissioners cannot invoke legislative immunity:

A Feb. 21 ruling by a Maricopa County
Superior Court judge denied a last-chance request by the commission to
throw out a lawsuit [motion to dismiss] that claims the state’s nine congressional districts
were intentionally drawn to give favor to Democrats by packing
Republicans into four districts.

* * *

[A] federal court on Friday denied the
commission’s request to allow commissioners to refuse answering
questions under “legislative privilege” in a suit that claims the
state’s legislative map violates federal laws because of population
deviations among districts.

* * *

A three-judge panel [federal court] will begin hearing the case on March 29.

Both suits are part of broader allegations made by many Republicans
that the commission’s maps were created to favor Democrats with the help
of Colleen Mathis, the chairwoman of the five-person panel.

Civil Rights legend John Lewis: Why we still need the Voting Rights Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Bloody_sundayRep. John Lewis (D-GA), is a legend of the Civil Rights Movement who was almost beaten to death by Alabama state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on "Bloody Sunday" (March 7, 1965), on the March from Selma to Motgomery, Alabama to secure the right to vote for African-American citizens.

The televised brutality of this attack galvanized the nation and led to the enactment of perhaps the single most historically significant and effective pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This week, the Voting Rights Act is under attack from conservative organizations and Tea-Publican controled states (including an Amicus Brief of Arizona (.pdf) filed 1/2/13 by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne) under the old battle cry of "state's rights."

These conservative organizations and Tea-Publican controled states are appealing to the conservative activist court of Chief Justice John Roberts to disregard more than 15,000 pages of evidence and congressional testimony and the judgment of Congress, which overwhelming voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2006 (the fourth such renewal since 1965), by a margin of 390-22 in the House of Representatives and 98-0 in the Senate. This congressional judgement is entitled to due deference from the Court.