Courts & Law

WaPo editorial opinion: The ‘Show Me Your Papers’ state

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Both The Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star subscribe to the syndicated Washington Post op-eds. Somehow I don't think they will be republishing today's editorial opinion from the Washington Post. Arizona’s bad immigration law takes effect:

Presente_LicensePlateAZ_300pxAFTER A TWO-YEAR struggle, a federal judge this week authorized Arizona law enforcement agencies to require officers to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. Wearing the wrong clothes, speaking with the wrong accent or having the wrong skin color could land you in hot water in Arizona.

The state’s “show me your papers” provision — one of the most bitterly contested parts of the obnoxious immigration law enacted in 2010 — is the second such measure to receive a green light from federal courts. The first was from Alabama, where a similar policy was implemented about a year ago.

There, according to a recent report by the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrant advocacy group, law enforcement officers have created an “environment of racial profiling” that has encouraged private citizens to discriminate and abuse people they regard as foreign. The report, based on thousands of calls to a hotline, recounted instances of Hispanics, including legal residents, who were repeatedly stopped by police on flimsy pretexts and, in some cases, subjected to prolonged roadside detentions.

Arizona has a far larger population of Hispanics than Alabama does, including citizens, legal residents and illegal immigrants. Many of them have good reason to brace for similar treatment. Although the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s “show me your papers” provision, the justices warned that it could be struck down if it gave rise to a documented pattern of racial profiling or if it caused detentions to be prolonged. The Alabama case suggests that is highly likely.

West Wing ‘walk & talk’ web ad for MI Supreme Court race

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From The Last Word blog: A handful of actors from the Emmy award-winning TV series West Wing reprised their
roles in a campaign ad for the real-life sister of Mary McCormack, a.k.a Deputy
National Security advisor Kate Harper. This is some heavy hitter advertising for a down ballot judicial race. 'West Wing' reunites to walk and talk the vote:

Bridget Mary McCormack is running for Michigan state Supreme Court.
In a sketch littered with inside jokes, The West Wing team came together
to bring attention to the not-so-sexy issue of filling out the
non-partisan section of the voting ballot. This is how Michigan and 14
other states select their supreme court justices. As Bradley Whitford,
who reprised his role as Josh Lyman, explains, “In non-partisan
elections all across America, voters are leaving part of their ballot
blank. And they don’t even know it.”

So who is Bridget Mary
McCormack? According to the ad, she's a "married mother of four, dean at
Michigan law. Bridget has spent her entire career fighting for justice
for ordinary people for families with sick kids. For families of
domestic violence. She's fought to free innocent men and women and get
the actual criminals behind bars."

And in a TV-turned-reality twist, McCormack's husband, Steve Croley, currently works in the real West Wing as deputy counsel in the White House Counsel's Office.

Video below the fold.

The ‘show me your papers clause’ of SB 1070 goes into effect

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: In a simple three-paragraph ruling drafted jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice and lawyers for the state of Arizona, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ordered that the injunction be dissolved against the "show me your papers clause" of SB 1070. That provision, Section 2B, requires officers to make a reasonable … Read more

Unbelievable! Pennsylvania Supreme Court remands voter ID case back to the Republican trial court judge who ignored the evidence

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: As the Bard would say, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark Pennsylvania." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today, rather than ruling on that state's voter ID law as the state's highest court, instead remanded the case back to the Republican trial court judge who ignored the evidence at trial and ordered … Read more

Judge rules Scott Walker’s anti-union collective bargaining law is unconstitutional

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's law repealing most collective bargaining for local and school employees was struck down by a Dane County judge on Friday. Judge throws out Walker's union bargaining law: 

The law remains largely in force for state workers, but for city, county and school workers the decision by Dane County Judge Juan Colas returns the law to its status before Walker signed the legislation in March 2011.

Colas ruled that the law violated workers' constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation under the law by capping union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts. The judge also ruled that the law violated the "home rule" clause of the state constitution by setting the contribution for City of Milwaukee employees to the city pension system rather than leaving it to the city and workers.

The decision could still be overturned on appeal – the Supreme Court has already restored the law once in June 2011 after it was blocked by a different Dane County judge in a different case earlier that year.

"The decision essentially creates the (2011) status quo for municipal employees and school district employees because it declared the essential provisions of Act 10 to be unconstitutional," said Lester Pines, an attorney for the Madison teachers union and one of its members.

* * *

A spokeswoman for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he would likely appeal the decision.

"We believe the law is constitutional. We are reviewing the decision, but we're planning to appeal," Dana Brueck said.