Courts & Law

U.S. Supreme Court allows challenge to Affordable Care Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed
an appeal by Liberty University to go forward with new challenges to two key
sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and
employer mandates to have insurance coverage. Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSbog,
Way cleared for health care challenge (UPDATED):

The Court did so by returning the case of Liberty University v. Geithner
(docket 11-438) to the Fourth Circuit Court to consider those
challenges.  The Court last Term had simply denied review of Liberty
University’s appeal, but on Monday wiped out that order and agreed to
send the case back to the appeals court in Richmond for further review.

* * *

The Court’s decision last Term on the new health care law upheld,
under Congress’s power to tax, the requirement that virtually all
Americans have health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty.   That is the
individual mandate.  The law also contains a somewhat similar mandate,
requiring all employers with more than fifty employees to provide them
with adequate insurance coverage.  The Court had declined to rule on
that issue last Term.

U.S. Supreme Court considers appeals of DOMA and Caifornia’s Prop. 8

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to wade into historic and controversial territory. The Court is considering 10 petitions for review today regarding same-sex marriage, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The orders granting or denying certiorari are likely to be announced on Monday.

Tim Goldstein at SCOTUSblog has posted this wonderfully written commentary. History:

At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions
raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage. 
These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever
considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore
and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of
the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to
recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that
five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of
the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social
institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment.  The
plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an
irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law.  On the other hand,
that describes some moral judgments.  The Constitution does not forbid
every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some
grave ones) themselves, legislatively.

Gov. Brewer sued over order denying driver’s licenses to DREAMERS

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tenther "states' rights" George Wallace in a dress, Governor Jan Brewer, was sued today by a group of
civil-liberties and immigrant-rights organizations in a class-action
lawsuit challenging the Guv's executive order denying
driver’s licenses to young undocumented immigrants approved for federal
work permits under President Barack Obama’s deferred-action program (DREAM Act-Lite). Brewer sued over migrant license policy:

The lawsuit seeks to
block Arizona Executive Order 2012-06, issued by Jan Brewer after the
federal government implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals program, or DACA. The program allows certain undocumented
immigrant youth who came here as children to live and work in the United
States for a renewable period of two years. The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, an immigrant youth-led
organization, and five young individuals.

The lawsuit marks
the first legal challenge against a state for denying driver’s licenses
to young undocumented immigrants authorized to live and work temporarily
in the U.S. under the program.

The lawsuit could
affect other states that have also denied driver’s licenses to
non-citizens protected from deportation under the program.

The suit was filed
by the Arizona and national chapters of the American Civil Liberties
Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the
National Immigration Law Center. The same groups are involved in an
ongoing civil-rights lawsuit challenging Arizona’s
immigration-enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070.

Analysis & commentary: TUSD deseg plan, MAS, & beyond

by


Mas-logoby Pamela Powers Hannley

The first of three public forums on the Tucson Unified School District's (TUSD) proposed desegregation plan took place on Monday night. 

Fellow BfAZ blogger Dave Safier posted a very detailed first-person account of the forum here this morning, and today's Arizona Daily Star's also offered a thorough account that overlaps somewhat with Safier's but also includes other facts. (KGUN 9 video here.)

Safier writes from the viewpoint– as he admits– of commentator who has "expended thousands of words trying to explain the value of the MAS program". The Star reporter gives a newsier account of the meeting and offers some more basic background.

Why a third article? Here, I offer here some history, a broader analysis of the issues, and a call for action. Read more after the jump.

When the media carries water for the Arizona GOP – Voting Rights Act edition

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have already been over how we have a GOPropaganda echo chamber in the Arizona media in the previous post. So let's get to the other election news this week, from the Arizona Republic(an), Ariz. seeks Supreme Court relief on Voting Rights Act:

Three days after the Nov. 6 election, when many Americans happily made voting a memory, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that some legal experts say could lead to the biggest shake-up in voting law in nearly a half-century.

The court will weigh a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a law that has changed little over 40 years and for decades has placed Arizona and eight other states under federal scrutiny for suspected discrimination.

Supporters of the lawsuit, which involves an Alabama county, say their efforts could once again put every state and locality on equal legal footing and evaluate anew whether minorities are treated unfairly anywhere.

* * *

The case has special relevance to Arizona, which is one of nine states that must get federal approval for any changes that could affect voting rights of minorities, such as Hispanics and Native Americans.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has filed legal papers supporting the Alabama challenge of the requirement. Because of the provision, every conceivable change affecting voting in Arizona must run through Horne's office, which he said is a constant drain.

"I don't have any numbers at my fingertips, but I would describe the burden as huge," Horne said.