Courts & Law

The biggest threat to the Voting Rights Act is the U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelOn Wednesday, February 27, The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a constitutional challenge to Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended). Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic has a beautifully written history of the Voting Rights Act and the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. After 50 Years, the Voting Rights Act's Biggest Threat: The Supreme Court (excerpts):

At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, the justices of the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case styled Shelby County v. Holder, one
of the most anticipated of the current Term. Agreeing to review an
argument made by an Alabama county that it ought finally to be free from
one of the key requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the
justices will have an opportunity both to lead and to follow the nation
as it roils anew in political and legal battle over the rights of the
poor, the ill, the young, the car-less, the black, the Hispanic, and the
Native American to vote.

Nearing its 50th birthday, the act has become a part of our national lore. One of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement (and of the Johnson Administration),
it was designed by its creators to finally give meaningful legal
remedies to minority citizens — blacks, mostly, but not exclusively —
who for generations had been precluded from voting (or from having their
votes fairly counted) by a dizzying flurry of discriminatory state
practices. The act didn't just expand the scope of existing federal
civil rights laws. It completely changed the dynamic between voters and
state and local governments. And the results are indisputable: There is
far less discrimination in voting today than there was half a century
ago — and many millions more minority voters.

Arrests, deportations, protests: Is Tucson an immigrant-friendly city or not?

by

On Sunday, Tucson Police and the Border Patrol arrested Rene Meza Huertha, in front of his wife and children, and arrested activist Raúl Alcaráz Ochoa, who was trying to prevent the arrest of Huertha. This action by TPD is in direct violation of the City Council's vote in August 2012– making Tucson an "immigrant friendly" city. From the Arizona Daily Star…

"We don't want people to feel fear when traveling to work, to school, to the store," [City Councilwoman Regina] Romero said before the meeting. "We also don't want people to be afraid to call the police to report a crime."

She said a conversation now will begin among the city, immigrant communities, businesses, the Tucson Police Department and others about how to make the city more welcoming.

Activists are calling for a protest and press conference today, Monday, February 18 at 4 p.m., outside of TPD. 

On a related note, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Links, Derechos Humanos, and other immigrant supporters, including the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, will hold a press conference and protest of Operation Streamline on Tuesday, February 19, at 12:30 at the Federal Courthouse. The Operation Streamline action leads up to a Congressional hearing on this policy on February 22 in DC. Details and background on both of these actions after the jump.

No sympathy for the devil

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Joseph Ratzinger aka "Joey Rats," better known today as Pope Benedict XVI, announced that he is resigning from the Papacy on Monday. I didn't even know that was a possibility, I had to look it up. The last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415 as part of a political settlement to end the Western Schism when there were three claimants to the throne: the Roman Pope Gregory XII, Avignon Antipope Benedict XIII, and Pisan Antipope John XXIII.

Canon law does not specify any particular individual or body or people to whom the pope must manifest his resignation (Judy Blume's book title immediately popped to mind: "Are you there God? It's me, Margaret" — I quit), but Pope Celestine V in 1294 issued a solemn decree declaring it permissible for a pope to resign, and then he immediately resigned — "I'm outta here!"  Since Celestine's decree was never revoked, he set a precedent for a valid papal resignation. Who knew? They didn't teach us Vatican palace intrigue in my Catholic catechism classes.

"Joey Rats" was the Vatican enforcer for Pope John Paul II — who is no saint — before ascending to the throne himself. He was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as  the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (yes, that Inquisition). It was his job to cover-up the numerous pedophile priest sex crimes and to reassign these priests to enable them to avoid criminal prosecution. "Joey Rats" had compassion for the sinner priests, but apparently not so much for their innocent victims. (I went to Catholic school with some of these victims).

A GOP Tyranny of the Minority: The ‘New Nullification Crisis’

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A little more than a week after Senate Democrats decided not to weaken the filibuster,
Republicans are vowing to filibuster President Barack Obama's nominee
to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless its powers are substantially
reduced. So how's that filibuster deal working out for you, Harry Reid? GOP to Filibuster Obama's Consumer Watchdog Pick:

WSbullThe CFPB was created as part of the 2010 financial regulation bill
specifically to prevent financial institutions from engaging in the kind
of exploitative practices that helped lead the country to the brink of
economic collapse in 2008. Since January 2012, when Obama appointed
former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray to head the bureau, it
has done exactly that—reigning in unscrupulous mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and debt servicers.

But the CFPB has only been able to do those things because Obama, using
what's called a recess appointment, installed Cordray in his post while
most of Congress was on vacation—an attempt to bypass Senate
Republicans' efforts to block the nomination. Before Cordray was picked
and blocked, Republicans had vowed to filibuster Elizabeth
Warren, who came up with the idea for the bureau and helped found it,
too. That didn't go as well as they had hoped: Warren recently returned
to the chamber as the new Democratic Senator from Massachusetts.

Asymmetrical opposition: Anti-immigrant GOP to engage in gay bashing to kill reforms

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The nativist and racist base of the GOP that is anti-immigrant and opposed to any immigration reforms that would create a pathway to citizenship has settled upon asymmetrical opposition: it will engage in gay bashing to kill any immigration reform legislation. "We're not against immigrants based upon their nationality or race — but no gays!"

This is a strategy to divide the religious community between those who support humane treatment for immigrants, and those who are fundamentally opposed to marriage equality based upon religious doctrine. These are often one and the same groups, e.g., the Catholic Church, so this asymmetrical strategy forces religious groups to choose between competing values.

Tea-Publicans are on the wrong side of public polling on both issues with majorities of Americans favoring both marriage equality and immigration reforms with a pathway to citizenship.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Supreme Court will derail this asymmetrical opposition with a landmark decision on marriage equality this year before the immigration reforms come up for a final vote in Congress.

The Washington Post reports, In immigration debate, same-sex marriage comes to the fore:

President Obama is aiming to grant same-sex couples. . . equal immigration rights as their
heterosexual counterparts.

But the measure has inspired fierce pushback from congressional
Republicans and some religious groups, who say it could sink hopes for a
comprehensive agreement aimed at providing a path to citizenship for 11
million undocumented immigrants.