Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Federal Judge Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

Photobucket


Big News: A federal judge appointed by George Bush has struck down the GOP's landmark Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the only real marriage is that of one man and one woman.

This ruling comes one day after it was reported that John Boehner and the House Republicans had spent $1.5 million defending DOMA.

From Huff Post
House Republican leaders have effectively spent all the money they allotted themselves: BLAG members House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) last year signed a $1.5 million contract with attorney Paul Clement to represent them in cases involving DOMA, or the federal ban on same-sex marriage.
To date, Republican leaders have intervened in 14 DOMA cases. They have lost five in a row.

And now they've lost again, in a huge victory for equal rights.




Complete Ruling Here (PDF)
W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

From Think Progress
This is a really big deal. Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. This is the same very skeptical standard afforded to laws that discriminate against women. If Jacobs’ reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court, it will be a sweeping victory for gay rights, likely causing state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be virtually eliminated. And the fact that this decision came from such a conservative judge makes it all the more likely that DOMA will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court.

One unfortunate caveat is necessary: Judge Chester Straub, a Clinton-appointee, dissented. Nevertheless, this marks the second time that a prominent conservative court of appeals judge declared DOMA unconstitutional, and it relies on a sweeping rationale in doing so. Supporters of equality have a great deal to celebrate today.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Justice for Pennsylvania Voters!


Photobucket

A Judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that the complete Voter ID law will not be implemented for the November 6th election!!! While poll workers may still ask to see ID, they can't force anyone to use a provisional ballot or tell someone to leave the voting precinct. They have to let people vote, so yay!

I hope Democrats in that state are preparing for poll-watching to make sure no one is intimidated at the polls. I can see ways this may still be a problem, but as long as the news gets around that people can vote without the ID in this particular election, then all should be well. What this means is that the large urban centers of PA won't be singled out for voter suppression, thank God!

CBS News: In Reversal, Judge Blocks PA Voter ID
Tuesday's decision is a sharp contrast to Simpson's ruling in August when he refused to issue an injunction and upheld the law. In that opinion, Simpson said the law "is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life."

He also said that opponents of the voter ID law "did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by this new requirement," but he did not "have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses."

Opponents appealed his decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court returned the case to Simpson and ordered him to "reassess" his ruling based on the availability of ID cards and in light of "expedited" efforts put forth by the Pennsylvania government.

Simpson's decision may not be the final word on this case. It can be appealed back to the state Supreme Court, which is next scheduled to meet Oct. 15 in Pittsburgh.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Scott Walker's Union-Busting Law Overturned


Photobucket

Read the Judge's Complete Ruling Here

Huffington Post Story
The law, a crowning achievement for Walker that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.

The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.


Gov. Scott Walker's Official Reply:
The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5. Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.

Dana Brueck, spokeswoman for Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, was quoted in the Milwaukee Journal: We believe the law is constitutional. We are reviewing the decision, but we're planning to appeal.

And Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) spoke for her Tea Party constituents when she ranted about the judge:
A judge living in the fantasy world of Dane County has decided they are going to substitute their singular opinion as opposed to the collective will of Wisconsin, through the Legislature and the recall process. We have litigated, reviewed and elected people because of Act. 10. In each case, they say the law works. And it is.

However, union representatives are delighted and see this as a great victory:

Walker's attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin's public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab. Now, a court has ruled that the essential provisions of Act 10, Scott Walker's draconian attack on public worker's right to collectively bargain, is unconstitutional.
~ Phil Neuenfeldt, President of the Wisoncin AFL-CIO Union, via CNN

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.
~ Lester Pines, attorney for the Madison teachers union, via Milwaukee Journal

This is a sound decision by the court that upholds what we were saying all along — that Act 10 violates constitutional rights.
~ Christina Brey, a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, via New York Times

This decision will help to re-establish the balance between employees and their employers. The decision gives us an opportunity to get back to the Wisconsin values of sitting down and working together to iron out differences, not taking away the constitutional rights of our citizens.
~ Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), via Milwaukee Journal


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy