Justice Kennedy Suggests Children Of Same-Sex Couples Suffer ‘Immediate Legal Injury’ From Ban

Early in this morning’s Supreme Court oral argument over the constitutionality of the California ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the children of same-sex couples suffer “immediate legal injury” from Proposition 8, according to Bloomberg. “They want their parents to have full recognition and status,” Kennedy said, adding that the “voice of those children” is important.

Kennedy, who is likely the swing vote, also suggested he was very uncomfortable striking down Proposition 8, according to a tweet from SCOTUSblog. Kennedy raised dismissing the case, which would leave in place the lower court ruling invalidating the same-sex marriage ban, but would not set any precedent about equal rights or marriage equality.

In response to Kennedy’s assertion, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether children would actually be harmed by Proposition 8, saying there is “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex marriage. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it’s certainly true there is no answer to that scientific question,” he said, according to tweets from the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly.

View the original article here

UPDATE: Tea Party Senator Rand Paul Embraces Legal Status For Undocumented Immigrants

In the latest sign that comprehensive immigration reform has unprecedented popular and political support, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) endorsed on Tuesday a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.

The Tea Party favorite is presenting his own plan for reform, and departs from the Senate gang of eight’s plan by opposing the expansion of E-Verify — an error-prone system used by employers to check the legal status of workers. That would be “forcing businesses to become policemen,” Paul said.

His emphasis instead is on making citizenship contingent on meeting certain benchmarks for border security. Since 2007, the security on the border has greatly improved as border crossings are at a 40-year low and the vast majority of the border meets one of Homeland Security’s highest standards of security.

Paul’s plan creates an even longer road to citizenship, beyond the decade proposed by the Senate gang of eight. In year two, immigrants would receive temporary work visas, though Border Patrol, an inspector general and Congress would need to sign off on an improved border situation before other reforms move forward.

“If you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you,” Paul said, according to the Associated Press.

Four months ago, Mitt Romney’s immigration policy was to suggest “self-deportation.” The conversation is at a different point now — Paul acknowledged “we aren’t going to deport” the millions here — showing how fringe the anti-immigrant Republican wing has become.

Rand Paul’s advisers claim the Associated Press report is false, and the senator does not back a path to citizenship. His office said in a statement, “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.” An adviser told the Washington Post, “What his plan is extending to them is a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship, and being able to stay, work and pay taxes legally.”

The headline has been updated.

View the original article here

Colorado Committee Kills Bill Giving Legal Protections To Teaching Climate Change Denial And Creationism In Schools

By Jessica Goad

Earlier this week, a key legislative committee in Colorado voted down a bill that would give teachers at the state’s schools and colleges legal cover to teach the questioning of climate change and other subjects that “cause controversy” in the classroom.  The bill directed teachers to:

… create an environment that encourages students to intelligently and respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning.

H.B. 13-1089 was sponsored by Rep. Stephen Humphrey (R) who explained:

This bill is not a curriculum change that would force educators to teach intelligent design or creationism.  It simply provides legal protections to those teachers who would like to provide their students with a complete education on both the strengths and weaknesses of these hotly debated scientific subjects.

The Colorado House Education Committee, of which Democrats are the majority, voted down the bill on a party line vote.

Colorado is not the only state to see such bills, even if their radical anti-science message did not gain traction there.  Legislators in five other states have introduced bills allowing teachers to deny evolution and climate change.  Interestingly, they all bear resemblance to “model” legislation that has been promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative corporate front-group that puts together draft bills for use by state legislators.

In the past, ALEC has drafted model bills such as the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act,” which requires teachers to “encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.”  ALEC has also been behind bills that block putting a price on carbon, turn over public lands to states and private companies, and roll back state renewable electricity standards.  One of the co-sponsors of the bill in the Colorado Senate is a dues-paying member of ALEC.

The Heartland Institute, an extremist group that once compared people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber, has also been linked to these types of bills.  Heartland is still a member of the ALEC task force that originally wrote the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act, and is also designing climate-denial curriculum.

The fight over teaching climate change denial in schools has just begun.  As Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education put it:

This victory in Colorado was too close. People in Colorado and elsewhere need to understand that these bills would be nothing but trouble: scientifically misleading, pedagogically unnecessary, and likely to produce administrative, legal, and economic headaches.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Four Ways The Virginia GOP’s Redistricting Power Grab Could Be Stopped By Legal Action

Yesterday, when Virginia state Sen. Henry Marsh (D) was away from the state capitol to attend President Obama’s inauguration, Virginia Republicans rushed through a gerrymandering bill that that could potentially transform the evenly divided Virginia senate into a 27-13 Republican majority. The Virginia senate is currently split 20-20 between Democrats and Republicans, and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) indicated that he would have opposed the gerrymander if given the tiebreaking vote. Thus the bill would not have passed if Republicans had not used Sen. Marsh’s absence to push it through when a key opposing vote was absent.

This is not an isolated incident. A memo from the Republican State Leadership Committee openly bragged that U.S. House Republicans kept their majority because of gerrymandering, and, indeed, these gerrymanders were so effective that Democratic House candidates would need to win the national popular vote by more than 7 points in order to take back the chamber. Meanwhile, top Republicans are also pushing a plan to rig future presidential elections by reallocating electoral votes in blue states to the Republican candidates for president.

Nevertheless, it is not certain that the Virginia GOP’s underhanded move to gerrymander the state senate will survive contact with the courts or the Department of Justice. Although the fate of any challenge to this partisan gerrymander is uncertain, here are four ways the gerrymander could still go down:

No Mid-Decade Gerrymanders: The Virginia Constitution provides that “[t]he General Assembly shall reapportion the Commonwealth into electoral districts in accordance with this section in the year 2011 and every ten years thereafter.” When a constitution specifically instructs a legislature to take a particular action or grants a specific power to those lawmakers, courts sometimes read it to implicitly prevent them from taking other actions. Thus, when the state constitution instructs Virginia lawmakers to redistrict every ten years, it implicitly instructs them not to engage in mid-decade gerrymanders, and the new maps are invalid. The Virginia Supreme Court has not weighed in on this question, but a Virginia trial court concluded in 2012 that one purpose of this provision in the state constitution was “to preclude ‘politically convenient redistricting whenever one political party or the other might gain the upper hand and find it attractive to redraw political boundaries to consolidate power.’”Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act not only forbids state voting laws which have a discriminatory impact on minorities, Section Five of the Act also requires new voting laws in some parts of the county to “pre-clear” those requirements with the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, DC before they can take effect. Much of Virginia remains subject to Section Five, so the maps could be stopped if they diminish minority voting strength in the covered areas. There’s only one problem: the conservatives on the Roberts Court are widely expected to strike down Section Five before the Court adjourns this June.What’s Left Of The Voting Rights Act: Even if the conservative justices strike down Section Five, Section Two of the Voting Right Act still prohibits redistricting that dilutes minority voting strength. To the extent that the new GOP maps dilute the minority vote, they could be subject to a lawsuit under Section Two. Such a lawsuit, however, would ultimately appeal to the same Republican-dominated Supreme Court that is expected to strike down Section Five.The U.S. Supreme Court Could Actually Do It’s Job: As a final note, the entire purpose of partisan gerrymanders is to weaken the voting power of people who hold one viewpoint (in this case, Democrats) while strengthening that of people who hold an opposing view (in this case, Republicans). This is a textbook violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s conservatives have refused to even consider cases challenging partisan gerrymanders, although Justice Kennedy suggested that his opposition to gerrymandering lawsuits is not entirely absolute.

View the original article here

Catholic Legal Group: Illinois Constituents Will ‘Suffer’ From Marriage Equality

The Thomas More Law Center is the latest group to discourage Illinois lawmakers from supporting marriage equality. In addition to reiterating trite complaints about children having to learn same-sex families exist and religious hospitals having to serve gay patients, the Catholic legal group goes on to claim that any Illinois resident who isn’t free to discriminate against gay people will “suffer”:

The harms noted above do not begin to address the suffering of your constituents who must participate in and support same-sex unions: small bed & breakfast owners who would be forced to rent out their home for same-sex wedding weekends; solo photographers who would be forced to spend hours photographing and designing albums for same-sex wedding ceremonies that they believe to be sinful; family catering company owners being forced to prepare, feed, serve, and support same-sex wedding receptions, even though the family members oppose those receptions with every fiber of their being. In other states, such businesses have been fined and subject to injunctions, some even permanently shutting down to avoid legal penalty.

A “yes” vote will inflict these harms, all for the sake of giving the title “married” to some number of the fewer than 1% of Illinois households headed by same-sex couples.

It’s interesting how conservative groups are growing more blunt about their intent to discriminate. No interpretation is required to discern the present argument: people will suffer if they have to provide basic services to same-sex couples. This is a petulant attempt to preserve a superior status for heterosexuality while forcing same-sex families into the shadows. More importantly, the argument is irrelevant — it’s already illegal under the Illinois Human Rights Act to discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation when providing public services. This is just as true now with civil unions legal as it would be when marriage equality passes.

The group’s letter ends with a claim that marriage equality must be rejected “in the name of tolerance.” There is nothing about expressing a desire to deny services to a group of people that speaks to “tolerance.”

View the original article here