Jan Brewer wants the Supreme Court to Strip Health Benefits from Same-Sex Partners

Lord, has this woman learned anything?

Jan Brewer wants her ass served again from Supreme Court. This time, she wants them overturn a ruling which provides domestic-partnership to gay couples in her state.

Chris Geidner  wrote on his Tumblr page

After the 2011 decision, lawyers for the state asked the Ninth Circuit to re-hear the case en banc, or by an 11-judge panel. On April 3, the Ninth Circuit denied the request, starting the 90-day clock for the governor to file a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to take the case.  

The Ninth Circuit ruling, which upheld a trial-court ruling, kept an Arizona law from going into effect that, as the appeals court held, “would have terminated eligibility for health-care benefits of state employees’ same-sex partners.”
 
Paula S. Bickett, the chief counsel for Civil Appeals in Arizona Attorney General’s Tom Horne (R)’s office, is the counsel of record for the Gov. Brewer. Lambda Legal is representing the plaintiff couples, who have until August 6 to submit their response to the governor’s petition.

The Supreme Court needs to look into her silly ass.

Justice Department asks Supreme Court to review 2 DOMA Challenges

Yesterday, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to hear not one, but two challenges to DOMA.

The info is a lot of legal talk, but this piece from Lambda Legal may be easier to understand:

This development highlights the desire by all, the government included, to resolve this issue quickly. It is clear to us, to the Solicitor General and to the Department of Justice that DOMA’s days are numbered. The last four courts to consider the question have all found Section 3 of DOMA—which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ valid marriages—to be unconstitutional. The Justice Department’s action may speed the day when the Supreme Court reaches the issue. Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster stand ready to argue for fair treatment for Karen Golinski and her spouse, Amy Cunninghis, in any court, at any time—and we welcome this opportunity to finally put DOMA out of its, and our, misery.

There are loving, married same-sex couples, and grieving lesbian and gay widows and widowers around the country who are being hurt by the government’s discriminatory actions—that’s why there are DOMA cases pending in several jurisdictions, brought on behalf of many plaintiffs. Every one of their stories demonstrates that DOMA is an unfair and discriminatory law that violates the Constitution. While it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to hear Golinski now, we are confident that DOMA will be found unconstitutional—and the sooner, the better.

This is getting good. More to come.

Obama and Romney on the Healthcare Ruling

Supreme Court upholds the Individual Mandate

Big victory for President Obama!

Quick hits:

• Chief Justice John G. Roberts sided with most of the judges. 

• Court rejects Mandatory Medicaid expansion

Now the law will possibly cover more than 30 million Americans who do not have it.

more to come

Our Supreme Court

WATCH: How confused the Repubs were about the Supreme Court Immigration Ruling

Supreme Court finds Most of the Arizona's Immigration Law Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court ruled that 3 of the 4 provisions of AZ's SB1070 law was unconstitutional, however they upheld the 'Papers Please' piece of the law.

The parts that were struck down made it a crime for undocumented immigrants seek employment and police to make arrests without a warrant.

While this piece is still there, it faces a lot of lawsuits that can strike it down. This is a good day for the Latino community in Arizona and for our nation. I say good, not great, because the discrimination part of the law still exist.

Hopefully, this will energize the Latino base to continue the fight and end the mess down in Arizona.

Supreme Court skeptical about the Health Care Law

Looks like Obama's Healthcare could be on a rocky road. Some of the Supreme Court judges are not feeling the individual mandate and very skeptical about its purpose.

MSNBC reports

The mandate is backed up by a financial penalty the law imposes on uninsured people who choose to not buy insurance. This provision takes effect in 2014.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who upheld broad federal power in the court’s 2005 Gonzales v. Raich medical marijuana decision, “had nothing good to say about this law,” Williams said.


Justice Kennedy “seemed to have grave concerns,” Williams reported, saying at one point in the oral argument “this is beyond anything Congress has ever done before.” It did not seem during the oral argument that Kennedy “found the justification that he needed” for the law, Williams said.

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, who was in the court room Tuesday for the oral arguments, said it was “very worrisome” for the Obama administration’s side of the case. 


The four liberal members of the court seemed inclined to accept the administration’s s argument that Congress has ample power under the commerce clause to regulate health insurance and to require uninsured people to join the insurance market.


Verrilli and the government were “hunting for a fifth vote -- and it really wasn’t at all obvious where that might come from,” Goldstein said.

This is not looking too good. I hope Obama has a back-up plan.

The Supreme Court refused NOM's appeal

One of my future Law students pointed this out to me today. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from the grand haters, NOM. They were trying to appeal a hearing that will make them release the info on their donors.

Here is the piece from SCOTUSblog:

 Besides turning down both of those petitions, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a constitutional challenge to a Maine law that requires those seeking to raise and spend money in state election campaigns to organize as a political action committee for that activity, and make significant disclosures about their financial operations.   That was challenged in a petition, National Organization for Marriage v. McKee (11-599), after the state law was upheld by the First Circuit Court.  The NOM is an organizations set up to promote the traditional view of marriage as being reserved solely for opposite-sex couples.  It argued in challenging the PAC requirement that states do not have the constitutional authority to impose such obligations unless an organization has election campaign activity as its “major purpose.”

Ha Ha, NOM!

Newt the Hut says he would Arrest Activist Judges - VIDEO

SCOTUS allows Westboro Baptist Church to continue their Mess

 The Supreme Court ruled in the Westboro Baptist Church's favor, allowing them to spew hate everywhere they go.

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.


The justices by a 8-1 vote on Wednesday said members of the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars.


The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.


"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here– inflict great pain," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

Okay, so I have the right to throw eggs and hot water on them too. I'm just voicing my broad-based message.

source

Ha! The Supreme Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law

Sorry Bishop Harry, your foolish journey is over! The SCOUTS don't want to hear about anti-gay mission to stop gay marriage in D.C.

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.

The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.

Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

So Harry, maybe this God's way of saying... Stop it, you Fool!

source

The Surpreme Court will keep DADT in effect while it's under review

Here is some breaking news... well, it's not breaking now, but anyway...

UPDATE 1:51 p.m.  The Supreme Court, without noting any dissent, agreed on Friday to leave the military’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy in full effect while its constitutionality is under review in a lower court.  Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred the issue to the full Court.  Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the order. 


As a result of the order, the policy will remain in effect at least through mid-March, unless Congress in the meantime voted to repeal it legislatively — an unlikely prospect, according to most observers.  The Ninth Circuit Court is reviewing a federal judge’s decision to strike down the policy and to impose a worldwide ban on its enforcement.  The Circuit Court’s briefing schedule, however, will not be completed until late February or early March, and a hearing and decision would come after that.

The order Friday technically denied a request (application 10A465) to lift a Circuit Court stay of the judge’s decision — in order words, the Justices were asked to allow District Judge Virginia A. Phillips’ ruling to go into effect pending the appeal in the Circuit Court and, perhaps ultimately, in the Supreme Court.  Because the Justices’ order was a complete denial, it  meant that they had turned aside not only a plea to block the policy in full, but also an alternative request at least to stop the Pentagon from ordering any discharges under the policy during the appeal.

source

U.S. Government tells the Supreme Court to Keep DADT while the Appeal is still happening

Now before folks start setting fire to their torches, please read Metro Weekly's take on it: 

In a filing at the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon, the U.S. government, represented by acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, asked the court to leave in place the stay of U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips's injunction of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The government's argument would keep DADT in effect while the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In part, Katyal concludes:

[T]he court of appeals reasonably decided to stay the district court’s injunction in its entirety, pending consideration of the merits of the government’s appeal. 

That decision does not remotely present the sort of exceptional circumstances that would warrant interference with an interim order of the court of appeals.  To the contrary, the court of appeals’ stay comports with this Court’s well-settled precedents, permits the continued nationwide operation of an Act of Congress that has governed in the military for 17 years, and preserves the status quo pending the court of appeals’ consideration of the merits of this facial challenge to that federal statute. Accordingly, this Court should deny Log Cabin’s application to vacate the stay.

Government's Opposition, at 28-29 (citations omitted). A declaration from Clifford Stanley, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, dated October 13, is attached to the government's filing.

That's legal talk for ya, but according to some of my future law students, this is procedure.