![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Several major court and legislative decisions were made today in the USA, which may or may not be of interest to you. Here's a run-down in case you were asleep or busy elsewhere.
1. DOMA SUPREME COURT RULING
The Supreme Court overturned a key portion of DOMA Act - which was considered a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
In a 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married. - according to CBS News. It was struck down as being against the Equal Protection Clause.
( Read more... )
2) In regards to Proposition 8 - it was not struck down so much as passed over.
According to the CBS News site:
( Read more... )
3.) While this is wonderful news, and I certainly applaud both rulings. Not all is well...the Supreme Court also curtailed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here's some key links towards understanding the act and the ruling:
* What Would a 2013 Voting Rights Act Look Like?
* The Supreme Court Invalidates Two Key Sections of the Act, Sections 4 and 5
First off, what is the act? Good question, from Wiki.
( Read more... )
The Voting Rights Act prevented Texas for example, from redistricting areas with large Latino populations to benefit primarily white voting districts and white candidates. It also prevented Texas from instituting a voter ID law. Overturning these sections permits Texas to do those two things.
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. From the NY Times Article.
( Read more... )
The rational behind the decision was that when the ACT was passed the country's population was vastly different. But now that we have a black president, black mayors and legislators, the legislation is outdated and no longer required.
As for my own take on this ruling, I find myself nodding along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginseberg who wrote the dissent:
From The Huffington Post.
Two steps forward two steps back...reminds me of the Texas Two-Step.
4) Speaking of Texas, the The Texas Abortion Bill is Dead due to a 13 Hour Filibuster by a Female State Senator.
( Read more... )
All in all an interesting day in US law.
1. DOMA SUPREME COURT RULING
The Supreme Court overturned a key portion of DOMA Act - which was considered a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
In a 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married. - according to CBS News. It was struck down as being against the Equal Protection Clause.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
( Read more... )
2) In regards to Proposition 8 - it was not struck down so much as passed over.
According to the CBS News site:
At the same time, the court ruled 5-4 that the defendants in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which considered the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban (called Proposition 8), have no standing in court. Supporters of Prop. 8 brought the case to the Supreme Court after a lower court struck down the law but California's governor and attorney general declined to defend it. By dismissing the case on procedural grounds, the court passed up the opportunity to issue a significant ruling on the issue of marriage.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.
The practical impact of dismissing the Prop. 8 case is limited. It leaves the lower court ruling striking down Prop. 8 in place, applying statewide at best. However, the ruling may apply only to couples who directly challenged Prop. 8, or the counties in which they originally made those challenges. The lawyers who defended Prop. 8 said Wednesday that they are committed to seeing that Prop. 8 is enforced in the state.
( Read more... )
3.) While this is wonderful news, and I certainly applaud both rulings. Not all is well...the Supreme Court also curtailed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here's some key links towards understanding the act and the ruling:
* What Would a 2013 Voting Rights Act Look Like?
* The Supreme Court Invalidates Two Key Sections of the Act, Sections 4 and 5
First off, what is the act? Good question, from Wiki.
( Read more... )
The Voting Rights Act prevented Texas for example, from redistricting areas with large Latino populations to benefit primarily white voting districts and white candidates. It also prevented Texas from instituting a voter ID law. Overturning these sections permits Texas to do those two things.
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. From the NY Times Article.
( Read more... )
The rational behind the decision was that when the ACT was passed the country's population was vastly different. But now that we have a black president, black mayors and legislators, the legislation is outdated and no longer required.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
As for my own take on this ruling, I find myself nodding along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginseberg who wrote the dissent:
"In the Court's view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," Ginsburg responded. "Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the VRA."
She wrote that the law was a landmark solution to an important problem in history.
"The Voting Rights Act became one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation's history," Ginsburg declared. "Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made."
Ginsburg then cited a long list of voting rights transgressions that states have committed in the last half-century, which she said "fill the pages of the legislative record." She concluded that the Supreme Court had "erred egregiously" with its decision.
From The Huffington Post.
Two steps forward two steps back...reminds me of the Texas Two-Step.
4) Speaking of Texas, the The Texas Abortion Bill is Dead due to a 13 Hour Filibuster by a Female State Senator.
( Read more... )
All in all an interesting day in US law.
