Last Hurrah of Hate

Yep, it finally happened. It was bound to happen. Perhaps there was no way of stopping this from happening.

For the first time since the US Supreme Court's landmark US v. Windsor decision, a federal judge ruled against marriage equality. Yesterday, US District Court Judge Martin Feldman upheld Louisiana's marriage ban. Oh, and he didn't stop there.

Judge Feldman also denigrated LGBTQ families. He pulled the "incest card". And to top it all off, he essentially declared that Louisiana LGBTQ families don't deserve equal treatment under the law because they made the wrong "lifestyle choice".

Hmmm... Where have we heard this before? Oh wait, might it be the case that's about to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals next week?



Oh, yes. That's right. Sevcik v. Sandoval will be among the three marriage cases heard by the San Francisco federal appellate court next week. (The other two are Idaho and Hawaii.)

All too often, we've heard the "family values" argument against LGBTQ civil rights. And there's a reason why so few federal courts have given this argument any merit in recent years: It's crap. There's no real Constitutional case behind it, and there's no "moral case" there either.

So what do opponents of equality have? That's a good question. We know they have "political issues". We know they have "variations". We've constantly heard their nonsensical garblety-goop. And of course, we've seen their "segregation laws".



Unfortunately for opponents of equality, that's all they seem to have (along with their increasingly sparse courtroom victories). Yet while they keep trying to "rebrand" their opposition to civil rights, they can't "rebrand" the basic dollars & sense. There's a reason why so many business leaders want marriage equality. Not only is it simply the right thing to do, but it also opens the door to $52 million worth of more business for Nevada.

So what do they have left? Fear. No really, all they have left is xenophobia. And yesterday's ruling from Louisiana (along with the 2012 Nevada federal court ruling) is their last hurrah of hate.

Yo, Dean

Yo. Yo! Yo?

No really, Yo. It's the hottest mobile app to hit the app stores this week. And it's reigniting debate on whether Silicon Valley is entering the next golden age of high tech innovation... Or another "bubble" that's this close to bursting (a la the 1990s' ".com Bubble").

We must admit, Yo has us thinking. What's the difference between "a simplistic yet revolutionary idea" and just another crazy fad that will expire once its 15 minutes of fame are up?

Back in 2011, we were thinking about this as well. Back then, Senator Dean Heller (R) unleashed perhaps the most ridiculous gimmick ever to roam Capitol Hill. It's an austerity powered train wreck that would wreck our economy if enacted. And Senator Heller refuses to let go of it because he thinks "it polls well".

In 2012, Senator Heller then tried to one-up himself with a gimmick that's so outrageous it's unconstitutional. But because "it polls well", Heller keeps riding this one trick pony whenever he thinks it will throw his name back into headline news.

Senator Heller still refuses to give up either ridiculous gimmick. Instead, he's taking his "No Scruples No Sense" hobby horse out for another ride... To the point of voting against much needed budget legislation. Oh, and only 2 of the most radical G-O-TEA Senators (Rand Paul [R-Kentucky] & Mike Lee [R-Utah]) joined Senator Heller in his pointless filibuster over his unconstitutional proposal.

It's debatable whether Yo is useful. However, it's not really debatable whether Senator Heller's fiscal gimmicks are useful. They're not. And there are far better ways for Senator Heller to be spending our time.

Now, if only there was a way for us to condense this message into a "yo" to send to Senator Heller...

"Basic Plumbing Lessons"

Here we go again. Last month (and year), the 21st Century Know Nothings went to great lengths to defend their beloved Dynasty (of Quackery) after the Dynasty's patriarch had plenty of not-nice-at-all things to say about people of color and LGBTQ folk. We guess when the rest of America has moved comfortably into the 21st Century, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors must find some televised cave in which to hide from it.

But now, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Born That Way?) is emerging from that cave. And he has something to say. He says federal judges who rule in favor of marriage equality "need some basic plumbing lessons". Wait, what??!!

Oh, no he didn't. Grrl, please!

Rep. Gohmert seems to forget that these judges have actually had many plumbing lessons. In fact, they're supposed to be experts at the plumbing that nourishes the America we know and love: The US Constitution!

Federal judges have overturned state bans on same-sex marriage in three states now — California, Utah, and Oklahoma — in addition to decisions by state courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico. The most recent rulings in Utah and Oklahoma are thorough but reach a simple conclusion: defining marriage as only between a man and a woman accomplishes nothing and only serves to discriminate against same-sex couples. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, the judges wrote, so the disparate treatment of these amendments violates this principle.

Doesn't Louie Gohmert care about our Constitution? Doesn't he love freedom? What's his problem with America?

And if you're wondering why this all sounds familiar, that's because it should. The equal protection argument forms the heart of Nevada's Sevcik v. Sandoval federal marriage suit. And the US Supreme Court suggested that LGBTQ families indeed deserve equal protection under the law in its US v. Windsor decision last June.

So if anyone "needs basic plumbing lessons", it's Louie Gohmert and other G-O-TEA politicians trying to stop progress on LGBTQ civil rights. Hey, someone's got to say the ugly truth.

Breaking Point

So it's happening. Nuclear warfare has erupted... But it's not in the Middle East. Rather, it's happening on Capitol Hill.

Remember the many fights that became slow, tortuous death matches once a filibuster was invoked and sustained? Even more of them have been occurring in the US Senate in recent days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Patience) has finally had it.

Today, Senator Reid took to the Senate floor to announce what many progressives have been demanding for nearly 5 years.



As we've discussed before, Senator Reid has always been committed to preserving Senate tradition. That's why he had originally been so hesitant to radically alter the filibuster. And even when he was becoming increasingly frustrated by epic G-O-TEA obstruction, he didn't (yet) have enough Democratic Senators on board for major filibuster reform.

Back in July, Senator Reid brokered a deal with Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and a few other (not extreme) Senate Republicans to allow for more executive and judicial confirmations. That was supposed to ease the epic gridlock of the upper chamber of Congress. And while it did for a few days, Senate Republican "leaders" simply whipped their caucus back into epic obstruction shortly after that fleeting, temporary breakthrough.

This is how Senator Reid and 51 other Senate Democrats finally reached their breaking point. And the numerous executive and judicial vacancies (due to the G-O-TEA filibusters) explain why. This is not how government is supposed to work. And at some point, something had to change.

And it now has. The breaking point has finally arrived. And after the long wait, Congress can finally become a bit more functional (well, at least the upper branch).

Look Who's Evolving, Too. (& Look Who's Not.)

It just keeps getting better. Harry's coming on board "The Equality Express", as well.

[... O]n Thursday, Reid quietly said that if he were called on to vote one way or another in his home state of Nevada, he would “follow [his] children and grandchildren” and support legalizing gay marriage in Nevada.

Reid communicated his position without words: He nodded affirmatively in response to a reporter questioning whether he would support a vote in Nevada to recognize homosexual marriages.

The statement expressed by that nod is a significant one for the Senate majority leader, who has often said that he doesn’t object to gay couples marrying or think it’s any of his business whether or not gay couples choose to marry, but has never proactively said he would support their right to do so at the state level if asked to decide.

About time. Thank you, Senator.

It's really amazing to see the winds of change blow in the proper direction... And it's even better to see those winds bringing along our elected officials.

I know this has been tough for Senator Reid. It's been tough trying to balance his faith, his values, and his commitment to the public that elected him. I'm just glad to see his values win the day. Of course, I'm sure it's helped that Nevada voters have also evolved dramatically on this issue over time.



However, it looks like some of the nation's other prominent politicans (you know, the Republican kind) continue to shove their heads into the sand and ignore the arc of history bending toward justice. Mitt Romney is now demanding "a national standard" for enshrining marriage discrimination in our US Constitution. Apparently, Willard has a history of bullying. That certainly hasn't changed.

However, the rest of the country has changed. Even some Republicans seem to get that now. The arc of history is indeed bending toward justice. It's great to see that Nevada's Senior Senator now understands that. It's just sad that G-O-TEA politicians are actually proud to be behind the curve.

What Do Fernley & North Las Vegas Have in Common? (More Than You Think...)

Last week, we were surprised by the City of Fernley filing a federal law suit challenging the current "C-Tax" revenue distribution. But in the coming weeks, will we hear more complaints about "C-Tax" inequity down south?

Long before Fernley dropped the big "game changer" law suit, the Nevada Legislature had already begun studying the current C-Tax structure to spot inequities in need of correction. Last month, this report detailing distribution of C-Tax revenue was submitted. Now pay close attention to Pages 48 & 49 in that report. Notice something strange?

Now go to Pages 168 & 169. Even though North Las Vegas has 217,482 residents compared to Henderson's 267,270 residents, Henderson receives just over DOUBLE the amount of C-Tax funds. (North Las Vegas received $36,539,000 in C-Tax funds last year, while Henderson received $73,965,000 in C-Tax funds last year.) Why? Apparently, it's all because the assessed value of Henderson properties is over double that of North Las Vegas. OK, that seems "kinda sorta" logical... But is that really constitutional?

Remember, Fernley is claiming that the current C-Tax structure violates both the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 3 of Nevada's Constitution in that it provides anything but equal protection under the law. Even though Fernley faces different structural issues from North Las Vegas, mainly that Lyon County provides police and fire services to Fernley, while North Las Vegas has to pay for its own, North Las Vegas' sad situation seems to strengthen Fernley's case that the C-Tax structure indeed denies many Nevadans equal protection under the law.

For instance, take a look at the local libraries. The C-Tax funds from the state provide direct funding to Las Vegas-Clark County and Henderson Libraries. North Las Vegas, on the other hand, has two libraries that are funded directly by the city. So in essence, North Las Vegas residents have to pay additional taxes for something that Henderson, Las Vegas, and unincorporated Clark County residents receive for no additional tax or fee. What's fair or equal about that?

Much has been said lately about the many woes at North Las Vegas City Hall. For one, many residents still question the move to a new City Hall. And it's looking increasingly possible that North Las Vegas will have to dissolve its own police and fire departments and contract with Clark County instead to save money. (Though unlike Fernley, North Las Vegas will still be paying for it regardless.) But even with that being said, should North Las Vegas residents essentially be punished just because of their zip code?

Believe it or not, Fernley may have found a real civil rights violation here. Why are some cities receiving more funding per capita than others? Yes, I know, it has to do with property values... But should that really be allowed to be a factor in what kind of local government one can expect? Should someone's zip code and/or property value determine whether one can expect a functioning library and adequate police service? Nevada, we have a problem... And it's bigger than even I had initially suspected.

Is "ObamaCare" Dead? Hardly.

So far, we've been hearing plenty of hyperventilating in the media over today's Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act and the legality of the individual mandate. However, most pundits didn't even bother to step back and look at what really happened today. Fortunately, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick did.



And so did Lyle Denniston of the venerable SCOTUS Blog.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the most vigorous defender of Congress’s power to select the mandate as the key piece in the new health care law’s regulation of the insurance industry, but almost equally in its favor were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. But those four, of course, cannot control the outcome on their own. But, in the end, if Kennedy were to wind up accepting the mandate’s validity — however reluctantly — those four could then be in the majority. Such a majority, it appeared, would probably form only behind the theory that the mandate was within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, not under its taxing authority in the General Welfare Clause. The tax argument seemed to lack force, and, anyway, Verrilli used it primarily as just a backup.

If that coalition were to form, it would be likely that Justice Kennedy, the senior among those five, almost certainly would assign the opinion to himself — unless, of course, the Chief Justice ultimately were persuaded to go along so that this historic case did not turn out to be decided by a possibly embarrassing 5-4 vote. Roberts was among the more combative adversaries of the mandate, during Verrilli’s argument, but he made considerable efforts to remind the challengers’ lawyers of the government’s key points, perhaps to test how solid their answers to those points would be. His vote in favor of the mandate did seem like a long shot, unless he found institutional imperatives for going along if a majority were to uphold it.

And thankfully, so did Sahil Kapur at TPM.

Despite their tough questions, both Kennedy and Roberts indicated sympathy with the view that health insurance is a unique market that may require a unique approach to regulate — and that’s central to the constitutional question at hand.

“I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree,” Kennedy said, “in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.”

Despite his initial skepticism, Roberts later seemed persuaded of the uniqueness of health care market.

“Everybody is in this market,” Roberts told the lawyer for the Republican opponents. “So that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they’re regulating is how you pay for it.”

So is it smooth sailing from here? Hardly. We have one more session of oral arguments coming tomorrow on the issue of "severability", or whether the entire Affordable Care Act must be thrown out if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. The mandate is really the "glue" that holds the Affordable Care Act together and makes the "Affordable" part of it a real possibility, although some legal scholars think the rest of the bill can somehow be reworked without a mandate. It would just be a matter of what on earth can be passed in this Congress.

And of course, it really comes back to that. How much power does Congress have to mandate health insurance and regulate the health insurance market? In looking at what Kennedy and Roberts said today, it seems like they're open to discuss this some more.

As we discussed yesterday, this whole fight that's supposedly about the law has been clouded immensely by partisan politics. We'll just have to see what happens later this week. And we'll have to keep hoping that at least five Supreme Court Justices care more about the letter of the law than raw campaign politics. And yes, I do believe that hope is still quite alive today. Just don't expect the typical media pundits to report on that.

Health Care on Trial (& It's Really More Political Than Legal)

Last week, we celebrated the second anniversary of passage of the Affordable Care Act. We've seen how "Obamacare" benefits the entire country, as well as how the ACA benefits Nevada. But now, health care is on trial. The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week on the legal merits of ACA.

So far, the most challenged provision of ACA has been the individual mandate. But funny enough, Republicans don't like to talk about how it became a key provision of health care reform in the first place.



Once upon a time, Republicans liked the individual mandate because they thought it promoted "individual responsibility". It was not until President Obama agreed to include an individual mandate in his health care reform package that they all of a sudden embraced the legal argument against federal regulatory authority that had previously only been pushed by fringe libertarian legal thinkers.

And that's what makes this week so odd. Over the weekend, both New York Times Supreme Court expert Linda Greenhouse and Slate Supreme Court watcher Dahlia Lithwick stated the obvious, which is that the legal case for health care reform really is more of a slam dunk than most of the media pundits want us to believe. Despite all the political controversy over "LIBERTY!!!", the "tea party" really has no legitimate legal leg to stand upon when it comes to challenging basic federal regulatory authority.

Here's Greenhouse:

So I want to unpack the challengers’ Commerce Clause argument for what it is: just words.

Basically just one word, in fact: “unprecedented.” ...

The government argues that, to the contrary, the “uncompensated consumption of health care” by those who are willfully or helplessly uninsured is itself an enormous economic activity. The uninsured don’t exist apart from commerce. To the contrary, their medical care results in some $43 billion of uncovered health care costs annually and, through cost-shifting, adds $1,000 a year to the average cost of a family insurance policy. People who don’t want to buy broccoli or a new car can eat brussels sprouts or take the bus, but those without health insurance are in commerce whether they like it or not.

And here's Lithwick:



Even "Fox News" pundit Juan Williams thinks Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn't want to support an overtly political move to overturn the ACA, since the case against health care is really more political than legal. And as we've discussed before, even a number of CONSERVATIVE legal scholars believe the ACA is wholly constitutional and within Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Again, this is why the case against "Obamacare" has always been more about the politics than about the law. The legal case really is open-shut, so all the G-O-TEA can do is spew more venom and hope against hope that "The Supremes" put campaign politics above The Constitution. And while this court has been playing with fire lately in reaching some controversial decisions, there's a good probability that even this court suspects overturning the ACA because of partisan politics is simply crossing a bridge too far.

Whatever Happened to "No Legislating from the Bench"?

I guess when far right Republican appointed judges issue opinions that makes teabaggers jump for joy, it's A-O-K.

A federal district court judge in Florida ruled today that a key provision in the new health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.

Roger Vinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, agreed with the 26 state-government plaintiffs that Congress exceeded its authority by passing a law penalizing individuals who do not have health insurance.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," Vinson writes. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

Even if it has no real legal footing.

The judge has the chutzpah to cite McCollough v. Maryland:

[S]hould congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say, that such an act was not the law of the land. McCulloch, supra, 17 U.S. at 421, 423.

Is the individual mandate "prohibited" by the Constitution? Is it being use to accomplish an object not intrusted to the government? This citation is nonsensical. The judge argues:

[T[he means used to serve [the health bill's] end must be “appropriate,” “plainly adapted,” and not “prohibited” or inconsistent “with the letter and spirit of the constitution.” [.. .] The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be utilized to “pass laws for the accomplishment of objects” that are not within Congress’ enumerated powers. As the previous analysis of the defendants’ Commerce Clause argument reveals, the individual mandate is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.

This reasoning turns McCollough on its head. The issue is not whether the Constitution empowers Congress to enact an individual mandate, but rather whether the object of Congress' use of the individual mandate is a purpose permitted by the Constitution. The judge concedes the object is Constitutional and that the Constitution does not prohibit an individual mandate. Thus, the reasoning even this judge applies compels a finding that the individual mandate is in fact constitutional.

In the end, the judge bootstraps the individual mandate to declare the entire health bill unconstitutional because, the judge argues, the mandate is essential to the functioning of the entire scheme. How this squares with the mandate not being "necessary and proper" is beyond me.

The decision however, has a better chance of succeeding in higher courts precisely because of the non-severability decision. The insurance companies will be happy with this decision, as opposed to the Virginia decision which struck down the mandate but not the health bill.

That said, I doubt any of these decisions survive.

Believe it or not, there is precedent for this. In the past, hard-right conservative judges struck down the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Minimum Wage, and even Social Security, only for The Supreme Court to later rule all these bills Constitutional and upheld them as law of the land.

And hopefully, this will come to pass again.

The [Commerce C]lause as written gives Congress the power to regulate economic decisions and there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that reinforce Congress’ broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Health care comprises some 17 percent of the national economy and the failure to purchase health insurance — the very passivity that Vinson is referring to — is having a significant impact on national health care spending and growing costs.

But this too is an argument that he rejects. “If impact [of the uninsured] on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce.” Caring for the uninsured, in other words, is free and creates no cost shifts throughout the system.

That’s just not true (doctors and hospitals and treat the uninsured for free) and the argument unravels further when Vinson completely dismisses the Necessary and Proper Clause by arguing that it’s subservient to the Commerce Clause. That Clause, Vinson writes “is not really a separate inquiry, but rather is part and parcel of the Commerce Clause analysis as it augments that enumerated power by authorizing Congress ‘To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to regulate interstate commerce.”

This is the kind of distortion that really undermines the entire decision and sets Vinson apart as an activist who has decided that Congress has no power to regulate insurance companies, establish exchanges, extend drug discounts to seniors, and give small businesses tax credits to help purchase insurance are all unconstitutional. Conservatives should be outraged.

Isn't it funny how teabaggers often praise The Constitution... Except when they don't like it? The Commmerce Clause was included in Article I, Section 8, for a reason. Congress has the authority to make laws to ensure a fair and orderly marketplace. And in this case, Congress passed health care reform last year to make health care more affordable and accessible. There's really nothing in The Constitution making this "illegal", and teabaggers are really grasping at straws in hoping that these overtly political decisions from a small handful of "activist" conservative judges are somehow upheld.

Let's see what The Supreme Court Justices have to say when this case ends up in their hands.

Sharrontology Supported Domestic Abusers? Actually, It's Even Worse.

Everyone is talking about Harry Reid's latest ad...



So does Sharron Angle really support domestic abusers?

Well, to be fair, that probably wasn't her intention. However, the reality of this is probably just as scary. Sharron Angle has no real understanding of the law... AB 581, as well as The US Constitution.

During the 2001 Nevada Assembly’s debate about the bill, AB 581, Angle asked Deputy Attorney General Nancy Hart whether documents would have to be presented to prove a restraining order, referred to as a “foreign protection order.” “Mrs. Angle requested clarification if there would need to be a document present, in order for the foreign protection order to be enforced,” read the Assembly’s minutes.

Hart, the record shows, explained that the bill’s provisions allow officers to “use discretion when presented with the document of the foreign protection order” and also “[allows] an officer to rely upon the statement alone of the victim, to assess whether there was a protection order in existence to be enforced.” Basically, cops should use their best judgement when responding to a call. Allow me to borrow from the Tea Party when I call this logic “common sense.”

It apparently made no sense to Angle, though: she and eight other Assembly members voted against the bill. Despite their nays, the bill ended up passing with a combined 79% of the Nevada Assembly and Senate’s support.

Clearer heads prevailed, and the law now reads, “[This is] an act relating to orders; making various changes concerning orders for protection against domestic violence; providing that certain orders for protection issued in another state are not subject to certain requirements to be given Full Faith and Credit in this state…” Those words “Full Faith and Credit” are integral to our nation’s unity, yet Angle ignores them completely. She has absolutely no faith in our Founding Fathers’ foresight, which they illustrated in Article IV of the Constitution: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

Full faith and credit? Oh yes, that's right!

Full Faith and Credit is, in a nutshell, an honor system between states: if Ohio says someone has a restraining order against John Smith, then Nevada should respect their judgement to protect his intended victim. Angle’s nay vote on AB 581 reveals two faults that should worry voters: first, she distrusts the judgement of Nevada police officers, which explains why more than half-a-dozen Nevada law enforcement unions, including a Republican Sheriff, have endorsed Reid.

The second fault: Angle’s disrespect respect for other states’ judgement. Angle has been so blinded by an elementary understanding of “state sovereignty” that she’s trying to apply black-and-white ideology to a rainbow-colored world.

The Founding Fathers knew there would be tension between states. That’s why they constructed “full faith and credit,” a clause that builds symbolic trust and, as in the case with AB 581, can protect citizens’ well-beings. Angle’s opposition to such a concept erodes the essential camaraderie our nation’s states need to remain United. Ideological extremism should not be put above public safety.

It really comes down to Sharrontology's blind ideological "purity" and severely flawed judgment. For all her talk of "believing in The Constitution", she really has no idea what's actually in it. If Angle really did, she would have realized in 2001 that AB 581 was just the State of Nevada reaffirming the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" clearly found in Article IV, Section 1, of The Constitution, which calls for states to honor legal agreements made in other states. It's what keeps our country as "The UNITED States", and what prevents people from having to reapply for everything from marriage to bank accounts when moving across state lines.

Let's face it, domestic abuse is no laughing matter. And it's nothing to be taken lightly. But when Sharron Angle tried to dismiss AB 581 on Constitutional grounds, it revealed poor judgment. Not only was she willing to put people's safety in jeopardy for the sake of her own extremist ideology, but she also showed complete disregard for the very Constitution she supposedly reveres.

No wonder why Nevada law enforcement were baffled by her then, and are still baffled by her now.





So does Sharrontology support domestic abusers? No, I wouldn't say that. Rather, it looks to me like Obtuse Angle was more than willing to put victims of domestic violence at risk AND disregard The US Constitution's guidelines on state powers just to pay homage to her extreme views.