And again our judicial branch comes through with the push back on racial policing. Kudos.

In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms. In a decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go, according to the 195-page decision.

These stop-and-frisk episodes, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, according to the ruling. It also found violations with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

“I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote.

More: Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

NY State Police demonstrate yet again their difficulty in correctly administering the SAFE ACT, first they labeled on their website a pump action shotgun as banned when it wasn’t, and now this:

Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said the New York State Police made a mistake when they enforced a mental health provision of the New York SAFE Act. Jacobs said he was ordered in an email from State Police to contact David Lewis, 35, and notify him he had to turn over his firearms.

“On this one I’m disappointed with State Police but I will say more so I’m disappointed with the legislation that was passed,” Jacobs said.

Lewis’ attorney Jim Tresmond said his client was told to turn over several firearms because he was once prescribed anti-anxiety medication at “one point.” Tresmond said his client was told that violates part the new gun control law.

State police odered his pistol permit revoked and Lewis was forced to turn the guns over to Amherst Police. Wednesday, Jacobs told YNN’s Katie Cummings he received a call from State Police explaining that they had the wrong person.

But did they have the wrong person? That would be fairly coincidental because Lewis’s attorney states that he was in fact prescribed anti-anxiety meds for a medical condition.

That individual is David Lewis. He is a 35-year-old college librarian. His attorney says he has an anxiety-related medical issue which prompted a doctor to prescribe him medication. Lewis owned seven guns until he received a letter from Jacobs’ office. That letter told Lewis the New York State Police wanted the County Clerk to suspend his pistol license right away.

“They made the mistake. They handed the mistake to us, to our local judges, and it’s really disappointing that they’re not standing up and taking responsibility here,” says Jacobs.

Jacobs feels the State Police are targeting his office, which he says only serves an administrative role when it comes to enforcement of the SAFE Act.

New York State Police issued a statement Wednesday saying “No guns are being taken because an individual is on anti-anxiety medication” and refused to answer our questions or do an interview.

Except the guns were taken, and according to the clerk it was because of medication listed on Lewis’s private medical records. Previous accounts claim that Lewis has no criminal record, has never been suicidal or violent.

According to Tresmond, his client is a Western New York professional with no criminal record - not even a speeding ticket - who wishes to remain anonymous. He says the man received a letter dated April 1st. telling him he must immediately surrender his seven handguns and pistol license to the Amherst Police Department.

…

“He was called, somebody called him and told him that his guns were going to be, that his license was going to be revoked and it was because of mental health issues which totally, totally false,” says the attorney.

The Erie County Clerk explained Tuesday that this letter is the same letter anyone told to surrender their guns would receive and is not specific for the SAFE Act, but he did see another piece of paperwork associated with this case.

“I did see the letter than came from Sgt. Sherman at State Police, and it seemed clear to me that this was using a provision within the SAFE Act, and so, the process is nearly the same as far as our role is concerned,” says Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs.

It is plausible that some other David Lewis, and to be fair it’s not exactly a rare name, who was also on anti anxiety meds made some kind of threat or said something that alarmed a mental health professional. Maybe that’s how the guy got erroneously targeted. However the specter of potential medical mixups are the reason that patient data is heavily cross referenced before any actual procedures are performed. It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out, if they honestly had the wrong guy or if someone in law enforcement interpreted the law erroneously, thinking that a prescribed anti anxiety medication by itself voided a citizen’s right to bear arms.

Either way, in terms of their procedural ability to read and/or apply the law correctly the NY State Police now stand at the plate with two strikes, which isn’t exactly going to help the government in their efforts to defend it against challengers arguing the law as passed be declared void for vagueness. If the people in charge of enforcing the law can’t get it right one can’t simply assume the average citizen will understand it any better.

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case about whether state workers alleging age discrimination can sue under federal civil rights law.

The case concerns Harvey Levin, a lawyer who worked for the Illinois attorney general’s office who sued the office for sex and age discrimination after he was fired in 2006 in his early 60s.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a trial court decision, ruled that Levin can sue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, using a Reconstruction-era law known as section 1983 that allows state workers to bring claims against their employers.

Four other appellate courts that tackled similar cases ruled that state-sector employees must bring their age discrimination cases only under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and can’t sue under section 1983. Section 1983 gives plaintiffs certain remedies that the Age Discrimination in Employment law does not, such as the ability to sue state workers as individuals, and the possibility of compensatory damages.

More: U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Age Discrimination Case

In a lively and spirited back and forth* with Megyn Kelly of Fox “News,” Mark Levin passionately denounced the “imperial presidency” of Barack Obama.

All the talk of executive orders being used to circumvent Congress on gun control, or using the 14th Amendment to do the same regarding the debt ceiling - even though there are no serious plans on either front - is what got The Great One’s blood pressure rising!

Conservative radio host Mark Levin appeared Fox News’ America Live this afternoon to discuss how his ‘fury’ over President Obama’s ‘tyranny’ in his use of executive orders.

‘He keeps telling us he won re-election,’ Levin said of the president. ‘Congratulations! But guess what, the Constitution wasn’t up for election, it wasn’t for a referendum,’ he continued, before rattling off the list of ways he believes the president has expanded his office into an ‘imperial presidency,’ including ‘unilateral action’ on immigration, the tax implications of ObamaCare, ‘attacks on religious liberty,’ and the potential use of executive order on gun control.

‘What the hell is this?’ Levin continued. ‘He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this.’

Host Megyn Kelly pushed back that many also found Obama’s Republican predecessor George W. Bush to be ‘imperial’ in his presidency, vastly expanding the powers of the executive branch.

*This would be like calling a Harlem Gobetrotters-Washington Generals game an “epic battle.”

motherjones.com

On Friday, the Supreme Court will convene privately to make a highly anticipated decision: Will it weigh in on gay marriage? There are currently seven cases in front of the court, covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery to whether same-sex couples can once again marry in California. The court can decide to hear all, some, or none of the cases. And merely deciding to take a case or not will have broad implications for the future of gay marriage in the United States.

Which cases are involved?

Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to Califorinia’s Proposition 8, is the only case facing the high court that deals specifically with the right of same-sex couples to marry. After the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2008, anti-gay-marriage activists passed an amendment to the California constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A federal appeals court then declared the proposition unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

More at Scotusblog

More at San Diego Gay News

splcenter.org

Even today, a lot of Southern politicians remain upset at the federal government over that little thing called the civil rights movement, though most of them try to cloak their extremism in the rhetoric of “states’ rights.”

But, come on, haven’t we settled this question - after two centuries of jurisprudence, not to mention a bloody civil war that wrecked the South and cost more than 1 million American lives?

Nope. At least Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves doesn’t think so.

Nieves has proposed an amendment to his state’s constitution that would prohibit all branches of state government in Missouri from recognizing, enforcing or acting on “certain actions” of the federal government. It’s called “nullification” - the idea that states can simply ignore federal laws they don’t like - and it’s all the rage on the radical right, pushed by the likes of the John Birch Society and the Tenth Amendment Center.

What’s astounding is the traction the idea is getting among people who ought to know better. Nieves’ amendment, which would have to be approved by Missouri voters, is still alive in the legislature four months after it was proposed. It’s even been approved by the Senate’s General Laws Committee.

Nieves, a Tea Party favorite who has described himself as a “Patriot candidate” and who has appeared in a film produced by Patriot conspiracy-monger Gary Franchi, is nothing if not extreme. He’s previously shown his disdain for the Constitution as a leading member of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a group of state lawmakers that is working to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to all people born within the United States. Apparently, the 14th amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, really bugs him.

splcenter.org

Other birthers are probably a bit angry at this guy for letting the cat out of the bag, lighting it on fire and swinging it around his head by the tail.

The President can’ be a citizen because he is “mixed race” and the Constitution is only valid up to — but not including, the fourteenth amendment. So by this guy’s claims no black person can possibly become President.

An Alaska man who is challenging President Barack Obama’s eligibility for office on the grounds that the president is a “mulatto” based his complaint on an argument common to the neo-Confederate and antigovernment “sovereign citizen” movements, Hatewatch has learned.

In a complaint filed Tuesday with the Alaska Division of Elections, Gordon Warren Epperly of Juneau argued that Obama isn’t eligible for office because, as a person of mixed-race descent, he is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States.

“As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the ‘Mulatto’ race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the (purported) ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of ‘Negro’ or ‘Mulatto’ had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution,” the complaint says. “As the Fourteenth Amendment is only a grant of ‘Civil Rights’ and not a grant of ‘Political Rights,’ Barack Hussein Obama II does not have any ‘Political Rights’ under any provision of the United States Constitution to hold any Public Office of the United States government.”

Though this appears to be the first time it has been used in an effort to challenge Obama’s citizenship status, Epperly’s argument is not unique. Indeed, it seems to be an amalgam of two bizarre extremist legal theories — one that says that blacks do not have the same legal rights as whites because their citizenship is founded on the 14th Amendment, and another that claims that in order to be a “natural-born” U.S. citizen, one’s parents must both be U.S. citizens as well.

motherjones.com

Ron Paul trying for an unconstitutional end run around our court system - this legislation is in conflict with several court rulings and the 14th amendment. Time and again we see these wingnuts who stump on anti government sentiment asking for more government control and tyranny of the masses to overide individual rights — they just want the government to control your life locally.

Last year, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress that would allow states to ban contraception if they choose.

Paul’s “We the People Act,” which he introduced in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2011, explicitly forbids federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling on the constitutionality of a variety of state and local laws. That includes, among other things, “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction.” The bill would let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex, for example.

If passed, Paul’s bill could undermine the most important Supreme Court case dealing with contraception—1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the high court found that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraception was unconstitutional based on a “right to marital privacy” afforded by the Bill of Rights. In other words, the court declared that states cannot interfere with what happens between the sheets when it comes to reproduction.

Paul’s bill would also keep the federal courts out of cases like Roe v. Wade and 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, in which the justices found that privacy is a guaranteed right concerning sexual practices and struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

Now that a Ninth Circuit panel has ruled that California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, it seems inevitable that the ruling on Proposition 8 will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court. But whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear it is another story.

At this point, proponents of Prop 8 have fourteen days to decide whether to petition for a rehearing. If granted, an eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit will hear the case, which could take another six months to a year. If the initiative’s supporters choose to go straight to the Supreme Court, four of the nine justices would have to vote in favor of hearing the case for it to be taken up.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wrote the majority opinion for the 2-1 ruling, determined that the initiative violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The panel also declined to rule on the broader question of whether any ban on gay marriage would be unconstitutional, which could have had implications in other states, “because California had already extended to committed same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents.”

“This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds,” Reinhardt wrote.