HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Gothmog » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

Gothmog

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 12,712

Journal Archives

5th Cir. Upholds ban on Texas immigrant housing law

The idiot Sec. of State for Kansas wrote both Arizona 1070 and a bill to make it illegal to rent or live in a small town near Dallas. A federal judge held that this law was unconstitutional and to my surprise the 5th Cir. upheld this ruling http://www.chron.com/news/article/Court-upholds-ban-on-Texas-immigrant-housing-law-3424959.php

A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that stopped a Dallas suburb's ban on illegal immigrants seeking housing.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Farmers Branch overstepped its authority in 2008 when it passed a law calling on the city's building inspector to check the immigration status of anyone wanting to rent an apartment who wasn't a U.S. citizen.

Under the law, illegal immigrants would have been barred from rental housing, and landlords who knowingly allowed them to stay could have their rental licenses barred.


The law is clearly unconstitutional and I am glad that the 5th Cir. made the correct ruling. The poor town of Farmers Branch has wasted a great deal of taxpayer money defending this stupidity.

William Brewer, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said he sensed a "strong undercurrent" throughout the appellate court's decision that Farmers Branch was engaged in discrimination. The ruling is particularly meaningful because the 5th Circuit has a reputation for conservatism, he said.

Brewer noted that the ruling affirms Boyle's decision that Farmers Branch must pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees, which before the appeal were nearly $2 million. He called that portion of the decision "a strong deterrent" against other cities seeking to pass similar laws.

"Clearly, both the trial court and the appellate court recognize that this ordinance was discriminatory," Brewer said.


$2 million in plaintiff attorney fees is on top the fees that the city had to pay. I wish that the city of Farmers Branch would sue the idiot Sec. of State of Kansas for the money wasted here.

Congressman Al Green Arrested yesterday and honored today

Yesterday, Houston Congressman Al Green was arrested together with George Clooney at a protest at the embassy for Sudan. This morning Congressman Green was given a standing ovation for his actions at a fund raiser for the Fort Bend Silver Democrats and the Fort Bend Suburban Southwest Texas Democratic Women. Congressman Green joked about the number of people who called for Clooney's number.

BTW, the turnout at this event was great. The Silver Democrats and Suburban Southwest Texas Democratic Women sold all of the available tickets for this event. There were some fun jokes about all of the cars with Obama 2012 bumper stickers in the parking lot of the Sweetwater Country Club.

Here in Fort Bend County, we are proud of the actions taken by Congressmen Green and let him know it.

State of Texas seeks to Challenge Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

The constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may be headed to the SCOTUS. There is one case before the DC Circuit involving Shelby County that is challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and now the State of Texas is seeking permission to amend its lawsuit on the voter ID case to challenge Section 5. http://txredistricting.org/post/19303983519/texas-goes-big-on-section-5-makes-the

The State of Texas is seeking permission from the three-judge panel in the voter ID case to file an amended complaint that would directly challenge the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The amended complaint told the court in the introduction that, as an alternative grounds for relief, “the State of Texas seeks a declaration that section 5, as most recently amended and reauthorized by the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.”

With the filing, Texas now moves to the forefront, along with the Shelby County case out of Alabama, in re-raising the constitutional issue after the high court’s 2009 decision to punt the issue. However, because Texas’ case, unlike the Shelby County case, involves a three-judge panel, appeals from the case would go directly to the Supreme Court. That means Texas’ case has the potential for getting to the Supreme Court first, depending on how the timing works out. (Shelby County was argued in late January at the D.C. Circuit and is pending decision.)


The DOJ knew that this was a risk when the DOJ objected to the Texas voter suppression law and I hope that the DOJ is able to defend the constitutionality of Section 5. Objecting to the Texas Voter id law was the correct decision by the DOJ and I hope that the SCOTUS does not use this decision as an excuse to declare Section 5 unconstitutional

TX CD22 & LaRouchies-Six people equal a rally??

Back in 2010, the local party did not run a strong candidate for the TX CD 22 because that race would be an impossible race to win. A LaRouchie candidate named Keisha Rogers won the nomination and the ran on the platform of impeaching President Obama. Many Democrats had to not vote a straight party ticket in 2010 to avoid voting for this person.

Keisha is running again. Last night was the ballot draw and there was evidently a Keisha Rogers Rally. I was at the event and saw Keisha and four or five of her supporters outside the library where the event was held. None of these supporters were precinct chairs and so did not have a vote at this meeting. We did a roll call and each of the larouchies made some statement about President Obama and were booed.

After the ballot draw, each candidate got to make a two minute speech and then our SDEC representative made a proposal that the county party endorse the guy running against Rogers (this resolution was blessed by the State Party in advance). During the debate of thise resolution, some precinct chairs asked Rogers if she really believed that the Queen of England was a drug dealer (she refused to answer this question) and asked Rogers about the larouchie posters with President Obama having a Hitler mustache which Rogers defended on the grounds that she was trying to stop a second holocaust (as a Jew, I was very offended). After the motion was passed by a vote of all 41 precinct chairs present, we ignored the larouchies and they left.

When I got home, I checked Rogers website to see if we were mentioned and saw that the six people (five supporters and the candidate were part of an official LaRoushie rally. This from her website http://kesharogers.com/node/73

Rally & Ballot Selection
Event time:
Monday, March 12, 2012 - 7:00pm to 9:00pm

Tonight is the drawing for ballot position on the upcoming May 29th Democratic primary election. Come out and support Kesha Rogers, to show the Ft. Bend County Democratic Party you want her to be the next U.S. Representative for district 22!

Rally outside the George Memorial Library at 6pm, ballot selection is inside the library at 7pm.


The party also adopted rules for the Senate District conventions that requires all attendees to these conventions and the state convention to sign a loyalty oath that includes a requirement that one supports the Party's candidates including President Obama.

I was surprised to see that five people and the candidate constituted a rally. In 2010, Keisha was an unknown. Now the party knows about her and we are passing out flyers warning voters about this candidate.

DNC v. RNC-1982 Injunction against RNC extended

I am a member of the Obama voter protection team and just received an e-mail from the head of the team that makes me smile. The DNC has maintained an injunction against the RNC since 1982 on voter suppression and vote caging efforts. The Third Circuit just confirmed the opinion of the judge in that case to extend this injunction for eight more years http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rncvdnc.pdf Here is the statement of the DNC on this victory

DNC Statement on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in DNC v. RNC

Washington DC – The DNC released the following statement on the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the District Court’s decision to affirm the extension of the consent decree against the Republican National Committee. As the court described it, the decree has as its central purpose “preventing the intimidation and suppression of minority voters” by the Republican Party.

Please see a statement below on this decision from DNC Counsel and Voter Protection Director Will Crossley:

“We applaud the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the extension of the consent decree that has been in place since 1982. As this and previous rulings have noted, Republicans have a history of working to restrict access to the polls, including the illegal targeting of suppression schemes at minority populations.

“The primary purpose of the consent decree, as stated by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, is ‘to prevent the RNC from ‘using, appearing to use, racial or ethnic criteria in connection with ballot integrity, ballot security or other effort to prevent or remedy suspected vote’ and to neither ‘hinder discourage qualified voters from exercising the right to vote.’

“Every Republican argument against a continuation of enforcement was rejected by the Third Circuit. The court found that the consent decree is not a violation of free speech but rather an important tool for protecting minority voters and preventing Republican voter suppression efforts. The Republican argument that because the President, Attorney General and former RNC Chairman are African-American, minority voters would be adequately protected from suppression efforts was previously called “unsubstantiated and offensive” by a lower court, and the Third Circuit wrote that its ‘jurisprudence cannot depend on such assumptions.’

“Finally, the Court rejected the RNC’s claim that their so-called ballot security measures are essential to preventing voter fraud. Once again Republican allegations of “fraud” have been revealed for what they are: simple cover for attacks on the right to vote.

“The Democratic Party will always stand on the side of those defending access to the ballot for all eligible Americans. The right to vote is the sacred right of all Americans and we must not forget how hard many Americans fought – African-Americans and women in particular – to secure that right. The Third Circuit’s decision in DNC v. RNC reaffirms the legal protections that those targeted by Republican voter suppression tactics may continue to depend upon.”

This e-mail really made me smile

Effects of the Texas voter id/suppression law

The Houston paper has a very good article on the effects of the Texas voter suppression/id law. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-contested-voter-ID-law-could-shave-voter-3390155.php

Here is a great chart on the effects of this horrible law

[link:|
Go to Page: 1