Image from Politico

Do you remember S.B. 1070, Arizona’s highly disputed immigration law?

Well, the disputed law is about to be disputed by the top disputers in the country…

The U.S. Supreme Court!

On Monday, the high court agreed to review the constitutionality of the law, which made headlines in 2010.

The Arizona law requires local police to try to determine the immigration status of people they detain during a traffic stop or for questioning if there’s a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that those individuals are in the U.S. illegally.

Under the measure, police are required to determine whether someone arrested is a citizen or legal resident before releasing him or her. The law also demands that foreigners have immigration papers in their possession at all times.”

The Obama administration argues that immigration control is the responsibility of the Federal government not local police.

Border states respond by saying the federal government is not doing its job controlling illegal immigration. They suggest laws like S.B. 1070 are meant to compliment Federal enforcement.

Others argue the law is an unfair attack on the Latino community. And, legal challenges and appeals from the Obama administration have already blocked several of the law’s key parts.

The Supreme Court is currently looking at two other notable cases which could also impact the 2012 election.

Do you think S.B 1070 goes too far?

Image from NPR! (don't try at home)

Britain declares, no means no.

And then there were eight: Rick Perry gets a little confused…again.

Lessons from Virginia Tech.

Smuggling drugs in cheese?

Is it too early to start reflecting on 2011 yet?

Davis was convicted of killing a policeman back in 1989… However, recently 7 witnesses have recanted their testimony casting doubt upon the case.

You can read here how the world is reacting.

Just before his execution, Davis was granted a temporary delay in his execution date by the Supreme Court of the United States. This gave hope to his supporters that a retrial would be forthcoming.

The tweet above conveys just one perspective on the actions that have taken place in the past few hours, days, and weeks. Where do you stand? Do you believe that there’s #toomuchdoubt?

Does Walmart treat women unfairly?

Recently The Supreme Court tried to address that question.

Scores of female Walmart employees were suing the chain store giant for discriminatory work practices.

Unfortunately for them, the case was thrown out.

But not because Walmart was guiltless of these charges. Instead the Court objected to the “class action” part of the case.

This close 5-4 vote centered on the merit of the large number of women banning together to seek justice for their believed grievances.

Views are divided across the board disappointed or praising the notable decision.

Some believe that is fair confirmation of employer protection from excessive monetary settlements.

Others see it as a loss for the working class, those who can’t afford to make these grievances individually.

“Class Action” suits are one way to challenge big corporations.This is particularly useful at this time when union rights are under seige (which Walmart continually opposes).

Women in the workforce are particularly affected.

Workers of both sexes pay the price, but women, who constitute more than 70 percent of hourly employees, pay more…Wal-Mart insists that almost all workers promoted to the managerial ranks move to a new store, often hundreds of miles away. For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination.

Maybe this is just a call for corporate change.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed:

Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware… The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominately of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes.

The argument has also been made that insufficient evidence was brought to this case.

However a recent court ruling in Pennsylvania on work conditions at Walmart resulted in a $187.6 million fine for denying workers meal and rest breaks.

Was the Supreme Court ruling  justified?

How else can individuals take on big corporations when they exploit their workers?

Image courtesy of Ms. Magazine Blog

As you can imagine, the Supreme Court receives thousands of case requests each year.

In the end only about fifty cases make the cut and get the full attention of the Supremes.

That’s a lot of people who receive a big fat NO.

This year, one of those people was a high school student whose NO was especially tragic.

In October 2008, a 16-year-old cheerleader from Texas, known only by her first name Hillaire, was raped by Rakheem Bolton, a basketball player at her school. Bolton pled guilty to a lesser crime of assault. His prison sentence was suspended, and he came back to the school, continuing to play basketball.

During a game, Hillaire and the cheer squad were instructed to cheer for him, saying

Two, four, six, eight, ten, come on Rakheem, put it in.

Hillaire stepped away from the squad and refused to cheer for her rapist. She was kicked off the squad.

Hillaire and her parents sued the school, saying that the administration violated Hillaire’s right to freely speak – or in this case, not to speak. The 5^th District Court of Appeals heard the case but ruled against Hillaire, explaining that

As a cheerleader, [Hillaire] served as a mouthpiece through which [the school district] could disseminate speech – namely, support for its athletic teams…This act constituted a substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [Hillaire] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering.

To add insult to injury, the court ruled Hillaire’s lawsuit to be frivolous and ordered her family to pay the school district’s legal fees – an amount totaling 45,000 dollars.

Hillaire appealed to the Supreme Court, but earlier this month the Court refused to hear the case, leaving the initial decision in place.

How does the Court’s decision illustrate the treatment of rape victims in the US? And what do you think this decision means for a student’s right to speak – or not to speak – in school?

Image from The New York Times

Another natural disaster leaves more than 100 dead and thousands of more without homes.

Someones gotta go! Supreme Court tells California to cut its prison population.

Last laugh: Comedienne turns anti-gay protest into fundraiser for the Gay Men’s Health Crisis organization.

Was it his first choice? Former-RNC Chairman gets a new job…at “liberal” news network.

And, Obama follows his roots back to… Ireland?

The Supreme and silent type: Clarence Thomas goes five years without asking a question.

As Libya goes down, the price of gas is going to go up!

You thought your grocery bill was bad? A man in India has 39 wives and almost 100 children.

Chicago elects first new mayor since 1989…you’ll never guess who it is.

And, the most popular baby name of 2011 is “Facebook…?“

“Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates fags”.

Welcome folks to the loving gospel of the Westboro Baptist Church!

You will see members of the church carrying signs and screaming the epitaphs above at the funerals of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Church believes these wars and their casualties are a curse from God, punishment for America’s immorality, tolerance of gays/lesbians and abortion.

Margie J. Phelps, daughter of the church’s founder said in a statement ”Nation, hear this little church. If you want [the soldiers] to stop dying, stop sinning.”

Everyone seems to agree that the church’s actions are insensitive and hurtful, but what is not so clear is their right to protest. Albert Snyder, the father of a fallen soldier, is suing the church for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Their case has now made it to the US Supreme Court.

In America the standard is that an idea cannot be censored regardless of how objectionable it is. But because you have the right to say something does it mean you should say it? Should there be limits to free speech?

Newly minted Justice Elana Kagen pondered “So does that mean that now we have to start reading each sign, and saying ‘war is wrong’ falls on one side of the line but ‘you are a war criminal’ falls on another side of the line?”

Such discussions about our rights seem to be a sign of the times. What do you think?

We here at USDemocrazy feel this is an accurate representation of the internet telling you about Elena Kagan. Are you listening? Image Courtesy of Serge Ouachée.

If you haven’t heard of Elana Kagan, chances are you will not be able to miss her in the weeks ahead.

Elana Kagan is the new Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice Stevens.

We here at USDemocrazy are being turned around in circles by the mountain of info being churned out about Kagan! If you want to check some of it out, we suggest SCOTUS Blog to help you on your way! They’ve got a comprehensive rundown of who is saying what and where.

And that is all well and good…but…we wanted to talk about something else.

How about TERM LIMITS for Supreme Court Justices? That’s right … how about we drop this lifetime appointment nonsense?…

Jonathan Bernstein at Slate got our noodles cooking with a little piece he wrote on term limits:

I think [Term Limits is] a good topic for debate — my guess would be that over time, the incentive for reform will get stronger as justices serve for longer and longer terms.

Of course, as things are now, justices can serve for life terms. Or, as the US Constitution states it:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior

Some people aren’t exactly fans of the whole “lifetime tenure” thing. One of these people is Think Progress’s Matthew Yglesias:

I think [term limits] would have two advantages over the present system. One is that the current rule puts undue weight on throwing up young appointees…The other is that the current rule generates an awful lot of randomness.

A couple of weeks back, Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post threw her support behind Term Limits as well:

Not that it’s going to happen, but the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens and the focus on the age of President Obama’s pick to replace him have gotten me thinking about term limits for Supreme Court justices…I’m for them.

So all these smart people thinking got us here at USDemocrazy thinking…except we don’t know WHAT we’re actually thinking. So we need your help! Tell us what you think!