27 comments
Domino14
Domino14

sorry to be so late

 

Those are some incredibly sad statistics... 

here's hoping for change... 

Bob Phillips
Bob Phillips

Evening, all. This topic brings to mind a distressing story from the next county north of me, Pinal County, Arizona (yeah,that Arizona, where the Governor's Chief of Staff used to be a lobbyist for CCA). FWIW, about the only indushtry in Pinal (many of us pronounce it penal) County is the numerous state and local prisons located there.

Anyway, a public high school in Casa Grande "locked down", a high school, mind you, not one of the prisons, locked dow for a drug sweep with dogs. What made the incident remarkable was that they used CCA personell and dogs! See http://www.theidealistrevolution.com/private-prison-company/

Talk about streamlining the pipeline!

badphairy
badphairy

Yay federal scrutiny. Let's hope it's worth it.

KayWhitlock
KayWhitlock

Very powerful.  Given today's hearings and lots of DOJ attention to the Mississippi school to prison pipeline, I'm very glad this is finally - as in finally the Ice Age ended – getting attention.  Thank you Nancy - and thanks to Seeta and CMP and to Prison Culture Blog for giving regular attention to these issues.

ScottieThomaston
ScottieThomaston

I've been reading about the subcommittee meeting all day and following some discussion on Twitter. Really glad this is happening.

nancy a heitzeg
nancy a heitzeg

veen running all day so i have no word as to how the Senate Hearings went --  will update as we know more

 

Just glad this is finally getting a bigger light shine

nancy a heitzeg
nancy a heitzeg

 @Bob Phillips wow -- stream-lining indeed.. The goal i believe of all of this bob.. Future "clients" -- more $$$$$

 

thanks for being here btw

ScottieThomaston
ScottieThomaston

 @KayWhitlock Good to see you too :) And thanks :)

 

I love doing it - especially right now at this time. It's like THE time to be writing about these issues.

ScottieThomaston
ScottieThomaston

 @nancy a heitzeg Great to see you too! So happy to be able to get over here this time! (Life = busy.)

 

Hope you've been well!

 

And the main things I saw about it were just comments that it's happening and that it's unprecedented. I didn't dig too deep to see how productive the end result was to be honest.

ScottieThomaston
ScottieThomaston

 @nancy a heitzeg Same here. Did you see Scalia's comments a couple days ago? These cases are before the Court RIGHT NOW and he's going out and giving speeches comparing gays to murderers. He doesn't seem to care how it looks.

ScottieThomaston
ScottieThomaston

 @nancy a heitzeg I did want to mention: a lot of the discussion I saw came specifically from the LGBT legal organizations. Lots of them have been extremely interested and wanting to get involved in this. Lambda Legal especially was going on about it all day and had several posts. Thought that was really cool to see them so engaged.

 

And as far as DOMA and Prop 8 go... holy crap. You're telling me haha. That's why I've been so busy you can imagine since I work for a site that is covering these cases. I don't know if I can talk you down haha. I can say I'm more worried about Prop 8 than DOMA. I have no clue or even speculation on what will happen with Prop 8. For all we know they could end up saying they have to dismiss it for lack of legal standing to be in court.

 

But with DOMA I think they pretty much have to resolve the merits. It has now been struck down in two separate courts of appeals. They can't keep a federal law operable in some circuits and inoperable in others. And if I had to guess I'd say it'll be struck down 5-4 or 6-3 (6th vote would be CJ Roberts who will likely be Chief Justice for 25 years or more and probably doesn't want his legacy in ten years to be that he voted for DOMA. By then it will be common sense to support marriage equality or whatever relationships people enter into.)

 

I just think the arguments that it's unconstitutional are very easy to explain and obviously unconstitutional. It's hard to say that a law that says "for purposes of federal law only marriage is between a man and a woman" is rationally related to the interest of child bearing or reproduction or morality. How? These couples are still married and still having kids. So I think the Court would look really foolish if they uphold it.

 

Also keep in mind the case they took was the Windsor case. This is an 83 year old woman who was engaged for 40 years and got married in 2007. Her wife died in 2009 from a debilitating disease after she took care of her for years. Then Windsor was stuck with a $363,000 tax bill simply because of DOMA. I can't even imagine the headlines if they rule against this lady. They would make the Court look really bad.

 

So it just depends on if they care about that at all or not.

 

They may not. After all they took up affirmative action and a case on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. They appear to be ready to anger people and strike THOSE down.

 

So I am torn on what will happen.

 

(I'll most likely be there in the Court room for oral arguments though!)

nancy a heitzeg
nancy a heitzeg

 @ScottieThomaston have been good -- too bsy also,. Ready for a break soon :)

 

we will hope that exposure leads to some action!

 

in other news I am honestly worried about DOMA and SCOTUS -- you can talk me down if you want :)

Trackbacks

  1. […] is consistent with a growing national concern over the school to prison pipeline.  The U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights […]