Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
There are a couple of legal analyses out today that attempt to make the point that SB 1062, the Religious Bigotry bill, is just not that big a deal. Wrong.
Howard Fischer has a report captioned in the Arizona Daily Star, Outcry over Arizona's SB 1062 overshadows bill's limited power. Howie relies on former ASU Law Professor Paul Bender, who comments “My summary is: It means almost nothing.”"[T]he main thing people miss is, there’s no right of action against a bigot in the first place,” Bender said. “The bigot doesn’t need this.”
Howie cites the "three part test" contained in SB 1062:
The law provides a three-part test that someone seeking to use the shield would have to establish in court.
First, the person’s action or refusal to act “is motivated by a religious belief.” Second, that belief must be “sincerely held.”
And third, there would need to be proof that being forced to do something “substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”
It is that last provision that prevents SB 1062 from being a catch-all for any religious claim.
But Howie never asks the all important question: "How has this three part test been used in real world practical application?" The only reporter today to ask the correct question is Megan Finnerty at the Arizona Republic (congrats Megan!) Can courts measure sincerity of faith?:
Our most deeply held convictions cannot be proved or disproved — the love we have for our children, the faith we have in our God, the respect we have for our parents — but SB 1062 would create an opportunity for a judge or a jury to ascertain and measure them.
Religious and legal experts disagree whether a judge or jury could know if a belief was sincere. They also don’t agree on what could be considered proof of such a belief. Words and actions only go so far.
About 250 cases have been brought since the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was put in place 20 years ago. Since then, 26 states have passed similar laws.
Judges have believed those who asserted a religious belief essentially because they said they held it, said Phoenix attorney Joe La Rue of the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which co-wrote SB 1062.
“The courts know how to figure this out; they’ve done it,” La Rue said. “The court generally takes your word for it. You don’t presume a person is lying. You take them at their word unless the belief is so preposterous or so over the top that you couldn’t.”
Stop picking on Sean Noble!
Crossposted at DemocraticDiva.com
Sean Noble is a type of right wing operative I find particularly annoying. These guys are total miscreants but have the cornpone choirboy routine down pat. They often like to preen about how they don’t use profanity, which makes them more moral than us dirty liberals. Arizona is thick with these homespun “consultants”, hoovering money out of gullible rich wingnuts with political aspirations, but Noble has really scored. He was recently the subject of a hard-hitting investigative report from ProPublica, in which he was revealed as the ringleader funneling “dark money” from the Koch brothers to various conservative causes around the country. One of them was Mitt Romney’s campaign – they might as well have taken a match to that money – but others were more successful, such as the defeat of the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin. Dark Koch money has flowed like a river into Arizona. It funded the legal attack on independent redistricting and the defeat of Prop 204 (making the one cent sales tax permanent for education) in 2012, among plenty of other things.
Continue reading "Stop picking on Sean Noble! " »
Feb 25, 2014 6:06:21 PM | Campaigns, Commentary, Conspiracy Theory, Donna Gratehouse, Elections, GOP War On..., IOKIYAR, Legislation, Redistricting, Scandals