Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The former police chief of Gary, Indiana has been found guilty of civil rights violations after kicking a suspect during a raid.
A Michigan commission has thrown out disciplinary charges against a member of the state's board of canvassers who had opposed certifying a initiative that successfully banned affirmative action.
The Supreme Court will not rehear its decision striking down the use of the death penalty in child rape cases.
Large numbers of the House Black and Hispanic caucuses revolted against the failed bailout bill, alleging that it was insufficiently geared to suffering middle and working class voters.
The Justice Department is filing suit against the DC Metro after it allegedly refused to hire an applicant on basis of religion. The complaint alleges that the woman was rejected because her religious requirements demanded she wear skirts, while the uniform requirement for bus drivers is pants.
The federal government is taking over a case where police shot allegedly unarmed Katrina victims on a bridge leading out of New Orleans.
A jury found Eric County liable in a prison rape case.
Illegal immigrant arrests on the Mexican border are way down, but nobody knows if its the result of better deterrence or worsened enforcement.
A private immigration facility hired guards without giving them required background checks, then lied about it.
A fight is breaking out in a tony New York community over whether local Orthodox Jews can construct an eruv, or religious boundary, which would allow them to complete minor tasks on Shabbat. Basically, the boundary allows the Jews to religiously claim they are not going outside, skirting some Sabbath prohibitions.
Three civil rights groups are alleging that disabled students in Hillsborough, Florida schools are being neglected.
The fight to overturn Florida's unique (and atrocious) law prohibiting gay couples from adopting continues to progress through state court. Previous coverage on the local state court ruling here, and on a federal ruling several years ago here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Random question for your readers:
If you were trying to determine how a Congressman voted on a particular measure, would you look at:
1) His vote on the bill itself when the bill came before his house?
or
2) His vote on the conference report, when the bill had passed both houses, gone through conference and was headed for the president's signature?
There seems to be a lot of dispute over which one accurately indicates whether the Congressman favored the measure in question. I would have thought the first was the accurate measure, because it determines whether the bill will pass the house. The second is acceding or standing against a foregone conclusion: the bill has passed both houses and is going to become a law pretty much regardless of how you vote this time.
Post a Comment