The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that the US Constitution forbids mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of homicide.  The justices ruled 5-4 in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs that such a sentencing structure violates the Eighth Amendment’s rule against cruel and unusual punishment.

In one case, 14-year-old Evan Miller was convicted of murder in Alabama after setting fire to a trailer, which killed his neighbor. The second case focused on Kuntrell Jackson, who was convicted of murder in Arkansas at age 14 following his participation in an armed robbery that led to a store clerk’s death.

Both cases were sentenced using the mandatory life-without-parole penalty in their respective states, which the SCOTUS ruling struck down. The Court’s decision also invalidates similar statutes in 27 other states.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the Opinion of the Court, citing Graham v. Florida – which determined life-without-parole sentences for non-homicides unconstitutional – as a primary precedent for the ruling. Citing Graham, the Court’s opinion asserts, “that youth matters in determining the appropriateness of a lifetime of incarceration without the possibility of parole.”

The mandatory penalty schemes currently in issue prevent sentencers from considering a juvenile offender’s youth, disregarding the foundational opinion in Graham that imposing the most severe penalties on juveniles cannot proceed as though the offenders are not children.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. presented an abridged version of his own dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, from the bench, calling the majority’s reasoning, “the personal views of five Justices.”

Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion heavily criticizes the Court’s majority view for including individuals of such a broad age range, particularly regarding defendants closer to 18 years of age, “The category of murderers that the Court delicately calls “children” (murderers under the age of 18) consists overwhelmingly of young men who are fast approaching the legal age of adulthood. Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson are anomalies; much more typical are murderers like Donald Roper, who committed a brutal thrill-killing just nine months shy of his 18th birthday.”

However, the Miller v. Alabama ruling does not exclude juveniles from ever being sentenced to life in prison without parole. The same “mitigating qualities of youth” that prevent automatic life-without parole sentences are also left to the discretion of sentencers on a case-by-case basis.

The written dissent from Justice Alito addresses that aspect of the opinion as well, instead asserting that the Eighth Amendment is worded so that, “it leaves questions of sentencing policy to be determined by Congress and the state legislatures—and with good reason.”

According to the Equal Justice Initiative, the Alabama-based non-profit organization that also provided legal representation for Miller and Jackson, over 2200 individuals are currently serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed under the age of 18.

The article Juvenile Life Without Parole Violates Eighth Amendment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) and Broadway Impact are pleased to announce the addition of Golden Globe-winner and Academy and Emmy Award-nominee Brad Pitt to the cast of the West Coast premiere reading of the play ”8.”

The reading is an unprecedented account of the Federal District Court trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown), the case filed by AFER to overturn Proposition 8, which stripped gay and lesbian Californians of the fundamental freedom to marry.

AFER and Broadway Impact are also pleased to announce that the performance will be streamed live on YouTube, beginning at 7:45 p.m. PST.  A pre-show will begin on YouTube at 7:30 p.m. PST. Rob Reiner, director of Saturday’s performance, recorded a video explaining the reading of the play and inviting people to watch the live stream.  The live stream of the West Coast premiere reading of ”8″ and Rob Reiner’s video can both be viewed at www.youtube.com/AmericanEqualRights.

“At long last each and every American will be able to see for themselves what happens when prejudice and fear are put on trial in a court of law,” said AFER Board President Chad Griffin. ”For over two years, the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8 have fought tooth and nail to hide their discriminatory arguments from the American people.

But on Saturday night, thanks to YouTube and our incredible cast, people across the nation, from Los Angeles to Little Rock to Baltimore, will get to watch as our Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality for all is protected.”

Written by Academy Award-winning screenwriter and AFER Founding Board Member Dustin Lance Black and directed by acclaimed actor and director and AFER Founding Board Member Rob Reiner , ”8″ will have its West Coast premiere reading on Saturday, March 3, 2012, at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles.  Bryan Singer , acclaimed director of The Usual Suspects and X-Men, is Saturday night’s presenting sponsor.  The benefit event will support the fight to secure full federal marriage equality.

Black, who penned the Academy Award-winning feature film Milk and the film J. Edgar, based ”8″ on the actual words of the trial transcripts, first-hand observations of the courtroom drama and interviews with the plaintiffs and their families.

Brad Pitt will star as United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who found Proposition 8 unconstitutional after presiding over the historic twelve-day public trial.

Pitt joins an all-star cast led by Academy and Golden Globe Award-winner and Emmy Award-nomineeGeorge Clooney and Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winner Martin Sheen as Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, the renowned attorneys who notably faced-off in Bush v. Gore.

Academy, Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winner Christine Lahti and Golden Globe Award-winner Jamie Lee Curtis will star as plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, a lesbian couple together for eleven years and the parents of four boys.  Emmy, Golden Globe and Tony Award-nominee Matthew Morrison and acclaimed White Collar television star Matt Bomer will play plaintiffs Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, a gay couple together over ten years.

Golden Globe Award-winner and Emmy Award-nominee Kevin Bacon will play Charles J. Cooper, the lead attorney for the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8.  Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winner Jane Lynch will star as prominent opponent of marriage equality Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and former chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.  Academy, Golden Globe and Grammy Award-nominee John C. Reilly will play David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values.

Additional roles will be played by Emmy Award-winning journalist Campbell Brown; Golden Globe Award-winner, SAG and Emmy Award-nominee Chris Colfer ; Emmy Award-nominee Jesse Tyler Ferguson ; prominent gay rights activist Cleve Jones ; Tony Award-nominee Rory O’Malley; acclaimed Star Trek television and film star George Takei; Emmy Award-winner Yeardley Smith ; and Vanessa Garcia, Jansen Panatierre, James Pickens, Jr. and Bridger Zadina .

The Los Angeles reading of ”8″ comes just weeks after a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding the historic August 2010 ruling of the Federal District Court that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  The Ninth Circuit concluded:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.  The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

The story for ”8″ is framed by the trial’s historic closing arguments in June 2010, and features the best arguments and testimony from both sides.  Scenes include flashbacks to some of the more jaw-dropping moments from trial, such as the admission by the Proposition 8 supporters’ star witness, David Blankenhorn, that “we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.”

“People need to witness what happened in the Proposition 8 trial, if for no other reason than to see inequality and discrimination unequivocally rejected in a court of law where truth and facts matter,” said Black.  ”I’ve built my career around exposing and uncovering ‘the real story.’

The goal of ’8′ is to show the world that marriage equality is a basic constitutional right and that those who would deny this basic freedom from loving, committed couples have only vitriol and baseless hyperbole to fall back on.  The facts are on our side and truth always finds the light.  We are doing all we can to help speed that process along.”

“Because this case involves the constitutional rights of millions of people, it is especially important for the public to see what happened during the trial,” said AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer. “Both sides had an equal opportunity and ample resources to assemble their strongest teams and put forth their absolute best arguments in an impartial setting. Viewed side-by-side there is simply no question that there was only one decision the court could have reached.

The moment we knew the trial would not be publicly broadcast we immediately began planning to find a way to show the world what happened in this historic case. This play and our partnership with YouTube and Broadway Impact allow us to do exactly that.”

“8″ had its much-heralded Broadway world premiere reading on September 19, 2011, at the sold-out Eugene O’Neill Theatre in New York City.  The benefit brought in over $1 million to support AFER’s efforts to achieve full federal marriage equality.

Throughout 2012, AFER and Broadway Impact are licensing “8″ for free to colleges and community theatres nationwide in order to spur dialogue, understanding and action.  Most performances will be followed by a talkback where cast and audience members can discuss the issues presented in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial.

“I was lucky enough to watch the closing arguments of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in San Francisco,” said Broadway Impact co-founder Rory O’Malley (Tony Award-nominee for The Book of Mormon).  ”We knew then and there that audiences needed to see and hear this story live, as we had done.

’8′ builds on a successful tradition of documentary theatre—plays like The Laramie Project and The Vagina Monologues, which inspire us with their combination of art and activism. We are thrilled to partner with AFER to bring this story to a national audience.”

VISIT THE OFFICIAL “8″ WEBSITE HERE: www.8theplay.com

WATCH SATURDAY’S PERFORMANCE LIVE HERE AT 7:45 P.M. PST: www.youtube.com/AmericanEqualRights

Image Courtesy of   cinemafestival / Shutterstock.com

The article Brad Pitt Joins The Cast of West Coast Premiere Reading of the Play “8″ appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Six national aging groups filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court last Friday, January 27, saying that there are extensive provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that are of “vital importance to the health and well-being of people 65 and older” and that Congress did not intend for any of them to be contingent on whether or not the minimum coverage provision (also called the individual mandate) was constitutional.

“The health and quality of life of many older Americans are already improving because of the health reform law,” says National Senior Citizens Law Center Executive Director, Paul Nathanson. “We don’t believe Congress intended to let the elderly poor languish in nursing homes or be subject to abuse if the individual mandate was found unworkable.”

The amicus brief was filed in the National Federation of Independent Business et al v Kathleen Sebelius et al and the State of Florida et al v Department of Health and Human Services et al cases which challenge the constitutionality of the health reform law. In those cases, the petitioners contend that all of the ACA should fall if the minimum coverage provision is invalidated by the Court.

The brief states that a “careful review” of policies Congress sought to enact shows that the provisions affecting people aged 65 and over “can be effectuated without any reliance on the minimum coverage provision.”

The brief also highlights the parts of the ACA that greatly benefit people aged 65 and older that should not be affected if the Court decides to invalidate the minimum coverage provision, including the following:

• Reduced cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries for prescription drugs by substantially reducing the coverage gap or so-called donut hole
• Elimination of cost-sharing for annual wellness visits and other screening services
• Medicare Advantage plans are prevented from charging higher cost-sharing for chemotherapy and dialysis than permitted under traditional Medicare
• Decreased unnecessary institutionalization of Medicaid beneficiaries
• Improved coordination of care for people receiving both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligibles)
• Improved quality and safety in nursing homes, and prevention of abuse and neglect of elderly and people with disabilities in nursing and other residential facilities.

The brief states that the only provisions that should be affected by the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision are the pre-existing condition, the community rating, and guaranteed issue provisions.

“The rest of the ACA, including, but in no way limited to the provisions highlighted in this amicus brief, should remain intact,” the brief concludes.

The article Aging Groups’ Healthcare Concerns appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As if the historically low 17 percent approval rating of Congress wasn’t low enough, certain members of congress seem to want to get this even lower.

Despite unemployment rates that have hovered just below double digits for a very long time, record foreclosures and a stagnant economy that can’t get moving, some members of congress are whining about their low paychecks. I am not kidding. Does it infuriate you??

Even though members of Congress are paid $174,000 a year, get a month off for summer, weeks off for the holiday season, paid travel, excellent health care and plenty of under the table lobbyists perks, these spoiled idiots are saying they are not being paid enough. All while trying to cut spending and put decent government workers out of job.

First up, we have Republican idiot Steve Southerland from Florida. Speaking to a retirement community in Tallahassee, the freshman congressman complained about some of the parts of his new job. He claimed that his salary is not so much because of the amount of hours he puts in. He said there was no instant pensions or free health insurance. Yeah, none of us “normal” folks get that either, jackass.

“And by the way, did I mention? They’re shooting at us. There is law-enforcement security in this room right now, and why is that?” Southerland told about 125 people in an auditorium at the Westminster Oaks retirement community.

“If you think this job pays too much, with those kinds of risks and cutting me off from my family business, I’ll just tell you: This job don’t mean that much to me. I had a good life in Panama City,” Southerland whined.”…He added that ‘if you took the hours that I work and divided it into my pay,’ the $174,000 salary would not seem so high.”

Southerland was a funeral home director before he became a congressman, making about $90,000 a year.

Rep. Sean Duffy from Wisconsin (remember the state that complained teachers’ salaries were too high????????) also complained about his paycheck a few months ago. He said it was a “struggle” to pay his mortgage and student loans with his congressional salary. “At this point, I’m not living high on the hog,” Duffy, a father of six, said.

Sorry, Mr. Duffy, but I don’t feel sorry for you at all. Buy a freakin smaller house. Use birth control. That is the same bullshit you as a Republican would tell a mother when you cut off her food stamps.

It is not only Republicans that whine though. Linda Sanchez, a Democrat from California, told MSNBC last spring that she was living “paycheck to paycheck.” Wow, these people need to budget a little better. You make more than four times what my husband and me make together.

You stupid lawmakers always have the nerve to tell us to cut out expenses. Really? If you can’t make it at six figures, what the hell else can I cut?

Ken Durden / Shutterstock.com

The article Congress Complains About Six Figure Salary appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.