Scottsdale Mama

Archive for July, 2010

By now you have heard that Judge Susan Bolton issued a partial injunction enjoining parts of SB1070 from going into effect. Today is the first day that the remaining portions of SB1070 have gone into effect. However, the “meat” of the law was basically removed with the ruling, at least for the time being.

Here is some background. The Arizona Legislature passed SB1070 and the Governor signed it to become effective on 12:00 a.m. on July 29, 2010. This piece of legislation amended an already existing Arizona statute and added additional requirements. It is officially called the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” SB 1070 has the following controversial provisions:

• A.R.S. 11-1051(B): This section requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, AND requires verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

• A.R.S. 13-1509: This creates a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.

• A.R.S. 13-2928(C): This creates a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work.

• A.R.S. 13-3883(A)(5): This authorizes the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

(The rest of the provisions are not quite as controversial so I am not going to go over them here.)

Collectively those voices against SB1070 have put forth arguments including, but not limited to: it violates federal law; it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; it is a violation of civil rights; it is a violation of human rights; it is racist, it promotes racial profiling, and it places a larger burden on the federal government.
The arguments in support of SB1070 include, but are not limited to: Arizona has a right to protect its citizens and borders; the federal government is not doing its job; it piggybacks on federal law; and it does not impose a greater burden on the federal government.

The federal government, and several others, filed suit against Arizona in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona claiming SB1070 is invalid for a multitude of reasons. The suit was brought in federal court because it deals with federal issues/laws and has the federal government suing a State. Invariably whatever decision the District Court makes will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and then it will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. (By the way, the 9th Circuit is the circuit the Supreme Court reverses most.)
In the lawsuit the federal government asked the Court to issue an injunction enjoining SB1070 from going into effect on July 29, 2010. The injunction is a preliminary injunction instead of a permanent injunction. The Court was being asked to stop the SB1070 from going into effect until the decision is made as to whether SB1070 is valid or not. When the Court is asked to preliminarily enjoin some action it will hold a hearing. That is what Judge Susan Bolton did last week; she held a hearing on the request to issue a preliminary injunction. That is all the hearing was for. In order to get a preliminary injunction the federal government had to prove the following:

• Its claims are likely to succeed on the merits;
• Likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunction;
• The balance of equities tip in favor of the federal government; and
• Injunction is in the public interest

The Court ruled that on the controversial provisions listed above the federal government met its burden. As such, she issued the injunction. Now remember, it is only a preliminary injunction and only for certain parts of SB1070. The injunction can be terminated by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, by an agreement between Arizona and the federal government, or by the Court ruling for Arizona and dismissing the federal government’s Complaint.

Currently there are two proceedings happening here. The first is the main lawsuit to determine the validity of SB1070. The second is the preliminary injunction action that shoots off from the main action. Although the preliminary injunction action has a ruling, the main action does not. So regardless of whether the preliminary injunction ruling is appealed or not, the main action continues to go forward. Although the injunction is dependent on the main action, the main action is not dependent on any ruling in the preliminary injunction action. Think of the preliminary injunction action as a temporary thing.

Now, just because the Court enjoined parts of the law doesn’t mean the Court found SB1070 to be invalid. It simply found that the federal government’s claims are likely to succeed on the merits, federal government will be irreparably harmed, the balance of equities tip in favor of the federal government and the public interest is best served with the injunction. Her ruling on this issue (the injunctions) is NOT the end. She still has to rule on the main action which will take months to litigate. In the meantime, unless the Court of Appeals (or maybe the Supreme Court) reverses the injunction, the injunction will stay in effect until the end of the main action. If the federal government wins the main action the preliminary injunction will become a “permanent” injunction. If Arizona wins the lawsuit then the injunction will be terminated.

By now you may have heard of the incident with the USDA and Sherry Sherrod.  Sherry is black and was the Agriculture Department’s director of rural development in Georgia who was basically forced to resign after she supposedly made racist comments about a white farmer.

The facts presented prior to the firing and which led to the resignation was that she discriminated against a white farmer numerous years ago.  Someone posted a video on the Internet of her making remarks that 20 years ago she was reluctant to help a white famer in part because so many black farmers were suffering.  Various media outlets got a hold of the video and turned it into a story that indicated she, as a government employee, was racist.  This resulted in a harsh condemnation from the NAACP and a forced resignation due to USDA’s zero tolerance for discrimination.   The NAACP stated her comments were shameful and that it was appalled by her actions.

I remember hearing about this story on the radio but didn’t really think much of it.  Then, the next day I heard  the “rest of the story.”   The facts as we know them now are that she was giving a speech at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia.  During that speech she was explaining how she learned from her mistakes.   She told a story about how she initially didn’t help the farmer as much as she could have but realized that she was wrong and went on to help that farmer save his farm.  At the time, she was working for a nonprofit group, not the USDA.  She had a change of heart and explained that “working with him made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t…and they could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic – it made me realize that I needed to help poor people. This was corroborated by a Fox News interview of the wife’s farmer the next day. 

After the rest of the story came out it is said the White House called Secretary Tom Vilsack and suggested he “revisit” his decision about her employment.   However, Sherry wasn’t sure as of a couple days ago if she wanted her job back based on how she was treated.

MY THOUGHTS – people in positions of power often have to rely on those who work “under” them or next to them for information since they often do not have time to do the research and foot work on their own.   With that being said, those in power or those that work for them should be very careful about situations that may affect someone’s job or livelihood and those situations that involve charged issues such as racism.  I can understand being appalled at first; however, why didn’t anyone investigate a little further, especially since the NAACP recorded the entire thing? 

I understand that those involved are just people like you and me; however, with great power comes great responsibility and I hope this situation gives all “bosses” and “quick to give judgments” people pause.  This whole incident could have been averted if patience had prevailed and a bit of investigation had ensued. 

Bottom line is that the Powers That Be screwed up and now they need to back paddle and make it right.  It wasn’t fair and it wasn’t professional. 

LESSON TO BE LEARNED – Think before you fire someone!

Lindsay Lohan…what do you think of when you hear that name? I think of the phrase “what a waste!”  Here was a young lady who had everything going for her career-wise and she let herself get in the way. 

Originally she was charged with a DUI.  Here in Arizona a first time DUI offender receives the following sentence:

• 10 days in jail with 9 of those days suspended if they successfully complete probation (meaning they do what they are ordered to do);
•  their license is suspended for 90 days;
• they have to use an ignition interlock device on any vehicle they drive for a year;
• they have to pay a fine of around 250.00 (which is increased to around 500.00 when a surcharge is added);
• attend an alcohol screening class; and
• pay another 1,000.00 to two other “funds.”

If the person violates their probation or doesn’t do one of the above, the Court can pull them back into court and sentence them to more jail time (up to 6 months in jail for a first time DUI), or add additional terms to the sentence.  In my experience the defendant has to screw up a lot or big in order to be sentenced to more jail time.  Clearly the Judge in LiLo’s case thought she did.

In LiLo’s case she was sentenced to probation, which included alcohol treatment classes and random drug tests, for DUI and Reckless Driving.  All she had to do was follow the terms and conditions of her probation /sentence and she would be fine.  Thousands of others are able to do that on a daily basis, so why couldn’t she?  Clearly this was too much to ask of her.  If you ask me, I think she is too spoiled, delusional, disrespectful and egotistical to do what she has been ordered to do.  I am not going to blame her mother or her attorney.  She is an adult and responsible for herself – no more excuses.

And the fingernail incident, are you kidding me? That has to be one of the most arrogant, stupid and disrespectful actions I have ever seen a defendant take.  Trust me, that little stunt will forever be in the Judge’s mind and if LiLo messes up again, this will come back to bite her.  The Judge probably won’t say she took this stunt into consideration but the Judge is human and how can it not.

After finding that Lindsay in fact did violate her probation, Judge Marsha Revel sentenced her to 90 days in jail followed by another 90 days in an inpatient rehabilitation program. The evidenced presented at the hearing proved that LiLo failed to attend her alcohol education classes numerous times, was uncooperative with those trying to help her, and failed to attend court when required to do so (Remember the Cannes Film Festival and the stolen passport? Oh please). This lack of complete disrespect should be punished. I would be surprised if someone here in AZ would be sentenced to 90 days, but considering her history, it is possible.

Although I was not able to watch the entire hearing (it was replayed on Tru TV), with what I did see I thought her attorney did as good of a job as she could have.  Sometimes being a lawyer means that you have to try to be a janitor and clean up the mess your client made.  There was really no way that LiLo’s attorney could have cleaned up this mess.  How can an attorney be expected to explain away LiLo’s complete lack of respect for the system and the Judge? She simply cannot.  The violations were obvious and clear, LiLo messed up and now has to pay the consequences.

Lohan will surrender on July 20th at Judge Revel’s court and until then she must keep on her SCRAM bracelet.  I have no sympathies for her and she gets what she deserves.  Two words Lilo – GROW UP

I am one who has never had good nails.  They just simply are not strong and pretty on their own.  So, for years and years I have had my nails done.  I started with the yucky acrylic then graduated to gel nails.  I loved gel nails!  However, after I had my son I noticed my nails were much harder to maintain and I hated it when one broke.  Plus, my favorite nail tech and friend, Claudia, lives at least 35 minutes away so the trips to visit with her while she made me pretty again were often 2.5 – 3 hour trips.  If I was single with no kids this would not be a problem, but its hard when you are in demand! 

So, after 13 years I stopped getting my gel nails and went au naturale.  Just prior to my trip to Miami I went and had a simple manicure and pedicure.  Wow! I loved it! But, with me constantly washing my hands after diaper changes, feeding Mr. Rhett, doing the dishes etc. the manicure wouldn’t last long. 

Last time I went in I noticed a sign for Shellac.  Apparently this is a product put out by Creative Nails.  It isn’t supposed to chip, peel, crack etc. for a very very long time.  There is a base coat, the special polish and the top coat – all cooked under the UV light.  The cost is a bit more than a manicure but if it works like it says it does then it may just be worth it.  You can find more information about it at www.cnd.com.

The drawbacks are that there are only a few colors available (a red, orange, pink, light pink from what I can remember) and they are 15.95 per bottle.  The manicure and polish takes around 1 hour.

The pros are that its supposed to last!  I have attached a picture here to show you what my nails look like as of today, Wednesday – which is day 3.  So far so good! Looks like they were just done.  I will keep you updated ladies!