Courts & Law

Nevada Secretary of State sues Americans For Prosperity to disclose its donors

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is something Arizona's Secretary of State should be doing, but he is unlikely to do so because The state of Maricopa appears to be the hub of the wingnut operations of the Koch brothers. Arizona Tea-Publicans depend upon the network of billionaire bastard Koch brothers funded organizations, i.e. the "Kochtopus."

Kochtopus

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller filed a civil complaint on Friday alleging
Americans for Prosperity violated Nevada’s campaign finance laws in a
case that could force the national conservative organization to reveal
its donors for the first time. Secretary of state goes to court to force AFP to reveal donors:

The complaint, filed in Carson City District Court, alleges AFP
engaged in “express advocacy” in an attempt to influence the Democratic
primary election in Senate District 4 earlier this year.

Americans for Prosperity sent several campaign mailers to voters in
the district criticizing Democrat Kelvin Atkinson, who ultimately won
both the primary and general election.

Bradley Manning and Julian Assange: Free speech warriors or terrorists?

by

by Pamela Powers Hannley Yesterday and today, Private Bradley Manning testified in his own defense in a military court. Manning has been imprisoned for 921 days without a trial because he allegedly sent secret US documents to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published thousands of pages of previously classified material. Are Assange and Manning free speech warriors who wanted … Read more

U.S. Supreme Court allows challenge to Affordable Care Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed
an appeal by Liberty University to go forward with new challenges to two key
sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and
employer mandates to have insurance coverage. Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSbog,
Way cleared for health care challenge (UPDATED):

The Court did so by returning the case of Liberty University v. Geithner
(docket 11-438) to the Fourth Circuit Court to consider those
challenges.  The Court last Term had simply denied review of Liberty
University’s appeal, but on Monday wiped out that order and agreed to
send the case back to the appeals court in Richmond for further review.

* * *

The Court’s decision last Term on the new health care law upheld,
under Congress’s power to tax, the requirement that virtually all
Americans have health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty.   That is the
individual mandate.  The law also contains a somewhat similar mandate,
requiring all employers with more than fifty employees to provide them
with adequate insurance coverage.  The Court had declined to rule on
that issue last Term.

U.S. Supreme Court considers appeals of DOMA and Caifornia’s Prop. 8

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to wade into historic and controversial territory. The Court is considering 10 petitions for review today regarding same-sex marriage, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The orders granting or denying certiorari are likely to be announced on Monday.

Tim Goldstein at SCOTUSblog has posted this wonderfully written commentary. History:

At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions
raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage. 
These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever
considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore
and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of
the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to
recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that
five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of
the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social
institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment.  The
plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an
irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law.  On the other hand,
that describes some moral judgments.  The Constitution does not forbid
every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some
grave ones) themselves, legislatively.