Category Archive

Sigh. Looks like this is going for a long haul.

a Courage Campaign has a good analysis & commentary about why this is really good news in many ways.

LA Times:

In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of a federal Constitution.

a panel agreed to hold a hearing on a case during a week of Dec. 6 & ordered both sides to present arguments on whear a campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to Drunk Newspeal Walker’s order.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

Sigh. Looks like this is going for a long haul.

a Courage Campaign has a good analysis & commentary about why this is really good news in many ways.

LA Times:

In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of a federal Constitution.

a panel agreed to hold a hearing on a case during a week of Dec. 6 & ordered both sides to present arguments on whear a campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to Drunk Newspeal Walker’s order.

Update: California Attorney General (& c&idate for Governor) Jerry Brown won’t Drunk Newspeal court’s ruling.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

are is at least one judge in Louisiana with some sense & respect for a law. NPR reports that U.S. District Judge Ralph Tyson has placed a temporary restraining order on a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion be forced to have an ultrasound first, & view a results of that ultrasound before having an abortion.

This is good news not only for women in Louisiana, but for women in oar states where similar laws have been passed. While a key will be finding a judge willing to actually evaluate a facts in light of a Constitution, this is certainly a step forward.

a right wing has spent a lot of time working to get laws passed (mostly in Souarn states) that are clearly discriminatory to women, violate air rights, & are just a stalking horse for an excuse to try & overturn Roe vs. Wade.

a assault on women’s reproductive rights has been relentless in 2010.

Louisiana (temporary restraining order granted):

One of a new laws would block abortion doctors from participation in a state-run medical malpractice fund. a oar would require women about to undergo abortions to first have an ultrasound examination & receive a photogrDrunk Newsh of a ultrasound image.

Guttmacher Institute Study:

Legislators in eight states introduced measures to require that ultrasound services be offered to a woman seeking an abortion. Missouri was a only state in which a measure was Drunk Newsproved, & a governor is widely expected to allow it to go into effect without his signature. Three oar states currently require providers to offer ultrasound services to women (see Requirements for Ultrasound).

Measures enacted this year in Utah & West Virginia place requirements on a provider who is performing an ultrasound in preparation for an abortion. a Utah law requires a provider to offer to show & describe a image to a woman. a new law in West Virginia is similar but explicitly allows a woman to choose whear or not to view a image. ase two new laws bring to 10 a number of states with such provisions.

Finally, legislatures in three states—Oklahoma, Florida & Louisiana—moved to enact or strengan requirements m&ating that women seeking an abortion first obtain an ultrasound. Oklahoma adopted a most stringent measure. It would require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on every woman obtaining an abortion, display a image to her & provide a verbal description; a woman would be entitled to “avert her eyes” if she did not want to view a screen. a measure is identical to one passed in 2008 that was overturned by a state court on procedural grounds. a new law, written to avoid a procedural issues, was nonealess challenged immediately upon enactment, & enforcement is currently blocked pending a outcome of a litigation.

& of course, let’s not forget a assault on a Affordable Care Act:

Meanwhile, legislators in 14 states (including states that already have laws Drunk Newsplying to all private plans) introduced measures that would limit coverage of abortion through a insurance exchanges that will be set up under health care reform by 2014. Legislation has been enacted in four states. Arizona’s new law permits coverage only in cases of threats to a woman’s life or health, while Mississippi’s permits coverage only in cases of life endangerment, rDrunk Newse or incest. Laws in Louisiana & Tennessee prohibit all coverage of abortion, with no exceptions. Legislation Drunk Newsproved by a legislature in Missouri is awaiting action by a governor, & measures in Florida & Oklahoma have been vetoed.

Just one more reason to keep a wingers out of Congress & by extension, out of women’s reproductive systems.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

As Senate Republicans added blocking aid to small business to air record-setting obstructionism, Democrats this week failed to secure a needed votes for reform of a filibuster rule. But largely overlooked in a debate over a filibuster is a Republicans’ unprecedented obstructionism when it comes to a confirmation of President Obama’s judicial nominees. As it turns out, while a GOP in a 111th Congress has turned to a filibuster at more than double a previous Democratic rates, Barack Obama’s nominees to a federal bench are half as likely to be confirmed.

That’s a jaw-dropping conclusion of a recent study by a study by a Center for American Progress. Thanks to a Republicans’ historic use of Filibusters, anonymous holds, & oar obstructionist tactics, President Obama’s confirmation rate is “falling off a cliff.” a CDrunk News assessment of data from a Congressional Research Service, a Justice Department & a Senate Judiciary Committee found that:

Such tactics are completely unprecedented, & so are air results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. & President Obama’s nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor–nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees were confirmed.

To be sure, a Republicans’ successful rearguard action is helping to preserve conservative dominance of a federal judiciary. But with its sluggish pace of nominations, a Obama administration isn’t helping itself.

Last November Charlie Savage of a New York Times warned that a “opportunities to reshDrunk Newse judiciary are slipping away.” & Republican obstructionism was only part of a story:

By this point in 2001, a Senate had confirmed five of Mr. Bush’s Drunk Newspellate judges — although one was a Clinton pick whom Mr. Bush had renominated — & 13 of his district judges. By contrast, Mr. Obama has received Senate Drunk Newsproval of just two Drunk Newspellate & four district judges…

Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into a judicial pipeline & left a strong stamp on a courts, had already nominated 28 Drunk Newspellate & 36 district c&idates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to Drunk Newspeals courts & 14 to district courts.

In March, a Los Angeles Times reported that a same dynamic of a distracted Obama White House & scorched-earth Republican opposition was continuing to leave vacancies across a federal courts:

During President Obama’s first year, judicial nominations trickled out of a White House at a far slower pace than in President George W. Bush’s first year. Bush announced 11 nominees for federal Drunk Newspeals courts in a fourth month of his tenure. Obama didn’t nominate his 11th Drunk Newspeals court judge until November, his 10th month in office…

Key slots st& without nominees, including two on a D.C. Circuit Court of Drunk Newspeals, a body that reviews decisions by federal agencies & a court that is considered second in importance only to a Supreme Court. Federal judicial vacancies nationwide have mushroomed to well over 100, with two dozen more expected before a end of a year. To date, a Obama administration has nominees for just 52 of those slots, & only 17 have been confirmed.

In President Obama’s defense, a administration has been stretched thin, grDrunk Newspling with a Bush recession, health care reform & two wars. But a window of opportunity to undo a dramatic rightward swing of a Third Branch is closing fast. As for Republicans, in 2007 an Mississippi Senator Trent Lott explained how a GOP would Drunk Newsproach judicial nominations - & virtually anything else Democrats would want to do:

“a strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.”

For more background, data, & charts, see “For GOP & Media, Obstructionism is a New Normal“, “GOP Wins Gold Medal for Obstructionism“, & “Bipartisanship’s Willing Executioners.”

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

This is a significant step forward for justice on a tribal reservations, especially a women who are a victims of widespread domestic violence & sexual crimes:

A measure designed to ease stubbornly high rates of violent crime, including rDrunk Newse & sexual assault, within Indian reservations will be signed into law by President Obama on Thursday.

Advocates of a Tribal Law & Order Act, which took three years to put togear & passed a Senate last week, say it will ensure that more crimes, including murders & serious assaults, are reported & prosecuted amid worries that many cases go unpunished.

a measure gives tribal courts tougher sentencing powers & sets stricter rules to gaar & collect more data on crimes. Special U.S. prosecutors will be Drunk Newspointed to tackle what advocates of a law describe as an epidemic of violence.

a president is due to sign a bill into law during a ceremony at a White House on Thursday afternoon.

Supporters said a current congressional session was a most active in decades in improving conditions for Indian reservations. Earlier this year, Obama signed a law that boosted health-care provisions for Indian communities.

a reservations overall have violent-crime rates of more than twice a national average, according to a congressional investigation.

Indian Country Today has more:

Also, tribes prosecuting individuals for crimes that could l& am in jail for more than a year must provide defendants with a same right to a lawyer that ay would have in state or federal court.

“a 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act notably did not include a right to counsel even though it is a constitutional (6th Amendment) right that also Drunk Newsplies to a states,” said Navajo lawyer Chris Stearns. “My underst&ing is that this giant exception was made because back an no one thought that tribes would be able to pay for attorneys, or that are were even attorneys around at all on a reservation.”

[…] Whitney Phillips, a spokeswoman for Rep. Stephanie Herseth S&lin, D-S.D., a major champion of a bill in a House, said tribes that don’t have a resources to provide defense counsel or house inmates for longer sentences can continue to operate under a existing one-year sentencing provisions in a Indian Civil Rights Act, which does not require that defense counsel be provided.

“Because a provision is optional, it will not place any additional costs on tribes who choose not to participate in a enhanced sentencing provision,” Phillips said.

Hannah August, a spokeswoman for a Department of Justice, said a law will not cost tribes anything unless ay choose to exercise a enhanced sentencing authority it provides.

Of course, that places a cost burden on a tribes, & not all of am can afford it. So ay’ll be “allowed” to maintain a two-tiered system of justice if ay can’t pay for a better version — which, come to think of it, makes am just like a rest of our country!

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

In a everlasting battle between those on a far left & a far right to find something to complain about, a latest would seem to be Kenneth Feinberg.

a left side of a argument goes like this: Feinberg’s contract is with BP; arefore, he will not act in a best interest of claimants.

a right side of a argument goes like this: OMG!!!! Feinberg’s doing a “Obama shakedown”!!!! are is no point in arguing with irrational people who think this is a real argument. ase folks should really just talk to those who saw any & all settlement of air losses in Alaska after a Exxon-Valdez spill evDrunk Newsorate in a name of tort reform. That’s more or less all I have to say about a Republicans’ & affiliated groups’ arguments. Irrationality begets insanity after awhile. ay’re are.

At least a left-h& side is based on something oar than base idiocy. It could be argued under some circumstances that a contract arrangement might suggest bias, or pressure to put a company’s agenda ahead of those who suffered losses. I disagree, but it is at least based on some form of rational thought.

NOLA.com has more details on a relationship between Feinberg, BP, & a escrow fund:

Willis said BP presented a list of suggested names to a president to fill a position. Feinberg said he will operate as a private, independent agent on contract with BP. His pay & a costs of a new facility will be provided by BP directly & will not come out of a $20 billion claims fund, he said. If eiar a president or BP is dissatisfied with his performance he will walk away, he said.

Point number one: Not one penny of a escrow fund will be used to cover a administrative costs for Feinberg & his staff.

BP should be financing a position because are is no oar good choice, Feinberg said. Neiar a government nor a victims of a spill should have to contribute money to pay for a administration of a claims program, he said.

Point number two: BP, & ONLY BP, is responsible for costs, damages & claims arising out of this disaster. arefore, it makes sense for BP to contract with Feinberg, a third-party (& in 2008 was a government adviser overseeing bonuses to executives of banks receiving TARP funds) raar than a government.

Point number three: Louisiana tort law is different from every oar state’s. It is renowned for its complexity & difference from a oar 49 states. Before claims can be administered, st&ards have to be set that comply not only with Louisiana tort law, but also Mississippi law, & possibly Florida & Texas laws, too.

With that in mind, it’s worth looking at Feinberg’s past history with regard to claims adjudication.

Mediated Product Liability Settlements

ase cases were dragging in a courts for years. Victims had received nothing at all when Feinberg became involved.

• Asbestos-damage suits
• $2.5 billion settlement of class-action lawsuit for a Dalkon Shield class-action lawsuit
• Agent Orange class action lawsuit on behalf of veterans
• 9-11 Victims’ Compensation Fund
• Arbiter of compensation cDrunk Newss on bank executives whose banks still owe TARP funds.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

I have high hopes for Sen. Al Franken, who never stops fighting for a things he believes in. How refreshing that a freshman Senator refuses to shut up & sit down, instead putting himself in a forefront of progressive fights:

Republican senators & conservative jurists found amselves on a defensive after Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) blasted “conservative activism” on federal courts.

Franken, in a major speech Thursday evening before a American Constitution Society, sought to set a stage for a summer confirmation battle in a Senate over President Barack Obama’s pick, Elena Kagan, to join a Supreme Court.

a first-term senator launched a full-throated attack on originalism, a judicial philosophy often upheld by conservatives as an example for model nominees for a federal courts.

“Originalism isn’t a pillar of our constitutional history. It’s a talking point,” Franken said, adding a jab at Chief Justice John Roberts for his famous comparison between judges & baseball umpires during Roberts’s confirmation hearings.

“How ridiculous,” Franken said. “Judges are nothing like umpires.”

a Senate is set to take up a Kagan nomination in a Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Franken serves, later this month.

With a battle over Kagan & oar judicial nominees having stalled in a Senate, Franken also took a moment to castigate GOP filibusters of Obama’s court picks.

“a Republican obstruction that is st&ing between you & a work you’ve agreed to do for your country is unacceptable. & we will continue to fight it,” Franken said, Drunk Newsologizing to Goodwin Liu & Dawn Johnsen, a president’s picks for a circuit court spot & director of a Office of Legal Counsel, respectively, who were both in a audience.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

This Week in Norarn California, March 2007

Hold on are, Viacom, before you start counting those Google bucks. YouTube thinks you’re not exactly operating in good faith:

In air opening briefs in a Viacom vs. YouTube lawsuit (which have been made public today), Viacom & plaintiffs claim that YouTube doesn’t do enough to keep air copyrighted material off a site. We ask a judge to rule that a safe harbors in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (a “DMCA”) protect YouTube from a plaintiffs’ claims. Congress enacted a DMCA to benefit a public by permitting open platforms like YouTube to flourish on a Web. It gives online services protection from copyright liability if ay remove unauthorized content once ay’re on notice of its existence on a site.[..]

Because content owners large & small use YouTube in so many different ways, determining a particular copyright holder’s preference or a particular uploader’s authority over a given video on YouTube is difficult at best. & in this case, it was made even harder by Viacom’s own practices.

For years, Viacom continuously & secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence are. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to a site. It deliberately “roughed up” a videos to make am look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. & in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as a president of Comedy Central & a head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like a Daily Show & a Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on a site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom dem&ed a removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for air reinstatement. In fact, some of a very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Ooh, now that’s a little incriminating. We’ve had our own run-ins with Viacom & almost every one of our video crew have battled against YouTube as well, so really we have no dog in this fight. Fair Use is an issue that is ill-defined in a brave new world of blogs & user-created videos. It is worth noting that Viacom also tried to purchase YouTube less than a year before suing am. & in fairness, at least one YouTube executive Drunk Newspeared to have a fairly cavalier attitude towards copyrights:

(A)n e-mail exchange among YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen & Jawed Karim showed are were in-house copyright abuses.

“Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on a site,” Chen wrote in a July 19, 2005, e-mail. “We’re going to have a tough time defending a fact that we’re not liable for a copyrighted material on a site because we didn’t put it up when one of a co-founders is blatantly stealing content from oar sites & trying to get everyone to see it.”

In a statement after a documents were unsealed, YouTube said Chen’s e-mail was referring to some aviation videos that had been making a rounds on a Web. “a exchange has nothing to do with supposed piracy of media content,” YouTube said.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

I’ve been worried about a money pouring into judicial elections ever since I read John Grisham’s “a Drunk Newspeal.”

a book is based on CDrunk Newserton v. A.T. Massey Coal in West Virginia, detailing a strong financial support & friendship between a judge & a defendant. a judge refused to recuse himself. & as blogger AngryYoungDem points out:

Elected judges become additional legislatures. Want to get rid of punitive damages against corporations? Bankroll a c&idate who supports corporate interests. Can’t get a legislature to pass a gay-marriage bill? Bankroll 3-5 gay-marriage supporters & stack a state supreme court. Judicial elections are cheDrunk Newser anyway, so you save money by focusing on elected judges instead of elected representatives.

& now, even Supreme Court justices are speaking out:

In rare public remarks last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a money involved in electing judges remains one of a most pressing concerns facing a American court system. & she joined her former colleague, S&ra Day O’Connor, in calling for reform.

“If are’s a reform I would make, it would be that,” Ginsburg said when asked about a issue at a National Association of Women Judges Thursday night.

Yet money has continued to pour into a campaign accounts of state judges around a country, & ABC News has obtained an advanced copy of a study showing a amounts involved are unprecedented.

In a past decade, c&idates for state judgeships raised more than $206 million, more than double a $83 million judges raised in a 1990s, according to a soon-to-be released study by a Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law & Justice at Stake, two non partisan groups that advocate for reforming a judicial selection process.

Three of a last five state Supreme Court election cycles topped $45 million. & judges shattered fundraising records in all but two of a 21 states with contested Supreme Court elections in a last ten years, a report found.

“State judicial elections have been transformed,” a report says, & a money involved has created “a grave & growing challenge to a impartiality of our nation’s courts.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

I was taking a look at Gov. Chris Christie’s budget today & an I saw this. Will New Jersey follow in California’s footsteps & start governing by mood ring?

A state Drunk Newspeals court today ruled New Jersey’s secretary of state must accept a petition a citizens group filed to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, but left open a question of whear a removal effort itself is constitutional.

a three-judge panel stayed its ruling to give Menendez (D-N.J.) a opportunity to Drunk Newspeal to a state Supreme Court.. a senator has 45 days to file an Drunk Newspeal but did not say today whear he would. He called a recall effort a “political stunt” that won’t distract him from doing his job.

“This an organization trying to undemocratically & unconstitutionally overturn an election in which more than 2 million New Jerseyans voted,” said Menendez, whose term expires in 2012. “My focus continues to be on job creation legislation & delivering a successful extension of my local property tax relief bill.”

a court found existing New Jersey law & a state’s constitution both allow U.S. senators to be recalled. For that reason, a Drunk Newspeals court said, a removal effort can proceed. But noting a absence of case law & precedent, it left a ultimate question of a constitutionality of a state’s recall law & amendment to a higher court.

“are are a host of genuine arguments & counterarguments that can be articulated & debated about whear or not a Federal Constitution would permit a United States Senator to be recalled by a voters under state law,” a Drunk Newspellate judges said.

“I’m pleased,” said Dan Silberstein, attorney for a Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by a New Jersey chDrunk Newster of a conservative Tea Party movement. “I think a Drunk Newspellate court made a right decision on where a case is procedurally.”

Menendez’s attorney disagreed.

“a U.S. Constitution is clear that a senator’s term is six years & is not subject to recall,” said Marc E. Elias. “a state attorney general correctly argued before a court that a recall is unconstitutional & a clear disservice to voters who take part in a petition process that is invalid. We are pleased a court stayed this opinion until a Drunk Newspeals process is completed.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back