The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not known for being shy about defending
its prerogatives, has put itself in a curious situation.After months of
intrigue and court silence, the justices surprised Pennsylvania's legal
community by saying they would hear public arguments on Attorney General
Kathleen Kane's legal challenge to the court's self-appointed power to
launch special prosecutions.
The case in question is a court-ordered investigation into whether
Kane's office illegally shared secret investigative material with the
Philadelphia Daily News. The result was a grand jury's recommendation
that Kane be charged with perjury and other offenses.
The justices may not ultimately agree with Kane that the courts lack the
authority to appoint prosecutors to run grand juries or investigate her
office. But, say lawyers and court watchers, the justices must at least
clean up a murky and messy process that has been dogged by questions
about legality and constitutionality.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Republicans welcome court decision in immigration lawsuit
House Speaker John Boehner says a federal judge's ruling temporarily
blocking President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration
underscores that he acted beyond his authority.
In a statement Tuesday, the Ohio Republican said the ruling by a Texas judge was no surprise, citing Obama's repeated comments about the limits of his authority. Boehner said he hoped that Senate Democrats will relent in their opposition to a Homeland Security Department spending bill that overturns Obama's actions to spare millions of immigrants from deportation.
The department's funding expires Feb. 27 and Congress has only a few legislative days to act.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said in a statement that he hoped Obama obeys the court's ruling. The Justice Department has said it would appeal.
In a statement Tuesday, the Ohio Republican said the ruling by a Texas judge was no surprise, citing Obama's repeated comments about the limits of his authority. Boehner said he hoped that Senate Democrats will relent in their opposition to a Homeland Security Department spending bill that overturns Obama's actions to spare millions of immigrants from deportation.
The department's funding expires Feb. 27 and Congress has only a few legislative days to act.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said in a statement that he hoped Obama obeys the court's ruling. The Justice Department has said it would appeal.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Court dismisses 3rd lawsuit against hen cage law
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a
decision to dismiss a lawsuit by a farmer that challenged a law banning
the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.
It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.
"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.
The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.
In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.
It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.
"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.
The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.
In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.
Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care
Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care
overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme
Court.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)