Showing posts with label Supreme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme. Show all posts
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
America: Lawlessness Reigns Supreme in a Land Founded on the Rule of Law
At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
- Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.
- Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.
- Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
America: Lawlessness Reigns Supreme in a Land Founded on the Rule of Law
Friday, March 21, 2014
Arizona Supreme Court allows school choice program to stand
Arizona Supreme Court allows school choice program to stand
http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/09/JonathanButcher.jpg
By Mary Tillotson | Watchdog.org
Arizona’s highest court has effectively ruled in favor of the state’s innovative education savings account program, allowing hundreds of students access to a flexible, tailored education.
“This is really exciting news for families in Arizona,” said Jonathan Butcher, education director for the Goldwater Institute, which had intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of Arizona families.
Last fall, the state’s appeals court ruled in favor of the program, distinguishing it from a voucher program that was ruled unconstitutional in 2009. Opponents of the ESA program appealed, and the Supreme Court on Friday denied the appeal, allowing the lower court’s decision — and the program — to stand.
“What’s tremendous is that the appeals ruling was so strong,” Butcher said. “The language in there really confirmed everything that we said about education savings accounts from the beginning. We’ve made the case that they are distinct from vouchers and the provision in the law makes them unique, and parents are not compelled to spend their money on any one thing.”
When the state Supreme Court struck down the voucher program in 2009, it found legal footing in the state’s Blaine Amendment, which prohibits public funds from aiding private schools, whether or not they’re faith-based. Families using vouchers were required to spend voucher money on private schools.
Families using ESAs receive a limited-use debit card and permission to spend that money on private school tuition, textbooks, tutoring, education therapy and other educational expenses. The money rolls over year to year and can be saved for college.
When the appeals court upheld the ESA program, it noted that parents don’t have to spend the money on private school tuition — and therefore, the program doesn’t violate the state’s constitution.
“The specified object of the ESA is the beneficiary families, not private or sectarian schools,” the appeals court’s opinion stated. “Depending on how the parents choose to educate their children, this may or may not include paying tuition at a private school.”
Butcher said he hopes other states will take the court’s decision as a cue to enact their own ESA programs.
“The life cycle of school choice programs is almost predictable,” he said. “It gets passed in the law, the union sues, the court decides, and if they decide favorably, other states start doing it.”
About 700 students are currently using Arizona’s ESA program, and state lawmakers are considering several bills that would expand the program to allow more students to participate. Currently, students with special needs, children adopted from the state foster system, children assigned to failing schools and children of active-duty military families are eligible.
Several states have considered enacting ESA programs, but so far none has passed.
- Arizona mom won’t give up on special needs kids, no matter what state says
- Reviving a 1970s lawsuit, DOJ would keep black students in failing schools
- Relocating sexually abusive teachers would be more difficult under Pennsylvania bill
- DOJ backpedals on Louisiana voucher lawsuit
- Court says charter schools won’t pay for Atlanta’s pension debts
- Biggest education impact from shutdown? Furloughed bureaucrats
- Appeals court upholds Arizona school choice program
- Indiana’s voucher program expands; diversity a factor in one family’s choice of school
- ‘Vouchers don’t do much good for students’ claim is false
- NYC mayor’s race could affect school choice
- Vermont public school goes independent, raises ire from state bureaucracy
- Arizona education savings accounts aren’t vouchers, study says
- Legal institute fights Alabama union’s attempt to repeal school tax credit
- Experts: School choice improves education in public schools
- SC school-choice program helps special needs kids, could expand
- DOJ wants Louisiana parents out of voucher lawsuit
- U.S. House passes bill to prevent ‘passing the trash’
- ‘Non-traditional’ journalists barred from viewing tax-funded test results early
- New center hopes to help charter schools help kids with special needs
- Charter school advocate to Philadelphia schools: Listen to parents
- $ 45 million not enough for Philadelphia teachers’ union
- Study: Rhode Islanders support school choice
- Study: Choice would help failing Chicago schools
- Scholarships could lift SC school dedicated to real-life, hands-on learning
- Parents make good school choices, study says
- Divisive charter school reform bill headed toward vote in PA
- In Louisiana school voucher lawsuit, DOJ changes gears
- Opponents sue Washington to overturn charter school law
- School choice proponents’ challenge? Educating parents
- Judge: Federal oversight may not hamper school voucher program
- PA lawmakers push to amend tight teacher furlough policies
- College ready: A Milwaukee inner-city school success story
- Proposed economic furloughs could slay sacred cow of seniority in Pennsylvania schools
- What is Massachusetts doing right?
- Goldwater to appeal Louisiana school voucher decision
- Want to end poverty? Educate the kids
- Breakdown in Philly schools not only about the money
- North Carolina scholarship program on firm legal footing, attorney argues
- Philadelphia school district threatens charters
- Belief in student ability key to success at Milwaukee charter school
- Three things to know about Philadelphia’s school budget: Debt, pensions and safety
- Choosing to sue: Here’s a look at some 2013 lawsuits involving school choice
- Philly charter schools outperform district counterparts
- California students sue state over ineffective teachers
- Study: Public supports parent choice in education
- Under new management, Philly Renaissance Schools show growth
- New Orleans tops school choice index
- AZ to consider four school-choice expansion bills
- Florida family ‘blessed’ to be apart of scholarship program
- PA lawmakers put education at top of agenda in election year
- Louisiana: Feds ‘more interested in skin color than … education’
- Charter school for Philadelphia foster children will not be renewed
- Governor ties proposed PA education funding to targeted grants
- Vermont attempts to take independence from independent schools
- WA’s first charter school serves children, families of ‘extreme poverty’
- Philly stumbles on way to simplifying enrollment system
- Plan for Philly schools keeps charters in check
- Missouri ballot initiative would increase funding for public, private schools
- New York charter school focuses on family, community
- NC school vouchers on hold
- WI voucher bill would help special needs students denied open enrollment
- Philadelphia schools will end another year in red
- PA universities expect state, students to pick up tab on rising tuition
- Two ESA bills get House support in AZ
- Thousands rally to support New York charter schools
- California’s defense begins in Vergara trial
- Accountability or overregulation? Charter supporters split over Minnesota bill
- PA considers empowering universities to authorize charter schools
- Bill would make Florida students eligible for scholarships
- To test or not to test? Florida school choice proponents split
- Philly school district broke, but the pay is good
- Philadelphia charter school sues public school district
- Colorado Supreme Court to hear school voucher case
- Vermont to reconsider education funding formula
- Arizona Supreme Court allows school choice program to stand
Please, feel free to “steal our stuff”! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more
Read more about Arizona Supreme Court allows school choice program to stand and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The Supreme Court Has Just Given The Police Another Way To Search Your House Without A Warrant
The Supreme Court handed down a decision that effectively grants law enforcement and investigative agencies the power to search your home without a warrant.
The Supreme Court Has Just Given The Police Another Way To Search Your House Without A Warrant
Friday, February 28, 2014
RARE VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS FROM SMUGGLED CAMS SURFACES...
At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
- Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.
- Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.
- Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
RARE VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS FROM SMUGGLED CAMS SURFACES...
Jeffrey Toobin - Supreme Court Afraid of The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart - CNN - 2-24-14
Jeffrey Toobin - Supreme Court Afraid of The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart - CNN - 2-24-14
http://img.youtube.com/vi/cOnkHaqjkfY/0.jpg
Read more about Jeffrey Toobin - Supreme Court Afraid of The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart - CNN - 2-24-14 and other interesting subjects concerning Top News Videos at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Monday, February 24, 2014
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Second Amendment Cases
Cases concern the right to carry concealed handguns outside the home
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 24, 2014
Three cases involving Second Amendment issues were turned away from the Supreme Court on Monday. The cases concerned the right of Americans to carry firearms outside their homes for self-defense.
The Court did not comment on petitions for certiorari for NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, NRA v. McCraw and Lane v. Holder.
Constitution Daily reports the cases were considered on Friday in private conference.
A fourth case, however, may ultimately be considered by the Court and settle the matter. Drake v. Jerejian addresses gun control in New Jersey. The case argues that the Second Amendment permits a resident of the state to carry a firearm outside the home without providing justification to the state. A number of amici curiae briefs were filed with the Court on February 12.
The Court is set to respond by March 14, according to the SCOTUSBlog.
The Court has not ruled on the Second Amendment since 2010 when it issued a decision on McDonald v. City of Chicago. The case added to the 2008 Heller decision. Heller held in a 5-4 decision the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense. It struck down a DC law outlawing the possession of handguns in the home.
The decision follows a ruling issued last week by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a prohibition on carrying concealed handguns. The Court ruled that carrying a handgun “outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”
Rulings on carrying firearms outside of the home have been mixed. The 7th Circuit concurred with the 9th Circuit that carrying a gun in public is covered under the Second Amendment. Other courts, however, including the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Circuits, have issued less definitive opinions.
Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit struck down a California law restricting the carrying of a concealed weapon in the state. A majority ruled that restriction on carrying firearms in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and San Francisco violate the Second Amendment.
This article was posted: Monday, February 24, 2014 at 10:48 am
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Second Amendment Cases
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Harris v. Quinn: A Mother Petitions the Supreme Court in Fight Against Parasitic Unions
I have tried to steer clear of inflaming names like “parasite” when speaking about public unions. In this case, no other word comes close to describing the setup.
Making Millions Off the Disabled
One brave mother, Pam Harris, has resisted forced unionization of herself (as a sole home-caretaker, in her own home, for her disabled son Josh). She resisted all the way to the Supreme Court.
An email from Diana Rickert at Illinois Policy Institute describes the setup. You can also find her article on the Chicago Tribune.
With immense disgust, I present Making Millions Off the Disabled
Josh, the youngest child in the Harris family, was born with a rare genetic disorder. He lives with severe physical, cognitive and emotional struggles. This means the day-to-day tasks most of us take for granted — waking up, splashing water on his face, eating — require a lot of help.But Josh is blessed to have a family that loves him. They always have been there for him.
In fact, his mother, Pam, has stayed home full time to take care of Josh for the past 25 years. Josh is her primary focus. Not her career. Not vacations. Not social outings with other moms. The truth is, Pam is doing what any mom would do: fighting to give her son the very best care she can.
Josh’s care is expensive. The Harris family is fortunate enough to receive a modest Medicaid benefit administered by Illinois state government. Josh is eligible to receive up to $ 2,130 per month, or roughly $ 25,000 a year.
But here is where the Harris family’s story takes a disgusting turn.
Henry Bayer wants some of Josh’s money. In fact, he feels entitled to it.
Who is Henry Bayer?
Bayer is the executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, one of the state’s largest government unions.
Bayer’s salary — approximately $ 145,000 in 2012, according to public records — is paid for by union dues from government workers. Compulsory union dues, from government workers who must pay money to Bayer and his union whether they want to or not.
Illinois politicians have a dangerously cozy relationship with government unions. In 2009, these close ties paid off: Gov. Pat Quinn issued an executive order to unionize the people in Josh’s program.
Imagine having to pay union dues to collect food stamps or unemployment. That’s what the executive order meant for Josh. For him to continue receiving his Medicaid support and his mother to be his primary caretaker, the Harris family would be forced to give part of their benefit check to either the AFSCME or another union, the Service Employees International Union.
The Harris family wouldn’t stand for it. They alerted other families in the program, and when it came time to vote on which union would represent them, the vote was clear: 220 votes for AFSCME, 293 votes for SEIU, and 1,018 votes with an emphatic “no union!”
Pam Harris and others took their fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oral arguments in Josh’s case were heard Jan. 21, and a decision is expected this summer. Josh’s story has garnered national attention.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court hearing, here is what AFSCME’s Bayer had to say in response to a Chicago Tribune editorial in favor of Pam Harris: If you don’t want to pay union dues, you shouldn’t be eligible for state aid.
A few years before the executive order to unionize the program that the Harris family participates in, Quinn’s predecessor, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, unionized another, similar program for the disabled. The unions didn’t even bother taking a vote that time; they conducted a questionable card-check operation to claim a slim majority of people in this program wanted to pay dues to SEIU.
According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, since 2009 the SEIU has siphoned more than $ 52 million in union dues from the families in this program.
Pam Harris Video
Here is an interesting video by Pam Harris.
Forced Association
The Illinois Policy Institute was overly polite.
Pam Harris and others are forced against their will to join unions. Those unions do absolutely nothing for Harris except suck like giant parasites, money that should go to the disabled.
It would be fitting if the Supreme Court ruled the SEIU and AFSCME parasites not only have to stop the practice, but also have to pay back the $ 52 million they stole, plus interest.
These disgusting, parasitic practices occur in many other states as well.
Freedom of Association
I am all in favor of freedom of association. People who want to join the Boy Scouts can. People who want to join the NRA can. People who want to form any kind of work union can. I am happy to let those unions exist.
However, the reverse should be true as well. No one should be forced into an association (or forced into dealing with associations) if they don’t want to.
Imagine the outrage if liberals were forced to join the NRA to get jobs as teachers!
Yet, somehow it’s OK if conservatives have to join the SEIU to take certain jobs. In the case of Harris and other caretakers, the jobs don’t even exist, except for the parasitic collection of union dues!
Forced membership into organizations is nothing more than a form of slavery. And “collective bargaining” is a euphemism for the slavery of forced membership.
Yes, it is indeed that simple, no matter how nice the union slave-masters try to make it sound.
I propose, and hope, that the Supreme Court issues a broad ruling on the matter, ending the slavery of forced collective bargaining once and for all.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis
Harris v. Quinn: A Mother Petitions the Supreme Court in Fight Against Parasitic Unions
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
US supreme court justices appear skeptical of abortion clinic buffer zones
Dan Roberts
theguardian.com
January 15, 2014
US supreme court justices appear sceptical of abortion clinic buffer zones
Court’s conservatives may be ready to strike down Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone law on free speech grounds
The battle lines of America’s culture wars threatened to draw closer on Wednesday, as the supreme court questioned the constitutionality of buffer zones designed to keep pro-life activists away from abortion clinics.
Though a final decision will not be reached for several months, a narrow majority of justices on the court, which is dominated by a conservative bloc, appeared sympathetic to free speech arguments against at least parts of the Massachusetts law.
“The government doesn’t get to decide what is said on the public pavement,” said Mark Rienzi, the lawyer representing the pro-life activists who brought the case.
This article was posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 2:51 pm
US supreme court justices appear skeptical of abortion clinic buffer zones
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Supreme Court issues emergency stay halting birth control mandate for Catholic groups
By Scott Kaufman
Tuesday, December 31, 2013 22:26 EST
According to the Associated Press, a Supreme Court justice has issued an emergency stay to halt the birth control mandate for Catholic organizations.
Catholic organizations had petitioned the Supreme Court to stop those elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would have forced them to provide health insurance that included birth control coverage.
The organizations asked the Court to issue the stay until they had a chance to make their argument before the Court. The full court has already agreed to hear constitutional challenges of the birth-control mandate, which will occur at a later time. According to SCOTUSBlog, those cases have not yet been scheduled for oral argument.
These organizations claim that the ACA infringes on their freedom to practice their religion because the law requires they provide the use of contraceptives, which the Church forbids.
The portions of the ACA to which these Catholic organizations objected would have gone into effect on Wednesday, January 1, 2014.
["Supreme Court" via Wikimedia Commons]
Scott Kaufman
Scott Eric Kaufman is the proprietor of the AV Club’s Internet Film School and, in addition to Raw Story, also writes for Lawyers, Guns & Money. He earned a Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of California, Irvine in 2008.
Supreme Court issues emergency stay halting birth control mandate for Catholic groups
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Utah to Ask Supreme Court to Block Gay Marriage Order
Utah is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to block a ruling by a federal judge in Salt Lake City that declared the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the Utah attorney general’s office said.
The Utah Attorney General’s office said it’s coordinating with outside lawyers to file the appeal, following Utah’s failure on Dec. 24 to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver to grant an emergency request to block the Dec. 20 ruling by District Judge Robert Shelby.
“The filing of the appeal may be delayed for a few days,” according to a statement on the office website. “It is the intent of the Attorney General’s Office to file with the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”
Seventeen other states and the District of Columbia have now legalized gay marriage. New Mexico, the only state without a law specifically allowing or prohibiting gay marriage, was barred by its highest court on Dec. 19 from denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
“Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Shelby wrote in his Dec. 20 opinion. The judge, 43, was appointed in 2011 by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and was confirmed last year.
Neither Ryan Bruckman, a spokesman for the Utah attorney general’s office, nor John Mejia, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Utah, immediately responded to phone calls seeking comment on today’s filing.
© Copyright 2013 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
Utah to Ask Supreme Court to Block Gay Marriage Order
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Supreme Court will hear Obamacare contraception challenges
Now he’ll decide if your employer can deny your birth control.
The Supreme Court has decided to take up a challenge to the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act. At stake in the case is the further definition of the rights of a corporation as a person, specifically, could it claim a religious conscience that could be “substantially burdened by government action” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
One of the cases was filed by arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores. Both are owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their children, who are evangelical Christians. The administration of President Barack Obama sought the high court’s review in that case after losing before a federal appeals court.The other case was brought by a Mennonite family that owns a company in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties. The company, which lost in federal appeals court, is owned and operated by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons. [...]
The cases are not a direct challenge to the mandate itself. The question is whether closely held companies owned by individuals who object to the provision on religious grounds can be exempted from the requirement.
Now that the Supreme Court has determined that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, it will determine if corporations also have religious consciences, and can impose those beliefs on employees’ health care options. Citizens United was the cornerstone to the decision in favor of Hobby Lobby by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The Court said it had applied “the First Amendment logic of Citizens United” in ruling for the corporation.
9:46 AM PT: The White House issued this statement (excerpt):
The health care law puts women and families in control of their health care by covering vital preventive care, like cancer screenings and birth control, free of charge. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider a legal challenge to the health care law’s requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in insurance available to their employees. We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.
Supreme Court will hear Obamacare contraception challenges
UPDATE 1-U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare contraception cases
UPDATE 1-U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare contraception cases
http://currenteconomictrendsandnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/28790__p-89EKCgBk8MZdE.gif
(Adds details of the cases)
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON Nov 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider religious objections made by corporations to a provision of Obamacare requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
Oral arguments will likely be scheduled for March, with a ruling due by June.
The so-called contraception mandate of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that include preventive services for women that include access to contraception and sterilization.
The key question before the court in the two cases it agreed to hear is whether corporations should be treated the same as individuals when making free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
One of the cases was filed by arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores. Both are owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their children, who are evangelical Christians. The administration of President Barack Obama sought the high court’s review in that case after losing before a federal appeals court.
The other case was brought by a Mennonite family that owns a company in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties. The company, which lost in federal appeals court, is owned and operated by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons.
The court took no action on a third case filed by Michigan companies Autocam Corp and Autocam Medical LLC.
The cases are not a direct challenge to the mandate itself. The question is whether closely held companies owned by individuals who object to the provision on religious grounds can be exempted from the requirement.
The legal questions surrounding U.S. Health and Human Services regulations issued under the preventive health provisions of the Obamacare law have not previously been before the court. In June 2012, the justices upheld the constitutionality of the law’s core feature that requires people to get health insurance on a 5-4 vote.
The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-354, 13-356. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Vicki Allen)
Read more about UPDATE 1-U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare contraception cases and other interesting subjects concerning Real Estate at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute
Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.
Business Headlines
Business Headlines
Read more about Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute and other interesting subjects concerning Economy at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Supreme Court Will Take Up New Health Law Dispute
Lawrence Hurley
Reuters
November 26, 2013
All new!
The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider religious objections made by corporations to a provision of Obamacare requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
Oral arguments will likely be scheduled for March, with a ruling due by June.
The so-called contraception mandate of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that include preventive services for women that include access to contraception and sterilization.
The key question before the court in the two cases it agreed to hear is whether corporations should be treated the same as individuals when making free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
This article was posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 11:44 am
Tags: healthcare
Supreme Court Will Take Up New Health Law Dispute
Supreme Court Will Take Up New Health Law Dispute
Supreme Court Will Take Up New Health Law Dispute
http://isbigbrotherwatchingyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/6aa40__internet_secrecy__112013newobamacarepills.jpg
Lawrence Hurley
Reuters
November 26, 2013
All new!
The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider religious objections made by corporations to a provision of Obamacare requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
Oral arguments will likely be scheduled for March, with a ruling due by June.
The so-called contraception mandate of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that include preventive services for women that include access to contraception and sterilization.
The key question before the court in the two cases it agreed to hear is whether corporations should be treated the same as individuals when making free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
This article was posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 11:44 am
Tags: healthcare
Read more about Supreme Court Will Take Up New Health Law Dispute and other interesting subjects concerning Internet Spying and Secrecy at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Monday, November 18, 2013
Supreme Court blocks challenge to NSA phone tracking
Supreme Court blocks challenge to NSA phone tracking
http://thedailynewsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/d9650__supreme-court-nsa-spying.si.jpg
Reuters / Jonathan Ernst
The Supreme Court announced Monday morning that it would not be considering at this time a complaint filed months earlier that challenged the legality of the National Security Agency’s dragnet telephone surveillance program.
Editor’s note: while the Supreme Court turned down EPIC’s case, two other cases challenging NSA surveillance are moving forward in U.S. district courts.
The high court issued a notice early Monday without comment acknowledging that it would not be weighing in on a matter introduced this past June by a privacy watchdog group after NSA leaker Edward Snowden revealed evidence showing that the United States intelligence agency was collecting metadata pertaining to the phone calls of millions of American customers of the telecommunications company Verizon on a regular basis.
That disclosure — the first of many NSA documents leaked by Mr. Snowden — prompted the Washington, DC-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, to ask the Supreme Court to consider taking action that would end the collection of phone records on a major scale.
When EPIC filed their petition in June, they wrote, “We believe that the NSA’s collection of domestic communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended.”
“We ask the NSA to immediately suspend collection of solely domestic communications pending the competition of a public rulemaking as required by law. We intend to renew our request each week until we receive your response,” EPIC said.
Five months later, though, the Supreme Court said this week that it would not be hearing EPIC’s plea. A document began circulating early Monday in which the high court listed the petition filed by the privacy advocates as denied.
With other cases still pending, however, alternative routes may eventually lead to reform of the NSA’s habits on some level. Lower courts are still in the midst of deciding what action they will take with regards to similar lawsuits filed by other groups in response to the Snowden leaks and the revelations they made possible. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and conservative legal activist Larry Klayman have filed separate civil lawsuits in various US District Courts challenging the NSA’s program, all of which are still pending.
Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the EFF, told the Washington Post only weeks after the first Snowden leak appeared that the disclosures had been a “tremendous boon” to other matters being litigated, and pointed to no fewer than five previously-filed complaints challenging various government-led surveillance programs.
“Now that this secret surveillance program has been disclosed, and now that Congressional leaders and legal scholars agree it is unlawful, we have a chance for the Supreme Court to weigh in,” EPIC lead counsel Alan Butler told The Verge on Monday.
Source: RT
End the Lie – Independent News
Read more about Supreme Court blocks challenge to NSA phone tracking and other interesting subjects concerning The Edge at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Supreme Court blocks challenge to NSA phone tracking
RT
November 18, 2013
The Supreme Court announced Monday morning that it would not be considering at this time a complaint filed months earlier that challenged the legality of the National Security Agency’s dragnet telephone surveillance program.
Gavels have been used by courts since perhaps the middle ages.
Credit: Jonathunder via Wikimedia
The high court issued a notice early Monday without comment acknowledging that it would not be weighing in on a matter introduced this past June by a privacy watchdog group after NSA leaker Edward Snowden revealed evidence showing that the United States intelligence agency was collecting metadata pertaining to the phone calls of millions of American customers of the telecommunications company Verizon on a regular basis.
That disclosure — the first of many NSA documents leaked by Mr. Snowden — prompted the Washington, DC-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, to ask the Supreme Court to consider taking action that would end the collection of phone records on a major scale.
When EPIC filed their petition in June, they wrote, “We believe that the NSA’s collection of domestic communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended.”
“We ask the NSA to immediately suspend collection of solely domestic communications pending the competition of a public rulemaking as required by law. We intend to renew our request each week until we receive your response,” EPIC said.
Five months later, though, the Supreme Court said this week that it would not be hearing EPIC’s plea. A document began circulating early Monday in which the high court listed the petition filed by the privacy advocates as denied.
With other cases still pending, however, alternative routes may eventually lead to reform of the NSA’s habits on some level. Lower courts are still in the midst of deciding what action they will take with regards to similar lawsuits filed by other groups in response to the Snowden leaks and the revelations they made possible. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and conservative legal activist Larry Klayman have filed separate civil lawsuits in various US District Courts challenging the NSA’s program, all of which are still pending.
Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the EFF, told the Washington Post only weeks after the first Snowden leak appeared that the disclosures had been a “tremendous boon” to other matters being litigated, and pointed to no fewer than five previously-filed complaints challenging various government-led surveillance programs.
“Now that this secret surveillance program has been disclosed, and now that Congressional leaders and legal scholars agree it is unlawful, we have a chance for the Supreme Court to weigh in,” EPIC lead counsel Alan Butler told The Verge on Monday.
This article was posted: Monday, November 18, 2013 at 11:42 am
Tags: big brother, constitution, domestic news, domestic spying
Supreme Court blocks challenge to NSA phone tracking
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)