|
|
|
Appeals panel sides with CBS over Super Bowl fine
Headline News |
2011/11/03 09:12
|
In the latest court battle over the steamy 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that CBS should not be fined $550,000 for Janet Jackson's infamous wardrobe malfunction.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held its ground even after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a review in light of the high court's ruling in a related Fox television case. In that case, it said the Federal Communications Commission could threaten fines over the use of even a single curse word uttered on live TV.
But Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell said the Fox case only fortifies our opinion that the FCC was wrong to fine CBS over the halftime show.
The three-judge panel reviewed three decades of FCC rulings and concluded the agency was changing its policy, without warning, by fining CBS for fleeting nudity.
An agency may not apply a policy to penalize conduct that occurred before the policy was announced, Rendell wrote.
CBS argues that the FCC had previously applied the same decency standards to words and images — and excused fleeting instances of both.
Rendell said that long-standing policy appeared to change without notice in March 2004 — a month after the act at the Super Bowl, held in Houston. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scandal-plagued former Bell official sues city
Headline News |
2011/11/01 10:07
|
Public outrage — and changed locks — forced Robert Rizzo out of a job last year, but the former city manager says he's still owed his $1.5 million salary and benefits.
In a lawsuit against the city of Bell filed Monday, Rizzo claims he's owed his wages — with interest — because he hasn't been convicted of a felony and hasn't resigned his post.
According to prosecutors, Rizzo orchestrated a scheme to bilk the Los Angeles suburb out of more than $6 million by paying himself and other Bell city officials' exorbitant salaries. They face charges of fraud and misappropriation of public funds.
Rizzo has pleaded not guilty.
In the lawsuit he filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Rizzo said he hasn't been paid since a public meeting in July 2010, when the small, blue-collar community of Bell learned of his outsized salary and benefits.
Protesters were outraged by compensation of $100,000 to City Council members that met once a month, but it was Rizzo's $787,637 salary, along with numerous perks that amounted to nearly $1.5 million a year, that made him the poster-child for corruption in government for furious Bell residents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SF court to hear appeal by Tucson rampage suspect
Headline News |
2011/11/01 10:07
|
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday on requests from attorneys for the Tucson, Ariz., shooting rampage suspect to halt their mentally ill client's forced medication with psychotropic drugs and rescind his stay at a Missouri prison facility.
Jared Lee Loughner's lawyers have asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to end their client's commitment at the prison in Springfield, Mo., where mental health experts are trying to make him psychologically fit to stand trial.
Loughner has been treated for his mental illness in Missouri after U.S. District Judge Larry Burns in May declared him mentally unfit to stand trial.
However, Burns ruled in late September that it's probable the 23-year-old can be made fit for trial, and ordered that Loughner's four-month stay in Missouri be extended by another four months.
Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges stemming from the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson that killed six people and injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others.
Prosecutors asked the appeals court to reject the requests by Loughner's lawyers, saying Burns made the correct decision in extending Loughner's stay in Missouri.
Defense attorneys argued Loughner's forced medication to treat bipolar disorder has violated his rights and that there's no evidence he can be made mentally fit for trial in the next four months. They said even if Loughner can be made fit, his right to a fair trial could be violated because of the possible sedative effect of the drugs he's being forced to take. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court avoids dispute over highway crosses
Headline News |
2011/10/31 08:48
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.
The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.
Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.
The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama immigration fight recalls civil rights era
Headline News |
2011/10/31 08:48
|
The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.
No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.
And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.
With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOP candidates would cut federal judges' power
Headline News |
2011/10/24 10:14
|
Most of the Republican presidential candidates want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues.
Any one of those proposals would significantly undercut the independence and authority of federal judges. Many of the ideas have been advanced before in campaigns to court conservative voters.
This time, though, six of the eight GOP candidates are backing some or all of those limits on judges, even though judges appointed by Republican presidents hold a majority on the Supreme Court and throughout the federal system.
A group that works for judicial independence says the proposals would make judges accountable to politicians, not the Constitution.
Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, said, Debates like these could threaten to lead to a new cycle of attempts to politicize the courts.
Only the former governors in the race, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Jon Huntsman of Utah, have not attacked federal judges in their campaigns.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been the most outspoken critic of the courts. He would summon judges before Congress to explain their decisions and consider impeaching judges over their rulings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
