Another Federal Court Finds Obama’s NLRB “Recess” Appointments Unconstitutional

Second Appeals Court Invalidates Obama’s NLRB Recess Appointments – Politico

A second appeals court has joined the D.C. Circuit in ruling that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, concluding that some board actions taken in the wake of those appointments were also invalid.

.

The issue has far-reaching implications for both the NLRB and other boards, including Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been a frequent target of conservatives and whose director was a recess appointment.

The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions. The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.

The 3rd Circuit case centered on decisions the NLRB made on the authority of three members including Craig Becker, who was appointed by the president on March 27, 2010, while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.

The case was brought by a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitation center whose nurses were allowed to form a union by one such NLRB decision. The facility, New Vista, contended that the board’s decision was invalid because it did not have enough members active when the decision was issued because the naming of Becker to the board was not a valid recess appointment.

The NLRB must have three members participate in a decision for it to be valid, and the court found that because Becker was not appointed during a break between sessions of Congress, he was not a valid member of the board and thus invalidated the NLRB’s orders.

The opinion, written by Judge D. Brooks Smith, said the recess clause of the Constitution should be read not just to give the president executive power, but also to preserve the “advice and consent” role of the Senate.

In his dissent, Judge Joseph. A Greenaway Jr. said the majority’s reading of the clause was needlessly narrow and ignored the Founding Fathers’ intent to give the president the ability to act when the Senate is not available to “advise and consent.”

The administration late last month petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on the issue.

The decision comes the same day that the Senate Help Subcommittee held a hearing on five nominations to the NLRB. Sen. Tom Harkin said they nominations would be moved next Wednesday.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Regime Over Benghazi Lies

.

The real price of Obamacare equals the stupidity of “gimme” voters

We are sinking as a nation, and one big reason is Americans who, as I say vote with their hands out. Call the gimme voters, or what will the government do for me voters, or low info voters, or just simply morons, whatever you prefer. As Matt explains, these people are stuck in the pit of  entitlements, and they are taking us down with them.

It’s a shame that so many Obama voter are suffering the consequences of their vote.  But, then again, being a “low information voter” is a choice.  The information was out there, freely available.  People could  have looked up the facts and known that they were in for it if the voted Democrat.  But, too many listened to the MSM, or their union boss, and now, they are paying the price-literally and figuratively.  FOX News has the latest example, the Regal Entertainment Group,

The nation’s largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to blame.

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

So, that “free” health care is going to cost these workers in two ways. First, their paychecks are going to shrink. Secondly, they are STILL obligated to buy health care. Remember that individual mandate? And, with health insurance premiums rising………….well figure out who will be hit the very hardest? Yep! The little guy. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, massive pile of dung that he is, also bares tremendous blame. I do not not know which is worse, a fool who votes out of greed without considering the consequences, or a fool who knows what is right, and screws the Constitution and America anyway.

 

 

Oh no! 41-year-old war memorial causes an outbreak of GODitis among a few hypersensitve Atheist whiners

The Freedom From Religion Foundation truly redefines the word classless

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is, once again, going after a memorial aimed at commemorating American lives lost in a combat zone. A Vietnam display in a park in Coos Bay, Ore., is the latest target of atheist activists who are committed to church-state separatism.

The memorial is comprised of a cross design, with a placard on its base. As is typically the case when a religious symbol is included in a memorial, the FFRF is claiming that the cross’ presence is unconstitutional.

I am so tired of malcontented brats like these pricks. They are nothing but bullies and bigots. I am also sick that any court would actually interpret the first amendment to side with them. The Constitution IN NO WAY constrains such a memorial on public land, the Constitution constrains Congress from recognizing a national religion or denying anyone the free exercise of their religion.

Heart Ache for the Nanny State, Bloomberg’s Soda Ban gets Banned!

Man that has to hurt!

How sweet it is — for New York City restaurants, delis, movie theaters and other establishments selling sugary beverages anyway.

A judge on Monday invalidated New York City’s plan to ban large sugary drinks, one day before the new law was to take effect.

State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was “arbitrary and capricious” and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban.

Bottom line, Tingling ruled, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city’s Board of Health did not have the authority to issue the soda ban.

At a press conference Monday evening, Bloomberg decried the judge’s ruling and vowed to appeal.

Oh yes, the great feeling that comes from seeing a power hungry control freak getting put in his place!

Yeah, it’s kinda like that!

 

Nine Current And Former Traffic Court judges Charged With Conspiracy, Fraud

Nine Current And Former Traffic Court judges Charged – Philadelphia Inquirer

Nine current or former Philadelphia Traffic Court judges were charged today with conspiracy and fraud after a three-year FBI probe into ticket-fixing in the beleaguered court.

A 77-count indictment, returned Tuesday but sealed until Thursday, said judges and their assistants routinely shredded documents, used code words and practiced “a well-understood conspiracy of silence” that turned the court into two systems: One where the average citizen paid for their infractions, while the connected saw tickets disappear, costing the Commonwealth an untold amount.

“For years, even beyond the conspiracy charged, there existed a culture of ticket fixing at Traffic Court,” the indictment said. “The ticket fixing was pervasive and frequent.”

Charged were two of the court’s three sitting judges, Michael Lowry and Michael Sullivan, as well as seven former judges: Fortunato Perri Sr., Robert Mulgrew, Willie Singletary and Thomasine Tynes, elected by Philadelphia voters.

The other three were former suburban district judges who were appointed to serve for a period of time in Philadelphia Traffic Court: Mark A. Bruno of a Chester County, H. Warren Hogeland of Bucks County, and Kenneth Miller of Delaware County.

Unlike those who were indicted Thursday, Hogeland, Miller and Perri were charged separately by informations. The process is typically used for defendants who have agreed to plead guilty.

Also indicted were Traffic Court administrator William Hird; and two local businessmen, Henry P. Alfano and Robert Moy. Alfano owned a towing service that won a no-bid contract from traffic court.

Each are scheduled to appear before a magistrate judge Thursday afternoon. U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger will hold a news conference later today.

Hird declined to comment as he left the federal building this morning, but his lawyer, Greg Pagano, told reporters: “My client is a taxpaying, hardworking citizen who goes to work every day and who is being indicted essentially for doing his job.”

Singletary, who also turned himself in, told reporters only: “My God is able.”

Traffic court has for decades been seen as a patronage mill. Judges earn at least $85,000, and must win election but none do so without the blessing of the local political parties. The court has twice before been the focus of federal probes.

The latest conspiracy and fraud charges uncorked a case that had been bubbling for at least three years, and included raids and, apparently, secret FBI wiretaps.

U.S. Attorney Zane D. Memeger said the system in Traffic Court not only deprived taxpayers of fines that should have gone to the city and state, it completely undermined public confidence in the institution.

“Those who seek to game the system by refusing to follow the rules need to be held accountable by the rule of law they swore to uphold,” Memeger said in a press release.

A preview emerged last fall, when a consultant commissioned by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, concluded there was a pervasive culture of corruption within Traffic Court.

That report, prepared by former city prosecutor William G. Chadwick, cited eight former or current judges, and described Hird as the central coordinator for ticket-fixing, or, as the judges called it “consideration.”

The indictment went farther, spelling out in detail how friends, associates and ward leaders arranged to get cases dismissed or fines dropped.

In return, the judges allegedly got more than good will. According to the indictment, Perri accepted free auto services, towing, landscaping, and even a load of shrimp and crab cakes from Alfano, whose company, Century Motors, ran a towing service.

“I see Century on it, it’s gold,” Perri once told Alfano, according to the indictment. “When you call, I move, brother, believe me.”

In February 2010, the indictment said, Alfano called on behalf of a truck driver who faced $442 in fines and court costs after being ticketed along I-95 for not clearing the snow and ice off his tractor-trailer. Twice the drive got notices that his license would be suspended.

“It will be alright, don’t worry about it,” Perri allegedly assured Alfano.

Two months later, the case landed before Sullivan. The driver didn’t even attend the hearing, and was deemed not guilty, the indictment said.

Hird and Singletary are accused of lying to FBI agents, while Mulgrew, Tynes and Lowry are charged with perjury before the Grand Jury.

“You don’t give out special favors, is that right?” a prosecutor asked Lowry before the grand jury in fall 2011, according to the indictment.

“No, I treat everybody the same,” he replied.

Singletary resigned last year in an unrelated scandal, after a court staffer accused him of showing her a picture of his genitals on his cellphone.

Mulgrew was indicted in a separate federal corruption case, charged with defrauding an neighborhood nonprofit.

The Republican floor leader of the state Senate, Dominic Pileggi of Delaware County, said the Traffic Court indictments boosted his resolve to pass legislation abolishing the court.

“They confirm my opinion that the Traffic Court is not an institution that has any reason to continue to exist,” Pileggi told reporters in a conference call. “They accelerate the urgency of enacting the reforms that I proposed.”

Since proposing the court’s abolition three weeks ago, Pileggi said, he had yet to hear from a single state lawmaker or other public official defending the court.

“I would have expected at least a handful of people who would have tried to present some defense of the status quo,” Pileggi said. “I’m pleased with that, because I think the status quo is indefensible.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Former Left-Wing Michigan Supreme Court Justice Pleads Guilty To Felony Bank Fraud

Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway Pleads Guilty To Felony Bank Fraud – Detroit Free Press

Retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway pleaded guilty to felony bank fraud today and is expected to be sentenced May 28.

Hathaway stood quietly at a podium in U.S District Court in Ann Arbor this morning, acknowledging she intentionally defrauded a federally insured financial institution with the short sale of her Grosse Pointe Park home.

According to an agreement negotiated with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, her punishment is limited to up to 18 months behind bars or could be as little as four-10 months if a pre-sentence report determines there was no actual financial loss. Hathaway also could receive a sentence of three-five years of supervised release, be fined up to $30,000 and pay restitution of up to $90,000, according to the agreement. She waived her right to appeal the case after sentencing.

“Yes, Your Honor, I agree,” Hathaway said to U.S. Eastern District Judge John Corbett O’Meara.

Hathaway’s only “no” response came when O’Meara asked her about using her position as a Michigan Supreme Court judge as part of the scheme.

“Did you use your status as a public employee in your attempt to defraud?” O’Meara asked her.

“No,” she responded.

Hathaway retired Jan. 21 amid the scandal involving the short sale.

Hathaway was charged Jan. 18 with one count of bank fraud after investigators said she moved ownership of property in Florida to relatives so she could qualify for the short sale. Hathaway allegedly told financial institution ING Direct she could no longer afford the house payments on the Michigan home.

In a civil filing in November, the U.S. Justice Department accused Hathaway and her husband, attorney Michael Kingsley, of fraudulently concealing their net worth.

The short sale in Michigan allowed the couple to erase nearly $600,000 in mortgage debt on the $1.5-million Grosse Pointe Park home on Lakeview Court, which eventually sold for $850,000. The debt-free Windermere, Fla., home then went back into their names. Hathaway’s attorney, Steve Fishman, said outside the courthouse that ING Direct is claiming they lost far less than the mortgage debt erased by the short sale.

“It’s important for people to know that now we’re down to the actual loss as calculated by ING… and they’re saying it’s between $40,000 and $90,000,” Fishman said, pointing out that Hathaway could have just walked away from the home altogether.

“I say the loss is nothing… because the bank netted probably in the vicinity of $150,000 more from the fact that there was a short sale than if it had been a foreclosure and a sheriff’s sale. And that will be part of the discussion when we come back for sentencing.”

Hathaway left the bench after announcing the decision to retire Jan. 7 after the Judicial Tenure Commission filed a complaint and sought her immediate suspension. The commission alleged she committed “blatant and brazen” misconduct violations in connection with private real estate transactions.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Likely Obama Supporter Attacks Ex-Girlfriend In Courtroom Where She Is Seeking Protection Order Against Him (Video)

Terrifying Moment Man Attacks Ex-Girlfriend Inside Courtroom As She Seeks An Order Of Protection Against Him – Daily Mail

A courtroom surveillance camera has captured the terrifying moment a man brutally assaulted his ex-girlfriend as she sought an order of protection against him.

Rashad Greene, 30, was left alone with his grandmother and 28-year-old ex-girlfriend after Magistrate Tracy Stoner briefly left the Summit County courtroom in Ohio on Friday.

They had attended the hearing after the woman applied for a restraining order against Greene, whom she said threatened and abused her, on January 16.

Calm before the storm: Rashad Greene talks with his ex and his grandmother after they are left alone

Attack: He suddenly jumps up from the chair and lunges at the woman, who tries to escape

In the footage, the magistrate leaves the room and Greene can be seen yelling and becoming increasingly agitated as his ex-girlfriend sits around the other side of the table.

He suddenly jumps to his feet and lunges towards her as she tries to run away.

When his grandmother attempts to get in between the pair, Greene just pushes her out of the way, grabs his ex-girlfriend and throws her to the floor.

As he is seen punching her, a sheriff’s deputy enters the room and subdues him with a stun gun – as the horrified magistrate watches helplessly.

Violent: He catches her and pushes her to the ground as the magistrate returns to the room

Stopped: A sheriff’s deputy uses a stun gun to subdue Greene as he beats the woman

The officer places handcuffs on Greene as the beaten woman stumbles to her feet. She needed medical attention for a head injury but was released from hospital.

Greene was arrested for domestic violence and booked into the county jail, where he is being held in lieu of $25,000 bond.

An Akron Municipal Court judge also signed a temporary protection order barring Greene from having contact with his ex-girlfriend.

The victim has now been left wondering why she was left alone with a man she was seeking protection against, the Akron-Beacon Journal reported.

…………………
Arrest: Greene was arrested for domestic violence and booked into the county jail

‘I went there, I told [the magistrate] I was in fear for my life and that I had children to take care of,’ she told the paper. ‘Once the judge walked out, I was in fear.

‘I thought he was about to kill me… I was just thinking about my life and [how] I wanted to go home with my children.’

Susan Tucker, the court’s community outreach director, said that this is the first time a victim has been attacked in the courtroom.

‘The reality is, and I think most of us in the domestic violence field know, that anything can happen at any time,’ she said. ‘And even if the magistrate had been there, if he had decided to do this, he would have done it anyway.’

She added that there are two sheriff’s deputies in the courthouse and funding is not available to have any more – yet after this incident, the court is re-examining its policies and funding.

‘We are certainly going to look at what we need to do in order to keep everyone safer,’ she said.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Florida Man Who Had Sex With Donkey Gets One Year Probation

Florida Man Who Had Sex With Donkey Gets One Year Probation – The Examiner

In Florida, what’s the punishment for having sex with a pet donkey? According to a Jan. 21 report by the Sun Sentinel, not much. Carlos Romero has been given one year probation with no jail time as well as a $200 fine after the 32-year-old was caught engaging in sexual activity with his miniature donkey named Doodle.

His neighbors probably won’t be able to see “Shrek” the same way again. After Romero abused the Democrats’ party mascot, his lawyer filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.

That legal motion, like this man’s life, will obviously not go anywhere. Even libertarian champion Ron Paul would probably argue that’s way too much individual freedom. However, twelve months of probation sheds insight into the passivity with which the state’s judicial system treats those who sexually assault helpless animals. Earlier this week, Romero was back in police custody after Florida Northern Railroad employees said he may have stolen $10,880 worth of train batteries.

Donkeys had a more productive week in South America than their Democratic counterparts attending Barack Obama’s inauguration on Monday. On Jan. 21, three robbers from Colombia had to ditch their stolen property after a noisy donkey alerted police to the early morning theft.

According to the Telegraph, the criminals had stolen rum, oil, rice, cans of tuna and sardines from a small shop in the town of Juan de Acosta. They then attempted to load the goods on the donkey who made a lot of noise and objected to the robbers’ getaway plan.

At least there’s still a few who object to a redistribution agenda. In Washington, stealing property from others gets you re-elected.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Courts Strike Down Challenges To Right To Work

Courts Strike Down Challenges To Right To Work – Washington Free Beacon

A pair of federal courts struck down union challenges to labor reforms in Indiana and Wisconsin last week, preserving major Republican gains aimed at cutting costs and attracting business.

Federal Judge Philip Simon on Thursday tossed out a lawsuit aimed at preventing Indiana from becoming the first right-to-work state in the Midwest. He rejected the union’s contention that Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels and the legislature overreached in pursuing labor reforms.

“None of the legal challenges launched by the union here to attack Indiana’s new Right to Work law can succeed,” he wrote. “The electorate can ultimately decide whether [lawmakers’] judgments are sound, wise, and constitute good governance and can express their opinions at the polls and by other means. But those are questions beyond the reach of the federal court.”

Glenn Taubman, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, was not surprised the unions failed to derail the reforms, which allow employees to opt out of forced unionization.

“Since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has upheld right-to-work laws in the face of union attacks, as RTW laws do not infringe on any union ‘rights,’” he said. “It is forced unionism and monopoly representation that infringe on individual employees’ rights.”

Judge Simon’s ruling only applies to federal challenges to the law. Unions have also sued in state court to prevent the law from going into effect. They say it violates an Indiana constitutional provision that prevents the government from denying private organizations their rightful wages.

“Indiana’s own constitution says that you can’t mandate people to act without just compensation,” said Marc Poulos, an attorney challenging the Indiana law on behalf of the Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (IIIFFC). “Right-to-work no longer allow us to collect the reasonable fees for the representation we provide all employees.”

However, supporters of the law point out that the provision refers to the government honoring its own contracts for services rather than private transactions, such as union dues. Republican state Rep. Jerry Torr, who authored the right-to-work law, said he believes it will survive all legal challenges.

“Right-to-work has passed in more than 20 states and those have all withstood the various challenges and the test of time. Eventually our law will be found to be appropriate,” he said.

Soon after the Indiana ruling, a federal appeals court in Chicago upheld Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s public sector labor reforms, which helped close Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion deficit after its passage in 2010. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the act “in its entirety,” overturning a previous federal ruling that stopped Act 10’s prohibition of automatic union deductions from employee paychecks and recertification.

The labor groups that brought the suit contended that curtailing the ability of unions to automatically collect dues from employee paychecks violated its freedom of speech. The court, however, determined that the system represented a “subsidy” to unions rather than an extension of natural rights.

“While the First Amendment prohibits ‘plac[ing] obstacles in the path’ of speech… nothing requires government to ‘assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas, including political ones,’” the decision says.

Walker welcomed the ruling, hoping it would allow the state to move past the division and at times violent upheaval caused by union members and allies.

“Today’s court ruling is a victory for Wisconsin taxpayers,” he said in a statement. “With this ruling behind us, we can now focus on the next state budget, which will invest in priorities to move our state forward.”

The ruling represented Walker’s second major victory in the fight to preserve the reforms, which took away collective bargaining for public sector employee benefits and pensions, while preserving them for salaries. Walker previously survived a recall election sponsored by the unions.

Act 10 has saved Wisconsin more than $2 billion since its June 2011 implementation.

The rulings come as unions ramp up legal challenges to Michigan’s new right-to-work law. Taubman says the courts have helped to solidify the foothold labor reformers have made in the heavily unionized Midwest.

“Because federal law is so clear, any union efforts to challenge laws that outlaw forced unionism or union bosses’ special privileges are destined to fail,” he said. “This is why the Michigan union bosses realize that any potential legal challenges they may bring to derail that state’s new RTW law are futile and a complete waste of their members’ money.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Robert Bork, Former Supreme Court Nominee, Dies

Robert Bork, Former Supreme Court Nominee, Dies – Fox News

Robert Bork, the former federal judge whose Reagan-era nomination to the Supreme Court touched off one of the roughest confirmation battles in modern U.S. history, has died.

Family members said Bork, 85, died early Wednesday morning. He had a history of heart problems and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a lung condition.

His funeral is scheduled for Saturday, and family members said there would be a memorial but did not say whether it would be open to the public.

Bork was among the most polarizing figures in American law and conservative politics for more than four decades. When Bork was solicitor general in 1973, he fired Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor on the order of President Richard Nixon to help in the Watergate cover-up.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. In a 58-to-42 vote, the Senate rejected his nomination — it was by one of the widest margins in U.S. history.

Critics called Bork a free-speech censor and a danger to the principle of separation of church and state. Bork’s opponents used his prolific writings against him, and some called him a hypocrite when he seemed to waffle on previous strongly worded positions.

Stoic and stubborn throughout, Bork refused to withdraw when his defeat seemed assured. The fight has defined every high-profile judicial nomination since, and largely established the opposing roles of vocal and well-funded interest groups in Senate nomination fights.

Republicans have long said his defeat was a completely partisan move and have said Bork was one of the greatest conservative figures in history.

“The highest court in our land will not enjoy the services of one of the finest men every put forward for a place on its bench,” Reagan said after Bork’s defeat. “Judge Bork will be vindicated in history.”

For the most part, as solicitor general, Bork compiled a moderate – and at times even liberal – record on employment discrimination and other civil rights issues, although civil rights lawyers assailed him at his Supreme Court hearing for having opposed at that time court-ordered school desegregation by means of busing.

Bork served as solicitor general from 1973 to 1977 and was acting attorney general from 1973 to 1974.

In February 1988 Bork resigned as circuit judge and joined the American Enterprise Institute from which he resigned in November 2003. In July of that same year Bork converted to Catholicism and said he had “found the evidence of the existence of God highly persuasive.”

Most recently, Bork supported Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid and even joined Romney’s, “Justice Advisory Committee.”

Never one to hold his tongue, Bork sat down with Fox News at his home a few years ago, where he discussed everything from his childhood to his opinions on Reagan.

“Reagan had one and a half good ideas,” Bork said. “The great idea was to build up our military force and confront Communism. The half idea was to cut taxes. I say that’s only a half of an idea because he didn’t cut spending. And in fact all those revenues increased as spending went faster, and he made very little attempt to stop it.”

Bork’s grandson, Robert Bork III, recalled fond memories of his grandfather, in an interview with FoxNews.com Wednesday morning.

“Even in his old age, he was just a great person to talk to. He was open to conversation, and I looked forward to seeing him,” he said. “We were planning to see him for Christmas.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Activist Judge Blocks Louisiana’s Attempt To Offer Its Citizens School Choice

State Judge Rules Louisiana School Voucher Program Unconstitutional – Fox News

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s voucher program that uses tax dollars to send students to private schools was ruled unconstitutional Friday by a state judge who said it’s improperly funded through the public school financing formula.

Judge Tim Kelley sided with arguments presented by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

More than 4,900 students are enrolled in 117 private schools with taxpayer dollars, in one of the largest voucher programs in the nation.

The judge said the method the Jindal administration, state education leaders and lawmakers used to pay for the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions governing the annual education funding formula, called the Minimum Foundation Program or MFP.

“The MFP was set up for students attending public elementary and secondary schools and was never meant to be diverted to private educational providers,” Kelley wrote in a 39-page ruling.

Superintendent of Education John White and Jindal said the state will appeal.

Jindal called the judge’s ruling “a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education.”

“On behalf of the citizens that cast their votes for reform, the parents who want more choices, and the kids who deserve a chance, we will appeal today’s decision, and I’m confident we will prevail,” the governor said in a statement.

Bill Maurer, a lawyer representing two parents with children in the voucher program and two pro-voucher groups, said he believes the decision is “not consistent with the interpretation of the Louisiana Constitution.”

Maurer said he didn’t expect Kelley’s ruling to immediately force voucher students from their private schools, because Kelley didn’t issue an injunction against the program.

It was the second legal setback this week for the voucher program that Jindal pushed through the Legislature this year as part of a sweeping education system overhaul. On Monday, a federal judge halted the voucher program in one Louisiana parish, saying it conflicts with a decades-old desegregation case.

“The political rhetoric of ‘pro-reform’ vs. ‘anti-reform’ hopefully is over,” said Scott Richard, head of the Louisiana School Boards Association. “We’re not anti-reform. We just want the political shell game to stop with public funding for public education.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Judge Puts Hostess Liquidation On Hold, Orders Talks

Judge Puts Hostess Liquidation On Hold, Orders Talks – Fox News

The liquidation of Hostess has been put on hold after a federal judge ordered the company and union officials to come back to the table for more talks, Fox Business Network reported.

Hostess, the company behind treats snacked on for generations, presented to a federal bankruptcy judge a plan to shut down 36 plants and sell off the company’s business. Their liquidation plan was sparked by a nationwide strike orchestrated by the snack maker’s second-largest union, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that while Hostess has said the shutdown would result in the loss of more than 18,000 jobs and place the fate of more than 30 American brands in jeopardy, union President Frank Hurt said he believed there was “more than a good chance” that a buyer quickly would swoop in to buy the profitable parts of the company and give his union’s members their jobs back.

“I’m not in a position to promise anybody anything, but I’m in a position to be hopeful,” he said Sunday to the Journal.

Hurt, whose union counts 5,600 Hostess employees as members, said he was comforted by the recent frenzy over Hostess products, as consumers rushed to stock up after Friday’s announcement of the shutdown. “People are going crazy because they think they’re not going to be able to get any Twinkies or Ho Ho’s or Wonder Bread,” he also said in the interview. “They’ll be produced somewhere, some time and by our members.”

Hostess Chief Executive Gregory Rayburn had a different vision of how the bankruptcy auction process would play out.

“Nobody wants to have anything to do with these old plants or these unions or these contracts,” Rayburn said in an interview. The company had hunted for buyers for the last several years as it tried to avoid a second trip into bankruptcy, but no buyer came forward.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Ed’s Very Important Question Concerning The 2012 Presidential Election

.

Your Daley Gator Political Picture O’ The Day

.

Federal Judge Orders Taxpayer-Funded Sex Change For Wife Killer

Federal Judge Orders Taxpayer-Funded Sex Change For Wife Killer – Boston Herald

A federal judge today ordered state prison officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.

……..

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born as a man but has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.

Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide the surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his ruling today, Wolf found that surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek’s “serious medical need.”

“The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care,” Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing her to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf found that the DOC’s security concerns are “either pretextual or can be dealt with by the DOC.” He said it is up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Court: Texas Can Cut Off Planned Parenthood Funds

Court: Texas Can Cut Off Planned Parenthood Funds – CNS

Texas officials are vowing to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood after a federal court sided with the state in a challenge over a new law that bans clinics affiliated with abortion providers from getting money through a health program for low-income women.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans late Tuesday reversed a federal judge’s temporary injunction that was allowing the funding to continue pending an October trial on Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the law.

State officials are seeking to halt money to Planned Parenthood clinics that provide family planning and health services as part of the state’s Women’s Health Program because the Republican-led Texas Legislature passed a law banning funds to organizations linked to abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood provides services like cancer screenings – but not abortions – to about half of the 130,000 low-income Texas women enrolled in the program, which is designed to provide services to women who might not otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

The appeals court’s decision means Texas is now free to impose the ban.

“We appreciate the court’s ruling and will move to enforce state law banning abortion providers and affiliates from the Women’s Health Program as quickly as possible,” Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the state Health and Human Services Commission, said in a statement.

The ruling is the latest in the ongoing fight that has pitted Texas against the federal government. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that the new state rule violates federal law. Federal funds paid for 90 percent, or about $35 million, of the $40 million Women’s Health Program until the new rule went into effect. Federal officials are now phasing out support for the program.

Gov. Rick Perry has promised that Texas will make up for the loss of federal funds to keep the program going without Planned Parenthood’s involvement. In a statement, Perry called Tuesday’s ruling “a win for Texas women, our rule of law and our state’s priority to protect life.”

“Texas will continue providing important health services for women through this program in spite of the Obama Administration’s disregard for our state law and unilateral decision to defund this program,” he said.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said the case “has never been about Planned Parenthood – it’s about the women who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, birth control and well-woman exams.”

“It is shocking that politics would get in the way of women receiving access to basic health care,” Richards said in a statement.

The case began when Planned Parenthood sued, saying the new Texas law violated its rights to free speech. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott countered by arguing that lawmakers may decide which organizations receive state funds.

A federal judge in Austin ruled that the funding should continue pending the trial on Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit, saying there’s sufficient evidence the state’s law is unconstitutional.

But the three-judge appellate panel disagreed, unanimously finding that Planned Parenthood was unlikely to prevail in future arguments that its free-speech rights were violated.

Abbott cheered the decision, noting that it “rightfully recognized that the taxpayer-funded Women’s Health Program is not required to subsidize organizations that advocate for elective abortion.”

It comes as conservative groups across the nation try to pass and enforce laws to put Planned Parenthood out of business and make getting an abortion more difficult. Earlier this year the same court upheld a new Texas law requiring doctors to perform a sonogram and provide women with a detailed description of the fetus before carrying out an abortion.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Federal Court In Hawaii: No Constitutional Right To Redefine Marriage

Federal Court In Hawaii: No Constitutional Right To Redefine Marriage – National Review

There has been a well-publicized string of cases lately in which federal courts have struck down marriage laws like the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. It remains to be seen whether a decision issued yesterday by a federal District Court in Hawaii will be treated as newsworthy.

……..

In this case, the court comprehensively rejected the claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage in the State of Hawaii. From the court’s synopsis (I’ve omitted the citations):

Carefully describing the right at issue, as required by both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit, the right Plaintiffs seek to exercise is the right to marry someone of the same-sex. The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right.

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden [of showing that Hawaii had no rational basis for its marriage definition].

Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.” It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.

The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.

Finally, the state could rationally conclude that it is addressing a divisive social issue with caution.

What explains the different outcome? As a legal matter, it was more careful attention to the actual Constitution and relevant precedent. This case may also be a better indicator of the validity of these claims. The other cases have been brought in carefully selected jurisdictions by national activist groups with any eye on strategy. The Hawaii case seems to have developed somewhat spontaneously and so may give us a better indication of what courts might do that are not predisposed to the same-sex marriage conclusion.

Dale Schowengerdt and the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom are to be congratulated for stepping in to defend the case when the governor refused to do so.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Just what we needed, more government

 

Chris at Wyblog makes a very important point about a law which requires teenage drivers to affix a red decal to their license plates.

Today the New Jersey State Supreme Court upheld a law which requires teenage drivers to affix a red decal to their license plates.

Requiring young drivers to affix a small red decal to their license plate is not an invasion of privacy and does not make them more vulnerable to predators, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

Upholding the constitutionality of a 2009 law, the court by a 6-0 decision said the practice, known as Kyleigh’s Law, does not violate the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which states the only information that can be disclosed is that the driver is under 21 and holds a special learner.s permit, examination permit or probationary license.

“New Jersey is the test kitchen on this,” said Pam Fischer, director of the state’s division of highway traffic safety. “People should recognize this is a tool to help enforce the provisions of the graduated driver’s license so that we reduce the risk to teens. The number one killer of teens is car crashes.”

Kyleigh’s Law, named for a Morris County teenager killed in a 2006 crash, is intended to help police officers identify young drivers violating the conditions of their permits and licenses that impose curfews and limits the number of passengers. 

But riddle me this, Batman. If it’s the driver they’re interested in identifying, why tag the car? People share cars. Mom doesn’t really need the benefit of Kyleigh’s Scarlet Decal.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to affix the tag directly to each teenager?

Say by requiring them to sew a yellow star on their shirt?

Another useless law, enacted because a tragedy was exploited, that will have some “unintended” consequences. When will we ever learn?

 

Pat-Down: Federal Court Demands TSA Explain Why It’s Defying Court Order

Pat-Down: Federal Court Demands TSA Explain Why It’s Defying Court Order – Hot Air

Earlier this month, we checked in on the TSA scanner issue and found out the federal agency has been ignoring a year-old federal court order to hold public hearings and comment on the controversial back-scatter machines used in screenings.

……..

Wednesday, the same federal court demanded the TSA explain itself, as reported by the good folks at Wired:

A federal appeals court Wednesday ordered the Transportation Security Administration to explain why it hasn’t complied with the court’s year-old decision demanding the agency hold public hearings concerning the rules and regulations pertaining to the so-called nude body scanners installed in U.S. airport security checkpoints.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s brief order came in response to the third request by the Electronic Information Privacy Center for the court to enforce its order.

The court will only accept TSA’s response in 3 oz. bottles that fit inside a quart Zip-lock bag. Tough luck.

The TSA had previously told Wired it might get around to hearings “next year,” but it must now provide an answer to the court by Aug. 30. Remember, though, TSA is full of nothing but hard-working, totally trustworthy professionals who are merely enforcing rules for the sake of civil society and do not feel their badges give them license to ignore those rules themselves.

If you’d like to try to get the White House to answer questions about why the TSA is ignoring a court order, sign the petition started by a Cato scholar. Theoretically, by its own rules, the White House would have to answer the question after 25,000 signatures, and we know how good the White House is about following its own rules.

In good news, TSA is worried enough about its public image these days that it’s taken to actually firing people caught stealing.

And, credit where it’s due: there are good ones out there.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story