The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not known for being shy about defending
its prerogatives, has put itself in a curious situation.After months of
intrigue and court silence, the justices surprised Pennsylvania's legal
community by saying they would hear public arguments on Attorney General
Kathleen Kane's legal challenge to the court's self-appointed power to
launch special prosecutions.
The case in question is a court-ordered investigation into whether
Kane's office illegally shared secret investigative material with the
Philadelphia Daily News. The result was a grand jury's recommendation
that Kane be charged with perjury and other offenses.
The justices may not ultimately agree with Kane that the courts lack the
authority to appoint prosecutors to run grand juries or investigate her
office. But, say lawyers and court watchers, the justices must at least
clean up a murky and messy process that has been dogged by questions
about legality and constitutionality.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
NC Appeals Court says DOT must pay landowners
The North Carolina Court of Appeals says the state transportation
department must pay some landowners whose property is in the path of a
proposed road in Forsyth County.
Multiple media outlets reported that a three-judge panel of the court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to refuse to hear a lawsuit by 11 landowners who said the state's designation of their land in the proposed road's path hurt their property values.
There is no indication when the road might be built.
The 11 landowners say the state's designation of their property in the path of the planned road limits what they can do with the land.
The state attorney general's office is consulting with transportation officials on the ruling. They could appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Multiple media outlets reported that a three-judge panel of the court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to refuse to hear a lawsuit by 11 landowners who said the state's designation of their land in the proposed road's path hurt their property values.
There is no indication when the road might be built.
The 11 landowners say the state's designation of their property in the path of the planned road limits what they can do with the land.
The state attorney general's office is consulting with transportation officials on the ruling. They could appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
African leaders to court: Drop cases against top Africans
The International Criminal Court should drop or suspend charges against
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Kenyan Deputy President William
Ruto until African concerns about the court and proposals to change its
founding treaty are considered, African leaders say.
The demand came in a report Saturday on previous decisions made by African Union leaders.
The African Union has accused the ICC of disproportionately targeting Africans. The court has indicted only Africans so far, although half of the eight cases it is prosecuting were referred to it by African governments themselves.
Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang have been charged with crimes against humanity for their alleged role in orchestrating Kenya's 2007-08 postelection violence. Their trial is underway at the ICC. More than 1,000 people died and 600,000 others were forced to flee their homes amid violence sparked by a flawed presidential election.
Similar charges against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta were dropped in December after the prosecution said it did not have enough evidence against him. Kenyatta and Ruto were on opposing sides of the postelection violence but joined forces to win the presidency in the March 2013 polls.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Bashir for failing to respond to summons to answer to charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for the violence in Darfur.
The demand came in a report Saturday on previous decisions made by African Union leaders.
The African Union has accused the ICC of disproportionately targeting Africans. The court has indicted only Africans so far, although half of the eight cases it is prosecuting were referred to it by African governments themselves.
Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang have been charged with crimes against humanity for their alleged role in orchestrating Kenya's 2007-08 postelection violence. Their trial is underway at the ICC. More than 1,000 people died and 600,000 others were forced to flee their homes amid violence sparked by a flawed presidential election.
Similar charges against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta were dropped in December after the prosecution said it did not have enough evidence against him. Kenyatta and Ruto were on opposing sides of the postelection violence but joined forces to win the presidency in the March 2013 polls.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Bashir for failing to respond to summons to answer to charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for the violence in Darfur.
Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care
Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care
overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme
Court.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)