Freed Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste says it is too soon to
celebrate because his two colleagues still face retrial in Egypt.
Greste was freed from an Egyptian prison earlier this month and his two
colleagues were released last week. He told BBC on Thursday that the
controversial court cases seem to be moving in the right direction.
Greste had initially been sentenced to seven years in jail for spreading
false information and helping the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. He was
deported from Egypt on his release.
Colleagues Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed are still in Egypt and are
required to report regularly to the police in advance of a retrial
expected to begin next week.
Their imprisonment for more than a year sparked numerous protests throughout the world.
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.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
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.
Court dismisses 3rd lawsuit against hen cage law
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a decision to dismiss a
lawsuit by a farmer that challenged a law banning the inhumane
confinement of egg-laying hens.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.
It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.
"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.
The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.
In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.
It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.
"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.
The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.
In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)