TalkLeft

Veterans Day

Big Tent Democrat — 2009-11-11T10:09:32-05:00

Today is Veterans Day. The AFL-CIO Veterans Council provides these thoughts:

[. . .] While we take the time on Veterans Day of 2009 to reflect upon and honor the courage and sacrifice shown by our veterans as they continue the fight to defend liberty and freedom against those that seek our demise, I would urge all Americans, and especially all American policymakers, to similarly take heart of the particular plight of the veteran community during this time of extreme economic hardship in America. Today, figures from the U.S. Department of Labor show that the unemployment rate among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans stands at 11.3%, which is significantly above the overall rate of 9.8% for the nation as a whole. Approximately 185,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are out of work. [. . .] That is why the Union Veterans Council is calling on the U.S. Congress to quickly enact an extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits coupled with an effort to strengthen and enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) which will ensure protections for veterans claiming their former jobs when they return from active duty. [MORE . . ]

[. . .] It is time that we – as a nation – renewed our commitment to what President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed in 1944 when he signed the first GI Bill:

What our servicemen and women want, more than anything else, is the assurance of satisfactory employment upon their return to civil life.

For today’s veterans, that same desire holds true.

We must take the proper steps to renew our commitment to those who have made the ultimate commitment to America. And aside from making sure that today’s military veterans have the access and wherewithal to receive the medical care [they and] their[s] so richly deserve, we must also ensure that they have a smooth and secure pathway to civilian life. And that begins with a job.

[. . .] So on this Veterans Day, we have the privilege of honoring these very special American men and women whose sacrifices and service are beyond most people’s comprehension. We owe them a great deal. First and foremost, we owe them our freedom. Secondly, we owe them our gratitude. And finally, we owe them the prospect of a secure and stable life upon the conclusion of their service.

Thank you—and God Bless America.

This is an Open Thread.

Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread

Jeralyn — 2009-11-10T20:44:38-05:00

The second episode of "V" is on ABC tonight. I bet The Biggest Loser's ratings go down the first hour. Then, it's DWTS with results from last night's competition. I hope Kelly Osborne and Donnie Osmond and Joanna stay. Why Joanna? Because I like her partner Derek. I don't care about Mia or Aaron. I don't even know who they are or why they qualify as "stars" and I've watched every episode.

Same-sex marriage suffered a setback in NY today. Watch out for free wi-fi. President Obama is weighing 4 options for Afghanistan. Bill Clinton is urging Dems to pass the health care bill.

That's all I've got tonight, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Jury Acquits Bears-Sterns Hedge Fund Managers

Jeralyn — 2009-11-10T20:26:42-05:00

Update: One of the jurors says she'd invest with the defendants if she had the money. Also,

[Juror]Stimpson said she came into the trial thinking both Cioffi and Tannin were guilty of the fraud, insider-trading and conspiracy charges. She said she began to have second thoughts as the testimony progressed and defense lawyers “tore the government witnesses apart.”

What's troubling is the juror's admission she was not providing them with the presumption of innocence at the start.

A federal jury today acquitted Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers, of fraud and insider trading charges. It's a big loss for the Government.

They were the first Wall St. executives to go on trial for actions that allegedly brought the collapse of the financial market two years ago.[More...]

A jury of mostly working-class Americans dealt the government a stinging blow Tuesday, acquitting two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers of fraud charges and proving that while popular anger still prevails, pinning the blame for the financial crisis on any one person will be difficult.

The fund managers had been accused of lying to investors about the performance of their funds, which were plummeting in value, by presenting an upbeat financial picture and by not disclosing that Cioffi had already pulled money out of one of them. The two funds collapsed in June 2007 under the weight of collateralized debt obligations chock full of disintegrating subprime mortgage loans.

The Washington Post reports:

Prosecutors claimed Cioffi and Tannin were telling investors that their money was safe while privately deriding the investments. But defense lawyers argued that prosecutors took e-mails out of context and Cioffi and Tannin were truthful in their discussions with investors.

More here.

The White Collar Crime Blog says:

Clearly honesty in the market is important. But one also has to wonder if the use of criminal charges is appropriate in cases that would not have occurred but for the poor economy. It is also a concern that the government is using overly broad statutes to criminalize an alleged lack of honesty.

U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell (EDNY) issued this press release after the verdict.

Of course, we are disappointed by the outcome in this case, but the jurors have spoken, and we accept their verdict. Honesty and integrity are the principles upon which our financial markets function. Enforcing and protecting those principles will continue to be one of the principal efforts of this Office.

It goes on to thank the agencies that worked on the case -- and to congratulate its prosecutors for the "extraordinary" job they did investigating and prosecuting the case. Kind of odd, no?

Live Coverage From John Muhammad Execution

Jeralyn — 2009-11-10T20:06:00-05:00

Update: John Muhammad died at 9:11 p.m. He said no final words.

Bump and Update: Larry King Live will provide live coverage of Virginia's execution of John Allen Muhammad.

Larry King will broadcast the DC Sniper execution live at the prison with eye-witness accounts from the victims' families. The broadcast will be on Larry King's show at 9pm ET on CNN.

I hope he also covers the protesters.

***

VA. Gov. Kaine Denies Clemency to D.C. Sniper John Muhammad

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has denied clemency to D.C. sniper John Muhammad. He is scheduled to die today. More from the New York Times. From his statement: [More...]

“I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was recommended by the jury and then imposed and affirmed by the courts. Accordingly, I decline to intervene.”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Ex-Astronaut Pleads to Lesser Crimes, Sentenced to Probation

Jeralyn — 2009-11-10T16:00:34-05:00

Astronaut Lisa Nowak pleaded guilty to reduced charges today and was sentenced to two days in jail, already served, and a year probation.

Before a packed courtroom 1:30 p.m., Lisa Marie Nowak, 46, pleaded guilty to counts of third-degree burglary of a conveyance and misdemeanor battery. She was originally charged with more-serious counts of attempted kidnapping and burglary with assault in addition to misdemeanor battery. Prosecutors dropped a count of attempted kidnapping.

It looks like the Judge withheld adjudication, which means she won't permanently have a felony conviction provided she successfully completes her probation. Why the great deal? Perhaps because the defense successfully moved to suppress the search of her car and her statements. And no, she wasn't intending to wear the diapers. [More...]

[Defense attorney] Mr. Lykkebak also vehemently criticized the police and the news media for their discussion of the diapers, calling it the “biggest lie in this preposterous tale.” Any diapers in the car, he said, were left over from her family’s evacuation from Houston for Hurricane Rita in 2005.

Another problem for the prosecution:

Last month, Mr. Lykkebak filed papers in the case that focused on a report from emergency medical technicians on the night of the confrontation, in which Captain Shipman declined medical treatment for exposure to pepper spray and “denied direct contact” with the spray before being questioned by police. Mr. Lykkebak argued in court filings that this report undercut Captain Shipman’s contention to police that she had been doused with the spray and injured.

Air Force captain, Colleen Shipman, the female victim, and and ex-astronaut and Navy Cmdr. William A. Oefelein, who was seeing both women, are now engaged and living in Alaska. Both have retired from the military. (Oefelein and Nowak were both dropped from the Astronauts Corps.)

Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

Big Tent Democrat — 2009-11-10T15:24:24-05:00

You're on your own for a little while. This is an Open Thread.

Update (TL): I was at the pharmacy a few minutes ago to get some prescription eyedrops and they had a big sign for the Shingles vaccine. I decided to get it. Shingles is a risk for older people who had chickenpox when young, and it is an ugly, painful recurring disease. The vaccine costs $220.00, but Anthem/BCBS paid for the whole thing. Just another reason I hope my policy is still available and affordable next year. The pharmacist also told me he got an email this morning that previous restrictions in Colorado on the Swine Flu vaccine have been lifted, and it will be available to all, not just those in high risk categories.

8th Cir. Affirms Michael Vick $16MM Bonus Case

Big Tent Democrat — 2009-11-10T15:10:26-05:00

Good for Michael Vick (PDF):

In August 2007, Michael Vick, then quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, pled guilty to federal dog fighting charges. The NFL Commissioner thereafter suspended Vick indefinitely without pay, and the League initiated a grievance procedure seeking a declaration that the Falcons could recover certain bonus money that had been paid to Vick with the expectation that he would play football through 2014. Class counsel and the National Football League Players Association (Association) challenged the recovery as violative of anti-forfeiture provisions contained in the settlement agreement and CBA.

[More...]

Special Master Stephen Burbank issued an opinion that the Falcons were entitled to recover the amounts sought. The decision was appealed to the district court, which entered an order (Vick Order) stating that the bonus payments were already earned and thus not subject to forfeiture. The League then filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the district court’s judgment, arguing that (1) the district court’s oversight of the consent decree should be terminated because of intervening changes in the law and factual circumstances and (2) the district judge should remove himself from the case because of the reasonable perception that he was biased. The district court denied the motion. The League now appeals from the Vick Order and the denial of its Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the judgment. We affirm.

It's an interesting decision. Some quick takes:

To me, the most interesting part was the NFL's attempt to disqualify Judge Doty from hearing any more matters under the settlement. The decision describes the argument thusly:

Following the district court’s ruling on the forfeiture issue, the League filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the judgment on the ground that (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996), as well as changes in factual circumstances, warranted a modification of the consent decree to eliminate the district court’s oversight; and (2) the district judge’s statements in two sports-related news articles and his practice of having ex parte meetings with counsel for the Association created a perception that he was biased against the League.

On the issue of bias, the district judge stated that his comments in the sports articles did not relate to the merits of the Vick proceeding and would not lead a reasonable person to question his impartiality. The district judge acknowledged having had ex parte meetings with counsel for the Association, but stated that a reasonably informed person would know that the merits of a proceeding were never discussed, that such meetings often preceded decisions in the League’s favor, and that the practice is the result of a long history—stemming back to the 1993 settlement—in which both parties were invited to meet in the judge’s chambers for coffee and the exchange of social pleasantries.

Concluding that the League had not established a reasonable perception of bias, nor any changed circumstances warranting modification of the consent decree, the district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion.

I assume the NFL's lawyers were thinking Microsoft regarding Judge Doty's comments in the Media. The 8th Circuit did not bite:

The League also contends that the district judge erred in refusing to recuse himself because of his comments in the press and ex parte meetings with Association representatives. The League first takes issue with two newspaper articles, both of which focused on the district judge’s role in prompting the 1993 antitrust settlement and contributing to a period of peace and prosperity in professional football. The first article was published on July 10, 2005, in the Colorado Springs Gazette, and entitled “The Peacemaker: Sports’ most stable league was forged in Judge David Doty’s courtroom.” Along with the text, the article featured two large pictures of the district judge in a black robe, holding a football. The story was largely historical, explaining how the antitrust lawsuit developed, came before the district judge, and was settled after the judge convinced League officials to compromise. [. . .] The district judge shared a brief anecdote about cajoling the League into a settlement, and he is quoted as saying that the relationship between the top NFL and Association labor officials should be a model for other sports leagues. Near the end of the article, the district judge is quoted again in the following passage: Doty said during one good stretch of negotiations, he said jokingly to the attorneys for each side they did not need him any longer. “It was just an off-handed comment,” Doty said. “But a few days later I received a letter from the owners’ group requesting, based on what I said, that I remove myself from matters involving the NFL and the players’ union. I laughed at the letter and wrote them a letter kindly denying their request. They would have loved for me to be out of the way. But the letters were good-natured fun.”

The second article was published on January 28, 2008, in the Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal, and entitled “NFL’s toughest official wields a gavel, not a whistle.” It was written to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the district judge’s first major ruling in professional football antitrust litigation. The article recounted much of the same history that appeared in the Gazette story and included - the district judge’s observation that then-NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue was “[a] damn good lawyer.” The district judge is also quoted in two other passages: “[NFL Owners] pretend they’re getting beaten around. Well, they did, initially, but they had a position that was not legally sound.” Through a league spokesman, Tagliabue declined comment. Said Doty, though, “I think if you ask Tagliabue, he would say, ‘The whole thing has come out our way.’ Because, even though they complain about it . . . all they’ve done is make tons of money.” * * * [The district judge] admits there’s a pinch of ego involved in his retention of the NFL matters. “I could walk away from this case,” he said. “But there’s one problem: I know that I know too much. They know, including the NFL guys, that they don’t have to re-educate me every time they show up here.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Though the Judge really talked too much (in my view, Judges should not be talking at all about cases that were and are before them), I agree with the 8th Circuit:

Viewed in historical context, then, the district judge’s comments about the League’s desire to shed itself of the district court’s oversight and his observations regarding the owners’ fiscal success were largely statements of the obvious. The tone of the comments, though perhaps unduly casual, was not derogatory or disrespectful—indeed, the district judge praised the NFL leadership and cited the labor leaders on both sides as examples for other leagues.

The 8th Circuit closes this section with an admonition to judges generally on speaking publically.

The 8th Circuit then addresses the substantive issues of the anti-forfeiture provision in the collective bargaining agreement:

Both parties recognize that under this rubric, the relevant question is whether Vick’s roster bonuses should be categorized as “signing bonus allocations,” subject to the years-performed test, or “other salary escalators or performance bonuses,” subject to the already-earned test. The Association argues that, whatever a roster bonus is, it is not a signing bonus allocation because the terms “roster bonus” and “signing bonus” are commonly understood to refer to two distinct payment arrangements. Logically, therefore, a roster bonus must fall into one of the two categories of compensation subject to the already-earned test. Since Vick satisfied the preconditions of making the eighty-man roster in 2005 and 2006, the Association contends that the money was fully earned.

Hard to see your way around that argument. The NFL tried:

The League argues, however, that the roster bonuses were actually signing bonus allocations because certain rules governing the salary cap and minimum player salary (1) define the term “signing bonuses” to include roster bonuses in certain circumstances and (2) address a team’s choice to convert non-guaranteed compensation into a signing bonus allocation. Specifically, Article XXIV, Section 7(b)(iv) states that “[f]or purposes of determining Team Salary under the foregoing, the term ‘signing bonus’ shall include . . . any roster bonus or Paragraph 5 Salary that the Club had the right to guarantee for skill, when the Club subsequently exercises the right to guarantee such bonus or Paragraph 5 Salary for skill.” Article XXXVIII-A, Section 11 also contains an oblique reference to “convert[ing] non-guaranteed compensation to a signing bonus allocation.” Reading the two provisions together, the League argues that a roster bonus is converted into a signing bonus allocation when it is guaranteed for skill. Both of Vick’s roster bonuses included an option for the Falcons to guarantee the bonuses for skill, which the team properly exercised. The League argues that once that occurred, the money became a signing bonus allocation, subject to forfeiture for years not performed. The Special Master accepted this characterization and concluded that the Falcons could recover a prorated portion of Vick’s bonuses.

Umm, ok. Somehow the Special Master was convinced to treat salary cap provisions of the CBA as if they were applicable to the separately bargained for anti-forfeiture provisions of the CBA. Since the Vick matter was a forfeiture case, it is unfathomable to me how the Special Master could have decided the way he did. It was also unfathomable to Judge Doty and the 8th Circuit:

The League contends that the district court’s contrary decision violated important rules of contract construction, in that it failed to use the language on the salary cap and minimum player salary to interpret the forfeiture provision. See 11 Samuel Williston, Treatise on the Law of Contracts � 32:6 (Richard A. Lord, ed., Supp. 2007) (“Generally, a word used by the parties in one sense will be given the same meaning throughout the contract in the absence of countervailing reasons.”); Reda v. Eastman Kodak Co., 233 A.D.2d 914, 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (noting that a court must make a reasonable effort to harmonize all of the terms in a contract). But this is not a case where a word or phrase has a straightforward meaning in one context that can be directly applied in another. Section 7(b)(iv), on which the League primarily relies, states that its equation of a roster bonus with a signing bonus is “[f]or purposes of determining Team Salary,” and it does not use the phrase “signing bonus allocation.” Conversely, the provision on converting non-guaranteed compensation to a signing bonus allocation does not mention roster bonuses. The League’s argument amalgamates the two statements to create a third, implicit rule that it applies to Section 9(c). It is not clear that Section 9(c) was drafted with such an interpretation in mind.

Faced with a forfeiture provision that is ambiguous at best, the district court concluded that the League’s interpretation was the least logical of the two. As the League would have it, the forfeitability of Vick’s bonuses turns on whether the Falcons guaranteed the bonuses for skill. That distinction makes little sense in the context of forfeiture. Guaranteeing a bonus for skill simply means that a player can keep the money no matter how poor his performance. Such a guarantee is clearly germane to regulating team salary because it distinguishes money that is committed to a player from money that is only tentatively slated for distribution. But there is no reason to require forfeiture because a bonus has been guaranteed for skill. Further, the district court correctly observed that the League’s position was contrary to the prior, unappealed holding in Lelie, in which the court refused to use the salary cap and minimum player salary rules to interpret Section 9(c).

(Emphasis supplied.) Justice served!

Speaking for me only

An Unconvincing Argument For "Health Care Reform"

Big Tent Democrat — 2009-11-10T13:54:36-05:00

Village wonk Jon Cohn writes:

To [Marcia] Angell--and to others on the left [. . .] --this is reason for ditching the whole effort. But what, really, would that accomplish? The immediate impact would be to undermine Obama and his allies in Congress, creating the (accurate) impression they are incapable of passing major legislation. The Democratic Party would lose seats at the midterms and then, quite possibly, suffer even bigger setbacks two years hence. That's not exactly a recipe for progressive revival.

As a defense of the health care reform bill, this is piss poor. Assume for a moment it is true that failure to pass "health care reform" will cost Democrats seats (which will be impossible to determine imo, as Dems are sure to lose seats no matter what), what Dems are likely to lose, and why? Suppose it is people like Jason Altmire, Travis Childers or Jim Cooper? Is Cohn REALLY arguing that their losses will be a setback to progressivism? Really? That is just plain silly. I support the House health care reform bill, for one major reason, it contains a public option. Nothing else in the bill that is called "reform" (as I have stated before, expanding Medicaid is not reform. It is a good thing but not reform) is worth worrying over imo. I do not believe the final health care reform bill will have any other worthwhile reforms. But if it has a public option, it is worth passing. If it does not, it won't be worth passing. Parts of it? Sure. But let's not call those provisions reform.

Speaking for me only

Denver Judge Invalidates Board of Health Restriction on Medical Marijuana Caregivers

Jeralyn — 2009-11-10T12:14:53-05:00

Update: Judge rules for medical marijuana advocates. He even awards them attorneys' fees. From Westword,the Judge said:

[T]he Board of Appeals violated an court order two years ago that agencies considering marijuana rule changes would first notify people impacted by the rule changes.
"By the evidence presented here today, I find that the defendants have violated the court order when in November there was a meeting without notice that complied with the law and the parties changed the rules," says Naves. "I find that there was no emergency. The justification for an emergency was a Court of appeals decision that was not even final. And the Court of Appeals could not use the [Board of Appeals rule in question]...

[More...]

"One concern I have two years ago, and it appears that the board did the exact same thing they promised not to do. One of the reasons they violated the rules is that they seem to forget the plaintiffs in this cae. In the transcript there isn't any mention of the plaintiffs in the case... These people have, without dispute, serious problems for which they have prescriptions for medical marijuana... there was no mention of the impact of this change on these people... There is no consideration of how plaintiffs and others who need medical marijuana would obtain it...
"So, again, I find that the Board in their November 3rd meeting violated the law. Therefore the rule change they enacted is invalid and void....
The defendants are enjoined from enforcing that modification until a meeting in compliance with the court order and open meeting act can be held."

Joel Warner at Westword is doing an excellent job of live-blogging the hearing underway before Judge Larry Naves in Denver District Court, challenging the State Board of Health's "emergency" hearing last week at which it amended the definition of "primary caregiver" to provide new restrictions.

Judge Naves preceded over the 2007 District Court decision that overturned the Board of Health's attempt to limited caregivers to five patients. He's saying he has the same concerns today he had then -- that the Board of Health did not seek needed public input before making these rules.

After 75 minutes of argument, Judge Naves is taking a 10 minute recess and will return to rule on the motion. Stay tuned.

Solving The Stupak Problem: Eliminate The Exchange

Big Tent Democrat — 2009-11-10T10:23:22-05:00

Jeralyn quotes Rachel Morris on the Stupak Amendment:

Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.

(Emphasis supplied.) That problem is easily solved - eliminate the exchange (see Jon Walker inadvertently demonstrate that in fact the exchange is the catalyst for the Stupak problem) and apply the federal subsidies to purchase of insurance under the public option. In short, eliminate the availability of federal subsides for the purchase of private insurance. That way, private insurance companies will never be impacted by the Stupak Amendment.

Speaking for me only

The Pitfalls Of Health Care Reform

Big Tent Democrat — 2009-11-10T09:54:16-05:00

A lot folks have just realized some of the pitfalls of health care reform. I've always understood that any public insurance program, be it Medicare, Medicaid or a public option, will exclude undocumented aliens and coverage for abortion, it seems as if this is news to a lot of people. While there is debate as to the meaning of the Stupak Amendment, let assume the best and that it gets amended to reflect merely Hyde Amendment prohibitions -- what will that mean? What it has always meant - no federal funds for health insurance and/or care for abortions and no health insurance and/or care at all for undocumented aliens.

Suppose however that without the Stupak Amendment, health care reform can not pass - what then? Do we jettison the entire effort? Or can we limit the damage a Stupak Amendment or Hyde Amendment does? I think we can limit it. I have two suggestions - exclude the individual mandate (but maintain, as the House does, the employer mandate) and eliminate the exchange. More . .

The individual mandate is problematic in that it forces individual to purchase insurance. Since individuals who cannot afford insurance will still be mandated, they are forced to purchase insurance with federal government subsidies, the use of the subsidies will require that these individuals purchase insurance that does not cover abortions. To avoid this, the mandates should be eliminated and the federal subsidies could be made voluntary. Under this scenario, no one would be forced to purchase insurance that does not cover abortions, but they would have that option, including the option to purchase public health insurance (the public option.)

Similarly, elimination of the exchange will remove the threat that insurance companies will strip abortion coverage from their policies in order to qualify for the exchange. Of course many will do so in order to be eligible for the federal subsidies, but this is the case with state run Medicaid programs (remember the largest expansion of coverage under health care reform comes from the increase in Medicaid eligibility.)

Personally, I think these are not very damaging changes to health care reform as it stands now. I do not like the individual mandate because I do not believe it is fair in an environment where affordability is not guaranteed.

Similarly, I believe the exchanges are merely a Rube Goldberg contraption that do nothing to make health insurance affordable. Losing the exchange is simply not important.

As always, I believe the key to health care reform is a public option. Of course, as everyone has noted, it is severely restricted in its reach now, but I believe in the camel nose under the tent aspect. Its reach can be expanded. Its reach, I predict, WILL be expanded. But it must be put in place to be able to be expanded.

So there you have it - my compromise plan for health care reform with a Hyde/Stupak Amendment. It attempts to limit the effects of the Stupak/Hyde provisions while saving the essential aspect of health care reform - a public option.

Speaking for me only

Grand Junction Proposes 12 Month Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Jeralyn — 2009-11-10T09:38:00-05:00

Grand Junction, in Mesa County, Colorado, is considering this ordinance banning new medical marijuana dispensaries for 12 months. It provides penalties -- anyone who holds themselves out as a primary caregiver for the purpose of acquiring, possessing, producing or transporting medical marijuana or paraphernalia, without having a sales tax license is committing a misdemeanor. No new sales tax licenses will be granted for 12 months. Businesses with existing sales tax licenses cannot add medical marijuana to their inventory.[More...]

It quotes the state's Attorney General and police chief's opinions that dispensaries will lead to greater crime. What does the police chief base this on? Two burglaries at a single dispensary. And, quite troubling, it requests that if the state enacts regulations, it be granted the right, as a Home Rule community, to enact stronger restrictions. More here.

This morning, a hearing will be held in Denver District Court challenging last week's amendment to the definition of primary caregiver by the State Board of Health at a hastily convened meeting.

The Colorado Bar Association is holding a continuing legal education program at lunchtime on Weds. on medical marijuana -- presented by defense attorneys.

Truth or Fiction: What Does it All Mean?

The Facts, the Law and the Media
* Federal Government vs States Rights
* Uniquely Colorado: Home Rule, Constitutional Provision Art 18 Sec 14.
* Caregivers before and after August 20, 2009

GA Federal Judge Bans Courtroom Tweeting

Jeralyn — 2009-11-09T23:51:21-05:00

A federal judge in Georgia has banned twittering from the courtroom as a violation of Rule 53 which prohibits broadcasting of proceedings to the public. The opinion is here.

the Court finds that the contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom describing the trial proceedings, and the dissemination of those messages in a manner such that they are widely and instantaneously accessible to the general public, falls within the definition of “broadcasting” as used in Rule 53. Therefore, this type of broadcasting is prohibited under Rule 53, unless the application of Rule 53 is unconstitutional because it unduly restricts the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

By that rationale, live-blogging trial would also be prohibited. Other courts have had no problem with it, e.g., the Scooter Libby and Joe Nacchio trials. The 10th Circuit even allowed live-blogging of oral arguments in the Nacchio appeal. [More...]

I don't think a reporter or blogger's twittering or live-blogging is broadcasting "the judicial proceedings." They are broadcasting their interpretation of the proceedings. Even if they quote portions, they are not representing them to be replicas of the official transcript or proceedings. And what if they are doing it from an overflow courtroom or media room into which the proceedings are being broadcast?

Twittering represents even less of a broadcast than live-blogging, since it's limited to 140 words and unlikely to even be an attempt at a transcript.

A state court judge in Denver has barred tweeting in an upcoming high profile murder trial in which cooperators are testifying. I assume that's for witness safety. When that's not an issue, who is the twittering or live-blogging going to prejudice? The jurors are already in the courtroom and instructed not to access media reports. Witnesses are advised of the rule of sequestration and can be instructed not to follow media accounts before they testify.

The AP and other major media outlets get same-day transcripts in high profile trials which they liberally quote from in their news reports. But they don't share them with the public, or with bloggers, and most bloggers can't afford them, so live-blogging is the only way for bloggers to get their hands on what happens in the courtroom. If they take the time and make the effort to go to court and sit through the trial, they should be allowed to instantaneously report their impressions.

Even though I doubt this judge's ruling will catch fire with other federal judges, it's still a threat and bad precedent.

Stupak is a Radical Change

Jeralyn — 2009-11-09T21:38:39-05:00

Mother Jones: Why Stupak is more radical than you think.

The two parts to the Stupak amendment:

The Stupak amendment mandates that no federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion or "cover any part of any health plan" that includes coverage of an abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

Part 1 is just the Hyde Amendment. But, part 2?

Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.

[More...]

The House health care bill will also provide subsidies to help people and small businesses purchase plans on an exchange. This represents a lucrative new market for insurers: anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four qualifies for assistance, as well as certain small companies. But to gain access to these new customers, insurers will have to drop abortion coverage from their plans.

And on the supplemental insurance issue:

Imagine if all insurance plans worked like a smorgasbord, in which you tried to guess the operations and medicines you might require sometime in the future. How many procedures would you actually fork out for in advance? Five states already have similar "rider" laws in place, but according to Sonfield, "No one seems to have come up with evidence that these plans are ever sold."

Will abortion derail the health care bill?

Following the House vote, the White House declined to condemn or support the anti-abortion provision. There’s no way to predict what will come next in this high-stakes legislative tussle, but one thing is clear: in the push to provide access to health care for all Americans, abortion is now the official political football.

Digby has a good post on Stupak today.

Monday Night Open Thread

Jeralyn — 2009-11-09T21:05:52-05:00

I watched the opening episode of "V" yesterday, it's pretty far out there. Some are linking it to the "hope and changers" that followed President Obama last year. Others say that's silly. The show denies it, saying it's just about blind devotion. If you haven't seen it, you can watch online for free here.

I'm watching DWTS tonight. Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.