Thế giới của Sao: Court

Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Court. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Insurance giant buys out SW Ohio women's home after 2-year court battle over historic property

Protesters shown on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press
Kate Gallion, member of Allies of the Anna Louise Inn, rallies protesters on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately to get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press
Tatiana McCormick, 24, a former resident of the Anna Louise Inn, is pictured in front of a protest on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately to get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press
Jim Luken, 69, of Cincinnati, parodies Western & Southern CEO John Barrett during a protest on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press

CINCINNATI – A major insurance company has bought out a nonprofit home for struggling women in Cincinnati in a deal announced Monday, ending a bitter two-year court battle over the home's historic property in a beautiful downtown neighborhood.

Western & Southern Insurance Group bought the 104-year-old Anna Louise Inn for $4 million, according to a joint news release issued by the formerly acrimonious pair.

Under the deal, the women now living in the Anna Louise Inn will remain where they are for two years as a new facility for them is built.

Once they move out of the neighborhood, Western & Southern will be able to accomplish its long-standing goal of turning the old property into a boutique hotel.

"Our stance has consistently been that this could be a win-win, and now it is just that," said Western & Southern CEO John Barrett in a statement.

The very public dispute began several years ago when the nonprofit rejected an offer from Western & Southern and the insurer sued to stop planned renovations, leading to a protracted legal battle. Owners and residents of the Anna Louise long have derided Barrett's efforts to convert the home into a hotel, saying they amounted to corporate greed and arrogance because the home was not for sale and the women didn't want to leave.

"It's like someone coming up to you and saying, 'I want to buy your house' and you politely say it's not for sale, and they don't understand that not for sale means it's not for sale," Mary Carol Melton, executive vice president of the nonprofit that operates the inn, had said in October. "We really do believe enough is enough."

In the news release, a short statement from Melton said she was "very pleased that this has come to a mutually agreeable conclusion."

"Now, as we move forward, our women will have a beautiful new home and will continue to enjoy safe and affordable housing for many years to come," she said.

Monday's deal came less than a week after about 150 supporters of the Anna Louise protested outside a downtown courthouse, demanding that Western & Southern give up on buying the home and vowing that the Anna Louise would never give up.

The protest was one of many that have been held in the last two years. Supporters of the Anna Louise also have made an online video parody portraying a Western & Southern spokesman as a corporate fat cat hell-bent on kicking the women out of the Anna Louise, and even crashed the company's title yearly event, the Western & Southern Open.

As the world's top tennis players battled it out on the court this past summer, a plane flew overhead, trailing a banner calling Western & Southern a bunch of bullies.

At one point, the Anna Louise had considered an offer from Western & Southern to buy the property for $1.8 million, less than half its value. The inn decided against it after winning $12.6 million in federal and state tax credits for a renovation, a decision criticized by John Barrett as a taxpayer "bailout."

Days before the inn was to begin renovating, Western & Southern successfully sued to stop them, arguing that they broke zoning codes.

The Anna Louise had appealed and was rezoned but had been prevented from beginning renovations until the court fight was resolved. New arguments had been set for last week, but the home's deal with Western & Southern ends that.

The Anna Louise Inn has been housing low-income, single women in the same building since 1909, after President Howard Taft's brother, Charles P. Taft, built it for ambitious types pouring into Cincinnati to work as stenographers, bookkeepers and secretaries.

Over the years, the inn has become a haven for women looking to make a new start. Some residents are just getting out of foster care, some are between jobs, some have fled abusive relationships, and others are escaping lives as prostitutes and drug addicts. Several have lived there for decades.

During their fight to buy the Anna Louise, Barrett and others at Western & Southern repeatedly referred to the home's former prostitutes and said its residents just don't belong in the serene and lovely neighborhood.

They argued that a boutique hotel was much more suited to the area, and pointed to a University of Cincinnati study commissioned by Western & Southern that showed a hotel there could generate $355 million in economic impact over 30 years.

"It is the right thing to do for Cincinnati," Barrett wrote in an October editorial in The Cincinnati Enquirer. "No one loses with our proposal."

___

Follow Amanda Lee Myers on Twitter at https://twitter.com/AmandaLeeAP

View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

Court strikes blow against the Obama administration on union poster rule

From the beginning, the Obama administration has demonstrated a willingness to expand federal powers in unprecedented and highly controversial ways in order to serve its own political agenda.

But, in the past few months the administration has suffered two major set-backs—all because it has taken a bullish attitude in thumbing its nose at the Constitution.

First, a federal court of appeal held that President Obama violated the law in making appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without consulting Congress as required by the Constitution. And now a federal court has struck down a pro-union rule that the Obama administration’s NLRB illegally adopted without Congressional authorization—in express violation of federal law.

America's courts are sending a clear message to the White House: You, Mr. President, are not above the law.

We have seen the Obama administration take increasingly cavalier legal positions on a whole host of regulatory issues over the past four years.

Remember that the administration pushed for enactment of the Affordable Care Act with a “vote first, ask questions later mentality.” And that nearly resulted in the Supreme Court striking down the entire health care law when the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 state attorney generals challenged his administration’s authority to enforce a constitutionally dubious mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance.

The administration may have narrowly survived our challenge to the health care law, but NFIB is continuing to hold President Obama's feet to the fire—or to the original meaning of the Constitution as the case may be.

Even the New York Times recently noted “an increasingly deliberate pattern by the administration to circumvent lawmakers…” But now that NFIB and other industry groups are finding success in fighting the administration’s most brazen attempts to circumvent the Constitution, the president is going to have to begin operating within the letter of the law.

After all, the courts are sending him a clear message: You, Mr. President, are not above the law.
NFIB’s victory Tuesday is a perfect example.

Last year President Obama’s NLRB voted to adopt the so called “Poster Rule.” The Poster Rule would have required business owners to prominently display posters giving employees “notice” of their rights under federal labor law. But, NFIB obtained an injunction to prevent NLRB from enforcing the rule, and Tuesday succeeded in striking it down completely.

In court the NLRB defended its actions arguing that the Poster Rule was necessary because some employees do not know their rights. But, even if it were true that employees are ignorant of their rights—a premise we disputed all along, especially given the availability of information in the Internet age—our point has always been that President Obama and his NLRB cannot create a rule simply because it would be a convenient way to address a political issue. Moreover, as we successfully argued in striking down the Poster Rule, the Constitution prohibits federal agencies from creating rules in violation of federal statutes.

In the Poster Rule case the NLRB was acting without statutory authorization from Congress, and in express violation of federal statutes. And in the NLRB recess appointment cases, the President was acting beyond the powers authorized to him in the Constitution.

The bottom line is that our government cannot suspend or ignore constitutional rules—or lawfully enacted statutes—for expedient or pragmatic reasons. But, now President Obama and his NLRB advisors are learning this lesson the hard way. Of course, that’s what happens when you ignore the Constitution.

Karen R. Harned, esq. is executive director of the NFIB's Small Business Legal Center.

View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

Colorado court shouldn't punish messenger

Judges often issue gag orders to prevent parties from sharing information about a case with the public.

Outside of the courtroom, however, journalists search for reliable information. It is their duty to properly educate the public and the Constitution guarantees a free press.

Sometimes the two worlds -- courtroom and media -- collide when a journalist obtains exclusive information (that is potentially under a gag order) from a person in exchange for confidentiality. A journalist’s success (and personal safety) is greatly dependent on trustworthiness, on the guarantee that the journalist will keep the source’s identity under lock and key.

If we do not protect our messengers, journalists lose the most important element of their career: trustworthiness.

FoxNews.com reporter Jana Winter and her sources are at the center of just such a collision in a high profile case. Jana’s career is on the line because defense lawyers want a judge to force her to reveal where she got her exclusive information.

On July 20, 2012, a shooter launched an attack on moviegoers inside of a theatre in Aurora, Colorado. The alleged assailant, James Holmes, killed 12 and wounded an additional 58 people.

Aside from the location of the shooting, there was a second crime scene: Holmes' apartment. When authorities apprehended Holmes (within moments after his shooting), he said that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. Holmes was otherwise uncooperative.

There was also a third potential crime scene: The University of Colorado-Denver School of Medicine. Holmes had recently dropped out from the school and investigators believed he received shipments of explosives at its Aurora campus over a period of four months. Additionally, there was an immediate concern that Holmes also booby-trapped an area of the school.

People involved in the case made public statements. Just one day after the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates stated that the crime was carried out with“calculation and deliberation." He also said that Holmes’ apartment was “designed to kill.”

Even New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly also spoke publicly, stating that Holmes called himself "The Joker." A confidential law enforcement source confirmed Kelly’s statement with ABC News.

The amount of law enforcement officers involved in the investigation was enormous, and the FBI told ABC News that approximately 100 agents were assisting in the investigation. Certainly, an additional few hundred state and local officers were also involved.

Even though Holmes appeared in court within hours of his midnight shooting, it was not until July 23, 2012, that the first gag order was issued.

On July 24, CNN published information from an unnamed source regarding specific contents found inside of Holmes’ apartment: dozens of homemade grenades, gallons of gasoline, improvised explosive devices (IED's) and trip wires. The setup was similar to what is seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On or about July 24, Ms. Winter "learned that police had searched for and recovered" a notebook that Holmes sent to a psychiatrist. She investigated the "tip" and published an exclusive story on July 25.

Even though countless media reports were laden with confidential sources, Holmes’ defense team chose to solely target Ms. Winter and her sources as the sole violators of the gag order.

This defense tactic is not only an attack on Ms. Winter. It is an attack on our First Amendment and an attack on the public’s right to information when public safety is at issue.

Almost 40 years ago, in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that it is improper for the court to bar the press from publishing information about a criminal case. It is absurd that Holmes’ defense is wasting public money on such a frivolous matter.

With hundreds of investigators working on the case and hundreds of journalists publishing constant updates, Ms. Winter and her editors made the correct decision to share information that was in the public’s best interest. Holmes left his mark in numerous areas, many of which might have been a threat to public safety. Others could have been involved in carrying out his plans. This was not a small crime.

Ms. Winter must continue to fight against revealing who gave her confidential information, even if it means that she will be sentenced to jail for contempt of court. Ms. Winter was simply the messenger between her confidential sources and the public. If we do not protect our messengers, journalists lose the most important element of their career: trustworthiness.

Tamara Holder is an attorney and Fox News legal analyst.

View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 28 tháng 3, 2013

Supreme Court justices raise doubts about federal marriage law

A majority of Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism Wednesday about the legitimacy of a federal provision that prevents married gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits, raising questions about whether the Defense of Marriage Act will stand.

The court concluded arguments early Wednesday afternoon on the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The hearing was the second in back-to-back gay marriage cases before the court this week, both of which have attracted intense public interest.

In the two-hour hearing Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in close cases, joined the four more liberal justices in raising questions about the provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that is being challenged.

Kennedy said the law appears to intrude on the power of states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Other justices said the law creates what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called two classes of marriage, full marriage and "skim-milk marriage."

Click to listen to the oral arguments.

The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan. She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.

Paul Clement, representing the House Republican leadership in defending the law, said the more relevant question is whether Congress had "any rational basis for the statute." He supplied one, the federal government's interest in treating same-sex couples the same no matter where they live.

Clement said the government does not want military families "to resist transfer from West Point to Fort Sill because they're going to lose their benefits." The U.S. Military Academy at West Point is in New York, where same-sex marriage is legal, and Fort Sill is in Oklahoma, where gay marriages are not legal.

The law affects a range of benefits available to married couples, including tax breaks, survivor benefits and health insurance for spouses of federal employees.

It also is possible the court could dismiss the case for procedural reasons, though that prospect seemed less likely than it did in Tuesday's argument over gay marriage in California.

Marital status is relevant in more than 1,100 federal laws that include estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees. Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down the law's Section 3, which defines marriage.

In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

The justices chose for their review the case of Edith Windsor, 83, of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Like the Proposition 8 case from California, Windsor's lawsuit could falter on a legal technicality without a definitive ruling from the high court.

The House Republicans, the Obama administration and a lawyer appointed by the court were to spend part of the hearing discussing whether the House Republican leadership can defend the law in court because the administration decided not to, and whether the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts. But there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court, and it would remain on the books.

On Tuesday, the justices weighed a fundamental issue: Does the Constitution require that people be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of either partner's gender? That case involved California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

If the justices choose to rule broadly, they could overturn Prop 8 and in doing so invalidate every other restriction on gay marriage in the country.

But the justices suggested Tuesday they could decide the case without issuing a ruling that ripples through all 50 states.

Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts that the case was properly before them. Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.

The justices' statement spanned the gamut. Chief Justice John Roberts said it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word "marriage" by including same-sex couples.

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 argued that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

Decisions in both cases are expected by June.

Americans as a whole are divided on the issue. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it.

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Interactive

Fox News Poll: Many More Favor Gay Marriage, up from 2003

View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Marriage equality, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice's cousin

Chief Justice John Roberts.AP

Today, the Supreme Court considered a case about whether voters in a state can pass a law that arguably violates the Constitution of the United States of America. The case about to decide the fate of California’s Prop 8 is tangled up with the details of legal procedure and constitutional interpretation to the point where some analysts speculate the Court might dodge a ruling altogether on technical grounds.

But the details sort of don’t matter --- what is really on trial this week is the future of equal treatment for gay Americans. And the fact is, the tide is flowing forcefully in the direction of fairness and equality. The Supreme Court will either ride the wave or try to block it or dodge it, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter. The tide has irrevocably turned.

The fundamental equality of gay Americans is lapping against every shore of America from the Bible Belt to the Republican National Committee. A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention recently reported that young people within the conservative church think opposing same-sex marriage “feels intolerant.” The RNC “autopsy” report advised softening the party’s stance on gay rights issues and prominent Republicans including Sen. Rob Portman have announced their support for marriage equality. Republicans are finally catching up with mainstream public opinion, which has been quickly evolving to now-majority support for gay marriage. And among the observers inside the Court today was Jean Podrasky, the lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice, a conservative, gave Podrasky one of his private tickets.

It’s worth noting that even the lawyers defending Prop 8 aren’t arguing against the morality of gay marriage but merely trying to say the matter should be left to the states. Anti-gay bias and bigotry is quickly falling out of fashion.

Of course, the Supreme Court should not be swayed by personal sentiment or popular opinion. A founding principle of our nation is that fundamental rights should never be subject to popular vote --- whether the right to equal treatment under the 14^th Amendment or the right to own guns under the 2^nd Amendment. The judiciary exists to hold politicians and the people accountable to a higher standard, to ensure that majority rule doesn’t trample on minority rights. It is the job of the Supreme Court to hold federal, state and local governments accountable to our founding doctrines and the rule of law --- including the idea that government cannot pass a law discriminating against a group of people without a “legitimate purpose”.

More than 1,138 rights and benefits at the federal level accrue to couples based on marriage, from inheriting assets tax free to accessing spousal visas for immigration purposes. Gay couples don’t want to change the marriages of straight couples in any way nor force religious institutions to perform weddings against their conscience. This is simply about getting the same legal rights as other families. In fact, the California’s Prop 8 isn’t really about marriage any more than anti-sodomy statutes were about sex. The point of both was to enshrine second-class status for gay Americans. And that is not a “legitimate purpose” for government discrimination.

It is unclear from today’s hearings how the Court might rule on Prop 8. It remains entirely possible that the Court might dodge the substantive question or rule on narrow grounds that only affect the State of California and not the rest of the country. Whatever it does, the rights of hundreds of thousands of families like mine will be profoundly affected by whatever the Supreme Court rules on two marriage equality cases it is hearing this week. Without question, what the Court rules will make a difference in the short-term legal and political realities faced by same-sex couples.

But when Martin Luther King spoke about justice rolling “down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream,” he evoked the long arc of history that ultimately bends toward equal treatment and fairness for all. The Supreme Court may hurry the pace of justice or slow it down or dodge it altogether, but the sanctioning of anti-gay bias and legalized discrimination against gay families will someday soon be nothing more than an ugly relic of the past.

When Chief Justice Roberts was being confirmed for the Court, his lesbian cousin, a liberal, enthusiastically backed his appointment. Why? “He is family,” she explained, articulating the shared values that we as a nation must continue to strive for as well.

Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn.

View the original article here

GOP leaders voice 'grave misgivings' to Obama over key terror trial in civilian court

The Republican chairmen of four congressional committees, with oversight for intelligence, the armed services, the judiciary and foreign affairs, have told President Obama they have "grave misgivings" about his administration's decision to send Usama bin Laden's brother-in-law to a federal court for criminal prosecution.

The lawmakers voiced their concerns to Obama in a letter obtained by Fox News.

"I've found in visiting Guantanamo, in visiting the prisons in Afghanistan that we have ways of getting information. We have people that are highly trained that can sit down and get these people's confidence and they learn a lot or can learn a lot unless we shut them off with attorneys," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said.

He and Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the Judiciary Committee are now requesting a briefing from the nation's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to explain how the administration's apparent rush to bring Sulaiman Abu Ghaith to a criminal court is in the national security interest.

Abu Ghaith, who is an alleged senior Al Qaeda member who served as spokesman for bin Laden, lived in Iran for a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks with other members of the bin Laden family and his inner circle. It is still unknown whether they were under house arrest or free to operate as guests of the regime.

Abu Ghaith's capture is described by the Republican congressmen as a "significant opportunity to acquire substantial, critical intelligence" including information on the network's regional strategy and its relationship with Tehran.

After leaving Iran for Turkey, Abu Ghaith was deported to Jordan, where he was eventually transferred from Jordanian to U.S. custody in March. In their letter to the White House, the congressmen state that they have little confidence that the intelligence community, as well as interrogators, were given enough time to build a rapport with bin Laden's son-in-law to learn everything he knew.

"The failure to provide an adequate mechanism for the United States to acquire sensitive intelligence information from Abu Ghaith prior to Mirandizing him and brining him to criminal court suggests a fundamental lack of a coherent security strategy, " the congressmen wrote in the two-page letter dated Friday.

One of the lingering questions of the 9/11 Commission was why the majority of "muscle hijackers" who overcame the passengers and flight crews passed through Iran from Pakistan to reach the Afghan training camps. A new report by the Kronos advisory group being circulated to lawmakers, called "Iran and The Global Jihad," assesses that Al Qaeda set up a management council or "shadow shura" because it understood "America's decades-long aversion" to conflict with Iran.

A leading terrorism analyst says there is also a larger issue at play. As reported by the Long War Journal, Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says only 17 of the documents confiscated from the compound in Pakistan where bin Laden was found and killed in May 2011 have been made public.

"The release of the Bin Laden documents was highly selective, and those that were given to the public only highlighted the antagonistic episodes between the two (Iran and Al Qaeda). The documents that were released to the public didn't show the history of collusion and we know for a fact that - that history of collusion is in fact in the documents," Joscelyn said.

Joscelyn said that while career intelligence officers and treasury officials are actively pursing Al Qaeda and designating operatives inside the Iranian government, he said other parts of the government that are more "politicized" want to declare Al Qaeda on the decline.

"If Al Qaeda is operating in Iranian territory and has this core pipeline, as the Treasury Department says, then it makes it much more difficult to declare Al Qaeda dead," he said.

Joscelyn also points to the fact that the administration has apparently relied on the bin Laden documents to list a handful of Iranian entities as terrorist organizations, which allows the Treasury to freeze their assets, among other punitive actions.

"I've been told that the bin Laden documents were part of what was used for the series of designations that came out the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department," Joscelyn explained. "The Obama administration only released to the public those documents that show tensions between the two (Iran and Al Qaeda) and didn't release to the public those documents that show the two colluding."

On Monday, a federal plea agreement was unsealed in the case of Ahmed Warsame, a member of the Al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia. Warsame was captured in April 2011 and held at sea for more than two months, before he was transferred to a New York City court in December 2011. While a press release from the U.S. attorney's office and FBI hailed Warsame's cooperation and the intelligence gathered as a "watershed," Rep. McKeon said neither the Warsame nor the Abu Ghaith cases were anything to celebrate.

"We've captured thousands and don't have enough ships to park them over there and put them one at a time on a ship," he said. "We are not equipped to do that on a ship. That one (Warsame) was a unique case that worked out well and I am glad it did, but again, it is not a policy builder."

View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 24 tháng 3, 2013

Large California city heads to bankruptcy court

By outward appearances, Stockton, a city of nearly 300,000 on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, seemed in the mid-2000s to be emerging from decades of struggle.

Next to its gleaming downtown waterfront -- a window to the West's largest fresh-water estuary -- a beautiful new $46 million glass hockey arena rose in 2005. That same year, the Oakland A's single-A affiliate Ports began play in a new taxpayer-financed stadium, amenities sought by elected officials catering to a wave of new residents fleeing Bay Area congestion and home prices.

High salaries and lucrative benefits were supposed to attract and retain the brightest city workforce to improve the quality of life for its residents.

"We spent like the good times would go on forever," said Stockton spokeswoman Connie Cochrane.

But then the recession hit, and the good times went bust. On Monday, the state's 13th-largest city begins federal court proceedings that could end with it becoming the most populous in the nation to successfully enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy, a move opposed by those who lent the money to keep it flush.

On its journey to this point, the Central Valley city has become emblematic of both government excess and the financial calamity that resulted when the nation's housing bubble burst. Its salaries, benefits and borrowing were based on anticipated long-term developer fees and increasing property tax revenue. But those were lost in a flurry of foreclosures.

After the city's population grew by nearly 20 percent between 2000 and 2005 and real estate tripled in value, home prices plummeted 40 percent the following year before bottoming out at 70 percent.

Within two years, Stockton had accumulated nearly $1 billion in debt on civic improvements, money owed to pay pension contributions and the most generous health care benefit in the state -- coverage for life for all retirees plus a dependent no matter how long they had worked for the city.

"It's not realistic to think that something like that could be sustained indefinitely," Cochrane said.

Today, its largest creditors are the companies that in 2007, after the economy began to contract, insured the bonds that funded the city's over-extended pension obligations.

The city's deal was risky from the start, said Jeffrey Michael, who as director of the business forecasting center at University of the Pacific has studied the city's struggles.

"It was like refinancing your house and dumping the proceeds into the Wall Street market and hoping your earnings go up faster than the interest rate on your loan," he said.

By 2009, the city began slashing its budget to stay afloat. The police department lost 25 percent of its 441 sworn officers and fire was cut by 30 percent. City staff was cut by 40 percent. The city general fund budget, now $155 million, has been cut by $90 million over three years.

The impacts were felt everywhere. Wells Fargo seized three parking garages when the city defaulted on the $32 million in bonds that financed them. Bond holders also seized the $40 million downtown high rise that was to become City Hall.

Stockton recorded its highest-ever number of murders in 2011 and 2012, and had three just last Sunday. Last year, an FBI analysis of violent crime made it the 10th most dangerous city in the U.S. Its unemployment rate is 17.5 percent, and it has the third-highest illiteracy rate in the country.

"We are fiscally insolvent, but service insolvent as well and that threatens our ability to attract new business, which we need to recover," Cochrane said.

Last summer, the city began negotiating with creditors, a requirement before entering Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Ten employee unions agreed to temporary wage and benefits cuts.

Retired employees have also been asked to pick up a larger share of health care premiums, closing a $540 million retiree health care cost liability.

But the holders of the biggest share of the debt were the companies that in 2007 insured nearly $165 million in pension bond obligations to allow the city a lower interest rate and make them stable for investors. They were unable to negotiate a deal and want the city to avoid bankruptcy, which would likely allow Stockton to avoid repaying the debts in full.

Officials for the largest creditor, Assured Guaranty, said the city offered them 17 to 18 cents on the dollar for bonds that run through 2048, a deal they plan to argue in court is unacceptable. They say the city should further cut costs and raise taxes and point to city subsidies for the arena and $7 million in uncollected parking tickets.

City politicians also lack the political fortitude to cut contributions to CalPERS, the public employee pension program, Assured officials say. Employees who shared in the wealth when times were flush ought to sacrifice when they are not, they say.

Stockton wants to cut its repayment of the pension bonds without reducing the liability itself, the attorneys wrote.

Those opposing bankruptcy say the city needs long-term wage concessions from public employees, not the one- and two-year deals that were negotiated. The pain must be shared among all debt holders, they argue.

"Stockton has budgeted itself into insolvency. It is now trying to cram down a plan on those it did not favor, instead of focusing on creating a fair, equitable and long-term plan for all stakeholders," said Robert Tucker, managing director of Assured Guaranty.

Few people doubt the city will be successful at a four-day trial and enter bankruptcy, but that won't be the end of litigation. If Chapter 9 protection is approved, a federal bankruptcy judge would still have to decide whether Stockton's bankruptcy plan is fair, or whether it singles out some groups to bear more of the financial burden than others.

"All of us have a stake in ensuring Stockton gets back on its feet," said Tucker.

View the original article here

Supreme Court tackles gay marriage, as advocates line up for historic argument

- Gay marriage makes its way to the Supreme Court
- Battle over gay marriage heats up as issue heads to SCOTUS

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states.

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state."

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman."

But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument."

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday."

"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit.

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary."

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling.

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia.

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.

The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.

The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.

Supreme Court rulings are expected in June.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court tackles gay marriage, as advocates line up for historic argument

March 23, 2013: Those hoping to get a seat for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage line up early outside the court in Washington.AP