Tag Archives: judge

Supreme Court Rules That Judges Can’t Hit You Up For Donations

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In a ruling that might surprise those who’ve watched recent Supreme Court’s rulings on campaign finance issues, the high court ruled today that states can ban judges from directly soliciting campaign donations.

The case, Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, was a First Amendment challenge to a Florida rule that barred judicial candidates from personally asking donors for money. Lanelle Williams-Yulee unsuccessfully ran to become a county judge in 2009. During her campaign, she signed a letter asking for campaign contributions. The Florida Supreme Court later found that she had violated state rules on judicial campaigns. Williams-Yulee challenged that decision but lost.

Among the 39 states hold judicial elections, 30 have bans on judges personally asking for campaign money. As Mother Jones reported last year, judicial elections have quietly become a major battleground in American politics over the last decade. State judicial candidates raised a combined $83 million in the 1990s, a total that was surpassed by roughly $30 million in the 2011-12 election cycle. More than $200 million has been donated to state supreme court candidates since 2000, and independent (and often unaccountable) spending on state judicial races has increased nearly sevenfold in that same time. Sue Bell Cobb, the retired chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, recently likened judicial elections to “legalized extortion.”

Justice At Stake, a nonpartisan watchdog group that often speaks out against big money in judicial elections, applauded the Supreme Court’s decision. “Today’s decision helps judges, by saving them from the compromising job of raising cash from people whose cases they will decide,” the group’s executive director, Bert Brandenberg said in a statement. ” It helps our court system, by shoring up its ability to be fair and impartial. And it helps the public, by reassuring them that they will not find themselves in court before a judge who has received a check directly from the opposing party in their case.”

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in the 5-4 decision. “Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” he wrote. “And a State’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office. A State may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor—and without having personally asked anyone for money.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the minority, called the court’s decision a “wildly disproportionate restriction upon speech.”

See more here – 

Supreme Court Rules That Judges Can’t Hit You Up For Donations

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules That Judges Can’t Hit You Up For Donations

Why Is My Bank Teller Trying to Sell Me a Credit Card I Don’t Want?

Mother Jones

Until recently, your typical banker was someone whose main job was to accept deposits, cash checks, and dispense basic financial advice. But now that job hardly exists anymore—at least not as we once knew it. Today’s front-line bank workers—tellers, loan interviewers, and customer-service reps—earn far too little money to be considered “bankers” in the traditional sense of the word. And though they still collect and dispense money, their main job involves hawking credit cards and loans you probably don’t need.

Rank-and-file bank workers are both causes and symptoms of America’s widening economic divide, says Aditi Sen, the author of Big Banks and the Dismantling of the Middle Class, a report released today by the Center for Popular Democracy. Based on union organizer interviews with hundreds of workers in the industry, Sen found that front-line bank workers often face quotas for hawking potentially exploitive financial products, often to low-income customers, even though the workers themselves barely qualify as middle class. “We can definitely see bank workers as part of the same continuum of issues facing all low-wage workers,” she says.

Banks are, of course, notorious for squeezing profits from their employees and customers. In 2011, the Federal Reserve Board fined Wells Fargo $85 million for forcing workers to sell expensive subprime mortgages to prime borrowers. And in late 2013, a judge slapped Bank of America with a $1.27 billion penalty for its “Hustle Program,” which rewarded employees for producing more loans and eliminating controls on the loans’ quality.

Yet, by some accounts, these sorts of practices are getting worse. In a 2013 study by the union-backed Committee for Better Banks, 35 percent of low-level bank workers surveyed reported increased sales pressure since 2008, and nearly 38 percent stated that there was no real avenue in the workplace to oppose such practices. One HSBC bank employee, according to the study, reported that workers who failed to meet their sales goals had the difference taken out of their paychecks.

The increasing sales pressure comes at a time when the fortunes of the banks and their low-level workers have diverged widely. Bank profits and CEO pay have rebounded to near record levels while wages for front-line workers are stuck in the gutter.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

And that’s not all. Nearly a quarter of bank workers surveyed in 2013 reported that their benefits had been cut since 2008, and 44 percent reported that their medical and life insurance was inadequate. A recent University of California-Berkeley study found that 31 percent of bank tellers’ families rely on public assistance at an annual cost of $900 million to taxpayers.

There are several factors in all of these woes. Mergers and consolidation have led some retail banks to shutter branches and lay people off. Many banks have outsourced customer-service jobs to overseas call centers, and the rise of internet and smartphone banking has further slashed demand for flesh-and-blood tellers. In other words, it’s basically the same mix of foreign and technological competition that has concentrated wealth and depressed middle-class wages throughout the economy. And it means that banks can get away with paying people less, and demanding more in return.

But now the Committee for Better Banks is trying to cultivate common cause between low-level bank workers and the customers they’re forced to target. The interviews featured in the new report show that many bank workers strongly oppose the sales quotas as unfair and exploitive. For instance:

A teller at a top-five bank reports that she is subject to stringent individual goals on a daily basis: If she does not make three sales-points (selling someone a new checking, savings, or debit card account) each day in a month, she gets written up.

Customer service representatives at a call center for another major bank report that each individual has to make 40 percent of the sales of the top seller to avoid being written up. Selling credit cards counts more towards sales goals than helping someone open up a checking account or savings account, thereby crafting skewed incentives based on the profitability of a product sold, not on how well it matched the needs of a customer.

“A lot of time people would call and already have one, two, or three credit cards with us,” says Liz, a member of the Committee for Better Banks who worked in a Bank of America call center for five years and did not want to give her last name. “They might have a situation where they are low on funds and we end up pushing another credit card on them. There was one guy who had three credit cards and I ended up pushing a fourth on him, even though I knew that was not good for him; he would just be in more debt. But if didn’t, I would end up being put in a reprimand.”

On Monday, members of the Committee for Better Banks will converge in Minnesota’s Twin Cities to deliver a petition to bank offices demanding better pay and more stable work hours for rank-and-file workers, and an end to sales goals that “push unnecessary products on our customers.”

Source – 

Why Is My Bank Teller Trying to Sell Me a Credit Card I Don’t Want?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Anker, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Is My Bank Teller Trying to Sell Me a Credit Card I Don’t Want?

James O’Keefe Loses Libel Suit Over Landrieu Incident

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Conservative filmmaker and provocateur James O’Keefe has lost another legal battle: on Monday, a federal court in New Jersey dismissed a libel suit O’Keefe filed against legal news website MainJustice. In August 2013, MainJustice published an article referring to a 2010 incident in which O’Keefe and his associates posed as telephone technicians to gain access to the offices of then–Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). O’Keefe and three others ultimately pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of entering federal property under false pretenses.

In its original article, MainJustice said that O’Keefe was “apparently trying to bug” Landrieu’s offices. After O’Keefe complained, the website changed the sentence to read that O’Keefe and his associates “were trying to tamper with Landrieu’s phones.” Still, O’Keefe sued, alleging that both characterizations were defamatory because they implied he had committed a felony. MainJustice countered that the language wasn’t defamatory because the substance of the article was true, and the site accurately described the legal proceedings triggered by the episode.

The court didn’t find O’Keefe’s case convincing. Judge Claire Cecchi wrote in her opinion:

Regardless of whether the article used the words “apparently trying to bug” or “trying to tamper,” the few words challenged by the Plaintiff, taken in context, do not alter the fundamental gist of the paragraph… Therefore, the words “trying to tamper with,” understood in the colloquial sense, convey the substantial truth of the Landrieu incident and do not alter the ultimate conclusion of the paragraph—that Plaintiff was guilty of a misdemeanor.

Mary Jacoby, editor-in-chief of MainJustice, writes in a statement:

This is an important First Amendment victory. It’s a total, resounding defeat of O’Keefe’s attempts to intimidate journalists into accepting his spin on the circumstances of his 2010 entry into Sen. Landrieu’s offices under false pretenses.

In 2013, O’Keefe paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed against him by a former employee of ACORN, a nonprofit the filmmaker had targeted. In a statement to Mother Jones, an O’Keefe spokesman said, “While we are disappointed in the Court’s decision, it is one that we respect due to the complex and difficult nature of proving defamation. That being said, we think it is important to note that this decision in no way validates any of the false statements made against Project Veritas or James O’Keefe.”

Read the article: 

James O’Keefe Loses Libel Suit Over Landrieu Incident

Posted in Anchor, Coby, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on James O’Keefe Loses Libel Suit Over Landrieu Incident

Judge Rules You Can’t Sue the NSA for Secretly Spying on You Unless You Prove You’re Being Secretly Spied On

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Advocates for less government snooping suffered a blow Tuesday when a federal judge in California ruled that a group of citizens can not sue the National Security Agency to stop the “upstream” collection of their data.

US District Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the plaintiffs in the case, Jewel v. NSA, failed to prove that they have the right to sue because they could not prove that their individual information had been collected and prepared for analysis. Further, White wrote, “even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require impermissible disclosure of state secret information.”

Essentially, because the plaintiffs can’t say specifically how their data was collected by the government, this aspect of their case won’t go forward. The reason they can’t offer specifics is because, even after the Snowden leaks, the exact workings of the NSA surveillance program remain undisclosed. And even if the plaintiffs could show those specifics, the NSA could swat down their suit by claiming that the case would compromise state secrets.

“Upstream” collection refers to the government’s admitted practice of copying phone and internet traffic moving through the fiber optic backbone of the internet, trying to filter out purely domestic information, and then searching the remaining traffic for certain keywords, phrases, email addresses, etc.

Here’s how the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents the plaintiffs, responded to the ruling:

The EFF went a bit further with a statement on its site:

EFF will keep fighting the unlawful, unconstitutional surveillance of ordinary Americans by the U.S. government. Today’s ruling in Jewel v. NSA was not a declaration that NSA spying is legal. The judge decided instead that “state secrets” prevented him from ruling whether the program is constitutional.

It would be a travesty of justice if our clients are denied their day in court over the “secrecy” of a program that has been front-page news for nearly a decade. Judge White’s ruling does not end our case. The judge’s ruling only concerned Upstream Internet surveillance, not the telephone records collection nor other mass surveillance that are also at issue in Jewel.

We will continue to fight to end NSA mass surveillance.

The EFF says it is considering its next steps.

Read the full ruling:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1658679-pdfserver-amlaw-com-nlj-jewel-nsa-20150210.js”,
width: 630,
height: 450,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1658679-pdfserver-amlaw-com-nlj-jewel-nsa-20150210”
);

White “Upstream” Ruling Jewel v NSA (PDF)

White “Upstream” Ruling Jewel v NSA (Text)

Read article here – 

Judge Rules You Can’t Sue the NSA for Secretly Spying on You Unless You Prove You’re Being Secretly Spied On

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Judge Rules You Can’t Sue the NSA for Secretly Spying on You Unless You Prove You’re Being Secretly Spied On

BP’s missing oil is found — where else? — on the bottom of the Gulf

BP’s missing oil is found — where else? — on the bottom of the Gulf

By on 4 Feb 2015commentsShare

After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, some of the estimated 200 million gallons of oil that spilled were never recovered. They were missing. Now researchers have found some of them: A good 10 million gallons are sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

A new study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, hypothesizes that about 5 percent of oil from the spill made it to the seafloor. A separate study in October put that number at about 10 percent. “Our number is a little bit more conservative than theirs,” said Jeff Chanton, lead author of the new study, but “if the two approaches agree within a factor of two, that’s pretty good for estimating all of the oil on the seafloor.” Basically, a lot of oil is down there.

And that oil can cause a lot of problems. Because there’s less oxygen deeper in the Gulf, it will take more time to decompose. And the oil can lead to tumors and lesions in sea animals, the researchers found.

“Fish will likely ingest contaminants because worms ingest the sediment, and fish eat the worms. It’s a conduit for contamination into the food web,” Chanton said. “This is going to affect the Gulf for years to come.”

The findings come as BP continues trying to weasel its way out of paying fines and reparations for the spill. Reuters reports that the company is pushing back against a multi-billion-dollar government fine under the Clean Water Act:

In arguments that wrapped up on Monday, BP tried to whittle away at $13.7 billion in potential fines if faces under the Clean Water Act for the worst offshore disaster in U.S. history.

BP has said its fine should be modest as it took extensive steps to mitigate the disaster and that the defendant named in the case, BP’s exploration and production unit, known as BPXP, cannot afford a big penalty.

And the Associated Press reports that the company is still seeking to challenge the way in which businesses affected by the spill are compensated — by attacking the man in charge of distributing the funds.

BP says the claims administrator, Patrick Juneau, failed to disclose that he worked on previous oil spill litigation for the state of Louisiana when he was hired to oversee settlement payouts.

Attorneys for Juneau told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that he hid nothing improper and his record of work for the state was public well before BP and others agreed to his hiring in 2012.

All sides hailed the settlement when it was approved in 2012. But BP later argued that Juneau was misinterpreting the settlement and paying claims to businesses that didn’t deserve them.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier and the 5th Circuit ruled that, under the settlement BP agreed to, businesses do not have to prove they were directly harmed by the spill to collect money — only that they made less money in the three to eight months after the spill.

In case you weren’t feeling sorry enough for BP already, today also brings news that the company’s profits and share price are both down because of low oil prices. Cue the tiny violins.

Source:
“Missing oil” from 2010 BP spill found on gulf seafloor

, CBS News.

Ruling on BP fine over 2010 U.S. oil spill months away: lawyers

, Reuters.

BP Urges Judges to Remove Head of Oil Spill Settlement Fund

, The Associated Press.

BP profits hit by lower oil price

, BBC News.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Continued – 

BP’s missing oil is found — where else? — on the bottom of the Gulf

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BP’s missing oil is found — where else? — on the bottom of the Gulf

Chris Christie Is Now Waging 23 Court Battles to Keep State Documents Secret

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On his first day as governor of New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie promised “a new era of accountability and transparency.” But five years later, local reporters and watchdog groups accuse Christie’s administration of making unprecedented efforts to keep public records a secret.

Stonewalled my the Christie administration, media outlets have been forced to sue to obtain even routinely disclosed information, such as payroll data. Rather than release documents connected to the George Washington Bridge scandal, pay-to-play allegations, possible ethics violations, and the out-of-state jaunts Christie has made while weighing a run for president, Christie’s office and several state agencies have waged costly court battles. As the 2016 presidential primary race draws closer, and Christie considers jumping in, his administration is fighting 23 different open records requests in court.

“The track record is abysmal,” says Jennifer Borg, general counsel for the North Jersey Media Group. Her organization, which publishes The Record, has sued the state for public documents a half-dozen times since Christie took office. When a judge determines that the state withheld records illegally—which happens frequently—her group wins legal fees. As of September 2014, Christie’s administration had paid $441,000 to North Jersey Media Group and other media outlets for records. And that doesn’t count the cost of government lawyers’ time.

The fight has become so expensive for the state because when newspapers go to court for these records, they usually win. But winning doesn’t automatically produce the sought-after records. “We can and do beat them in court. But as long as they’re appealing—I don’t want to call it a Pyrrhic victory, but we’re not going to get the records,” says Walter Luers, an attorney who helped a transparency project run by the state Libertarian Party sue for public access for Christie’s travel expenses. “Appeals take two to three years. We’re already into the presidential elections. By the time we get these records, Christie could have a new address.”

Christie’s reluctance to let these records go is understandable. On Tuesday, for example, The New York Times published an investigation of ritzy trips, underwritten by megadonors and foreign leaders, the governor has taken abroad. Some of those accounts were based on public documents that local newspapers obtained through lawsuits.

Below is a roundup of the Christie administration’s most closely-guarded secrets.

Out-of-state travel. Christie has traveled around the country to raise money for the GOP and to test the waters for a 2016 presidential run. But no one knows whether it’s influential donors or taxpayers who are footing the bill for Christie’s travels. Last year, New Jersey Watchdog, a conservative news site, demanded to know who picked up the tab for more than 60 unofficial trips Christie took out of state beginning in 2012. Christie’s office denied its request, and a judge tossed Watchdog‘s resulting lawsuit in July for being too broad.

In a separate request, New Jersey Watchdog asked for records detailing Christie’s out-of-state air travel expenses. That request also went to court, and the judge ordered the governor’s office to release some travel documents. The records showed the state reimbursing an unknown third party thousands of dollars for Christie’s trip to the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans.

Taxpayer-fueled fundraising. Because Christie’s travel is connected to his fundraising work as the Republican Governors Association chair, the RGA probably paid for many of his trips. But The Record, one of Jersey’s largest newspapers, and WNYC, a radio station, requested documents indicating whether taxpayers shouldered any of Christie’s travel costs—such as overtime for the security detail that always accompanies the governor—while he raised cash for the GOP.

Christie’s office sent WNYC “a document so heavily redacted as to be all but meaningless,” says Laura Walker, the president of New York Public Radio, which owns WNYC. The outlet is suing for unredacted files. The Record also went to court for the documents, and the state and the newspaper are trying to reach a settlement.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading here:  

Chris Christie Is Now Waging 23 Court Battles to Keep State Documents Secret

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie Is Now Waging 23 Court Battles to Keep State Documents Secret

Scott Walker Is the Winner in 2016’s First Republican Campaign Cattle Call

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Rep. Steve King (R–Tea Partyville) held his big annual Republican confab in Iowa this weekend, and most of the 2016 wannabe candidates for president were there. But I know you’re all busy people who don’t care about the details. Youjust want to know who won. Take it away, Ed Kilgore:

The consensus winner (first announced by National Review’s John Fund, but echoed by many others) was Scott Walker, who did exactly what he needed to do: show he could twist and shout with the best of them despite his “boring” image, and make an electability argument based on the fruits of confrontation rather than compromise. This latter dimension of his appeal should not be underestimated: at a time when MSM types and (more subtly) Jeb Bush and Chris Christie continue to suggest Republicans must become less feral to reach beyond their base, here’s Walker saying he won three elections in four years in a blue state by going medieval on unions, abortionists and Big Government. So Walker’s passed his first test in the challenge of proving he’s not Tim Pawlenty, and that’s a big deal given his excellent positioning in the field.

Kilgore’s “Tim Pawlenty” comment is a reference to Midwestern boringness, which has generally been seen as Walker’s chief shortcoming. You can judge for yourself if you watch his 20-minute speech in Iowa, but I’d say he still has some work to do on this score. He wasn’t terrible, but he never sounded to me like he really struck a connection with the crowd. He knew the words but not the tune—and even his words were a little too stilted and lifeless. Anytime you deliver an applause line and nothing happens, your words still need some work. And anytime you deliver an applause line, fail to wait for applause, then interrupt yourself to tell the crowd “you can clap for that, that’s all right”—well, your delivery needs some work too.

I’m on record saying that I think Walker is the strongest candidate in the Republican field. He’s got the right views, he’s got a winning record, he’s got the confrontational style tea partiers love, and he doesn’t come across as a kook. But yes, he needs to work on the whole charisma thing. If he gets serious about that, I still like his chances in the 2016 primaries.

Read more:  

Scott Walker Is the Winner in 2016’s First Republican Campaign Cattle Call

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Is the Winner in 2016’s First Republican Campaign Cattle Call

Valdmir Putin’s Russia: Criticize the Government and Your Family Will Be Locked Up in a Penal Colony

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The show trial of one of Valdimir Putin’s chief political critics ended today. He was convicted and banned from political office for ten years, but the sentence was suspended and he immediately joined a protest march upon his release. So what happened next?

The police in Moscow briefly detained the anticorruption crusader and political opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny on Tuesday as he tried to join an unauthorized, antigovernment rally, just hours after a Moscow court had given him a suspended sentence on criminal fraud charges. Yet, in a sign of how unwilling the authorities are to make a martyr of Mr. Navalny, they said later that the police were merely escorting him back to his home, Interfax reported.

Well, that’s not so bad. Maybe Putin is lightening up a bit. Except for one little thing:

His brother Oleg was jailed for three and a half years for the same offence….Navalny’s supporters said the Kremlin was returning to the sinister Soviet-era practice of punishing the relatives of those it disliked. Upon hearing the verdict, mumbled quietly by the judge, Yelena Korobchenko, Alexei Navalny rolled his eyes and looked at his brother.

….Oleg Navalny is the father of two small children and a former executive of the state-owned postal service. Unlike his better known brother, he has never played a role in the Russian opposition movement. His imprisonment in a penal colony seems to echo the Soviet-era practice of arresting the relatives of “inconvenient” people.

So they let Aleksei go free in order to keep him from being a martyr, but tossed his brother into prison as a hostage to his good behavior. Charming. A spokesman admitted that Putin “had been aware of the Navalny case, but that Tuesday’s ruling ‘isn’t important enough to merit a special report’ to the president.” I actually believe this. For Putin, it’s just another day at the office.

Originally posted here – 

Valdmir Putin’s Russia: Criticize the Government and Your Family Will Be Locked Up in a Penal Colony

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Valdmir Putin’s Russia: Criticize the Government and Your Family Will Be Locked Up in a Penal Colony

Vladimir Putin’s Russia: Criticize the Government and Your Family Will Be Locked Up in a Penal Colony

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The show trial of one of Vladimir Putin’s chief political critics ended today. He was convicted and banned from political office for ten years, but the sentence was suspended and he immediately joined a protest march upon his release. So what happened next?

The police in Moscow briefly detained the anticorruption crusader and political opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny on Tuesday as he tried to join an unauthorized, antigovernment rally, just hours after a Moscow court had given him a suspended sentence on criminal fraud charges. Yet, in a sign of how unwilling the authorities are to make a martyr of Mr. Navalny, they said later that the police were merely escorting him back to his home, Interfax reported.

Well, that’s not so bad. Maybe Putin is lightening up a bit. Except for one little thing:

His brother Oleg was jailed for three and a half years for the same offence….Navalny’s supporters said the Kremlin was returning to the sinister Soviet-era practice of punishing the relatives of those it disliked. Upon hearing the verdict, mumbled quietly by the judge, Yelena Korobchenko, Alexei Navalny rolled his eyes and looked at his brother.

….Oleg Navalny is the father of two small children and a former executive of the state-owned postal service. Unlike his better known brother, he has never played a role in the Russian opposition movement. His imprisonment in a penal colony seems to echo the Soviet-era practice of arresting the relatives of “inconvenient” people.

So they let Aleksei go free in order to keep him from being a martyr, but tossed his brother into prison as a hostage to his good behavior. Charming. A spokesman admitted that Putin “had been aware of the Navalny case, but that Tuesday’s ruling ‘isn’t important enough to merit a special report’ to the president.” I actually believe this. For Putin, it’s just another day at the office.

Read this article:  

Vladimir Putin’s Russia: Criticize the Government and Your Family Will Be Locked Up in a Penal Colony

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vladimir Putin’s Russia: Criticize the Government and Your Family Will Be Locked Up in a Penal Colony

Republicans Finally Sue Over Obamacare — And There’s Even a Surprise Included

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

House Republicans finally filed their long-awaited lawsuit against President Obama today, and it actually contained a surprise:

The suit also challenges what it says is President Obama’s unlawful giveaway of roughly $175 billion to insurance companies under the law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the administration will pay that amount to the companies over the next 10 years, though the funds have not been appropriated by Congress. The lawsuit argues that it is an unlawful transfer of funds.

….If the lawsuit is successful, poor people would not lose their health care, because the insurance companies would still be required to provide coverage — but without the help of the government subsidy, the companies might be forced to raise costs elsewhere. The subsidies reduce the co-payments, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs that consumers incur when they go to doctors and hospitals.

Long story short, it turns out there are two parts to the suit. The first part challenges Obama’s delay of the employer mandate, and it’s entirely symbolic. After all, it’s only a delay. Even if Republicans win, by the time the case makes it all the way through the court system it will be moot. The delay will be over by then and the employer mandate will be in place.

But this second part is unexpected. Republicans are arguing that a provision of the law called Cost Sharing Reduction wasn’t automatically funded, as were most parts of the law. The law authorizes CSR, but no appropriation was ever made, so it’s illegal to actually pay out these funds.

Do they have a case? This is a brand new allegation, so I don’t think anyone has yet had a chance to look into it. But if I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably about as specious as every other allegation against Obamacare. Unfortunately, though, that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court won’t uphold it. You never know these days. In the meantime, conservatives are likely to be dizzy with excitement over the whole thing since (a) it involves a clear constitutional question about appropriating funds, and (b) it would hurt poor people. That’s quite a twofer.

Of course, the suit still has to survive challenges to Congress’ standing to sue in the first place, and that might kill it before any court even begins to judge the merits of the case. Wait and see.

From: 

Republicans Finally Sue Over Obamacare — And There’s Even a Surprise Included

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Finally Sue Over Obamacare — And There’s Even a Surprise Included