|
|
|
RNC launches campaign to oppose Obama's Supreme Court pick
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/03/19 01:10
|
The Republican Party is launching a campaign to try to derail President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, teaming up with a conservative opposition research group to target vulnerable Democrats and impugn whomever Obama picks.
A task force housed within the Republican National Committee will orchestrate attack ads, petitions and media outreach to bolster a strategy that Senate Republicans adopted as soon as Justice Antonin Scalia died last month: refusing to consider an Obama nominee out of hopes that the next president will be a Republican.
The RNC will contract with America Rising Squared, an outside group targeting Democrats that's run by a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain. GOP chairman Reince Priebus said it would be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in the party's history.
Priebus said the RNC would "make sure Democrats have to answer to the American people for why they don't want voters to have a say in this process."
Obama is expected to announce his pick as early as this week, touching off a heated election-year battle as Obama and Democrats try to pressure Republicans into relenting and allowing hearings and a vote. Advocacy groups on both sides are primed to unleash an onslaught of activity aimed at rallying public support, and a number of former top Obama advisers have been drafted to run the Democratic effort.
RNC officials said that in addition to scouring the nominee's history for anything that can be used against him or her, the party will also work to portray Democrats as hypocritical, dredging up comments that Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats made in previous years suggesting presidents shouldn't ram through nominees to the high court in the midst of an election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to weigh cocaine cases, could alter sentencing in Ohio
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/02/10 15:24
|
Prosecutors across Ohio are concerned that a ruling under review by Ohio's top court could delay and shorten sentences for suspects caught with cocaine and force costly changes upon law enforcement.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to uphold an appeals court decision calling into question how prosecutors have handled cocaine cases for years. It all comes eastdown to weight.
A state appeals court in Toledo ruled last year prosecutors should have determined how much pure cocaine a suspect arrested in a drug sting had with him or her instead of sentencing him based on the weight of the entire amount.
The appeals court ruled that Ohio's drug laws say that what matters is the weight of the cocaine only not filler material such as baking soda that's often added by drug dealers to stretch out their supply and increase profits.
Prosecutors along with the state Attorney General's office argue that such a narrow interpretation creates a new distinction for cocaine that isn't applied to any other illegal drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACLU to appeal court ruling in Missouri drug testing case
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/01/20 15:31
|
The American Civil Liberties Union said it plans to appeal a federal court ruling that upheld a technical college’s plan to force every incoming student to be tested for drugs.
Tony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU’s Missouri chapter, told the Jefferson City News Tribune that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given the organization until Jan. 4 to file a petition seeking a rehearing by either the same three-judge panel that issued the ruling earlier this month, or by all of the active 8th Circuit judges.
“We intend to request both,” Rothert said. “While rehearing is difficult to obtain, we are fortunate in this case to have a majority decision that is poorly crafted and departs from 8th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.”
The ACLU filed the federal lawsuit in 2011 challenging a mandatory drug-testing policy Linn State Technical College’s Board of Regents approved in June of that year. The school since has changed its name to State Technical College of Missouri.
The lawsuit argued the policy violated the students’ Fourth Amendment right “to be secure . against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
When it started the program, the school said the testing policy was intended “to provide a safe, healthy and productive environment for everyone who learns and works at Linn State Technical College by detecting, preventing and deterring drug use and abuse among students.”
Under the policy, students had to pay a $50 fee for the drug test and could be blocked from attending if they refused to be tested.
U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey issued a ruling in September 2013 that limited the drug testing to five Linn State programs. But in its 2-1 vote earlier this month, the federal appeals court panel overturned her ruling as too narrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses judge on paper's use of 'snitch' transcripts
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2015/12/27 16:54
|
A an appeals court has tossed out a Florida judge's order that a newspaper remove transcripts of telephone conversations from a story on its website about a jailhouse "snitch" and his cooperation with prosecutors.
The 4th District Court of Appeal sided Tuesday with The Palm Beach Post. Newspaper attorney Martin Reeder argued that Circuit Judge Jack Schramm Cox's order last month was improper prior restraint on the paper's First Amendment right to publish information.
Cox had ruled that publication violated informant Frederick Cobia's right to privacy.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled there are few instances in which a judge can block a newspaper from publishing information.
The story detailed how Cobia bragged in the recordings about getting incriminating information from other jail inmates, including some accused of murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't hear appeal over Walker campaign probe
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2015/05/18 23:35
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a conservative group seeking to end an investigation into possible illegal coordination between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign and independent groups.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O'Keefe, must resolve their claims in state courts.
No one has been charged as a result of the investigation which has sought documents and testimony about possible violation of state campaign finance laws.
The investigation is on hold while a separate legal challenge is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The club and O'Keefe argued that the investigation was a violation of their First Amendment rights and an attempt to criminalize political speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
