The News Tracker

876, 899 (2010), should alter the analysis of contribution limits FECA places on political parties and PACs. The Plaintiffs raise three arguments in support of this proposition: first, that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Buckley and Colorado I support the notion that political parties’ political speech deserves a higher degree of protection than the political speech of PACs; second, that the $5,000 contribution limitation violates Randall; and third, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. In the third certified question, the Plaintiffs claim that § 441a(a)(2)(A )’s limitation violates the First Amendment because it imposes the same contribution limitations on parties as it does on political action committees (“PACs”). These arguments are without merit.

Continue reading “Prop C Passes In MO – First State To Reject Healthcare Bill” »

Furthermore, the court believed that the hearing would only last five to ten minutes, and it was in fact relatively brief. The court offered that, while, generally, due process guarantees defendants the right to appear in court free of restraints, defendants may be restrained to prevent escape and to protect others and maintain order in the courtroom. Related thereto, the Superior Court rejected Appellant’s assertion that his restraints impeded his ability to communicate with counsel, as the record disclosed that Appellant and counsel were able to freely communicate. In light of these circumstances, the Superior Court found that keeping Appellant restrained did not infringe his due process rights. The Superior Court also denied Appellant’s contention that he was denied due process by virtue of his restraint prior to and during his hearing, specifically, claiming that the visible restraints rendered his hearing unfair and that the restraints were improper as the proceedings are civil in nature. Moreover, the court expressed its concern that Appellant was a flight risk, and Appellant was known to run away from home. Here, the Superior Court reasoned, the proceedings did not involve a jury, but a judge. Appellant appealed to our Court. Based upon the foregoing, the Superior Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order and denied Appellant’s challenges thereto. Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that Appellant did not establish that his constitutional rights were violated by his wearing restraints before the judge.

Continue reading “Prop C Passes In MO – First State To Reject Healthcare Bill” »

Appellant appealed to our Court. Moreover, the court expressed its concern that Appellant was a flight risk, and Appellant was known to run away from home. Based upon the foregoing, the Superior Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order and denied Appellant’s challenges thereto. Furthermore, the court believed that the hearing would only last five to ten minutes, and it was in fact relatively brief. Here, the Superior Court reasoned, the proceedings did not involve a jury, but a judge. The Superior Court also denied Appellant’s contention that he was denied due process by virtue of his restraint prior to and during his hearing, specifically, claiming that the visible restraints rendered his hearing unfair and that the restraints were improper as the proceedings are civil in nature. Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that Appellant did not establish that his constitutional rights were violated by his wearing restraints before the judge. In light of these circumstances, the Superior Court found that keeping Appellant restrained did not infringe his due process rights. Related thereto, the Superior Court rejected Appellant’s assertion that his restraints impeded his ability to communicate with counsel, as the record disclosed that Appellant and counsel were able to freely communicate. The court offered that, while, generally, due process guarantees defendants the right to appear in court free of restraints, defendants may be restrained to prevent escape and to protect others and maintain order in the courtroom.

Continue reading “Prop C Passes In MO – First State To Reject Healthcare Bill” »

Here, the Superior Court reasoned, the proceedings did not involve a jury, but a judge. Furthermore, the court believed that the hearing would only last five to ten minutes, and it was in fact relatively brief. The Superior Court also denied Appellant’s contention that he was denied due process by virtue of his restraint prior to and during his hearing, specifically, claiming that the visible restraints rendered his hearing unfair and that the restraints were improper as the proceedings are civil in nature. Related thereto, the Superior Court rejected Appellant’s assertion that his restraints impeded his ability to communicate with counsel, as the record disclosed that Appellant and counsel were able to freely communicate. In light of these circumstances, the Superior Court found that keeping Appellant restrained did not infringe his due process rights. Appellant appealed to our Court. The court offered that, while, generally, due process guarantees defendants the right to appear in court free of restraints, defendants may be restrained to prevent escape and to protect others and maintain order in the courtroom. Moreover, the court expressed its concern that Appellant was a flight risk, and Appellant was known to run away from home. Based upon the foregoing, the Superior Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order and denied Appellant’s challenges thereto. Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that Appellant did not establish that his constitutional rights were violated by his wearing restraints before the judge.

Continue reading “Prop C Passes In MO – First State To Reject Healthcare Bill” »

It would appear that Simon Cowell and Kobie Bryant can trump even the president of the United States when it comes to a stunning election upset in Massachusetts. Republican Scott Brown, aided in part probably by his daughter Ayla’s voter appeal, shocked the highly pro-Democratic state by soundly defeating Martha Coakley, who was bidding to hang onto the seat for the president’s party, which had been in Democratic hands for more than half a century under the late Ted Kennedy’s watchful eye. Brown’s unlikely victory in the Senate race throws the president’s health-care bill into chaos as it reduces his margin in the upper house to 59-41, leaving the Republicans in position to block legislation through filibuster. Ayla Brown is a former American Idol contest and college basketball player. Continue reading “Brown’s full court press a stumbling block to Obama’s health-care bill in Senate” »