supreme court rules

Ky. Supreme Court Rules Private Baptist College Can’t Keep State Funds

Posted 4/22/10 at 1:18pm by jamie

For this to happen in Kentucky is pretty amazing:

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Baptist university can't keep $11 million awarded by state lawmakers some four years ago to open a pharmacy school.

The case, which involves the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, had been closely watched by advocates for other church-affiliated schools that have largely been excluded in the past from state funding for construction projects.

A trial court judge had ruled in 2008 that the appropriation to the private, church-affiliated university violates the state constitution. The university's attorneys appealed directly to the supreme court, skipping the court of appeals, in hopes of expediting a decision.

Lawmakers had appropriated $10 million in 2006 to build a pharmacy school on the southeastern Kentucky campus and an additional $1 million for scholarships for pharmacy students.

[SNIP]

The gay-rights group Kentucky Fairness Alliance filed the lawsuit in 2006 after the University of the Cumberlands expelled a gay student for posting comments about his sexual orientation and dating life on the Internet. Attorneys for the organization tried using the expulsion to bolster their arguments in the lawsuit that the school shouldn't receive funding from Kentucky taxpayers.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to take up a similar case in the near future. Hopefully the decision will go the same way.

BREAKING: Iowa Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Equality

Posted 4/3/09 at 9:54am by jamie

Get ready for the wingnuts to declare war on Iowa:

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

Now if California and the rest of the country could follow suit, or follow common sense.

Supreme Court Rules Against Whistle Blower

Posted 3/27/07 at 12:44pm by jamie

From Today's Washington Post:

The Supreme Court made it harder Tuesday for whistle-blowers to share in the proceeds from fraud lawsuits against government contractors.

The court ruled 6-2 that James Stone, an 81-year-old retired engineer, may not collect a penny for his role in exposing fraud at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant northwest of Denver.

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said Stone was not an original source of the information that resulted in Rockwell International, now part of aerospace giant Boeing Co., being ordered to pay the government nearly $4.2 million for fraud connected with environmental cleanup at the Rocky Flats plant.

Rockwell must pay the entire penalty anyway. The only question before the court was whether Stone would get his cut.

At first read this may appear as a bad ruling, but further analysis of it proves otherwise. Sure the people who whistle blow can't get money, but that now means whistle blowers should be taken more seriously. If they are risking their jobs and careers to expose wrong-doing, then we must consider that the facts they are laying out are truthful.

SUPREME COURT RULES - Bush Overstepped His Authority

Posted 6/29/06 at 2:37pm by jamie

This was the big ruling everyone was waiting on and Bush suffered a big blow on it:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bush administration did not have the legal authority to go forward with military tribunals for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba.

The 5-3 ruling means officials will either have to come up with new procedures to prosecute at least 10 so-called enemy combatants awaiting trial, or release them from U.S. military custody.

The case was a major test of President Bush's authority as commander in chief in a wartime setting. Bush has aggressively asserted the power of the government to capture, detain, and prosecute suspected terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The high court was ruling on the case of Ahmed Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni native captured in Afghanistan in 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks. He is accused of conspiracy, which his lawyers say is not an internationally approved charge.

His lawyers argued that President Bush exceeded his authority by setting up military commissions to try terrorist suspects, whom the administration terms "enemy combatants," rather than prisoners of war. The term means the suspects do not have the rights traditionally afforded prisoners of war, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.

Three issues were before the high court: whether the planned tribunals are a proper exercise of presidential authority; whether detainees facing prosecution have the right to challenge the procedures of those tribunals and their detentions; and whether the Supreme Court even has the jurisdiction to hear such appeals.

Pages

Comments



blog advertising is good for you

Tip Jar

Monthly archive

Follow Me On Twitter


Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter:
Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter