Top Story
Last year the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the FCC did not adequately justify the numerical limits for local television stations, local radio stations, and cross ownership within local markets. The appeals were headed by large media corporations looking to increase the size of their holdings by asking the courts to restore looser regulations.
The proposed rules would have allowed media companies to own more radio and television stations in a single market plus hold ownership of a local newspaper.
The media companies were asking the Supreme Court to review the 3rd Circuit decision. Today, the justices let stand the lower court ruling throwing out the revised rules. The Court made the ruling without comment.
It is now up to the FCC, which did not participate in the appeal, to rewrite the ownership rules to pass judicial review in the 3rd Circuit.
Court Won't Rule on Media Ownership Rules - Yahoo! News
--
Other Interesting Stories
Could the newest Supreme Court Justice come from the ranks of Congress? It is not a new concept.
Throughout history 15 senators have been elevated to the high court by presidential nomination. Justices Hugo Black and Salmon P. Chase are just two examples.
If President Bush goes this route to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, the nomination process could be a little easier. The Senate is inclined to give a current or former member an easier road to confirmation. This "senatorial courtesy" could enable a highly qualified nominee from the senate to become a justice. Of course, whoever the President nominates from the ranks of the Senate would have to be as highly qualified as any nominee.
During his first term, President Bush nominated Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO) as Attorney General. Although Ashcroft was confirmed his 58 - 42 vote was the closely for a "fellow" senator nominated to a cabinet post.
So, it may not matter who President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court. The Democrats and their liberal friends have vowed to make the nomination process a long, drawn out, contentious affair.
Senators Who Have Served on Supreme Court - Yahoo! News
--
In an unanimous decision the US Supreme Court ruled that procedures used in Ohio to place prisoners in maximum security facilities was constitutional.
In an opinion, written by Justice Arthur Kennedy, the high court ruled that the procedures did not violate constitutional rights of due process of prisoners who objected to being placed into the highest-security facility in Youngstown.
"We hold that the procedures Ohio has adopted provide sufficient procedural protection to comply with due process requirements," Kennedy said in upholding how Ohio classifies prisoners for placement at the prison.
Kennedy said Ohio's interest was the dominant factor. The state's first obligation was to ensure the safety of guards and prison personnel, the public and the prisoners themselves, he said.
Court upholds maximum-security prison rules - Yahoo! News
--
Last year the Supreme Court ruled the Bush administration was required to allow foreign terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay access to lawyers and courts. It did not, however, rule of the status of US citizens accused of being "enemy combatants" and held without trial. Such is the case of Jose Padilla.
Padilla has been in custody since 2002 who the government claims as a militant who planned to attack the US with a "dirty bomb."
Today the Supreme Court declined to hear Padilla's appeal because a federal appeals court has yet to rule on the issue. Arguments are schedul;ed for July 19th at the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA.
High Court Rejects Enemy Combatant Appeal - Yahoo! News
--
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled to overturn the conviction of a death row inmate who claimed prosecutors stacked the jury with whites.
The 6-3 decision ordered a new trial for Thomas Miller-El. The Court said that the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to reaffirm the conviction in light of strong evidence of prejudice during jury selection.
In the opinion, Justice David Souter noted that black jurors were questioned more aggressively about the death penalty, and the pool was "shuffled" at least twice by prosecutors, apparently to increase the chances whites would be selected.
"The prosecutors' chosen race-neutral reasons for the strikes do not hold up and are so far at odds with the evidence that pretext is the fair conclusion, indicating the very discrimination the explanations were meant to deny," Souter wrote.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued the Texas prosecutor had offered enough evidence that exclusions were made for reasons other than race.
Death Row Conviction Overturned Over Race - Yahoo! News
--
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment