See all Solana Beach School District posts.
See all Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz posts.
Irony alert: One of the partners of the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm, Leslie Devaney, has been a board member of CALA, Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse, an organization that criticizes unnecessary litigation!
The only good thing that Solana Beach School District did for the taxpayers with its excessive spending on the Ka. D. v. Solana Beach case was to cause trustee Art Palkowitz to decide not to run for reelection. The District didn't intend to do this, of course. It probably thought no one would notice what it was up to.
After a justice on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal expressed astonishment that Solana Beach had already wasted so much taxpayer money on the case, Solana Beach School District paid even more public money to the firm to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Ninth Circuit seemed to be wondering what the school board members were thinking when they decided to pursue the case.
Here's what the justice said on Feb. 17, 2012 in Pasadena:
"I am curious.
"This whole dispute is about counsel [attorney] fees, I assume.
"Nobody in their right economic mind would be carrying this case to the Ninth Circuit that seems to me to involve something like $67,000 [in attorney fees]....
"What's really at stake here in terms of the lawsuit itself is whether you should reimburse somewhere between 6 and 7 thousand dollars [to the parents].
"For this amount of money you've gone through a hearing before a hearing officer, a proceeding in the District Court, and now you're appealing to the Ninth Circuit.
"It seems to me, and I don't blame you necessarily, I just want to be clear. This whole dispute is about counsel fees, isn't it?"
On Nov. 26, 2012 the Supreme Court denied the appeal.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
By David G. Savage
January 22, 2010
LA Times
Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.
The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.
Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money...
Obama calls Supreme Court decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, who can now spend all they want on TV ads
Biz, Unions Freed to Spend Big on Elections
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Coming soon to your TV, thanks to the Supreme Court -- an even bigger flood of political ads.
A bitterly divided court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.
As a side consequence, the election-season blizzard of ads on Americans TV screens is bound to increase.
The ruling reversed a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations, organized labor and their massive war chests. It also recast the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way.
In its sweeping 5-4 ruling, the court set the stage for a wave of likely repercussions -- from new pressures on lawmakers to heed special interest demands to increasingly boisterous campaigns featuring highly charged ads that drown out candidate voices.
While the full consequences of the decision were hard to measure, politicians made clear whom they believed benefited. Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, condemned the decision while Republicans cheered it.
Still, more labor and corporate money in the political system could dilute the role of both political parties.
And the decision seeded the ground for further challenges to an already weakened system of campaign finance regulations.
The justices weighed two fundamental political forces -- the power of the central government and the concentration of corporate wealth -- and tilted decidedly in favor of the latter. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.
''The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,'' Kennedy wrote.
Strongly dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The decision, which applies to independent spending that is not coordinated with candidates, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions and didn't touch the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties. Nor did it disturb companies' right to solicit voluntary contributions to political action committees that can donate directly to candidates.
Corporations and unions would still have to identify the sources of money for their political activity -- a provision of current law that the court upheld in an 8-1 vote...
By David G. Savage
January 22, 2010
LA Times
Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.
The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.
Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money...
Obama calls Supreme Court decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, who can now spend all they want on TV ads
Biz, Unions Freed to Spend Big on Elections
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Coming soon to your TV, thanks to the Supreme Court -- an even bigger flood of political ads.
A bitterly divided court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.
As a side consequence, the election-season blizzard of ads on Americans TV screens is bound to increase.
The ruling reversed a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations, organized labor and their massive war chests. It also recast the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way.
In its sweeping 5-4 ruling, the court set the stage for a wave of likely repercussions -- from new pressures on lawmakers to heed special interest demands to increasingly boisterous campaigns featuring highly charged ads that drown out candidate voices.
While the full consequences of the decision were hard to measure, politicians made clear whom they believed benefited. Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, condemned the decision while Republicans cheered it.
Still, more labor and corporate money in the political system could dilute the role of both political parties.
And the decision seeded the ground for further challenges to an already weakened system of campaign finance regulations.
The justices weighed two fundamental political forces -- the power of the central government and the concentration of corporate wealth -- and tilted decidedly in favor of the latter. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.
''The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,'' Kennedy wrote.
Strongly dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The decision, which applies to independent spending that is not coordinated with candidates, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions and didn't touch the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties. Nor did it disturb companies' right to solicit voluntary contributions to political action committees that can donate directly to candidates.
Corporations and unions would still have to identify the sources of money for their political activity -- a provision of current law that the court upheld in an 8-1 vote...
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Supreme Court to school authorities who did strip search: kids get to keep their clothes on
Due to my personal experiences at Chula Vista Elementary School District and what I have learned of other districts, I have long believed that teachers and administrators desperately need to brush up on the American Constitution.
It's a problem when those tasked with teaching American values show so much disrespect toward those values.
Supreme Court rules school's strip search of teen Savana Redding unconstitutional
BY James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
June 25th 2009
Wilson/Getty
Savana Redding leaves the U.S. Supreme Court after her case was heard April 21, 2009. The Supreme Court ruled today that a strip search performed on her in the 8th grade was unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl by administrators looking for banned medication was unconstitutional.
The high court held in the 8 to 1 opinion that a male assistant school principal in Arizona and a female nurse violated student Savanna Redding's rights when they ordered her to partially undress in a fruitless search for a tiny amount of Ibuprofen pain relief pills.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the "regrettable decision" by the majority, reveling in the details of the teen drama.
The conservative justice even questioned whether Redding was really strip-searched - arguing that the term is reserved for those required "to fully disrobe in view of officials."
"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," soon-to-retire moderate Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.
The justices described how the Safford Middle School official, Kerry Wilson, told Redding to "pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area."
The search - prompted by schoolmates who ratted Redding out as a pill pusher - came up empty.
But the 'tween girl, who had described standing exposed before the school administrators as "humiliating," felt vindicated.
"I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," Redding told the Associated Press. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."
Liberal-leaning Justice John Paul Stevens said Redding's forced nudity - even if partial - was "outrageous conduct."
"I have long believed that it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude," Stevens wrote.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/25/2009-06-25_supreme_court_rules_schools_strip_search_of_teen_savana_redding_unconstitutional.html#ixzz0JTnPWUQe&C
It's a problem when those tasked with teaching American values show so much disrespect toward those values.
Supreme Court rules school's strip search of teen Savana Redding unconstitutional
BY James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
June 25th 2009
Wilson/Getty
Savana Redding leaves the U.S. Supreme Court after her case was heard April 21, 2009. The Supreme Court ruled today that a strip search performed on her in the 8th grade was unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl by administrators looking for banned medication was unconstitutional.
The high court held in the 8 to 1 opinion that a male assistant school principal in Arizona and a female nurse violated student Savanna Redding's rights when they ordered her to partially undress in a fruitless search for a tiny amount of Ibuprofen pain relief pills.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the "regrettable decision" by the majority, reveling in the details of the teen drama.
The conservative justice even questioned whether Redding was really strip-searched - arguing that the term is reserved for those required "to fully disrobe in view of officials."
"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," soon-to-retire moderate Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.
The justices described how the Safford Middle School official, Kerry Wilson, told Redding to "pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area."
The search - prompted by schoolmates who ratted Redding out as a pill pusher - came up empty.
But the 'tween girl, who had described standing exposed before the school administrators as "humiliating," felt vindicated.
"I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," Redding told the Associated Press. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."
Liberal-leaning Justice John Paul Stevens said Redding's forced nudity - even if partial - was "outrageous conduct."
"I have long believed that it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude," Stevens wrote.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/25/2009-06-25_supreme_court_rules_schools_strip_search_of_teen_savana_redding_unconstitutional.html#ixzz0JTnPWUQe&C
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Chief Justice John Roberts not thrilled to swear in Barack Obama
I was interested in the actions of Chief Justice John Roberts at the inauguration of Barack Obama today. First, I was amazed at Roberts' casual, almost bored, tone of voice. Second, I was amazed at the way Roberts cut up the sentences he was reciting for Obama to repeat. The phrasing was odd, with dangling words tacked on to the end of a sentence. When Mr. Obama repeated the words "I, Barack Obama," Roberts kept talking; Obama didn't hear what he was saying, and waited for Roberts to repeat the words. Instead of doing so, Roberts stood there in silence, staring. After a while he began again, speaking unenthusiastic and overly-long strands of words in an offhand voice. At worst, Roberts seemed to want to trip-up and embarrass the new president. At best, he was unenthusiastic about what he was doing. Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for making your attitude so clear. The Supreme Court needs to be closely watched with a chief who only supports American institutions when those institutions support his beliefs.
Update: Apparently Mr. Roberts rewrote the oath of office. He put the word "faithfully" in a different place. Why would he do that? Hmmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)