Results for: judge-andrew-napolitano
FOX's Glenn Beck Has Appendicitis 11/04/09 appendicitis Judge Andrew Napolitano Fox news glenn beck 12 project 9/12
Sponsor: *******PatriotsHelpingPatriots**** - Judge bans facial expressions. Here's his exact quote:
"If there are audible comments, applause or ANY EXPRESSION OF EMOTION from people in attendence or the public, they will be removed."
This clip is part of a series. Part 1 is at: *******www.youtube****/watch?v=dCrxOH6Qctw
The next part should appear as a RidleyReport video response to this clip.
A note regarding "the other side of the story." I'd probably call the authorities, question them and record the entire interaction on tape when they are accused. But the wiretap law - which their chiefs so ardently defend - has a chilling effect on such calls. So I generally choose to practice overobedience - and decline to call for their opinions. In this sense, their bad law saves me time and costs them the chance to present their views.
buy an ad:
judge ron paul andrew napolitano new hampshire courtroom drama courts free state project standing sitting forced to stand. dave ridley report. prosecutors defendants lawyers jury nullification fully informed jury association. fija**** fija. staters jurors ridleyreport lemmings sheep sheeple cheshire county superior courts liberty. nh standing in front of a police car bad government libertarian, loses it sitting too slow edward burk live free or die judge john arnold, webb patriots hearings trials cameras in the courts. censorship judge andrew napolitano restrictions stupid rules laws unenforceable cops police enforcement. juries gag orders
BY MALLORY PERRYMAN
You're watching multisource US and politics video news analysis
A proposed measure in South Dakota expanding the definition of “justifiable homicide” has brought the abortion debate to the Mount Rushmore State. The new definition - proposed by State Rep. Phil Jensen- would include “killings intended to protect a fetus.” The measure was quickly tabled- but not before the media weighed in.
“...the measure drew ire for its awkward wording, which critics said opened a door toward legal sanction to kill abortion providers. Jensen attempted to litigate his way through the controversy ... wrangling with the legislative language and insisting...that ‘This has nothing to do with abortion.’”
Immediate reaction in the media? Mostly shock. But Judge Andrew Napolitano tells Fox News, enough with the outrage - similar laws already exist in other states.
“We're talking about an act of violence, an act of unlawful violence against the woman who is carrying a baby. We're not talking about legalized abortion. We're talking about an act of self-defense...in some states, legislators have changed the law so you can protect the baby in the womb in the act of self-defense. It is utterly divorced and distinct from abortion.”
TIME’s Amy Sullivan agrees- killing an abortion provider would still be illegal- at least technically. Here’s her example of how an extremist could get around the law.
“South Dakota has a parental notification law. Does that mean if a doctor performs an abortion on a teenager who has not obtained her parent's consent, that abortion is illegal and the doc is fair game? It's unclear. And that's a problem--even if the bill isn't quite as inflammatory as it first appeared.”
But Pema Levy writes for The American Prospect- confusion is the goal here. She argues the bill is meant to open up the law to interpretation- and intimidate abortion doctors out of the state.
“The bill is meant to menace pregnant women and abortion providers and to give a green light to extremists. With Republicans in charge of a record number of state legislatures... I don't predict this will be the last bill like this to try to sneak by unnoticed.”
Finally- MSNBC takes a look at why the abortion debate has resurfaced lately- not just in South Dakota- but also on Capitol Hill. Anchor Lawrence O’Donnell asks actress and activist Lisa Edelstein, with America’s eyes fixed on the economy, could abortion legislation slip by unnoticed?
LISA EDELSTEIN (House actress and activist): “I think that we're distracted by other things. ... But really what's happening that we need to pay attention to is in Congress the tiny little words, the fine print, the legalese going into already existing laws which will make abortion unattainable, even in the worst situations.”
South Dakota lawmakers have tabled the bill for now- but a bigger debate in Washington, D.C. over a Republican proposal to wipe out Planned Parenthood funding is still ongoing. Check out analysis of that story in the transcript section of this story.
Follow Newsy on Twitter Newsy_Videos for daily updates.
Get more multisource US and politics video news analysis from Newsy.
Transcript by Newsy.
BY ALANA YOUNG
ANCHOR MEGAN MURPHY
You're watching multisource US video news analysis from Newsy.
President Obama’s announcement to not release photos of Osama bin Laden has received a lot of criticism from naysayers -- pointing to a lack of transparency from the government.
Recent debate has shifted from the administration’s obligation to legality. Many point to the Freedom of Information Act, which makes certain government records available by request. But in a Fox News interview, Judge Andrew Napolitano says FOIA provides an exemption based on national security interests.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: “That's a decision the president can make that cannot be second-guessed by the court. On the other hand if the president decides to reveal them and harm comes about as a result of their revelation the president can't be sued, the government can't be sued as a result of their revelation. The bottom line is there is no way to compel the president, there is no way to seek redress from the president. It's entirely his decision.”
In recent past, we’ve seen photos thought to be a threat to national security such as ones from Abu Ghraib and the execution of Saddam Hussein. Many say the Bin Laden photos aren’t any different. But legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says there is a major distinction between then and now, and says - this is not the same at all.
JEFFREY TOOBIN: “Those other examples were unauthorized leaks. I think all of us in the news business and I think all of us who are citizens are glad that the public got to see that material because it turned out to be very important. The world being what it is, these photographs may leak. Someone may do it in an unauthorized way. But certainly the legal process is not going to be the route for these photos to be released.”
National security law expert Mark Zaid tells the National Law Journal, the important question is exactly who has the photos -- saying FOIA requirements don’t include the White House.
“The pictures, presumably, were taken by operatives from the Defense Department's Navy Seals or the Central Intelligence Agency - both subject to FOIA as federal agencies. The White House, however, is exempt from FOIA requests.”
A writer for the Good blog says informing the American public should be the administration’s concern -- and adds withholding war images quote -- “impoverishes the public debate”.
"… Releasing a photo of a man you shot in the face isn't the affront to human dignity. Shooting a man in the face is. Even if it's justified. Releasing the photo is simply being transparent about it.”
But a legal activist and law professor from George Washington University says the president has the upper-hand and controls the timetable. He thinks the national security debate is simply a distraction.
"It's unlikely that a picture showing what the President and other government officials have already described clearly and in some detail to the public could harm national security … By declining to release the photos now, and requiring those seeking them to resort to FOIA, Obama can have his cake of seeming to be sensitive while also eating it by insuring that the photos can be released in response to FOIA demands..."
'Like Newsy' on Facebook for more video news in your feed.
Get more multisource US video news analysis from Newsy.
Transcript by Newsy.