April 21, 2010 (2:38) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a law which makes it illegal to sell videos of animals being tortured, violates the right to free speech.
india supreme court in new delhi by gautam koppala
india supreme court at night by gautam koppala
BY CHRISTIE NICKS
You're watching multisource politics video news analysis from Newsy.
Call it a legal mess. California voters passed it- a federal judge overturned it- and now- Prop 8 is stuck in the appellate court. But a decision by the California Supreme Court might get it moving again.
After the judge ruled the measure unconstitutional, Prop 8’s backers wanted to appeal the decision- but the state refused to do so. That’s when the group Protect Marriage stepped in - hoping to defend Prop 8 in the appellate court.
But does that group have legal standing to appeal the ruling? That’s what California’s high court will decide... but not for another 10 months. One LA Weekly blogger says- that sucks.
“…overall, the...decision, which is being reported as some kind of victory, was a complete buzzkill (especially for all those couples who were hoping to get hitched anytime in the next year anywhere outside Massachusetts). In short? Summer 2011 same-sex weddings now a no-go. And that, your honors, is lame.”
Oakland’s KTVU reports- the case is moving forward- great, but the court is stalling on answering the big question.
“Is there a constitutional right to gay marriage or is there not, that’s the big question that’s the one that everyone would like to see answered, so this is a year long detour.”
And MSNBC reports - if the Protect Marriage group isn’t approved to defend Prop 8- the California courts may never have to reconsider the measure.
“But it would end the appeal it would mean the case would not be coming to the US Supreme Court, if on the other hand the California court takes it and says these folks can appeal then that keeps it alive for a while longer.
A blogger for the blog National Center for Lesbian Rights argues- since California officials already decided to drop the case- Protect Marriage shouldn’t be allowed to jump in.
“...in several well-known cases, California’s elected officials have refused to defend voter-enacted initiatives on appeal.… In these cases, California officials were doing what the voters elected them to do — deciding whether these laws could and should continue to be defended on appeal after courts decided that they were unconstitutional.”
If Prop 8 gets through the appellate court- the case will probably make its way to the California Supreme Court- and then ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Wall Street Journal blogger says- well- at least the decision will be thorough.
“But at least in regard to the litigation surrounding Proposition 8, you can be sure that when the dust settles, it’ll have been given a good hard look by not one, not two, but possibly dozens of judges.”
The California Supreme Court says it will hear oral arguments in September about whether Protect Marriage can defend the Prop 8 decision.
'Like' Newsy on Facebook to get updates in your newsfeed
Transcript by Newsy
BY ALYSSA CARTEE
ANCHOR MEGAN MURPHY
You're watching multisource U.S. news analysis from Newsy
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in what could be the largest class action lawsuit in history against corporate giant Wal-Mart. The suit claims Wal-Mart’s female employees are paid less and provided with fewer advancement opportunities. A reporter at WTXF says- the women have strength in numbers.
“But 65 percent of the people at the front taking your money that are checking out are also women. If you think back to your experiences at Wal-Mart I don't think I have ever seen a man in that position. The fact that there are millions of women who are joining their voices together, it adds credence to this, I think.”
The Court is not deciding if actual discrimination occurred, but rather, if the case can continue as a class action lawsuit. CNN suggests the impact of the case could reach far beyond Wal-Mart.
“The high court case is among the biggest of the current term, and could establish binding standards over high-stakes liability involving companies large and small.”
Baltimore’s WMAR spoke with the Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center who says the case is a big step for women’s equality.
“It's an enormously important case because it gets to the heart of whether women as a group, will be able to have resources to go against big employers.”
The sheer number of the women who could make claims in the case equals more than all active-duty U.S. military service personnel. And that is exactly what Wal-Mart lawyers are expected to use as leverage to throw out the case. A writer for Slate explains.
“Wal-Mart's lawyers have sought to portray the lawsuit as ludicrous, given its size and scope. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say size alone should have no bearing on the case's legitimacy. By throwing out the case, one lawyer said it would be sending a damaging message: ‘As long as you discriminate against enough people, courts can't get involved.’"
Aside from the scale of the case itself, Work Day Minnesota explains the implications of the case could reach beyond the super-store.
“The catch...is that Wal-Mart is not alone. While it’s the biggest private company in the world, it’s not the only one that practices such discrimination. Indeed, lawyers for the Wal-Mart women report two similar suits against other retailers for the same reasons are pending in California alone...”
If the Supreme Court rules the case can continue as a class action suit, it would only be the beginning of the case. A commentator for New York’s WPIX explains the difficulties of showing actual discrimination took place.
“Showing causality and correlation is tough. Were these women discriminated because they were women, or because of a greater tendency for them to be treated differently not based on discriminatory reasons. That's for a court to decide.”
Wal-Mart owns 4,300 stores in the U.S. and employs 1.4 million people.
'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed
Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy
Transcript by Newsy
BY ALANA YOUNG
ANCHOR CHRISTINA HARTMAN
You're watching multisource political video news analysis from Newsy.
It’s an election that had a surprising and dramatic twist -- and some say symbolizes recent uproar over Governor Scott Walker’s budget repair bill -- which limited collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin.
She was largely considered a long shot - but Democrat-backed Joanne Kloppenburg bested the 12-year incumbent and former Republican legislator David Prosser in a tight race for the Supreme Court justice seat.
Then - as early as Thursday afternoon - Winnebago County gave a 40-point lead to PROSSER. Those numbers are not yet official - but analysts say the very, very tight race shows how deeply divided Wisconsin voters are.
RACHEL MADDOW: “A month and a half ago there was a primary in this same Wisconsin Supreme Court election, and a month and a half ago, the incumbent conservative judge who used to be a Republican legislator, who was supported by the conservative establishment in Wisconsin, who was associated with Republican Governor Scott Walker, and who Scott Walker said he would vote for, a month and a half ago, that justice finished 30 points ahead of his nearest challenger in that primary. … Last night, however, with 100% of precincts now reporting, it looks like that justice, that conservative judge has been unseated.”
Because the race was so close, Kloppenburg quickly received criticism for announcing her victory Wednesday -- and calls for a recount soon surfaced.
According to Business Insider - Wisconsin law allows for a free election recount if polling results differ by .5 percent or less. Incumbent candidate David Prosser would have three days to request one.
Along with cries for a recount, a few conservative voices are raising issue with Wisconsin voting rules -- and say voter fraud is a legitimate concern with this election.
JOHN FUND: “Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that allows same-day registration. You go into the polls, you register and you can immediately vote. There is almost no I.D. requested. If you have no I.D., some guy down the street can vouch for you. ... Milwaukee cast almost 4,000 more votes for president than people who showed up at the polling place or cast absentee ballots. So there are all kinds of problems here that have been allowed to fester.”
And while some conservatives are raising doubts over the vote’s results - others - like Forbes’ Rick Ungar - say it proves Governor Walker doesn’t command as much support as he thought.
“While Wisconsin judicial elections are officially nonpartisan, Prosser is well known as a Republican who was quickly associated with Scott Walker... The inescapable bottom line is that the many political miscalculations of Scott Walker are now coming home to roost...”
But a writer for the Wall Street Journal says it’s not over yet -- unions might fight hard -- but state Republicans should fight harder for reform.
“Big Labor went all-in to seek revenge against Governor Scott Walker's public union reforms, and they may have taken over the state Supreme Court in the bargain... Unions were never going to easily give up their dominance over the public purse. The lesson of Wisconsin is to retool the reform message so taxpayers know the stakes.”
And what does the Governor have to say about what’s being called this “turning political tide” in his state? Walker says he is all about making sure the election process is equal and fair.
SCOTT WALKER: “Uh, I wouldn’t think something’s wrong as long as it’s fair. To me, democracy, which, guarantees that you give everybody a right. That everybody has a right to have a say.”
Wisconsin election officials are preparing for recount efforts. If Kloppenburg secures a victory, she will assume duties August 1st.
Follow Newsy on Twitter Newsy_Videos for updates in you stream
Get more multisource political video news analysis from Newsy.
Transcript by Newsy.
Big news from the nation's capitol today as the Supreme Court finally made a ruling on that old violent video games bill from California. The Court upheld the previous ruling, saying that video games were free speech, and the proposed bill would have been unconstitutional. So, good news everyone! Plus, we've got news on Resident Evil Mercenaries, the possibility of a new Goldeneye, and Summer of Arcade details!
June 28, 2011
The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional (7-2) a 2005 California Law restricting the sale of violent videogames to minors.
BY JONATHAN KETZ
You're watching multisource US video news analysis from Newsy.
The Supreme Court stays the death sentence of a convicted murderer. Duane Buck was convicted of killing two people back in 1995. What may be more interesting is the lone surviving victim is forgiving the shooter. Listen to this.
Anchor: “Buck’s attorney doesn’t dispute that he shot and killed two people in 1995, a third woman survived."
Taylor: “I have forgave him, yes sir, I forgave him in 1995.” (CNN)
That’s right. Phyllis Taylor is forgiving the man who shot her 16 years ago. She hopes Buck’s learned from his mistakes.
“I feel that justice will prevail. I thank God for all the prayers. I thank God that he is a God of a second chance.” (CNN)
Duane Buck’s case was ruled “unconstitutionally tainted” back in 1997 because of “racial” testimony. A witness reportedly told jurors Buck would be more dangerous after his sentence because he was black. MSNBC discussed what Buck’s lawyers want out of the case.
“They’re saying not that the sentencing was racially motivated. They’re saying that the sentencing proceedings were racially tainted by a testimony from a psychologist who said that African Americans are more likely to be violent, and future violence...is an issue...future dangerousness is an issue in the Texas courts"
Buck was reportedly eating what he thought would be his last meal on Earth when he got word of the decision. Here’s Fox News.
“He was actually waiting in a holding cell right next to the death chamber when he got the word. The news sending tears of joy to many protesters. I guess those are them...outside the Huntsville prison.”
Buck’s attorneys are asking for a new sentencing trial. The Supreme Court has not decided whether to accept the request.
Transcript by Newsy.
Two months after convicting him of contempt of court, the Pakistani Supreme Court has now dismissed Yousuf Raza Gilani from his prime minister spot.
Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kristen Bell are just a few of the celebrities who took to Twitter to celebrate a historic Supreme Court decision.
Nirbhaya Rape case, Supreme Court dismissed review pleas filed by three of the four convicts seeking the reduction of their death sentence to a life term, upholds its earlier order of death sentence – NewsroomPost