Connect with us

affilate software business

Politics

Supreme Court to decide if state can consider political affiliation in judicial appointments – JURIST – News

Published

on


The US Supreme Court issued an order on Friday granting certiorari to a new case for their current term. Carney v. Adams challenges the constitutionality of a Delaware law limiting the appointment of judges based on their political affiliation in order to achieve balance on the court.

Within Delaware’s Constitution, the Article IV, Section 3 provision prohibits judges affiliated with any one political party to constitute more than a “bare majority” on all of the state’s courts. For the higher courts, seats are balanced based on “major political party.” The law attempts to establish a balance between political ideologies on each court but is accused of omitting smaller political parties. As a result, the provision in its entirety has been challenged as a violation of a person’s First Amendment right to freedom of association.

The plaintiff in this case, James Adams, is a retired lawyer seeking a judicial position. Adams is a registered Independent. When attempting to apply for a judicial position in 2014, Adams found he was unable to apply as both the Superior and Supreme Courts were comprised of a bare majority of Democrats; making the only positions available open to Republicans. He attempted to reapply in 2017, but again the positions were only open to Republicans.

In his original lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware determined that while Adams only had standing to challenge some of the provision’s sections, a ruling on the merits rendered the entire provision unconstitutional. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the first three sections of the provision to be unconstitutional — the sections with language demanding a “major political party” — but reversed the District Court’s decision regarding the others due to Adams lack of standing.

The Supreme Court has asked each party to address both the First Amendment issue as well as the standing question.



Source

Continue Reading
Partners
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Libyan Militant Is Sentenced to 19 Years in Deadly Benghazi Attacks

Published

on

By


A Libyan militant was sentenced on Thursday to more than 19 years in prison by a federal judge for his role in the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, including the United States ambassador.

The militant, Mustafa al-Imam, was convicted by a jury last year of conspiring to provide material support to the terrorists who were responsible for the siege on the main diplomatic mission and a nearby C.I.A. annex.

During the trial in United States District Court in Washington last spring, the jurors also convicted Mr. al-Imam of destroying the complex and endangering lives, but deadlocked on murder charges.

Mr. al-Imam, 47, was the second person sentenced in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, which became the subject of a contentious congressional inquiry sought by Republican critics of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at the time of the siege.

“We have not rested in our efforts to bring to justice those involved in the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, which led to the death of four courageous Americans — Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Ambassador Christopher Stevens — and we never will,” John C. Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement on Thursday. “Those responsible for these crimes must be held accountable.”

Judge Christopher R. Cooper, who presided over the case, sentenced Mr. al-Imam to 19 years and six months in prison.

Matthew J. Peed, a lawyer for Mr. al-Iman, said in an email on Thursday night that an appeal was in the works.

“We are disappointed by the sentence, which was based on allegations the jury did not believe,” Mr. Peed wrote. “The judge did find that Mr. al-Imam played a minor role in these events and harbored no animus towards America, which was encouraging. We look forward to an appeal, and hope those truly responsible for this attack are brought to justice.”

Federal prosecutors had argued that Mr. al-Imam, who was captured in 2017 in Libya, should have received the maximum sentence of 35 years.

They said that cellphone records placed him at the complex during the attack and that he spent 18 minutes on the phone talking to the militia leader who orchestrated the siege, Ahmed Abu Khattala, while it transpired. The prosecutors said that Mr. al-Iman acted as the “eyes and ears” of Mr. Khattala, whom Judge Cooper sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2018, well short of the life sentence sought by the Justice Department.

In a sentencing motion for Mr. al-Imam, Mr. Peed wrote that his client was a frail, uneducated and simple man, “not a fighter, an ideologue or a terrorist.” The lawyer for Mr. al-Imam wrote that his client made a tremendous mistake when he agreed to help his friend, Mr. Khattala, damage and loot the complex.

In contrast to the five men awaiting military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay on charges that they plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Mr. al-Imam was tried in federal court, a venue opposed by the Trump administration.

Mr. Stevens, the ambassador, and Mr. Smith, another State Department employee, were killed when a mob of militants tried to storm the main United States diplomatic mission, which was set on fire. Mr. Woods and Mr. Doherty, who were contractors for the C.I.A., died later when a separate annex run by the agency was hit by mortars.

In 2016, an 800-page report by the House Select Committee on Benghazi delivered a broad rebuke of the State Department, Defense Department and C.I.A. for their failure to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi and for maintaining diplomatic outposts that they could not protect. The report found no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton.



Source

Continue Reading

Politics

Indian women politicians face online abuse: Study | India News

Published

on

By


Nearly 100 Indian women politicians faced abuse, including rape and death threats, on social media during elections last year, with researchers raising concerns over rising online violence against women globally.

A study by Amnesty International India said 95 female politicians received nearly 1 million hateful mentions on Twitter between March and May, one in five of which was sexist or misogynistic. In all, there were 724 women candidates.

More:

Digital rights experts said gender-based online violence was increasing which was intimidating women and deterring them from putting themselves forward for public office.

“People should know what women in politics endure, what they have to put up with and how unequal it becomes for them,” said Shazia Ilmi, a member of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in the report.

It was unclear if online abuse against women politicians was worsening or improving as the research was the first of its kind and scale in India, said an Amnesty spokesperson.

But Adrian Lovett, head of the World Wide Web Foundation, said gender-based online violence was on the rise globally in developed and well as developing countries.

He said this was exacerbating the digital divide between men and women which was getting worse as the number of people going online increased and more men than women logged on.

“Gender-based online violence is increasing,” Lovett told Reuters news agency at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting on Davos in the Swiss Alps.

“It is not particular to one country or one region. It is a reality in developing countries and an increasing challenge in North America, Europe and across the world.

“This is affecting political participation by women, especially young women being put off by the online harassment of women in public life.”

‘Silencing voices’

Amnesty declined to name the politicians in its study of India, where women hold 14 percent of seats in the lower and 11 percent in the upper house of parliament, compared to the global average of 24.5 percent, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Similar research conducted by Amnesty in Britain and the United States in 2018 studying 323 women politicians found that about 7 percent tweets mentioning them were hurtful or abusive.

Several female politicians in Britain chose not to stand again in the general election on December 12 last year, citing the level of online abuse they faced.

Two-thirds of female politicians told a survey by a British parliamentary committee last November that progress on tackling violence and online abuse against women in politics impacted their willingness to stand for re-election.

Amnesty urged Twitter to step up its response to violations and bring in more policies to protect women.

Twitter said abuse and harassment had no place on its platform, adding 50 percent of hateful content was identified by technology and not reports from people with the company aware that abuse stifled people’s ability to speak freely.

“We will never be done with our efforts to address abuse motivated by hatred, prejudice or intolerance – particularly abuse that seeks to silence the voices of those who have been historically marginalized, such as women,” a spokesperson said.


SOURCE:
Reuters news agency





Source

Continue Reading

Politics

Congressman Carter calls impeachment trial ‘big political stunt’

Published

on

By


KILLEEN, TX — The heated debate continues as the Senate wraps up the third day of the impeachment trial, prompting nationwide reaction.

25 News caught up with Congressman John Carter (TX-31) for his opinion on the impeachment as he returned from Washington, D.C. and stopped by the Killeen ISD Career Center to talk to local students.

“I think it’s a great big political stunt that harms the republic. There are no crimes alleged,” said Congressman Carter.

The congressman did not mince words.

“I’m an old trial judge, and let me start off by telling you, in the United States of America, there is no such thing as common law, criminal law. Criminal law has to be statutory. In other words, there has to be a statue that this is against the law,” he said.

Congressman Carter says he thinks both charges are not statutory criminal actions.

“It is really not an appropriate action to impeach somebody,” he said.





Source

Continue Reading

Trending

//onvictinitor.com/afu.php?zoneid=2954224
We use cookies to best represent our site. By continuing to use this site, you agree to the use of cookies.
Yes