The Republican-led Congress appears ready to approve the Keystone XL oil
pipeline, but no matter what actions are taken in Washington, the
entire 1,179-mile project could be delayed until Nebraska signs off on
the route.
After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the
Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months
or years could pass before construction begins in that state.
Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are
looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal
lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota
over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.
The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska
Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross
the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave
the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which
normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.
The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.
President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision,
and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was
expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress
over energy and environmental policy.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
High court won't hear challenge to Vermont campaign law
The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to part of Vermont's campaign
finance laws that impose contribution limits on political action
committees.
The justices on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the Vermont Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group. The group argued that Vermont's campaign finance registration, reporting and disclosure requirements for PACs were too broad and unconstitutional.
The group argued that a subcommittee it created should not be subject to Vermont's $2,000 limit on contributions to PACs because the subcommittee does not give money directly to candidates and makes only independent expenditures.
But a federal judge rejected those arguments, finding that there was no clear accounting between the two committees. A federal appeals court agreed.
The justices on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the Vermont Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group. The group argued that Vermont's campaign finance registration, reporting and disclosure requirements for PACs were too broad and unconstitutional.
The group argued that a subcommittee it created should not be subject to Vermont's $2,000 limit on contributions to PACs because the subcommittee does not give money directly to candidates and makes only independent expenditures.
But a federal judge rejected those arguments, finding that there was no clear accounting between the two committees. A federal appeals court agreed.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Idaho gay marriage fight appealed to Supreme Court
Idaho's governor and attorney general have filed separate petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting against gay marriage and arguing that the state's case has national consequences.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Idaho since an October ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has struck down bans across the West.
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's filing Friday states that the issue is a matter of a state's right to define marriage without the federal government's involvement.
"This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance: Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman," Wasden said in the petition.
Gov. Butch Otter's petition, filed Tuesday, states that the high court should review Idaho's case alone or in addition to a pending case involving the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the right of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee to decide whether to allow gay marriage.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Idaho since an October ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has struck down bans across the West.
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's filing Friday states that the issue is a matter of a state's right to define marriage without the federal government's involvement.
"This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance: Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman," Wasden said in the petition.
Gov. Butch Otter's petition, filed Tuesday, states that the high court should review Idaho's case alone or in addition to a pending case involving the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the right of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee to decide whether to allow gay marriage.
Argentine court says US fugitive can be extradited
Argentina's Supreme Court has ruled that an American who took refuge and started a new life in the South American country can be extradited to face charges that he killed his wife over a decade ago, a court spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.
Kurt Sonnenfeld moved to Argentina in 2003 and sought asylum after prosecutors in Denver charged him with first-degree murder. The decision to extradite him brings to an end a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Argentine courts that centered in part on differences over the death penalty.
In the ruling, which was made Dec. 11, the justices said U.S. prosecutors had assured Argentina that "the death penalty will not be imposed, or if it were ruled, it will not be exercised in this case." The ruling said the executive branch will have final say on an extradition and doesn't specify when it may take place.
Maria Bourdin, a spokeswoman for Argentina's Supreme Court, confirmed the ruling but declined to comment beyond what was in it. Calls to the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires on Saturday seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Kurt Sonnenfeld moved to Argentina in 2003 and sought asylum after prosecutors in Denver charged him with first-degree murder. The decision to extradite him brings to an end a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Argentine courts that centered in part on differences over the death penalty.
In the ruling, which was made Dec. 11, the justices said U.S. prosecutors had assured Argentina that "the death penalty will not be imposed, or if it were ruled, it will not be exercised in this case." The ruling said the executive branch will have final say on an extradition and doesn't specify when it may take place.
Maria Bourdin, a spokeswoman for Argentina's Supreme Court, confirmed the ruling but declined to comment beyond what was in it. Calls to the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires on Saturday seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)