Sarah Palin interviewed by Katie Couric, October 1, 2008

sarah palin katie couric tpmtv supreme court case name roe wade private privacy consitution jurisprudence cases

We won! This video from CBS shows a part of the Couric video that didn't air on TV. It shows Biden first, getting the same questions as Palin and handling them just fine; then Palin comes on and can't even name a Supreme Court decision she disagrees(or name a decision at all) In June 2008 the Supreme Court made a decision that adversely affected all citizens of Alaska directly when they cut the Exxon-Valdez settlement to 500 million from 2.5 billion. Four months ago! This woman has a 1 in 5 chance of becoming President if McCain gets elected. :( Vote Obama!

VP President Palin Sarah Woman Women Sexy Hot Politics Gotcha! America Dumb Stupid Armageddon ayekappy

news.bbc.co.uk A science writer has won the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal. Simon Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in 2008. Dr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors over the treatment of certain childhood conditions. The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion - meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence. However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady had "erred in his approach" last May, and allowed Dr Singh's appeal. BBC News science correspondent Pallab Ghosh says that, had Justice Eady's ruling stood, it would have made it difficult for any scientist or science journalist to question claims made by companies or organisations without opening themselves up to a libel action that would be hard to win. Dr Singh described the ruling as "brilliant", but added that the action had cost £200000 "just to define the meaning of a few words". "After two years of battling in this libel case, at last we've got a good decision. So instead of battling uphill we're fighting with the wind behind us," he said. "The Court of Appeal's made a very wise decision, but it just shouldn't be so horrendously expensive for a journalist or an academic journal or a scientist to defend what they mean. "That's why people back off <b>...</b>

Simon Singh Scientist UK Guardian Libel Law Reform Sue Court Case BCA British Chiropractic Association Fair Comment Damage Reputation Scientific Debate Criticism Article Alternative Dangerous Pseudoscience Homeopathy Acupuncture Cure Illness Disease Infant Colic Asthma Claims Evidence Based Medicine Science Rationalism Skepticism Tre Velocita

Click here to watch the full movie: video.google.com Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America. Please suport this film, donate here: www.freedomtofascism.com Aaron Russo Interviews a juror about the American Tax Fraud! The court found the defendant NOT GUILTY for failing to pay his taxes. The 16th Admendment is AGAINST the US CONSTITUTION! Article XVI which gives the congress the "power" to have a federal income tax, was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court! How congress can ratify anything found UNCONSTITUTIONAL is BEYOND me! www.claremont.org The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power. www.usconstitution.net In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 US 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not <b>...</b>

Aaron Russo Interview juror about the American Tax Fraud! Demand Answers

A public school violated the privacy rights of a teenage girl who had to disrobe on suspicion she had ibuprofen pills, the US Supreme Court ruled in June 2009 in its first decision on student strip searches. By an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld a ruling that the school and its officials violated the US constitutional right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This video tells the story of the Savana Redding case before her case was heard at the Supreme Court. When Savana was 13 years old, she was strip-searched for allegedly possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen. School officials violated Savana's rights and called into question basic constitutional protections for all students in schools across America.

savana redding supreme court ibuprophen strip search adam wolf aclu privacy 4th amendment acluvideos

The Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit panel on which Judge Sonya Sotomayor sat, which had upheld, summarily, the lower courts decision to allow the city of New Haven to throw out the results of a racially neutral promotion exam for city firefighters after whites did better than blacks on the exam. 5-4 ruling in favor of white firefighters, the full decision in Ricci v. Destefano found here: tinyurl.com More at www.foxnews.com

sonia sotomayer supreme court new haven firefighters reverse discrimination ricci destefano fox news Lame Pseudonym

Moscow says it will seek to bring Viktor Bout back to his country. The Thai court's decision to allow the extradition of the suspected arms dealer to the US is seen by Russia as political and made under pressure. US wants Bout on charges of terrorism and supplying arms to Colombian rebels, which he denies. Kent Goodman, publisher and author says Bout is being extradited because he posed a direct threat to American business in Africa.

Viktor Bout arms baron Merchant of Death Bout extradition Thailand terror charges arms weapons trade arms baron arms smuggling CIA in Africa military trade smuggler illegal court case decision RT Russia Today

In this video, Dudley is arrested for not showing his ID to a police officer who has no charges to bring upon this man, except maybe that of suspicion. The case went to the supreme court and Dudley lost. Goodbye America.

Dudley supreme court law gestapo fascist amerikkka innocent man bigiggmac

Tyranny Update: State of Illinois Appeals Circuit Judge ruling that the Illinois Eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional. Michael Allison "Still" faces 75 years in Prison for recording police if the "STATE" has their way. This same States Atty (Tom Wiseman), and the Illinois Atty General (Madigan) will get re-elected for destroying our Constitution! Wake up America!

tyranny allison recording police Court Justice tom wiseman crawford county wtwo tgoat 14

Cameras are everywhere today: In convenience stores, at intersections, the workplace, your computer, your cellphone, ATM machines. There's even been a camera in news anchor Katie Couric. Yet there's one place cameras have never been allowed: The US Supreme Court. Just what are Supreme Court justices hiding beneath their robes that they continue to say no to cameras in their courtroom? For decades the White House and Congress have opened their public business to television cameras, but the judicial branch has remained staunchly against the practice. As C-SPAN's Brian Lamb tells Reason.tv, the justices have rebuffed every attempt to videotape the oral arguments phase of Supreme Court proceedings. On this, an often-divided court remains unanimous, even if the arguments offered up Justices Scalia, Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, and others remain even weaker than the majority's logic in their awful Kelo decision, which legitimated eminent domain abuse. Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have spoken in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court. Can a new batch of justices, more attune to the benefits of transparency, finally change things for the better? "The Case for Cameras in The Supreme Court" iswritten and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approximately 3.40 minutes. Go to reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

reason.tv reason.com reason.org reason magazine reason foundation supreme court cameras elena kagan sonia sotomayor clarence thomas stephen breyer antonin scalia anthony kennedy ruth bader ginsburg sandra day o'connor brian lamb c-span katie couric kelo surveillance transparency meredith bragg nick gillespie Reason TV

Judge Declares Case Against Man for Recording Police Unconstitutional Kurt Nimmo www.infowars.com www.prisonplanet.tv September 21, 2011 A judge in Illinois has thrown out a case against Michael Allison for recording a conservation he had with police. The state wanted to throw Allison in prison for 75 years -- tantamount to a death sentence -- for violating Illinois' strict eavesdropping statute. Circuit Court Judge David Frankland cited First Amendment protections when he wrote in his opinion that Allison had a right to record police officers and court employees. "A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen's privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties," the judge wrote in his decision. Crawford County State Attorney's Office may appeal case in next 30 days. Allison told Infowars.com that he believes they will appeal, but for now have dropped the charges against him. Allison credited Infowars.com and Alex Jones with prompting a large public outcry over his case. Hundreds of phone calls opposing the prosecution were made to the mayor, district attorney's office, and police in Robinson, Illinois. www.infowars.com

michael allison alex jones new order world 9/11 inside job okc waco uss liberty jfk illuminati conspiracy world order The Channel

Cenk Uygur explains that while he despises the radical Westboro Baptist Church and their tactics of protests at funerals with inflammatory anti-gay/hateful signs, he agrees with the Supreme Court decision regarding their right to free speech.

westboro baptist church god hates united states fags faggots homosexuality gay lesbian soldiers troops military funerals signs anti-gay abortion supreme court first amendment rights freedom speech offensive hate rush limbaugh fox news tyt young turks cenk uygur scalia thomas alito The

The Supreme Court decides one of the biggest cases of the past century, perhaps altering global history. With the electoral college about to meet and cast its votes, the Supreme Court halts manual recounts in the state of Florida. This, in effect, makes Governor George W. Bush the winner of the 2000 Presidential election. With no further manual recounts forthcoming, the official vote count in the state of Florida is the one that had been certified by Secretary Harris weeks before.

Bush Gore 2000 election President Florida recount SCOTUS Supreme Court CNN mattiewallace

An alleged Russian arms dealer, dubbed by the West, the 'Merchant of death', may be extradited to the US within hours. Viktor Boot's lawyer says a special plane has arrived in Bangkok, where he's currently being held. It comes after Washington asked Thailand to discard fresh charges brought against him. Daniel Estulin - author and investigative journalist - says the whole process has been orchestrated to disguise American involvement...

Daniel Estulin Estulin Bildeberg Viktor Bout arms baron Merchant of Death Bout extradition Thailand terror charges arms weapons trade arms baron arms smuggling CIA in Africa military trade smuggler illegal court case decision RT Anissa Naouai Russia Today

Russian businessman - Viktor Bout - has been found guilty of trafficking arms to terrorists by a New York jury. Arrested in Thailand in 2008, he was extradited to the US in 2010 to face trial. RT's Marina Portnaya brings us more from New York. And to discuss Bout's verdict further, RT's joined live by international extradition lawyer Douglas McNabb. RT on Twitter twitter.com RT on Facebook www.facebook.com

Viktor Bout arms baron Merchant of Death Bout extradition Thailand terror charges arms weapons trade arms baron arms smuggling CIA in Africa military trade smuggler illegal court case decision RT Russia Today

[July 19, 2006] In this week's edition of Turks and Jerks, The Young Turks award the Jerk of the Week to a certain someone who called his opponent's volunteer, an American of Indian decent, Macaca. Macaca is a monkey or a French Tunisian derogatory term for a person of color. The Turk of the Week is Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. Judge Diggs Taylor issued the landmark Court case decision striking down Bush's NSA Spying program as unconstitutional.

young turks air america politicstv

140+ Fox News Bias videos at www.youtube.com More Bill O'Reilly bias at www.youtube.com When Fox News' so-called "No Spin Zone" reported on a recent Massachusetts court's ruling that police cannot order a passenger out of a parked car based just on the smell of burnt marijuana alone, Bill O'Reilly both last week and this week, heavily spun the ruling, falsely claiming it would apply to drivers and that it would impede investigation of drivers under the influence, as I show in this video. The clips I use of Bill O'Reilly, Wendy Murphy, and Geoffrey Nathan come from a segment of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" broadcast on April 21, 2011, available online under the erroneous title "Drivers Puffing Pot Get Pass in Massachusetts" at fxn.ws The clip I use of Bill O'Reilly and John Stossel comes from a segment of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" broadcast on April 26, 2011, currently available on YouTube at bit.ly The image I use of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Commonwealth v Benjamin Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011), comes from the webpage at bit.ly

fox News marijuana Massachusetts passenger driver smell odor burnt pot grass drugs doobie bill o'reilly oreilly factor no spin zone dui driving under the influence dwi while intoxicated police practices search seizure 4th fourth amendment reasonable suspicion criminal activity decriminalization legalization wendy murphy geoffrey nathan john stossel liberal viewer liberalviewer

Watch more at www.theyoungturks.com

Sarah Palin Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Katie Couric Cenk Uygur Young Turks cbs interview decisions precedent judges clown miss teen south carolina The

Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher & Co., talks about the implications of a court ruling against US Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. in a Massachusetts foreclosure case. The state Supreme Judicial Court upheld a judge's decision saying two foreclosures were invalid because the banks didn't prove they owned the mortgages, which he said were transferred into two mortgage-backed trusts without the recipients' being named. Rosner speaks with Deirdre Bolton onBloomberg Television's "InsideTrack." Copyright Bloomberg 2011 § 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Massachusetts <b>...</b>

Massachusetts foreclosure ruling mortgages fraudclosure US Bancorp Wells Fargo state supreme court robosigning mortgage-backed securities fal grace

www.michaelmoore.com Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional. In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service. ... Brushing up on how you amend the constitution at www.michaelmoore.com

olbermann countdown citizens united john roberts fec corporations campaign finance supreme court mmflint

A troubling verdict (Following is the transcript of the segment "Analysis by Winnie Monsod" which aired on News on Q on March 31 , 2010. Prof. Winnie Monsod is the resident analyst of News on Q which airs weeknights at 9:30 pm on Q Channel 11.) There has been a great uproar following the Supreme Court decision on midnight appointments. To understand the issue, let us first look at what our Constitution has to say about these appointments. We find it in Section 15 of Article VII of the Constitution states: "Two months immediately before the next Presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public-service or endanger public safety." I invite the viewer to look at the Constitutional provision again. Where in that provision does it say: "except appointments to the judiciary" or "appointments to the Supreme Court." Another curiosity here is that this Supreme Court not only overturned a previous unanimous Supreme Court decision promulgated in 1998, on exactly the same issue of midnight appointments to the judiciary. That overturned decision was, by the way, an opinion shared by three justices who would become future Chief Justices (Davide, Panganiban, and Puno). But this Supreme Court pronounced that previous decision "deserves to be quickly sent to the dustbin of the unworthy and forgettable." Can you imagine <b>...</b>

pinaswatcher pinaswatch charice pempengco arnel pineda noynoy aquino mar roxas chiz escudero richard gordon gilberto teodoro loren legarda bayani fernando reynato puno jejomar binay joseph estrada 2010 presidentiables miriam santiago gloria macapagal arroyo mike zte c5 lacson manny villar bolante maguindanao tesda con-ass philippines manila democracy cebu mindanao pacquiao ampatuan ayawgloria cory mikey pcij malacanang pinaswatchers pinasism3 dswd PINASISM

February 24 marks the 40th anniversary of the Tinker decision, a landmark Supreme Court case affirming students' First Amendment rights to free speech in public schools. In honor of this anniversary, the ACLU has released a short video about a Florida high school that banned students from wearing clothing supporting equal rights for gay people. The principal at Ponce De Leon High School censored Heather Gillman and other students after they began wearing clothing with rainbows and other symbols of support for gay equality in response to anti-gay harassment at the school. After a trial, a federal judge ruled in Heather's favor, finding that the school violated Heather's First Amendment rights. Heather and countless other courageous students have followed in the footsteps of Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who were suspended from Des Moines public schools in 1965 for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the students filed a lawsuit, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which was eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court. In a landmark decision on February 24, 1969, the Court ruled in favor of the students, holding that students don't lose their constitutional rights at the classroom door. The Tinker precedent is still used to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights.

freedom of speech Tinker Gillman gay rights gsa student free speech lgbt youth lgbt gay students youth free speech first amendment rights ACLU rainbows Florida acluvideos

Political tension is reaching a critical pitch in Thailand this week, as the country awaits the outcome of a court ruling to decide whether Thailand's deposed leader Thaksin Shinawatra should lose his fortune for alleged corruption. This outcome could trigger the latest flash point in four years of sometimes-violent political unrest that has exposed deep divisions in Thai society. The current ruling government hopes the decision will lead to a return of stability, but it has hedged its bets, imposing a security crackdown around the country, claiming the pro-Thaksin "Red Shirt" movement may be planning violence. Last weekend 4000 police held a crowd control exercise in front of Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also responsible for security, to show they are ready to quell any disturbance following the verdict. There's been no violent confrontation now for almost a year. The Red Shirt leaders say such shows of force are part of an attempt to whip up paranoia and demonise them. However, the government say that it is necessary precaution. Thaksin Shinawatra was wildly popular with the poor and won two landslide election victories. But the businessman-turned-politician was accused of massive corruption, the justification for the 2006 coup that overthrew him. And that's what this court case is all about. The judges have seen thousands of documents allegedly showing how he abused his power to amass a fortune. He stands to lose around two billion US dollars. Some <b>...</b>

Thailand politics Thaksin court case Asia News red shirts Asian Correspondent

Why waste public funds in long legal process to bring back the Arroyos after they leave the country when they settle to a country without extradition treaty with Philippines? Huwag nang magaksaya ng pondo ng bansa! Huwag palabasin ng bansa ang mga Arroyo! MOCKERY OF JUSTICE Sad to say, the ripple effect of the TRO is that it sets a precedent that any Filipino who is facing criminal charges but has not yet been formally arraigned in court can leave the country at will. Indeed, the ruling made the Philippine justice system virtually inutile. The question is: Why did the Supreme Court allow Gloria to travel considering that preliminary investigation is ongoing on six plunder charges and one electoral sabotage case against Gloria? One can argue that Filipino citizens have an "absolute" constitutional right to travel. But the Supreme Court had set legal precedents that the right to travel is not absolute Read more... www.allvoices.com ******************************************************************* How Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo got caught in her own mousetrap -- halo vest and all November 9, 2011 By Raïssa Robles Have you ever set a mousetrap and then yowled in pain as you stepped on it because you forgot all about it? Well, that's what happened to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her cohorts. And as a result, she may not be seeing the Swiss Alps this Christmas as she had hoped to. Do you recall that during the twilight of her administration last year, Arroyo and <b>...</b>

philippines pilipinas president noynoy pnoy aquino benigno ninoy cory jejomar binay mar roxas richard gordon puno erap estrada miriam santiago gloria arroyo mike panfilo lacson maguindanao RH Bill RP reproductive health responsible parenthood pro-rh separation of chuch and state manila pagcor pcso pcij dswd lea salonga pia cayetano bongbong marcos cbcp pinasism pinaswatcher jeans justice

(Sacramento) -- School history books across the country detail the US Supreme Court's school desegregation ruling Brown v. Board of Education but few realize the case hinged on a previous court ruling in California. State Assemblymember Mary Salas (D-Chula Vista) says the case of Mendez v. Westminster, which ended school segregation in California seven years before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, paved the way for similar cases in other states and eventually the landmark US Supreme Court decision. Here's more in this Assembly Web Report.

WESTMINSTER MENDEZ SEGREGATION CALIFORNIA BROWN SUPREME COURT MARY SALAS SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SANDRA ROBBIE Assembly Access

more at c-span.org

christine o'donnell debate supreme court scotus rulings roe wade abortion chris coons politics midterms election delaware senate tpmtv c-span

THIS INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED. Alan Gura is the lead attorney in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first major US Supreme Court Case about gun rights to be considered since the late 1930s. In the mid-1970s, the District of Columbia passed draconian gun-control legislation that effectively made it impossible for residents to legally own guns. Representing seven plaintiffs who want to own guns for self-protection and other reasons, Gura and his associates have challenged the constitutionality of DC's gun laws. At the center of the case is whether the judiciary will recognize that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to own guns, a point conceded by virtually all historians and legal experts. Gura recently sat down with reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to explain the high stakes of one of the most important and highly anticipated court cases in recent memory.

Alan Gura DC vs. Heller Supreme Court Nick Gillespie Reason TV

The story of an autistic man detained in Bournewood hospital under the Mental Health Act. His carers successfully challenged his unlawful detainment at the European Court of Human Rights and paved the way for the Governments new Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard that provides extra protection for the human rights of people who lack capacity and find themselves deprived of their liberty.

ehrc mental health autism human rights inquiry Equality Human Rights

Click here to watch the full movie: video.google.com Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America. Please suport this film, donate here: www.freedomtofascism.com Aaron Russo talks with former Chief Counsel and IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen. Mr. Cohen also is the AUTHOR of the TAX CODE! You WILL NOT believe what you hear! The US doesn't want you know know this! Article XVI which gives the congress the "power" to have a federal income tax, was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court! How congress can ratify anything found UNCONSTITUTIONAL is BEYOND me! www.claremont.org The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power. www.usconstitution.net In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 US 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it <b>...</b>

Aaron Russo talks with IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen Demand Answers

HQ tag-less video. Miley Jab Hum Tum: Mayank manages to prove Samrat innocent in court and makes RV confess that he was involved in the case. Court gives decision in Samrat's favor and RV is arrested. www.signature-forums.com No copyright infringement is intended. Content Copyright - Star (One) India Pvt. Ltd. Credit - Video by sonyfan28

mjht miley mile jab hum tum 7th sep sept 09 mayank samrat RV nupur gunjan dia uday benji mayur sajan HQ VHQ EHQ star one court scene scenes donnuu

March for Life is an annual pro-life rally protesting abortion, held in Washington DC on the anniversary of the decision in the United States Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. Many marchers also protest the use of euthanasia. The rally is organized by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. The overall goal of the march is to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.[1] The 37th occurrence of the March for Life occurred on January 22, 2010. EWTN, the global Catholic television network, has broadcast the March for Life live.

abortion right to life pro march christians washington dc fetus babies planned parenthood doctors death SKYSPLASH

www.thiscantbehappening.net Through NASA enhanced photos of the crime scene and a test recreating the premise of the prosecution; two investigative journalists, Linn Washington and Dave Lindorff, blow huge holes in the prosecution's case and demonstrate the falsified testimony of two key eyewitnesses. Linn Washington and Dave Lindorff are two of the leading experts in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, arguably the most contested and debated death-row case in the world. Linn Washington arrived at the crime scene three hours after the shooting and has been following the story ever since. He has read all of the transcripts from the trial and appeals as well as every court decision in the case. He is a columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune. Dave Lindorff is the author of "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal" which was published in 2004. He has read all of the transcripts from the trial and appeals as well as every court decision in the case. He also interviewed many of the key figures in the case including prosecutor Joseph McGill.

Mumia Abu Jamal concrete block bullets test Dave Lindorff Linn Washington Daniel Faulkner .38 calibur police Philadelphia death row Killing Time davelindorff

No recent Supreme Court ruling have evoked more liberal fury than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a campaign-finance case involving government censorship of a political documentary called Hillary: The Movie. The Federal Election Commission prevented the anti-Hillary Clinton film from being shown on television just before the 2008 Democratic primaries, a decision that was upheld by lower courts. Siding with The First Amendment, the Court struck down laws regulating independent political advertising by for-profit and non-profit corporations before an election even as they reaffirmed rules about disclosure and disclosures for ads and against direct corporate giving to candidates. Critics fear that corporations will now overwhelm the political marketplace with commercials and advertisements that will program citizens to vote for whatever agenda "the corprations" want at a given moment. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann railed against the decision, calling it "a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little democracy is left in this democracy" and comparing it to the notorious Dred Scott decision, which ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. His fellow corporate media host at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, exclaimed, "If you are a regular person who has ever made a campaign donation before, forget about ever having to do that again. What's the point?" Cyberlaw theorist Lawrence Lessig has called for a consitutional amendment to roll back the Citizens United <b>...</b>

citizens united citizens united v. fec fec federal election commission campaign finance mccain-feingold free speech first amendment keith olbermann rachel madow barack obama mccain feinold meredith bragg nick gillespie reason.com reason.org reason.tv reason magazine reason foundation Reason TV

ID-'Not science': Judge John E. Jones That would be Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which parents in Dover, Pa., took the school board to court over an attempt to make intelligent design part of the science curriculum. During six weeks in September and October last year, Jones heard wide-ranging testimony featuring legal precedence introduced from dozens of court cases, including from the US Supreme Court. Then Jones wrote a 139-page decision that made broadcast headlines within 15 minutes of release at 10:30 am on Dec. 20. He concluded from the evidence that intelligent design is creationism repackaged—not science. Making it part of a public school science curriculum would be a violation of the US Constitutions establishment clause, which bars an alliance between church and state.

science vs. intelligent design religion education dover case evolution illuminati Liberi

Back in Town is George Carlin's ninth HBO special. It was also released on CD on September 17, 1996. This was also his first of many performances at the Beacon Theater in New York City. George Denis Patrick Carlin (May 12, 1937 - June 22, 2008) was an American stand-up comedian, actor and author who won four Grammy Awards for his comedy albums. Carlin was noted for his political insights, black humor, language observations, psychology, religion and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine were central to the 1978 US Supreme Court case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a narrow 5-4 decision by the justices affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves. In the 1990s and 2000s, Carlin's stand-up routines focused on the flaws in modern-day America. He often took on contemporary political issues in the United States and satirized the excesses of American culture. He was placed second on the Comedy Central cable television network list of the 100 greatest stand-up comedians, ahead of Lenny Bruce and behind Richard Pryor. He was a frequent performer and guest host on The Tonight Show during the three-decade Johnny Carson era, and was also the first person to host Saturday Night Live.

George Carlin Farting in Public Back Town HBO Specials Comedy Comedian Fart Jokes Kasta Rules

Official Page: www.georgemichael.com "♪ ♫ ♪ George Michael and Wham! Fans ♪ ♫ ♪" : www.youtube.com Rock in Rio II ♫ Everything She Wants ♫ "Everything She Wants" was released in 1984 on Epic Records on a double A-side with "Last Christmas". It was written by George Michael, one half of the duo A five-minute song (there also exists a six-and-a-half-minutes-long version with an added bridge), "Everything She Wants" was written from the angle of a man rapidly approaching desperation at the material demands of his partner which seem to be coming to a head, despite the amount of work he did to keep them. In a twist, the second verse took the story a step further by revealing that the woman was pregnant but the man could not find any happiness in the announcement because of the extra pressure a baby would put upon him. The presence of the Band Aid project meant that the double A-side peaked at number two in the UK singles chart, although in the process it became the biggest selling record not to get to number one. However, in the USA, the song did reach the summit of the Billboard Hot 100, and became the third number-one song in a row from 1984's Make It Big album. Wham! would go on to have two more number-one hits in the UK before splitting at their height in 1986. Although Michael bemoaned much of Wham!'s material as he began his solo career, "Everything She Wants" remained a song of which he was proud, and he continued to perform it in his shows. Court Case The song <b>...</b>

george michael rock in rio Everything She Wants brazil 1991 Pintinhas IB

The jury in the trial of the doctor accused of killing Michael Jackson will have to reach a verdict without hearing testimony from the accused. Dr Conrad Murray, who denies one charge of involuntary manslaughter, told the judge in Los Angeles that he would not take the witness stand. Judge Michael Pastor told him: "The court finds the defendant has knowingly, freely and explicitly waived his right to testify. I certainly will respect that decision." Closing arguments in the six-week case will begin on Thursday before the jury start their deliberations. A total of 49 witnesses have testified during the 22 days of the trial. Prosecutors say Murray gave Jackson a fatal dose of the anaesthetic propofol in the bedroom of the singer's mansion in June 2009. Conrad Murray On Trial Murray Trial: Inside Court red chevron See pictures from inside the courtroom as Michael Jackson's doctor is accused of causing the singer's death The doctor claims the 'King of Pop' self-administered the dose when he was out of the room. The last evidence again centred around the differing views of two eminent propofol experts. Dr Steven Shafer, for the prosecution, has dismissed the opinion of the defence expert Dr Paul White that Jackson was to blame. Murray could face up to four years behind bars and the loss of his medical license if convicted. Dana Cole, a Los Angeles criminal lawyer, says Dr Murray's decision not to testify was understandable as any mistakes on the stand would have been "another <b>...</b>

Jackson Trial: Both Sides Rest Their Case Asithappenslive

On April 5, ACS hosted a national press briefing on BCI Coca- Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. EEOC, a case the Supreme Court will hear on April 18. In this case, the Court will consider the circumstances in which an employer may be held liable under federal anti-discrimination laws when a supervisor, who harbors racial or other discriminatory bias toward a subordinate, influences the decision to fire that employee, though the decision is made by a more senior supervisor who harbors no such bias himself. The civil rights and business communities agree that the outcome of this case will have a significant impact on the workplace but disagree on what standard the Court should adopt. In this video, Helen Norton, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, gives an overview of the case.

supreme court politicstv coca cola coke bottling eeoc lawyers discrimination race fired firing

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights. Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002. Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court. The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus Kenneth Starr Supreme Court SCOTUS Scarce TV

The song is primarily about God, and features repetitions of the avatars of Lord Vishnu, the preserving god in Hinduism. When it was released as a single in 1971, "My Sweet Lord" topped the charts on both sides of the Atlantic. It was the first single by an ex-Beatle to reach number one. It reached number one again in the UK in 2002 following Harrison's death from cancer. The song was originally written for Billy Preston, who had a minor hit with it in early 1970, in his album Encouraging Words. The song was written in December 1969, when Harrison and Preston were in Copenhagen, Denmark. The recording of the song took place back in London. Billy was the the principal musician while George was engineering the sessions. The drumming was performed by Alan White of Yes. When All Things Must Pass was re-issued for its thirtieth anniversary in 2000, Harrison recorded a new version of the song as a bonus track, sharing vocals with Sam Brown. The original single was actually a double-A Side, so both sides had a full Apple label. It was paired with "Isn't It A Pity", which was not included on the 2002 rerelease. The rerelease included "My Sweet Lord (2000)" and "Let It Down" as B-Sides. After Harrison's death, at the tribute Concert for George, the song was performed by Billy Preston. Following the song's release, musical similarities between "My Sweet Lord" and The Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine" led to a lengthy legal battle over the rights to the composition. Billboard magazine <b>...</b>

My Sweet Lord George Harrison Lyecoatha

HST is illegal according to the Canadian Constitution (BNA Act 1867) and according to the Supreme Court of Canada. On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. BNA Act 1867 - Sections 91 and 92: The Act is very specific in it's direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._ .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. Former BC Premier's Anti-HST Petition Gets Go-Ahead HST petition proceeds. Protest organizer Chris Delaney is confident his group will collect enough signatures to challenge and repeal BC's harmonized sales tax. www.cbc.ca No BC HST | Say No To HST in BC www.saynotohstinbc.ca NO BC HST On Facebook www.facebook.com

HST Petition BC Harmonized Sales Tax Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff Canada Canadian Steeper 33

WASHINGTON - In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office. By 5-4 vote, the court overturned federal laws, in effect for decades, that prevented corporations from using their profits to buy political campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. It leaves in place a ban prohibiting corporations and unions from directly contributing funds to candidates for any use. In a statement, President Barack Obama said that the decision gives 'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.' The president pledged to work with Congress to 'develop a forceful response' to the court's ruling. Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues. Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom. The justices also struck <b>...</b>

abc 2100 audit fed hr 1207 federal reserve economy recession elite bankers collapse death of dollar criminal Judge Napolitano Cap and Trade Copenhagen Treaty Glenn Beck Campaign For Liberty Peter Schiff Healthcare Debate Townhall Rand usa us flag patriotic patriot freedom SHTF wake up sheeple Steve Quayle Greg Everson state trooper police officer martial law civil unrest freedominfonetwork