Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Showing posts with label appeals court. Show all posts

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Finally The FAA Loses On Drones

Court strikes down rule

forcing toy drone

users to register

with govt

BY MELANIE ZANONA - 05/19/17 12:04 PM EDT 256

A D.C.-based appeals court struck down a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule on Friday requiring recreational drone users to register their model aircraft with the federal government, in a major win for drone hobbyists.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with plaintiff John A. Taylor, a recreational drone pilot, who argued that the FAA doesn’t have the power to make him register his toy drones because Congress already said the FAA can’t regulate model aircraft.

“The FAA’s 2015 registration rule, which applies to model aircraft, directly violates that clear statutory prohibition,” the opinion said. “We therefore grant Taylor’s petition and vacate the registration rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft.”

As drones have exploded in popularity and as the technology has become increasingly affordable, both lawmakers and the FAA have worked to safely incorporate drones into the national airspace.

In December 2015, the FAA issued an interim rule requiring drone hobbyists to register their recreational aircraft with the agency.

The court called the registration process “quite extensive, as one would imagine for airplanes.”

The rule — which had not been formally finalized — requires model aircraft owners to provide their name, email address and physical address; pay a $5 registration fee; and display a unique drone ID number at all times. Those who fail to comply could face civil and criminal penalties.

While Congress directed the FAA to safely integrate drones into the national airspace in a 2012 aviation law, they also included a special exemption for model aircraft.

The appeals court cited the 2012 law in its ruling, saying that recreational drones count as model aircraft and arguing that that the FAA registration requirement constitutes a rule or regulation.

“Congress passed and President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,” the ruling said. “Specifically, the ‘Special Rule for Model Aircraft’ [section] provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’”

Lawyers for the FAA argued that the registration rule is not a new requirement, but merely a “decision to cease its exercise of enforcement discretion,” which falls within its mission to improve aviation safety.

They also said that exempting some drones from the registration log would “create a gaping hole in FAA’s enforcement authority and threaten the safety of the national airspace system.”

But the appeals called those arguments “unpersuasive.”

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Will Supremes Uphold The Appeals Court? We Are Probably Going To See The End Of Concealed Weapons Rules.

Appeals Court Upholds California's Strict Concealed-Carry Gun Rules

Thursday, 09 Jun 2016 02:02 PM

0
inShare

A ruling with the potential to vastly expand the number of California residents permitted to carry concealed weapons in public was overturned by a federal appeals court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday set aside a three-judge panel’s 2014 ruling that San Diego County’s process for determining who qualifies for a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates the constitutional right to bear arms. The decision is a loss for gun rights advocates including the National Rifle Association who have attacked some of the nation’s strictest public-carry laws.

An 11-judge panel took up the case after California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked for reconsideration of the earlier panel’s ruling that any responsible, law-abiding citizen is entitled under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment to carry a hidden, loaded gun in public for self-defense. The earlier panel found that San Diego County’s sheriff overstepped his authority when he concluded an applicant for a concealed weapon permit didn’t demonstrate “good cause” to carry a Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol in public.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Contraceptive Mandate Headed To Supreme Court. Will Roberts Cave As He Did On The Law Itself?

Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate Blocked by Appeals Court

Monday, 11 Nov 2013 01:19 PM

More . . .

A A |

Email Us |

Print |

Forward Article

0
inShare

A requirement of President Barack Obama’s health-care law that group insurance plans cover contraceptives was ordered blocked by a federal appeals court, the first ban on enforcement of the mandate.
Friday’s decision increases the probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue to resolve conflicting appeals court rulings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago returned two cases to trial courts with instructions to enter preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the requirement in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel reversed the lower-court decisions in lawsuits brought by Catholic families and their closely held corporations.
“These cases -- two among many currently pending in courts around the country -- raise important questions about whether business owners and their closely held corporations may assert a religious objection to the contraception mandate and whether forcing them to provide this coverage substantially burdens their religious-exercise rights,” U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes wrote in the majority opinion.
Last month, an appeals court panel in Washington also ruled that the contraceptives mandate may violate religious freedom, as did an appeals court in Denver previously. Appeals courts in Philadelphia and Cincinnati have upheld the law.
ACLU Disappointed
“This decision is a disappointment,” Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an e-mailed statement. The organization said it filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “Your boss shouldn’t be able to discriminate against you because of what he or she believes, plain and simple. People are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but they don’t have the right to impose those views on others.”
Adora Jenkins, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, didn’t immediately respond to a call after regular business hours seeking comment on the order.
“This is an important issue to people who run these small companies and are dictated by their faith in how they should run the company,” said Edward White, a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs, Cyril B. Korte.
The decision is the first appeals court ruling finding in favor of both the owners and the company, White said. That’s important because it makes clear that either the owners or the company can sue over the mandate, he said.
The Supreme Court will take up the case because “you have a conflict on an important national issue,” White said. “We’re overjoyed.”
The cases are Korte v. Sebelius, 12-3841, and Grote v. Sebelius, 13-1077, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago).

© Copyright 2013 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Obama Care Scores One On Appeal

Today, it was announced that a panel of the Appeals Court in Cincinnati had voted that the requirement that all American citizens maintain minimum health insurance or be fined was reasonable by a 2-1 margin. This is the first major victory for Obama Care in the Appeals Court arena. However, this is not the end of the fight. Supporters of repeal can request a full hearing by the Circuit or they could appeal it directly to the Supreme Court. Those decisions have not been made.

What does this mean for you and I. At the present moment, not very much, however, if this trend of muddle headed judges (is that too strong) continues, we could well see our country saddled with Obama Care forever. It will not be good when 1/6 of the economy is controlled by the government. They cannot run the post office profitably or run the trains on time so to expect them to run the health care system, a significantly more complex business, successfully will guarantee you a trip to the funny farm.

Government never has been run any business with any sort of acumen. Why? Profit motive! A business has to make money but the government does not. Where a business person might not add personnel until they are needed, the government bureaucrat will add them without regard to how well the program is doing. He does so because the more people he has working for him, the higher is his salary. The motivation is not success but to get more people under him/her.

If the company is not profitable, the business person closes up their shop. Not so for the government program. It soldiers on, changing direction and asking for more support from the taxpayers so that those using the service will not be left without. Amtrak is a great example. The railroad business at the beginning of the 20th century was a massive business generating millions of dollars in business.
With the advent of the airplane, the passenger train business declined to such numbers that it could no longer be viable. So government in its great wisdom decides that "we needed" to maintain this business, so Amtrak was started.

Amtrak has never been profitable and probably never will for a couple reasons. First of all, air fares are low making flying cheaper and forcing the passenger rail business to compete with even lower fares. Secondly, planes are much faster. You can fly across the country in a matter of hours verses days on the train. Trains are great is you are in no hurry to get where you want to go, but in today's world where everything is rush rush, the market for slow is very limited.

So why do we keep supporting this dinosaur? Politics, nostalgia and inertia are the only reasons that make any sense. I am sure some Representatives and Senators have supporters who want rail traffic to continue. Maybe they have a business that builds locomotives (for example, General Electric) or rail cars that are made in their district and losing Amtrak would result in a loss of jobs. Additionally, we still love to watch trains and remember when they were THE way to travel. However, we have always had trains so why should we stop now is probably the real reason for Amtrak. Does it make sense, no.

Now we are looking to the same bureaucrats who run the Post Office and Amtrak to run our health system when never in the history of the world has one operated at a break-even no less a profit nor has the benefits been delivered in as cost-effective manner as the planners and promoters of the system have predicted. Most times benefits are "rationed" by various screens to provide services to those who will benefit most from the operation or product. If you are too old or too ill, you will be passed over for someone else. In Canada, anyone over 65 cannot get a heart bypass regardless of their health. Sorry pal, those dollars are for younger people. So, they come to the United States and pay for it themselves.

I am not looking forward to seeing the United States' great health system (it has problems that could be rectified) descend to disgrace because we did not speak out and encourage change. Obama Care, especially in these economic times, will be the absolutely wrong medicine for the medical business. Let's work to make sure it gets repealed.

The following article relates more of the details of today's court action. Let us know what you think, write a comment.

US appeals court upholds Obama health care law

By Dan Sewell June 29, 2011 1:26 pm

CINCINNATI (AP) — In the first ruling by a federal appeals court on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, a panel in Cincinnati affirmed Wednesday that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.
A conservative law center had challenged the measure, arguing on behalf of plaintiffs who said potentially being required to buy insurance or face penalties was subjecting them to financial hardship. They warned that the law was too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.
The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.
The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.
The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.

A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.
An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues.n to you and I?