SCOTUS to hear case re: Cali’s planned Medicaid reimbursement cuts

Under Ahnold, Cali attempted to cut funding for Medicaid reimbursements to physicians, dentists, pharmacies, health clinics and other medical providers.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said hell no to that.

Governor Brown wants to do the same and to that end…SCOTUS will get the case now. This doesn’t really bode well for the Medicaid providers and ultimately the citizens of the state that must avail themselves of this form of healthcare as at least four of the Supreme’s find fault with the Ninth’s logic in how they ruled.  From McClatchy:

The court’s decision to hear three combined California legal challenges is good news for Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who wants to enact budget cuts similar to those that courts have previously struck down. Potentially, hundreds of millions of dollars in proposed savings are at stake.

“The fact that the court agreed to hear these cases is a big and important step for California,” Elizabeth Ashford, a spokeswoman for Brown, said Tuesday night.

The court’s decision also could please 22 states that have sided with California, including Florida, Idaho and South Carolina. California and the other states want to restrict the kinds of private lawsuits that can be filed over public benefits.

The Ninth Circuit of Court of Appeals previously rejected California’s proposed reimbursement cuts, initially put forward under Brown’s Republican predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Supreme Court’s decision issued without comment Tuesday means at least four of the nine justices question the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. The impending review by a conservative-dominated high court worries the medical professionals and patient advocates opposed to the reimbursement reductions.

Thanks Jerry, you are looking more like a republican governor every, fucking day.

Tattoo parlors protected by First Amendment..Who knew?

Robb, my fav bartender in Malibu

I laughed my ass off at this story today. From the Jurist link:

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday invalidated  [opinion, PDF] a municipal ban on tattoo parlors by Hermosa Beach, California, calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The controversy initially arose when Johnny Anderson was denied a permit to open a tattoo parlor by the city, located in southern California. The city does not list tattoo parlors in its zoning code, and, as tattoo parlors must be registered under California law, the city’s code in effect outlawed those establishments. The US District Court for the Central District of California  granted summary judgment to the city when Anderson filed his original suit. In arriving at its decision, the Ninth Circuit first held that tattooing is an expressive activity, not merely conduct with an expressive component. Based on that holding, the court further held that tattooing was subject to only reasonable time, place or manner restrictions, and the city’s ban was not narrowly tailored to the city’s interest in protecting public health and did not leave open alternative channels of communication. The court concluded:

    [T]he City’s total ban on tattoo parlors in Hermosa Beach is not a reasonable “time, place, or manner” restriction because it is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the City’s significant health and safety interests and because it entirely forecloses a unique and important method of expression. Moreover, no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the constitutionality of the regulation. Thus, we hold that Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.06.070 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes tattoo parlors.

The city is currently deliberating as to whether it will appeal the decision to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, or perhaps even to the Supreme Court.

First Amendment rights have been the focus of numerous court challenges in recent history, often by unpopular groups seeking to have their rights enforced. Also Thursday, the US District Court for the Central District of California, which granted summary judgment against Anderson, ruled that the US military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy violates the First Amendment . In August, the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that Missouri laws banning protests at funerals are unconstitutional. That case involved the controversial Westboro Baptist Church, and another case involving the same organization will be heard by the Supreme Court this term.

Ah yes, the fuckwits at Westboro Baptist and their first amendment rights. It’s damn pathetic that those assholes can preach their hate speech and are covered by our Constitution/Bill of Rights.

As for Hermosa Beach and their city council…hahahahahahahaha…assholes.

9th Circuit prohibits logging in National Forest’s

Bush of course overturned a Clinton rule and allowed logging in our National Forest’s. From Jurist:

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a district court ruling reinstating the Roadless Rule, which prohibited the building of roads or the use of roadless lands in National Parks for timber production. The Clinton administration measure was effectively overturned in 2005 by the State Petitions Rule, enacted by the US Department of Agriculture under President George W Bush. The State Petitions Rule allowed governors to petition for Roadless Rule protections, depending on their individual state needs, in lieu of blanket protection. Affirming the ruling, Judge Robert Beezer wrote that the State Petitions Rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act because it was enacted without an environmental impact statement:

In the context of this case, we cannot condone a marked
change in roadless area management without environmental analysis because it was the USDA’s preferred response to an untested district court injunction that was subject to possible reversal in a pending appeal.

As expected, opinions on the ruling varied. The environmental group Earthjustice lauded the ruling, calling it a victory for all citizens who enjoy the outdoors, and for cities that rely on the wilderness for fresh water. The Intermountain Forest Association, a logging industry group, said that it was too early to say definitively what the ruling means .

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was implemented by former president Bill Clinton in 2001 and replaced by the Bush administration in 2005. In March, the US House of Representatives voted to approve the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, a collection of more than 160 bills aimed at preserving federal land as wilderness areas. The Act includes a rule which allows governors to request that regulations on the management of roadless areas be developed to meet the needs of individual states. The Clinton-era rule would have prohibited mining, logging, and road construction in the forests of 38 states and Puerto Rico, totaling more than 58 million acres of land.

Lets hope this holds up when it hits the Supreme Court, which I know it will. The logging folks will not go away quietly.