Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Carbon Counting Satellite/ NSA is Watching You....Legally?



Missoulian: NASA launches carbon satellite after 2009 failure
OCO-2 Lifts Off on Carbon-Counting Mission
“NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2, is expected to provide insight into how the planet adjusts to the increased production of carbon dioxide from a vantage point in orbit that will allow it to take readings on a scale never achieved before.

While ground stations have been monitoring carbon dioxide concentrations, OCO-2 will be the first spacecraft to conduct a global-scale reading over several seasons. The spacecraft is expected to produce detailed readings to provide regional sources of carbon dioxide as well as sinks for the greenhouse gas.”

http://www.pclob.gov/


“In response to the requests from Congress and the President, the Board began a comprehensive study of the two NSA programs. The Board held public hearings and met with the Intelligence Community and the Department of Justice, White House, and congressional committee staff, privacy and civil liberties advocates, academics, trade associations, and technology and communications companies.”
​​
“These disclosures caused a great deal of concern both over the extent to which they damaged national security and over the nature and scope of the surveillance programs they purported to reveal. Subsequently, authorized disclosures from the government confirmed both programs. Under one, the NSA collects telephone call records or metadata — but not the content of phone conversations — covering the calls of most Americans on an ongoing basis, subject to renewed approvals by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( “ FISC” or  “FISA  court” ). This program was approved by the FISC pursuant to Section 215 of the USA P ATRIOT Act (“Patriot Act”). Under the second program, the government collects the content of electronic communications, including phone calls and email s , where the targets are reasonably believed to be non - U.S. persons located outside the United States. 2 Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act is the basis for this program.”  

July 2, 2014 Public Meeting
“The Board will meet at 10 am in public session on July 2nd at the JW Marriot Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC in Salon III. At the meeting, the Board will vote on the formal issuance of its report to the President, Congress and the public. Additional information on the Board's review of the surveillance program, such as its prior public hearings, is available at www.pclob.gov. The July 2nd meeting is open to the public and a meeting notice has been published in the Federal Register at https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2014-14603.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

ACL Injuries/ Courts and Contraception/ NASA Launch Delay/ Antitrust Natural Gas



Missoulian: ACL injuries on rise – and more likely in girls Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury
“An anterior cruciate ligament injury is the over-stretching or tearing of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the knee. A tear may be partial or complete.”



 Missoulian: WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION  “The panel reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the district court’s orders in cases consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding, and arising out of the energy crisis of 2000-2002. Plaintiffs, retail buyers of natural gas, alleged that defendants, natural gas traders, manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publications and engaging in wash sales. The district court entered summary judgment against plaintiffs in most of the cases, finding that state law antitrust claims were preempted by the Natural Gas Act”

Monday, June 30, 2014

Yellowstone 125th anniversary/ Immigrant Children/ Bison Relocation/ Soybean v. Corn/ Supreme Court Rulings



 Missoulian: Yosemite celebrates 150th anniversary
Yellowstone National Park; Its Exploration and Establishment
(Mansfield Library has a copy of this book located on Level 1, I 29.2:Y 3/3)
Harris v. Quinn
“PAs are much different from public employees. Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment. Even the scope of collective bargaining on their behalf is sharply limited. ..this Court has never viewed Abood and its progeny as based on Pickering balancing. And even assuming that Pickering applies, that case’s balancing test clearly tips in favor of the objecting employees’ First Amendment interests. Second, respondents err in contending that a refusal to extend Abood here will call into question this Court’s decisions in Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, and Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth , 529 U. S. 217, for those decisions fit comfortably within the framework applied here. Pp. 34–40.
656 F. 3d 692, reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded”

Presidential Memorandum -- Response to the Influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children Across the Southwest Border
“The influx of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) across the southwest border of the United States has resulted in an urgent humanitarian situation requiring a unified and coordinated Federal response. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to establish an interagency Unified Coordination Group to ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in responding to the humanitarian aspects of this situation, consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents)(HSPD-5), including coordination with State, local, and other nonfederal entities.”
Missoulian: Aereo suspends service after Supreme Court ruling
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.
“Held: Aereo performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Pp. 4–18.
(a) Aereo “perform[s].” It does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so.”

Missoulian: Feds mull Grand Canyon, Iowa for relocating bison
Interior Department Releases Report on Bison Management, Reaffirming Commitment to Work With States, Tribes and Other Partners
“The report, “DOI Bison Report: Looking Forward” outlines plans to work cooperatively with tribes, states, landowners, conservation groups, commercial bison producers, agricultural interests and others interested in bison to restore the nation’s bison population to a proper ecological and cultural role on appropriate landscapes within its historical range.”
Missoulian: USDA: Farmers plant record soybean crop, less corn
Soybeans & Oil Crops

Corn

Other Supreme Court Decisions 
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
“Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49. (a) RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel. Pp. 16–31.
(1) HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations with in RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. Pp. 16–19.”

NLRB v. Noel Canning
“The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or intersession—of sufficient length…The Clause should be interpreted as granting the President the power to make appointments during a recess but not offering the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation….Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments”