Italy court upholds Berlusconi tax fraud verdict

MILAN (AP) — An appeals court upheld the tax fraud conviction and four-year prison sentence against former Premier Silvio Berlusconi on Wednesday in a case that could see him barred from public office for five years.

In Italy, convictions are not considered definitive until all appeals are exhausted, and Berlusconi's lawyers are expected to appeal the case to the nation's highest Court of Cassation.

In October, a lower court convicted Berlusconi in a scheme that involved inflating the price his Mediaset media empire paid for TV rights to U.S. movies and pocketing the difference. Berlusconi has long denied the charges and says he's a victim of politically motivated prosecutors.

Wednesday's Milan appellate court ruling upheld the lower court's October decision barring him from public office for five years and from managing any company for three years.

Berlusconi appeared prepared for the decision, going on his Mediaset TG5 news on Tuesday night to proclaim his innocence and portray the case as a political witch hunt against him and designed to "eliminate a political adversary."

Berlusconi has been convicted in the past at the trial level. But the convictions have always either been overturned on appeal or seen the statute of limitations run out before Italy's high court could have its say.

Wednesday's ruling comes days before another one of Berlusconi's trials approaches the final leg. Closing arguments are scheduled Monday in Berlusconi's sex-for-hire trial. In that case, the media mogul is on trial in Milan on charges he paid for sex with an underage Moroccan teen during the infamous "bunga-bunga" parties at his villa and then tried to cover it up. Both he and the woman, Karima el-Mahroug, better known as Ruby, deny sexual contact. A ruling in that case could come before the end of the month.

In the Mediaset case, prosecutors allege Berlusconi and other the defendants were behind a scheme to purchase the rights to broadcast U.S. movies on Berlusconi's private television network and falsely declared the payments to avoid taxes.

They said the defendants then inflated the price for the TV rights of some 3,000 films as they relicensed them internally to Berlusconi's networks, pocketing the difference amounting to around euro250 million.

View the original article here

Egypt court upholds acquittals in 2011 battle

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's highest appeals court on Wednesday upheld the acquittals of 24 loyalists of Hosni Mubarak who were tried for having organized a medieval-style attack in which the ex-president's supporters riding camels and horses attacked anti-government demonstrators, a pivotal moment in the country's 2011 uprising.

The decision by Judge Hamed Abdullah of the Court of Cassation raised calls for new investigations into the so-called "Battle of the Camel" on Feb. 2, 2011 in Cairo's Tahrir Square, The attack set off clashes that lasted into the next day and left nearly a dozen dead.

The text of the judge's decision was not immediately available. In the original October verdict, judges argued that witnesses were unreliable and there was weak evidence against the defendants, who included some of the biggest names in the Mubarak regime. Nearly all the officials accused of complicity in the killing of more than 800 protesters during the uprising have been acquitted, angering the families of the victims and other Egyptians who demanded that officials be held accountable for the brutal crackdown.

Lawyers said new evidence has emerged since the original trial. This makes the acquittals a key test for Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi, who has repeatedly vowed to seek retribution for those killed during the revolution. Morsi created a special prosecution office to re-investigate cases and promised new trials if new evidence emerged.

The Battle of the Camel was a memorable moment of the 18-day uprising. The assault played out worldwide on TV screens and proved to be a turning point in the wave of protests that led to Mubarak's downfall.

It followed Mubarak's emotional speech, saying he would eventually step down. That speech won him sympathy and thinned the crowds of protesters holding a sit-in at Tahrir Square, the heart of the uprising.

A rival demonstration staged by Mubarak supporters turned into the attack on the anti-Mubarak protesters. Amid the melee, a number of men on horses and camels rode into the square, trying to beat and trample the protesters. This sparked an all-out battle that lasted two days, with anti-government protesters flooding into the square to defend it. The two sides pelted each other with stones, bricks and firebombs. In the end, the Mubarak supporters were driven away.

The attack and the images of young protesters fighting back reversed sympathies and galvanized the uprising. Many Egyptians who were undecided about the uprising saw the attack as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to crush the revolt. Many accused Mubarak officials and pro-regime businessmen of paying thugs to carry out the assault.

The acquittals pose a dilemma for Morsi.

He faces calls from relatives of the victims and others to reform the judiciary, which his supporters charge is filled with Mubarak sympathizers. He removed the country's top prosecutor and appointed another. The opposition criticized that decision, saying Morsi was interfering in judicial affairs. It was later overturned by a court order, but his newly appointed chief prosecutor is still on the job.

Morsi commissioned a fact-finding commission and it delivered its report late last year raising expectations that new investigations would follow, but so far, no new probes have been announced. Lawyer Ahmed Ragheb, who was part of the fact-finding commission, said Wednesday's verdict gives Morsi's government a chance to act on its promise to mete out justice based on the new report's findings.

"This is a new test for the judiciary, not just the prosecution, and a new test for Morsi," said Ragheb. "This case shows that the defect is in the system as a whole — the police, prosecution and judiciary."

Calls to the chief prosecutor's office were not returned.

Some rights groups raised concern that in Egypt's highly polarized, post-Mubarak politics, the special prosecution process could be used to go after critics. These fears were particularly fueled as the judiciary became a battleground between Morsi, his supporters and their opponents.

On Wednesday, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said Egypt was facing a "critical moment" with mounting concerns over what she described as apparent efforts to limit the authority of the judiciary, a draft law that would impose "draconian restrictions" on civil groups and legal action targeting protesters, journalists and activists.

"People, including members of the security forces, responsible for very serious human rights abuses, such as the killing, torture, rape and other forms of sexual attacks on protesters, and ill-treatment of detainees, have in many cases not been properly investigated by the general prosecutors, let alone brought to justice," she said.

Anti-Morsi critics, including vocal activists and a prominent TV satirist, have been questioned and some were referred to trial for speaking out against some of his policies.

On Wednesday, a state security prosecutor referred to trial the editor in chief of the daily Al-Watan newspaper, and the paper's political editor. They are accused of allegedly publishing false information collected after a security raid on a suspected terrorist cell. The information included a hit list of prominent politicians, military, TV and religious personalities, according to the paper.

The paper said on its website that the editors, Magdy el-Gallad and Ahmed el-Khatib, refused to appear for questioning in line with a decision by an Egyptian journalists' union not to abide by orders issued by Morsi's new chief prosecutor until a legal challenge about his position is settled.

The paper has dismissed the charges, which can carry fines and up to three years in prison.

View the original article here

NRA's next president to lead its court fights against gun control

By Andrea Lorenz

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Alabama lawyer Jim Porter, in line to become the next president of the National Rifle Association, is expected to spearhead the group's court challenges of gun-control laws enacted in several states since the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting massacre.

Porter, 64, the son of another Alabama lawyer who served as NRA president from 1959 to 1961, is likely to succeed David Keene on Monday in the two-year post at the nation's leading gun-rights organization.

The longtime member is chairman of the legal affairs committee for the NRA, which has headed off federal attempts to approve new gun ownership restrictions, including a U.S. Senate proposal last month for expanded background checks.

Porter told NRA members at their annual convention in Houston on Saturday that President Barack Obama was "AWOL" on border security, the deficit and national security, but "scheming and plotting" to take away Americans' gun rights.

"There is nothing, nothing that criminals do with guns that isn't already against the law," Porter said.

In a speech to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association in June 2012, Porter called Obama a "fake" president and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder "rabidly un-American."

The NRA's focus is far different now from what it was when Porter's father, Irvine Porter, led the organization. The NRA then focused mainly on shooting and hunting. Its emphasis shifted in later decades to lobbying against restrictions on guns.

Porter, the NRA's first-vice president, who by tradition is expected to be elected president on Monday by the board, introduced the outgoing president, Keene.

"If I have anything to say about it, you just heard from your next president of your National Rifle Association," Keene told the crowd..

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and chief executive, remains the most visible leader of the group.

CHALLENGING GUN RESTRICTIONS

Keene told the Washington Times earlier this week that Porter would be a "perfect match" as NRA president as it focuses on court challenges to state laws restricting gun ownership.

"As we are likely to win most of the legislative battles in Congress, we will have to move to courts to undo the restrictions placed on gun owners' rights in New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado," Keene told the newspaper.

Connecticut and New York expanded assault weapons bans and restricted the capacity of ammunition magazines after a gunman killed 20 students and six adults at a Connecticut school in December.

Colorado, where a gunman killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in July 2012 at a midnight showing of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises," approved restrictions on the size of ammunition clips and universal background checks.

Porter, a 1971 graduate of the University of Alabama, told the New York group last year that the fight to protect the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution setting out the right to bear arms had just begun, and that Obama's "entire administration is anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment."

On Saturday, Tom King, an NRA board member from East Greenbush, New York, said Porter was a likable family man and successful attorney who would be a good NRA president.

"I say things that are controversial too, everybody does," King said. "If you want to take something out of context and say, 'He said that, that's controversial,' and you want to attack him for that, that's your prerogative or anyone else's prerogative, but Jim is a good man."

(Additional reporting by David Bailey in Minneapolis; Editing by Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

Gadhafi's son appears in Libya court; case delayed

ZINTAN, Libya (AP) — Wearing a sky-blue safari suit and a pair of sandals, the imprisoned son of slain dictator Moammar Gadhafi made his second court appearance this year on Thursday in a local court in Libya's western mountains where he is facing charges of harming state security.

Jailed in the town of Zintan, whose fighters captured him as he was fleeing to neighboring Niger, the trial of Seif al-Islam Gadhafi underlines Libya's ongoing state of lawlessness and lacking state authority in the face of a hodgepodge of militia groups.

With no national army or police in place since the fall of Gadhafi's regime in an eight-month civil war in 2011, successive governments have been too weak to either secure Seif al-Islam's imprisonment in the capital, Tripoli, or put pressure on his captors, a militia known as Abu Bakr al-Sadek, to hand him over to the central government.

The trial also comes at a time when the Libyan capital is locked in turmoil as militia groups blockaded, for a fifth day, the foreign and justice ministries, and stormed the interior ministry and state TV buildings. They want the country's parliament to pass a contentious law that would exclude Gadhafi-era officials from political life.

One version of the law, if passed, would dismiss a considerable slice of Libya's new rulers, who served under Gadhafi in the 1980s — regardless of their role during the early days of the uprising in 2011 that ended with the dictator's death in his hometown of Sirte.

Some rights activists decried the law as too harsh. Others see a purge of former Gadhafi-era officials as a necessary prerequisite to transitional justice and national reconciliation.

The rule of law is still beyond reach in the North African country, which for 42 years was governed by the dictator's whims and eccentricities. Courts are still paralyzed and security remains tenuous as unruly militias proliferate.

After the ministries were surrounded, pro-democracy activists urged the government to disarm and disband the militias and held protests denouncing the armed groups. However, a Thursday demonstration in Tripoli's Algeria Square saw low turnout, reflecting waning enthusiasm or fear among local residents.

The state, however, relies heavily on militias to serve as security forces since the police and military remain a shambles. The government pays the salaries of tens of thousands of militiamen who often pursue their own agendas — enforcing their own rule over neighborhoods and towns, engaging in kidnappings and extortion and fighting gun battles with rival militias. Some have hard-line Islamist ideologies and have become notorious for imposing strict interpretations of Islamic law.

With many fearing the situation will worsen, Zintan's fighters have felt encouraged to keep Seif al-Islam away from the capital.

"There is zero control in the capital," said town council spokesman Khaled al-Zintani. "Weapons are in everyone's hands and prison breaks are recurrent. Zintan is the safest place," he said, adding that the trial would be open to journalists and human rights groups.

While he insisted Seif al-Islam could be transferred to Tripoli if the government secured the area and requested it, he claimed that Seif al-Islam's life is under threat.

"There are parties who want to silence him because if he talked he will reveal the information that would stain them and would uncover corruption of those who cooperated with the regime at the last decade."

At Thursday's 15-minute court session, Gadhafi's longtime heir apparent seemed at times apathetic, smiling occasionally and revealing a missing front tooth as the judge adjourned the hearing until Sept. 19 to allow defense lawyers time to study the case. It was unclear how he lost the tooth.

The 40-year-old is the most heavyweight former regime member to be tried in Libya. Imprisoned in solitary confinement, according to al-Zintani, Seif al-Islam has spoken few words during his two court appearances.

"Fine," Seif al-Islam said derisively when the judge told him that two volunteer lawyers would be his defense team.

Seif al-Islam also is facing charges of attempting to escape prison and insulting Libya's new flag. The charges are linked to his June meeting with an International Criminal Court delegation accused of smuggling documents and a camera to him in his cell. The four-member team was detained by Zintan rebels but released after the ICC made an apology and pledged to investigate the incident.

The charges are separate from those by the International Criminal Court, which indicted Seif al-Islam for the murder and persecution of protesters in the uprising that ultimately toppled his father's regime in 2011.

According to filings by defense lawyers at the ICC, Seif al-Islam said he wants to be tried for alleged war crimes in the Netherlands, claiming that a trial in Libya would be tantamount to murder. "There will certainly be no justice in the case if the prosecution is based on evidence from torture," he said. "I am not afraid to die, but if you execute me after such a trial, you should just call it murder," he added.

The rest of Seif al-Islam's family, including his mother, his sister, two brothers and others, were granted asylum in Oman in March, moving there from Algeria, where they found refuge during the civil war.

View the original article here

HMRC faces court challenge over Goldman "sweetheart deal"

By Estelle Shirbon

LONDON (Reuters) - The HMRC faces a court challenge on Thursday over a deal with Goldman Sachs worth an estimated 10 million pounds to the U.S. bank, a case aimed at pressuring the government into tougher action against corporate tax avoidance.

The challenge by activist group UK Uncut Legal Action stems from public anger in Britain about how big and powerful firms succeed in paying less tax than many ordinary people struggling to cope with a stagnating economy and government spending cuts.

The case concerns a settlement reached in 2010 between Goldman Sachs and the tax authority (HMRC), to end a long-running dispute over a now banned tax avoidance scheme involving the payment of bonuses to UK staff via an offshore tax haven.

UK Uncut Legal Action wants the High Court to declare the settlement, which allowed Goldman Sachs to pay the principal it owed but not the interest that had accrued during a five-year battle with HMRC, as unlawful.

The activist group labels the settlement a "sweetheart deal", a term rejected by the tax authority.

The risk for Goldman Sachs is further damage to its image in Britain after a public outcry in January caused it to scrap plans to delay paying bonuses to its bankers to make the most of an income tax cut for high earners.

In financial terms, the disputed $15 million (9.6 million pounds) is a drop in the ocean for a bank that paid its employees $12.9 billion in compensation and benefits last year.

"At a time when the government is making huge, unjust cuts to public spending, the rich must pay their fair share," said Murray Worthy, director of UK Uncut Legal Action.

The High Court hearing into the Goldman Sachs deal is a judicial review expected to last one day. The court will reserve judgment until a later date. Goldman Sachs, which will not be an active participant in the case, declined to comment.

At a time of budget austerity, revelations about the low tax bills of companies ranging from Vodafone to Starbucks have caused widespread outrage in Britain, putting pressure on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government to act.

Chancellor George Osborne has called aggressive tax avoidance "morally repugnant" but critics say his new General Anti-Avoidance Rule is not enough.

Asked to comment on the case, HMRC pointed to a 2012 report by the National Audit Office (NAO) that said five big business tax settlements including the Goldman deal were "reasonable" in that HMRC may have received less if it had litigated and lost.

(Reporting by Estelle Shirbon; additional reporting by Lauren LaCapra in New York; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

View the original article here

Obama asks Supreme Court to review appointments ruling

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Setting the stage for a constitutional showdown, the Obama administration on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to rule that presidents have broad authority to make certain appointments without Senate approval.

If the nine justices agree to hear the dispute over appointments President Barack Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board last year, it will be one of the biggest issues before the court in its next term, which will begin in October and end in June 2014.

In January the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that three appointments to the panel, which normally has five members, were invalid.

The appeals court agreed with Noel Canning, the bottling company that challenged Obama's move, in finding that the president did not have the authority to make the NLRB appointments because the Senate was not technically in recess at the time.

The U.S. Constitution allows the president to make appointments when the Senate is in recess. Such appointments expire at the end of the congressional session.

Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Noel Canning argued that an NLRB ruling against it was invalid because of the appointments, which meant the board lacked a quorum.

Obama made his NLRB appointments on January 4, 2012, when the Senate was in session but not conducting business. The congressional session began on January 3, according to the Senate website.

In the brief filed on Thursday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli defended the recess appointment powers of the president, disputing the court's conclusion that it can only be used in the period between formal sessions of the Senate.

Presidents from both parties have used their recess appointment authority to make appointments when the Senate is not conducting business.

If the appeals court ruling was left to stand, it would "dramatically curtail" the president's authority, Verrilli said.

In addition to limiting presidential power, the ruling meant that the NLRB did not have the required quorum to make decisions, casting doubt on all its actions and rulings since Obama made the appointments.

The ruling "threatens a significant disruption of the federal government's operations," Verrilli wrote.

The high court will decide whether to hear the case after lawyers for Noel Canning file a response, which is due within 30 days.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Amanda Becker; Editing by Howard Goller and Xavier Briand)

View the original article here

Egypt court sets May 11 for Mubarak retrial

CAIRO (AP) — The Cairo appellate court has set May 11 for the resumption of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's retrial over the deaths of hundreds of protesters killed during the uprising that ousted him.

Mubarak remains in custody on new corruption charges, although earlier this week a court ordered him released before the retrial resumes next month. The new date was set after the judge in the case recused himself at the start of the retrial on Saturday.

In January, an appeals court overturned a life sentence for the 84-year-old Mubarak on a conviction for failing to prevent the killing of 900 protesters during the 180-day uprising in 2011.

View the original article here

Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Staying out of the raging national debate over guns, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.

The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New York state law that requires those who want to carry a concealed handgun to show they have a special reason before they can get a license.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

After court, gay rights spotlight shifts back to Obama

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama may have made a slow start on gay rights issues, but by the end of his first term his record was such that a news magazine dubbed him the nation's "first gay president." Now activists want more.

Fresh from historic Supreme Court arguments over same-sex unions, advocates want Obama to use his executive powers to fight discrimination at businesses, schools, and military bases and stop waiting for action from a reluctant Congress.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on big issues: the constitutional right to gay marriage and the right of gay married couples to federal benefits. Both are backed by Obama.

Now gay rights groups are pushing for additional measures they believe are key elements for cementing equality.

First on their wish list is an executive order from Obama barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, an act that could have sweeping impact.

"There is more that he can do," said Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, a non-profit organization supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. "He has repeatedly said as president that it's people's job to push him to do more and more, so we intend to keep doing that."

So far, the president helped bring an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military, signed hate crimes legislation into law, and mandated that nearly all U.S. hospitals give visitation rights to partners of LGBT patients.

Last year, in the middle of the presidential election, Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, concluding an "evolution" of his views that took years.

While Obama's advisers tout his record on the issue, they make clear that an executive order on federal contractors soon is unlikely, arguing that it would carry far less weight than broader congressional action. Legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) lacks enough votes to become law.

"We want to continue to advocate for legislation. We think that that's the most robust way to accomplish what we want to accomplish," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told Reuters in an interview.

"ENDA is a priority. Right now the votes aren't there, but that doesn't mean they won't be," she said.

However, congressional aides say they see little evidence that the White House - already consumed by gun control, immigration reform and budget issues - is pushing to win support for ENDA.

Political support for gay rights is certainly gathering momentum - a point conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made in the March arguments when he told a lawyer defending same-sex marriage: "Political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."

Apart from a few exceptions, however, Republican lawmakers have not been vocal supporters of gay rights. On Friday, the Republican National Committee reaffirmed its commitment to defining marriage as between a man and a woman and called on the Supreme Court to "uphold the sanctity of marriage."

A NEW FOCUS

After lobbying successfully for Obama to weigh in against Proposition 8, a California measure prohibiting same-sex marriage that is now before the Supreme Court, gay rights activists argue executive action is the best way to keep up the momentum.

"Now the priority for our community is definitely continued progress on getting that executive order out of the administration," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign.

An order barring discrimination by federal contractors would apply to about 20 percent of the U.S. workforce, according to HRC. It would make it illegal for companies with U.S. government contracts to fire or avoid hiring employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity, just as it now is with race.

Federal action is necessary, activists say, because state laws are inconsistent. They say it is legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states and for being transgender in 34 states.

Some activists are skeptical that Obama is backing away from executive action because he believes Congress will act. They think he is wary of upsetting the business community by forcing a new regulation on it.

"This Congress is not going to pass ENDA, and they know that," said one activist, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois intend to introduce a bill on the issue, according to a Senate aide. However, a similar bill is stalled in committee in the House of Representatives, another aide said.

Obama's advisers believe he has proven his commitment to gay rights is more than lip service, and gay-rights advocates recognize that patience pays off.

Obama's actions, including his administration's decision to weigh in on Proposition 8 and decline to defend the Clinton-era federal Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, led Newsweek magazine to call him "The First Gay President" in a story on its cover last year.

"He said going in he wanted to do a lot, but I don't think anybody really was sure that he meant it. I put myself in that category, and I admit to being proven wrong," said Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser on gay issues to President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.

Critics say it took a while to get there. Some Obama backers were frustrated that his "evolution" on gay marriage took so long, and some thought the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not get its momentum from the White House.

"He supported it, he signed it, but it's clear that they weren't pushing it," Socarides said.

Now gay rights activists are cautious. Pushing too hard for an executive order would seem ungrateful and could backfire.

POLITICAL PAYOFF

Activists believe Obama could send other signals - for example, by naming an openly gay member to his cabinet.

He could also grant spouses of gay military personnel equal access to commissaries, allow them to live on bases rent free and give them access to legal services such as preparation of wills.

Legislatively, Obama could push for measures to include LGBT students in public school anti-bullying programs.

And, activists say, he could maintain his support for the inclusion of same-sex couples under protections offered by immigration reform efforts making their way through Congress.

Politically, Obama's actions so far have boosted his standing with young voters, and politicians from both parties have noticed, leading to a wave of new, high profile declarations of support in the last few weeks alone.

Exit polls from the 2012 presidential election showed 5 percent of voters considered themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual, and 76 percent of them supported Obama.

Since endorsing gay marriage, Obama underscored the point by referring to it during his Inaugural Address on January 21, tying the push for gay rights to the broader civil-rights movement.

Polls have shown a rapid shift in public opinion on gay rights issues, but Jarrett said that while Obama recognizes his role in shaping public opinion, that was not what drives him.

"This isn't a matter of satisfying a constituency. It's a matter of doing what's right," she said.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Mary Milliken and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Egypt court stops extradition of top Gadhafi aide

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's state news agency says an Egyptian court has ruled against the extradition to Libya of a former close aide of ousted dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Ahmed Qaddaf al-Dam, a relative of Gadhafi who for decades coordinated relations between the Libyan and Egyptian regimes, had contested a Libyan request to extradite him following his arrest last month in his Cairo home.

Two other Libyan officials arrested alongside him have already been sent back to Libya.

Libyan authorities sought the men for alleged corruption and roles in Libya's eight-month civil war that ended with Gadhafi's death in 2011. Libya has already asked Egypt to handover around 100 other former regime officials.

The news agency said Egypt's Administrative Court suspended Wednesday the extradition procedures, saying al-Dam should be tried in Egypt.

View the original article here

Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'

Limbaugh

In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won't hand down its decisions for another few months.

"I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable," Limbaugh said, "and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like "hetero" or "opposite-sex" are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.

"I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it - because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything," the radio host said. "Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

On Wednesday, he made a similar prediction, saying that gay marriage would soon become legal "

Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

Today, he claimed discrimination against gay couples "is not an issue."

"No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits. There's nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition - solely, by definition - same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been."

Also Read

View the original article here

Analysis: Supreme Court energizes gay rights even as it resists

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After two days of Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, the United States may be left with this irony: While the high court is not likely to alter the constitutional landscape for gays, the justices nevertheless have provided a rallying point for the gay-rights cause.

Three major legal outcomes appeared likely as the justices on Wednesday ended the second dramatic day of arguments in the most closely watched dispute of their current term:

* The court would not rule that gay people need special constitutional protection from discrimination.

* The court would not declare a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

* At the same time, a majority would rule narrowly that the federal government must provide married same-sex couples the same benefits it gives their heterosexual counterparts.

Yet just as the nine black-robed justices made clear that they did not wish to play a leading role in the national conversation about same-sex marriage, they showed they could nonetheless raise its volume. Simply by agreeing to hear the two disputes - one over California's ban on same-sex marriage, the other over the federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples - the justices energized the debate.

Numerous public figures including former President Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed the law forbidding same-sex couples from obtaining federal benefits, and prominent groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics in recent weeks came out vigorously in support of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights.

Individual members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - suddenly voiced new support for gay marriage.

Perhaps most dramatically, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, considered a possible future Republican presidential contender, earlier this month announced he was reversing his opposition to such same-sex marriage, citing the fact that his son two years earlier had told him he was gay.

Opponents of gay marriage have not witnessed any similar high-profile testimonials from people who were switching to their side. Recent opinion polls, taken in association with the Supreme Court's decision to take up the gay-marriage cases, have documented a surge in public support for same-sex unions.

The new cases also pushed the Obama administration to break new legal ground.

President Barack Obama had personally endorsed gay marriage but he had long asserted that same-sex marriage was a matter for the states to handle. At the last minute, however, his administration decided to enter the California dispute and argue that federal guarantees of constitutional equality forbid states from limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The administration also contended that gays deserve extra constitutional protection from bias, as the Supreme Court has afforded women fighting sex discrimination.

Yet as much as the justices effectively propelled others to take a stand, they showed by their own comments and questions from the bench this week that they do not intend to be at the vanguard.

The lawyers who appeared on Tuesday and Wednesday were passionate in their presentations, yet none seemed to seize the justices and generate equal fervor.

To be sure, there were moments of excitement, including some sharp exchanges between lawyers and individual justices such as when Justice Elena Kagan challenged an attorney's assertion that government's overriding interest in marriage relates to procreation and childbearing.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

There was also the suspense of what swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy might say. Kennedy sent conflicting messages at times, expressing concern about the children of gay parents who cannot marry but then suggesting the justices should be wise to stay out of "uncharted waters" on the issue.

There were moments of tedium, too, as the justices wrestled with procedural issues that could prevent them from deciding the merits of either case.

Such hurdles would likely prevent any decision on California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. A majority of the justices signaled they might not reach the merits, most likely because California state officials have declined to defend the law and Proposition 8 backers may lack "legal standing" in the case.

A court majority most certainly would not conclude - as the challengers to Proposition 8 argued on Tuesday - that all 50 U.S. states must allow same-sex marriage. Currently nine states permit such marriages, along with Washington, D.C.

Nothing that emerged in oral arguments on Wednesday over a provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would suggest that the justices had any second thoughts about delving into the larger issues of gay marriage. In fact, their comments reinforced the notion that a majority on the generally conservative court is not ready to carve out new rights for gays.

The Obama administration and other challengers to DOMA had urged the court to declare that government rules tied to sexual orientation deserve "heightened" scrutiny, meaning that the government needs an exceedingly persuasive justification for the regulation.

If the court were to adopt such a level of constitutional protection for gays, as it has in the gender-discrimination context, bans on same-sex marriage would be legally undermined. But that proposition for tougher judicial scrutiny in gay-bias cases gained no traction at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the national activity surrounding this week's cases might have demonstrated that gays are, in fact, a political force in no need of special protection.

"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who was representing a New York woman denied a federal estate-tax exemption because her spouse was another woman, not a man.

Roberts may have been referring to national figures including Portman whose endorsement of gay marriage coincided with the court's consideration of the matter.

In the same vein, a record number of "friend of the court" briefs were submitted in the paired cases, most favoring gay rights. In yet another unusual move, marking one of corporate America's most high-profile efforts on same-sex marriage, close to 300 businesses urged the court to strike down the DOMA restriction. (Thomson Reuters Corp, which owns Reuters, was among them.)

Outside the marble-columned Supreme Court building, demonstrators rallying for gay marriage dominated the scene.

So no matter how this court ultimately rules - a decision is expected by late June - it seems clear that the justices' mere involvement was a boost to the gay-rights cause, at least in the court of public opinion.

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Eric Effron and Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Egypt court challenges Morsi over top prosecutor

CAIRO (AP) — An Egyptian appeals court on Wednesday annulled a presidential decree appointing the top prosecutor in a new challenge by the judiciary to Islamist President Mohammed Morsi that throws the country's legal system into confusion.

The unprecedented verdict against the decree, which Morsi issued in November, brought to the surface how Egypt's stormy post-revolution transition has profoundly snarled the lines of authority and law, leaving unclear the boundaries between powers of the president and the judiciary and who has the ultimate say in interpreting a deeply disputed constitution.

It also opens a new phase in the political fight between Morsi and his Islamist backers on one side and his mainly liberal and secular opponents, a fight that the judiciary has repeatedly been dragged into the past year.

Morsi supporters say the judiciary remains in the control of supporters of the regime of ousted leader Hosni Mubarak, warning that they are seeking to derail the country's democratic transition and undermine the president's authority.

Morsi's opponents say the elected president has continuously defied legal norms to force through his agenda and trampled on the judiciary's independence in a bid to consolidate his power. The courts are the sole branch of government not under the dominance of Morsi's Islamist allies, although he does have some backers.

Most legal experts argued that the decision is effective immediately and that the top prosecutor must be removed. If not, the current prosecutor has no powers to issue arrest warrants or refer cases to court, bringing the country's legal system to a halt, said constitutional law professor Mohammed Hassanein Abdel-Al.

"It is unprecedented in the history of Egypt to question the legitimacy of the top prosecutor," Abdel-Al said. "The president must correct the course."

A presidential spokesman said he would not comment on court rulings. But Morsi's supporters insisted the verdict violates the constitution and is likely to be shot down on appeal.

"This is an invalid ruling. It violates the constitution," said Abdel-Moneim Abdel-Maksoud, the legal adviser of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which Morsi hails.

The dispute is rooted in a series of controversial decrees Morsi issued in November that sparked widespread protests. In them, he decreed that the prosecutor general could serve in office for only four years, with immediate effect on the post's holder at the time Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud, in place since 2006. Morsi replaced Mahmoud with Talaat Abdullah, a career judge, and swiftly swore him in.

At the same time, Morsi decreed that the judiciary could not reverse his decisions. The decrees were largely aimed at preventing the courts from blocking the drafting a new constitution by a body dominated by Morsi's allies. The Islamist-backed charter was then rushed through a public referendum in December.

Many Egyptians, including revolutionary activists, had wanted Mahmoud's ouster, since he was seen as a diehard supporter of Mubarak. But Morsi's decrees and his unilateral naming of a replacement prompted public outrage and criticism, including by many in the judiciary, that he was neutralizing the courts in a power grab. Morsi later lifted the decrees, but their results remained in place.

The question remained unresolved over which has precedence — Morsi's decrees or rulings by the courts.

Wednesday's ruling deepens the dispute over this question.

The Cairo appeals court, a unit specializing in complaints by judges and lawyers, ruled in a case filed by the sacked prosecutor, Mahmoud. It said that Morsi's decree appointing Abdullah "is considered void and all that came of it."

A member of the court, Mohsen el-Baz told Al-Jazeera Mubasher Misr, that the ruling found that Abdullah's appointment violated laws requiring that the country's top judicial body, the Supreme Judicial Council, approve the choice.

He said the ruling means the sacked prosecutor general, Mahmoud, is to return to his job, but added the verdict could be appealed within two months to Egypt's highest court, the Court of Cassation.

A top aide to Abdullah, Hassan Yassin, told the Turkish Anadolu news agency that the top prosecutor will remain in his post, protected by the constitution, which sets his term at four years. Yassin said Wednesday's verdict was "full of loopholes" and will be appealed.

Abdel-Al, the constitutional scholar, said the verdict calls into question all decisions Abdullah has taken or takes subsequently and could put courts and police on hold in terms of implementing prosecution decisions. Abdullah has been sharply criticized by Morsi opponents who say he is beholden to the president, particularly after he ordered the arrest of five prominent anti-Morsi activists following recent violent protests.

Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim, who is in charge of the police, told The Associated Press that Abdullah's orders to police remain in effect.

The judiciary and the Islamists have clashed repeatedly, starting with a court ruling last year that annulled parliamentary elections and dissolved the Islamist-dominated parliament. Earlier this month, the Cairo administrative court ordered the suspension of elections for a new parliament that Morsi had called for April, ruling that the election law drawn up by Morsi's allies must be reviewed by the Constitutional Court.

State lawyers are appealing the ruling, arguing that it is Morsi's "sovereign powers" to call for elections.

Similarly, courts were considering last year whether to dissolve the panel writing the constitution, until they were blocked by Morsi's decrees. The opposition still considers the charter that emerged and was approved in a low-turnout referendum to be invalid.

The new dispute reflects a "huge amount of confusion in the legal and judicial systems because of the continued recklessness with the constitution and court rulings," said Bahy Eddin Hassan, the head of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

"With the conflict and sharp polarization in Egypt since the adoption of a disputed constitution, I can't rule out politicizing anything in Egypt, including the judiciary and the prosecution," he said.

The fight could go to the Supreme Constitutional Court where Morsi's supporters are likely to argue that the new charter protects the effects of his decrees, including the appointment of Abdullah.

Gamal Eid, a rights lawyer, said ultimately the tug of war is a "political dispute."

"This is not really a legal matter as much as it is a political issue," Eid said. "It represents an embarrassment to Morsi ... and raises the issue of respecting court rulings."

View the original article here

Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second day running, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will confront the issue of gay marriage, hearing arguments on a U.S. law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Almost two hours of oral argument before the court will focus on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), just a day after the nine justices considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Both cases come before the court as polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage but division among the 50 states. Nine states recognize it; 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

DOMA limits the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It permits benefits such as Social Security survivor payments and federal tax deductions only for married, opposite-sex couples, not for legally married same-sex couples.

President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 after it passed Congress with only 81 of 535 lawmakers opposing it. Clinton, a Democrat, earlier this month said that times have changed since then and called for the law to be overturned.

In the California case argued on Tuesday, the justices seemed wary of endorsing a broad right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, as gay rights advocates had wanted. As a result, the Proposition 8 case is less likely to influence how the court approaches DOMA, which presents a narrower question.

The slightly lower-profile case being argued Wednesday focuses on whether Edith Windsor, who was married to a woman, should get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses pass away.

Windsor's marriage to Thea Spyer was recognized under New York law, but not under DOMA. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay federal estate tax because the federal government would not recognize her marriage. She sued the government, seeking a $363,000 tax refund.

Windsor's lawyers say the federal government has no role in defining marriage, which is traditionally left to states.

"It's the states that marry people," said James Esseks, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is part of Windsor's legal team. "The federal government doesn't do that."

The roughly 133,000 gay couples nationwide, married in one of the nine states where it is legal, are not recognized as married by the federal government, Windsor's supporters say.

Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

OBAMA TURNS BACK ON DOMA

The Obama administration has agreed with Windsor that the section of law that defines marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Justice Department has therefore declined to defend the statute, as it normally would when a federal statute is challenged.

That has left a legal group acting on behalf of the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, as the party defending the federal law. Its lawyer, Paul Clement, will argue that there are several reasons to support Congress' decision to enact DOMA.

Noting the strong bipartisan support the law attracted when it was first enacted, Clement said in court papers that a move to strike it down as unconstitutional "would be wholly unprecedented."

Before the court reaches that bigger question, preliminary matters could prevent the court deciding the case. One is whether BLAG has legal standing.

If such a procedural issue prevents the court from deciding the case on the merits, Windsor would win her refund. Yet DOMA would remain on the books in parts of the country where courts have not ruled on it. Further litigation would likely ensue.

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

PM Note: The People vs. The Court, Recalling Gay Marriage in '04, Senate Stampede

First Woman to Head Secret Service - And she used to wear a costume at Disney World - http://abcn.ws/10LZOoP (Mary Bruce)

Dowd: Gay Marriage Didn't Swing 2004 Election - "On this day when a momentous series of cases related to gay marriage are being heard before the Supreme Court, I thought it time to reflect on a broader topic of leadership and motivation." http://abcn.ws/ZVcAA2 (Matthew Dowd)

Same Sex Marriage at SCOTUS - Catch up on the day in same sex marriage at our live blog, which isn't technically live any more, but includes some of the better pictures from in front of the court, video of people on both sides, some prognosticating, some tea leaf reading, and a heavy dose of couching - http://abcn.ws/16eVG1Y

Or you can read a more traditional form of news story from our court watchers here - http://abcn.ws/YFZrIB

The headline and lede:

Court Struggles With Federal Right to Gay Marriage

Supreme Court justices seemed to struggle with the notion of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples as they grilled lawyers this morning in a potentially landmark case over California's ban on gay marriages.

As the politics change by the day, the court heard a case - Proposition 8 - that could drastically change how states and the federal government approach one of the touchiest social issues of the past decade.

The justices today challenged lawyers on both sides on common points of contention that arise whenever gay marriage is debated. http://abcn.ws/10M8Kuo (Good, Moran, de Vogue)

Boy are those politics changing. Rick Klein called it a "Senate Stampede." - http://abcn.ws/16VYT7W

5 Democratic Senators (Rob Portman is still the only sitting Republican) have come out for gay marriage in the past 48 hours or so.

Yesterday we told you about the conversions of retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner and recently re-elected Sen. Claire McCaskill. Today Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Sen. Jon Tester joined the club. Tester even made the HRC logo his Facebook profile pic.

But not every Democrat wants to take the leap. The left-leaning Huffington Post has a banner headline "Shame on Dem" with pictures of the ten Democratic Senators who don't support gay marriage.

Their reactions range from continued opposition - Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor - to maintaining it should be a state issue - North Dakotan Heidi Heitkamp.

Other responses were more nuanced.

A spokesman for Sen. Bob Casey, the conservative Pennsylvania Democrat, told Sunlen Miller that Casey is closely following the debate and will review any legislation he sees.

Sen. Tom Carper, the Delaware Democrat, said he is evolving.

"Sen. Carper was proud to support Delaware's efforts to enact Civil Union legislation and earlier this month he joined 211 of his Congressional colleagues in co-signing the Amicus brief that urges the Supreme Court to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA. He has also said that he would vote to repeal DOMA. He also opposed President Bush's attempt to enact a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Like many Americans including Presidents Obama and Clinton, Sen. Carper's views on this issue have evolved, and continue to evolve. He continues to give this issue a great deal of consideration."

Bookmark Ariane's "Standing" Explainer - Who knows what Supreme Court Justices will decide in June on same-sex marriage.

They could go in a lot of different directions - from recognizing a fundamental right to gay marriage to dismissing the Prop case because supporters of California's same sex marriage ban aren't the right people to be arguing the case. That'd be a way around the whole issue and could lead to gay marriages in California.

Ariane de Vogue was all over this potential back door before arguments got under way today - http://abcn.ws/16g0ELO

'DIG' It - Another note from Ariane on a potential way justices could rule - She reports: While most people are taking in the momentous occasion of the gay rights arguments, some lawyers and journalists who cover the court are wondering what Kennedy meant when he said :" I just wonder if this case was properly granted. "

The proper term for that is "dismissed as improvidently granted" or DIG.

He would need 4 other Justices to join him, and the opinion released would never explain exactly WHY the Justices dismissed.

If the Court doesn't reach the merits, we knew there was a possibility that the Court could rule the proponents don't have standing ….but "dismiss as improvidently granted" wasn't really on the radar before today.

If they DIG, it is as if the court never granted cert and the 9 th circuit opinion (which was narrow) would hold.

Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota law school thinks that while Kennedy could have been referring to a DIG, "he might simply have been saying we should dismiss this on standing grounds. It's hard to know, he may not have even been sure how he is going to rule."

SCOTUS Playbill: Meet the cast of characters taking part in the SCOTUS drama. They include a daughter, a widow, a two couples, a GOP operative and traditional marriage activists http://abcn.ws/WU4O9z (Sarah Parnass)

Janet Napolitano Says Border-Security Trigger Unworkable-The U.S. border is as "secure as it's ever been," which is evidence enough that comprehensive immigration overhaul should start immediately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today. http://abcn.ws/13tEGaw (Serena Marshall)

GOP Senators Threaten Filibuster on Guns-In the latest roadblock to passing gun legislation, three Republican senators have threatened to filibuster next month's proceedings on the gun debate. http://abcn.ws/14lHs0V (Arlette Saenz)

Also Read

View the original article here

Supreme Court wary of broad gay marriage ruling

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - America's top court takes up the delicate and divisive issue of gay marriage on Tuesday when the nine Supreme Court justices consider the legality of a California ballot initiative that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Tuesday will be the first of two days of oral arguments on the issue. On Wednesday, the court will consider the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

In what is scheduled to be about three hours of deliberations with lawyers over the two days, the justices will have their say on what gay activists see as a key civil rights issue reminiscent of famous Supreme Court cases of the past, including Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 case in which the court invalidated bans on interracial marriage.

The cases come before the high court at a time when more states have legalized gay marriage. Last year three more - Maryland, Maine and Washington - did so, bringing the total to nine plus the District of Columbia.

"Never before in our history has a major civil rights issue landed on the doorstep of the Supreme Court with this wave of public support," said Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for opponents of the California initiative, which is known as Proposition 8.

Strong opposition to gay marriage still exists, however, both among Republicans in Congress and in many states across the nation. A total of 30 states, including California, have constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage. Nine states, including California, recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships among same-sex couples.

Advocates for both sides plan to demonstrate outside the multi-columned Washington courthouse. Those who plan to attend include Chief Justice John Roberts' cousin Jean Podrasky, a lesbian from California who would like to marry her partner.

"There's no fundamental right to same sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution," said Austin Nimocks, a member of the legal team arguing in support of the California law.

Some legal experts think that with the issue unsettled in the states, a majority of the justices might not be inclined to make any sweeping pronouncements on the issue as the democratic process plays out.

MULTIPLE OPTIONS

There are various ways in which they could do that as the Proposition 8 case presents the justices with multiple options.

The justices could proclaim that gay marriage bans are constitutionally unsound. They could uphold Proposition 8 as a law with a legitimate purpose that was approved by a majority of voters in California. They could also plot a middle path by striking down the law without making any broad pronouncements about whether gay marriage bans in other states that have them should be struck down.

Another way the court could rule might be viewed as an anticlimax of sorts: The justices could simply decide that it cannot rule on the merits because of the procedural complexities that brought the case to the high court.

The state of California declined to support Proposition 8 when the plaintiffs filed suit in 2009 in a federal district court in San Francisco, meaning there was no party defending the law until its proponents entered the case. The federal judge struck the law down, a ruling that was upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A Supreme Court decision concluding that the law's backers do not have legal standing to defend the law would wipe out the appeals court decision, but leave the district court decision that struck down Proposition 8 on the books.

The way the justices rule could depend in large part on the likely swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Although a conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy has in the past authored two opinions that expanded gay rights.

Lawyers representing two same-sex couples in California who want to marry are hoping the justices will go big and are making the most sweeping arguments.

The counsel for Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo will argue that under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee, there is a fundamental right for people to marry someone of the same sex.

Kris Perry, who has raised four children with her partner, Sandy Stier, was hopeful and optimistic.

"We have been waiting for a long time to get married," she said last week. "We are very excited to have the end in sight."

(To follow oral arguments both days, visit the Reuters live blog at http://reut.rs/scotus1)

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Analysis: Supreme Court seems poised to avoid same-sex marriage tide

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For nearly four years, proponents of same-sex marriage have been strategically building a test case aimed at convincing the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to declare that gay marriage is a constitutional right. The advocates felt they were ready.

But on Tuesday, after an intense, wide-ranging hearing, it appeared the justices were not.

Over the course of the 80-minute session, it seemed that for the array of gay rights supporters across the country, neither their greatest hopes nor worst fears would be realized.

A majority of the justices suggested by their comments and questions that they were not prepared to rule on whether a fundamental right exists for gays and lesbians to marry. Some justices even suggested that the specific case before them, testing the validity of a 2008 California ballot initiative that defined marriage as only between a man and woman, might not be resolved on the merits.

The justices return to the bench on Wednesday for the narrower question of whether the federal government may deny benefits to married same-sex couples that are allowed their opposite-sex counterparts.

The court has several options on how it might resolve that case, from a finding that the Republican-dominated congressional group defending the law lacks "legal standing," resulting in dismissal, to a decision striking down the provision and robustly declaring that all laws tied to sexual orientation deserve tough judicial scrutiny.

That latter stance could eventually pave the way for gay marriage laws nationwide, well beyond the nine states and District of Columbia that now allow it. But from the tone of arguments on Tuesday, a majority would likely resist that route.

Justices across the ideological spectrum suggested they wanted to tread a cautious path in the cases that have become the most closely watched of the term.

The white marble and crimson velvet courtroom was crowded with nearly 400 spectators, some of whom had waited since last Thursday, in snow and rain, for seats. The paired cases have drawn a record number of "friend of the court" briefs and become the occasion for near daily declarations in support of gay marriage from public figures and prominent organizations.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

Yet the justices do not seem ready for a role on centerstage in the matter. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, questioned whether the issue should percolate a little longer in the states. Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, asserted that the notion of same-sex marriage was newer than today's ubiquitous cellphones and perhaps not ready for judicial intervention. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, the usual swing vote, likened the court's possible journey in the case to going into "uncharted waters" or even over "a cliff."

If the court avoids the looming question about a fundamental right, it could disappoint the two main lawyers pushing for same-sex marriage - Theodore Olson, who argued Tuesday, and David Boies, the legal partner who sat at his side. Yet, it would also mean that the worst-case scenario envisioned by other gay rights supporters would be avoided, too.

Their concern was certainly understandable. The Supreme Court's past cases on gay rights in narrower contexts, in 1996 and 2003, were vigorously fought. Four of the current nine justices are new to the gay rights issue. The bench is not as predictable as in the past, and overall, because Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, the court may be more conservative on social policy.

So in May 2009, when Olson and Boies, former opponents from the 2000 presidential election case of Bush v. Gore, suddenly filed their challenge to Proposition 8, many gay rights activists and leaders expressed concern. Advocates who had been concentrating their efforts in the states worried that a federal case could backfire with a decision upholding Proposition 8 and declaring no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

But that outcome now seems unlikely. While Supreme Court justices sometimes reverse course from the tone of arguments, it seems no major constitutional ruling will emerge from the California case of Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Justices on the right and left questioned whether proponents of Proposition 8, who took up its defense after California officials declined, have legal standing.

"Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked lawyer Charles Cooper, representing Proposition 8 supporters. Cooper said no but stressed that California's Supreme Court had ruled that under state law the backers of Proposition 8 should be allowed to defend it.

Chief Justice John Roberts voiced doubt, saying that "a state can't authorize anyone to proceed in federal court," because federal judges themselves determine who may bring claims.

LEGAL STANDING

Yet these questions of legal standing were in the case when the appeal from Proposition 8 supporters arrived on the Supreme Court's doorstep last year. And the court nonetheless took the appeal. It requires only four of the nine justices to accept a case for oral arguments; it takes five to resolve it.

Perhaps the thorny procedural hurdles became more obvious as the justices prepared for Tuesday's hearing. Or, perhaps that area might be the only one of common ground. There appeared to be no majority for either side's constitutional assertions.

Cooper argued that the states may limit marriage to heterosexual couples because of their interest in procreation and child rearing. Justice Elena Kagan, particularly, hammered at that notion, asking whether the court could block an older couple, possibly beyond their fertile years, from marrying.

Olson argued that Proposition 8 "walls off gays and lesbians from marriage," the most important relationship they might have. Roberts expressed doubt that California was plainly excluding a particular group. "When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say 'let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals.' The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples."

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been the most outspoken opponent of gay rights on this court, challenged Olson to say exactly when same-sex marriage became the constitutional norm.

Olson could not but rather asserted: "It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control. There is no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle."

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Eric Effron and Eric Beech)

View the original article here

Knox must wait 1 more day for Italy court decision

ROME (AP) — Italy's highest court delayed until Tuesday a decision on whether American student Amanda Knox will face a new trial in the murder of her British roommate — an unusual but not unprecedented move.

The court heard six hours of arguments Monday and spent several hours deliberating that and a handful of other cases before announcing it would issue a decision at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) Tuesday on whether the 2011 acquittals of Knox and her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito will stand.

Italian prosecutors have asked the high court to throw out the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito in the murder of 21-year-old British student Meredith Kercher and order a new trial.

The high court normally issues the decisions the same day it hears arguments. But prosecutor general Luigi Riello told reporters that "in very complex cases, it happens" that the court takes another day.

Lawyers for Sollecito declined to speculate on what the delay could mean for the decision. Sollecito's father was calm about the development.

"We have waited so many years, one night is not going to make a difference," Francesco Sollecito said outside the courthouse. He said he hadn't spoken to his son, who did not attend the hearing, about the day's proceedings.

Knox, meanwhile, was waiting anxiously in Seattle to hear if her long legal battle is over.

"She's carefully paying attention to what will come out," attorney Luciano Ghirga said as he arrived at Italy's Court of Cassation in Rome. "This is a fundamental stage. The trial is very complex."

Knox, now 25, and Raffaele Sollecito, who turns 29 on Tuesday, were arrested in 2007, shortly after Kercher's body was found in a pool of blood in her bedroom in the rented apartment she shared with the American and others in the university town of Perugia, where they were exchange students. Her throat had been slashed.

Prosecutors alleged that Kercher was the victim of a drug-fueled sexual assault.

Knox and Sollecito have both maintained their innocence, although they said that smoking marijuana the night Kercher was killed had clouded their recollections.

Knox and Sollecito were convicted and given long prison sentences: 26 years for Knox, 25 for Sollecito. But an appeals court acquitted them in 2011, criticizing virtually the entire case mounted by prosecutors. The appellate court noted that the murder weapon was never found, said that DNA tests were faulty and added that Knox and Sollecito had no motive to kill Kercher.

After nearly four years behind bars in Italy, Knox returned to her hometown of Seattle and Sollecito resumed his computer science studies. Knox is now a student at the University of Washington, according to her family spokesman, Dave Marriott.

In the second and final level of appeal, prosecutors are now seeking to overturn the acquittals, while defense attorneys say they should stand.

The court can decide to confirm the acquittal, making it final, or throw out the Perugia appellate court ruling entirely or partially, remanding the case to a new appeals court trial.

In that case, Italian law cannot compel Knox to return to Italy. The Italian appellate court hearing the case could declare her in contempt of court but that carries no additional penalties.

It is unclear what would happen if she was convicted in a new appeals trial.

"If the court orders another trial, if she is convicted at that trial and if the conviction is upheld by the highest court, then Italy could seek her extradition," Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said.

Italy is not obliged to seek her extradition but it could decide to do so. Then it would be up to the United States to decide if it honors the request. U.S. and Italian authorities could also come to a deal that would keep Knox in the United States.

Riello, the prosecutor general, argued before the court that there were ample reasons "not to bring down the curtain on the case."

Riello said the appellate court was too dismissive in casting aside DNA evidence that led to the conviction in the lower court, arguing that another trial could make way for more definitive testing.

Defense attorneys said they were confident the acquittals would be upheld.

"We know Raffaele Sollecito is innocent," said his attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, who called the entire case "an absurd judicial process."

Before the court, Bongiorno argued there was an "unending series of errors by scientific police" in how they handled evidence in the case, including the fact that the crime scene had been disturbed "and possibly contaminated" during the investigation.

A young man from Ivory Coast, Rudy Guede, was convicted of the slaying in a separate proceeding and is serving a 16-year sentence. Kercher's family has resisted theories that Guede acted alone.

The lawyer for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said the family was likely to issue a statement when the decision is announced. They did not attend the arguments.

The court is also hearing Knox's appeal against a slander conviction for having accused a local pub owner of carrying out the killing. The man was held for two weeks based on her allegations, but was then released for lack of evidence.

Riello argued that conviction should stand because "you cannot drag in an innocent person while exercising your right to a defense."

Knox's lawyer Dalla Vedova said the slander verdict should be thrown out because Knox had not been advised that she was a suspect during the questioning.

"The girl was confused, worn out" after 14 hours of questioning by police that stretched overnight, Dalla Vedova said, adding that while Knox was alone, 36 investigators signed the interrogation sheet.

___

Associated Press writer Chris Grygiel contributed from Seattle.

View the original article here

Knox must wait 1 more day for high court decision

ROME (AP) — Italy's highest court says it will issue a decision Tuesday morning on whether to overturn American student Amanda Knox's acquittal in the murder of her roommate.

The court heard six hours of arguments on Monday before going into deliberations. After several hours, it announced it would issue the decision at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) Tuesday, an unusual but not unprecedented move.

The high court normally issues the decisions the same day it hears arguments. But prosecutor general Luigio Riello told reporters that "in very complex cases, it happens" that the court takes another day.

Lawyers for Knox's co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, declined to speculate on what the delay could mean for the decision. Both were acquitted in 2011.

View the original article here

Congolese warlord to make first appearance before Hague court

By Thomas Escritt

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Congolese warlord Bosco Ntaganda makes his first public appearance before the International Criminal Court in the Hague on Tuesday after evading arrest on war crimes charges for seven years - a boost to the court following a string of setbacks.

Ntaganda is accused of murder, rape and other atrocities over a 15-year-period of fighting in Rwandan-backed rebellions in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

He unexpectedly gave himself up to diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Rwanda last week, walking in off the street and demanding to be handed over the ICC. Within days he was put on a plane to The Hague.

His appearance in the court almost seven years after the court first issued a warrant for his arrest is a much-needed success story for the ICC following the collapse of several cases.

Most recently, prosecutors withdrew their case against Kenyan civil servant Francis Muthaura after a witness retracted his testimony, prompting lawyers for his co-accused Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya's president-elect, to demand that judges also drop charges against him.

With many of the court's suspects, including Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, at large and beyond its reach, Ntaganda's arrival is especially welcome to prosecutors and activists.

"Ntaganda's appearance at the ICC after years as a fugitive offers victims of horrific crimes a real hope of seeing justice," said Geraldine Mattioli-Zeltner, international justice advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.

"Ntaganda's detention in The Hague shows that no one is above the law."

He is accused of recruiting child soldiers, murder, ethnic persecution, sexual slavery and rape during a 2002-2003 conflict in northeastern Congo's mineral-rich Ituri district.

His whereabouts had been unknown after he had fled to Rwanda with hundreds of his followers, and his decision to turn himself in to the U.S. Embassy in the capital Kigali caught diplomats there by surprise.

Analysts said he may have felt that his life would be safer in an ICC detention cell than in an increasingly hostile Rwanda. But it could still be a long while before the case moves to trial.

At Tuesday's hearing, Ntaganda will be asked to confirm his identity. The court is also likely to appoint a lawyer for him, and set a date for a hearing at which judges will decide whether the evidence against him is strong enough to warrant a trial.

The warlord, who was most recently a commander in the M23 rebel movement, will have been seen by doctors soon after his arrival at the court's detention centre.

He may also have been issued with a suit for his first court appearance, to replace his fatigues.

"We do everything that we can for the physical and psychological well-being of detainees," said ICC spokesman Fadi El-Abdallah, the ICC's spokesperson.

That included providing smart clothes for the suspect to wear to court.

(Reporting By Thomas Escritt; Editing by Sara Webb and Angus MacSwan)

View the original article here