[ad_1]
One Judiciary Committee Democrat said the report raised “concerns.”
[ad_2]
#Michael #Delaneysjudicial #nomination #shakier #ground #POLITICO #reported #Biden #pick #served #aboard #opposing #administration #positions
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Tag: ground
Michael Delaney’s judicial nomination is on shakier ground after POLITICO reported that the Biden pick served on a board opposing the administration on several positions.
Absence of sanction in charge sheet under UAPA no ground for default bail: SC
[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that an accused in an UAPA case cannot seek default bail on the ground that the charge sheet filed within the stipulated time period was incomplete due to absence of valid sanction from competent authority.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, noted that the maximum period of 180 days, which is being granted to the investigating agency to complete the investigation for prosecution for an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), is not something in the form of a package that everything has to be completed, including obtaining of sanction, within this period of 180 days.
It said the investigating agency has nothing to do with sanction and sanction is altogether a different process — accorded, based on the materials collected by the investigating agency which forms the part of the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC.
“The investigating agency gets a full 180 days to complete the investigation. To say that obtaining of sanction and placing the same along with the charge sheet should be done within the period of 180 days is something which is not only contrary to the provisions of law…. but is inconceivable,” said Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
The bench said the evidence collected by the investigating agency in the form of charge sheet is thoroughly looked into and thereafter, the recommendations are made. The investigating agency gets a full 180 days to complete the investigation and file its report before the competent court in accordance with Section 173(2) of the CrPC, it said.
Justice Pardiwala said: “If we accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants, it comes to this that the investigating agency may have to adjust the period of investigation in such a manner that within the period of 180 days, the sanction is also obtained and placed before the court. We find this argument absolutely unpalatable.”
The bench observed that this court was of the firm view that if on either the 61st day or the 91st day, an accused makes an application for being released on bail in default of charge sheet having been filed, the court has no option but to release the accused on bail.
“However, once the charge sheet was filed within the stipulated period, the right of the accused to statutory/default bail came to an end and the accused would be entitled to pray for regular bail on merits,” it noted.
The apex court dismissed a plea by Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, rejecting their contention for default bail due to absence of valid sanction in the charge sheet.
The bench said it is evident that the order of sanction passed by the competent authority can be produced and placed on record even after the filing of the charge sheet. It said that it may happen that the inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the special court may lead to delay in trial because the competent court will not be able to take cognisance of the offence without a valid sanction on record.
“In such an eventuality, at the most, it may be open for the accused to argue that his right to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. This may at the most entitle the accused to pray for regular bail on the ground of delay in trial. But the same cannot be a ground to pray for statutory/default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC,” said Justice Pardiwala.
He said that Rule 3 of the Rules 2008 makes it explicitly clear that the authority under sub section (2) of Section 45 of the UAPA is obliged in law to apply its mind thoroughly to the evidence gathered by the investigating officer and thereafter, prepare its report containing the recommendations to the Central government or the state government for the grant of sanction.
“The grant of sanction is not an idle formality. The grant of sanction should reflect proper application of mind,” he said.
The bench noted that according sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the investigation at all and in case, the sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction, that does not vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency before the court.
“Section 173 of the CrPC does not speak about the sanction order at all. Section 167 of the CrPC also speaks only about investigation and not about cognisance by the Magistrate. Therefore, once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order,” said the bench.
[ad_2]
#Absence #sanction #charge #sheet #UAPA #ground #default #bail( With inputs from www.siasat.com )
Why the Ralph Yarl shooting is reigniting the ’stand your ground’ debate
[ad_1]
It would also mark a stark turn of events for the white man who, immediately after the shooting on Thursday, was taken into custody but promptly released after about an hour. Lester surrendered Tuesday and is back in custody. He told police he was “scared to death,” citing the teenager’s size. Fearing that he could not defend himself, Lester discharged his weapon, striking Yarl in the head and in the arm.
The incident has triggered another round of all-too-familiar outrage and horror, and ignited fresh scrutiny over our nation’s gun laws — in particular, Missouri’s “stand your ground” law, which protects people in some cases who use potentially lethal force if a proportionate threat is encountered.
The perceived threat in this case: Yarl, a Black teenager who was sent to pick up his younger twin siblings, mistakenly arriving at the wrong door.
This case has all the ingredients to revive the national debate over “stand your ground” laws, which over much of the last decade have been central in trials for civilians accused in fatal shootings of Black teens and young men, including Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis in 2012.(Davis’s mother is Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), a prominent gun control advocate.)
Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, argued during court proceedings that he was suspicious of the teen, who was visiting relatives in a gated community in Florida. Zimmerman then pursued Martin, got into a physical altercation with him, shot him and was acquitted. In Davis’ case, Michael David Dunn got into an argument over loud rap music at a gas station, then shot into a vehicle carrying Davis and his friends, killing Davis. Dunn was convicted of first-degree murder.
“It’s been my goal from the very beginning to get justice for the child involved in the case,” Clay County Prosecuting Attorney Zachary Thompson told reporters Monday afternoon after charges had been announced.
“I can tell you there was a racial component in this case,” he added, without giving further details.
The split-screen politics here are hard to miss. Politicians and celebrities alike have weighed in, including Vice President Kamala Harris, who tweeted: “Let’s be clear: No child should ever live in fear of being shot for ringing the wrong doorbell. Every child deserves to be safe. That’s the America we are fighting for.”
President Joe Biden spoke to Yarl and shared his hope for a swift recovery, the White House announced Monday evening.
Yet as demonstrators rallied through the weekend in Kansas City calling for justice for Yarl — ensuring national media didn’t turn its focus elsewhere and ramping up pressure on the law enforcement investigation — some 500 miles east in Indianapolis, the National Rifle Association held its annual convention.
It was attended by a handful of potential 2024 GOP hopefuls, including former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence, and the Kansas City incident was not mentioned.
However, other recent shootings were evoked — including mass shootings in Nashville last month and another in Louisville just over a week ago — to argue before the reported 70,000 attendees that more guns are needed.
As the criminal case involving Lester works its way through the Missouri legal system, discrepancies between some of the details that led to the shooting will be addressed.
For instance, Lester told police he shot after he saw Yarl pulling on an exterior storm door, thinking he was trying to break in, while Yarl told police he waited outside after he rang the doorbell and did not pull on the door, The Kansas City Star reported.
Those details could be the crux of whether Lester walks free. But the reason we are talking about this at all seems to be clear, according to a joint statement from Democratic state lawmakers in Missouri: Reps. Ashley Aune, Jamie Johnson, Maggie Nurrenbern and Eric Woods.
“While we may want to think that race did not play a factor, it is naive to assume that a white teenager in the same situation would face the same violence,” the group wrote on Monday. “This is a time when we must be willing to have hard conversations about racism in this country and, sadly, in our communities.”
This article first appeared in an edition of The Recast newsletter.
[ad_2]
#Ralph #Yarl #shooting #reigniting #stand #ground #debate
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )IMF stands its ground, refuses to show any flexibility towards Pakistan
[ad_1]
Islamabad: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), Pakistan’s only hope for a bailout from its crippling economic conditions and looming threats of a meltdown, does not seem to be ready to show any restraint in its demands and expectations from the current Shehbaz Sharif government, as it snubbed Islamabad’s recent request to show flexibility and go ahead with the signing of the staff-level agreement.
In the most recent development, Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had a virtual meeting with the IMF’s Director for the Middle East and Central Asia Jihad Azour, where he requested the IMF Director to show flexibility and consideration towards Pakistan and sign the staff-level agreement.
However, Dar’s desire could not be fulfilled as he failed to convince the IMF Director to give him a date of the agreement, despite the existing dangerous and constantly worsening economic crisis in the country.
As per details, the IMF Director re-emphasised the issue of petrol subsidy and possible fiscal shortcomings that may trigger because of the implementation of the subsidy plan.
“The minister (Dar) urged the IMF not to raise the issue of petrol subsidy, and objected to the IMF’s approach of seeking clarification about the schemes announced by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif,” a government source said.
“The Finance Minister also requested the IMF to lower the needed foreign loan requirements by another $1 billion to $5 billion after improvement of the current account deficit,” the source added reminding that the IMF has already cut the requirement by $1 billion to $6 billion last month.
Dar highlighted the steps undertaken by the current government to satisfy and implement the pre-conditions of the IMF, insisting that the delay in the approval of the 9th review of the IMF Extended Funding Facility (EFF) programme to Pakistan, other connected funding from global lenders like the World Bank and other multilateral institutions, have also been withheld, causing major damages to the country’s economic condition.
“The minister informed that all prior actions for 9th review under the Extended Fund Facility have already been completed and government of Pakistan is fully committed to fulfill its obligations as agreed with the IMF,” stated a press release of the Finance Ministry.
But to put Dar’s case to rest, the IMF maintained that all the issues remained unsettled until the deal was ratified by its executive board, irrespective of the fact whether a country met the prior actions before the staff-level agreement or after that.
The IMF hoped that the staff-level agreement would be signed soon, highlighting the need for Pakistan to ensure visible progress on the reforms in the various sectors and complete the IMF programme in time.
[ad_2]
#IMF #stands #ground #refuses #show #flexibility #Pakistan( With inputs from www.siasat.com )
Calcutta HC upholds husband’s right to seek divorce on ground of mental cruelty
[ad_1]
Kolkata: A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has upheld the right of a husband to seek divorce from his wife on ground of mental cruelty if the wife constantly abuses the husband by describing him as “coward” and “unemployed” and at the same time force him to get separated from his parents.
Hearing a matter related to a woman challenging a lower court order dissolving her marriage on the ground of mental cruelty against her husband, the division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar noted that as per Indian culture, the husband stays with his parents and there need to be some justifiable reason for the son to live separately.
In this particular case, a family court in West Midnapore district had dissolved the marriage in July 2001 after accepting the husband’s contention accusing his wife of mental cruelty. The woman had challenged that order at the Calcutta High Court in May 2009.
On the issue of describing the husband as “coward” and “unemployed”, the court noted that it was because of a false complaint by the wife that the husband had lost his government job.
The court also took note of some contents of the diary of the petitioner where she time and again described her husband as “coward” and “unemployed”.
In the diary, she had also made it clear a number of times that she was forced to marry him because of pressure from her parents. As per the court’s observation, the petitioner had also made it clear in the diary that she was more keen to get married elsewhere.
In such cases, the marriage just remains a legal tie and hence tantamount to nothing but fiction, the court noted.
After hearing the arguments, the division bench upheld the verdict of the family court dissolving the marriage in 2001.
[ad_2]
#Calcutta #upholds #husbands #seek #divorce #ground #mental #cruelty( With inputs from www.siasat.com )
Secret Pence ruling breaks new ground for vice presidency
[ad_1]
The vice president’s role as Senate president has become almost entirely ceremonial, with the occasional exception of casting tie-breaking votes and — every four years — presiding over the count of electoral votes after a presidential election. Vice presidents have long suggested they should enjoy the legal protections afforded to Congress, but Boasberg’s ruling is the first time a court has extended so-called speech-or-debate immunity to the vice presidency.
Experts say the ruling — which remains under seal but was described to POLITICO by a person familiar with its contours — is an important foray into thorny, unresolved questions about vice presidential power.
“Any such movement is significant, as it sets a precedent that potentially can expand at a later time, in a different circumstance,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University political scientist who specializes in executive power. “The vice president is now acknowledged to possess a form of privilege by virtue of his or her legislative role, something that a president cannot claim.”
The ruling is the latest example of how Trump’s multi-year stress test on the norms and mechanics of the federal government has forced courts to answer long-dormant questions about the separation of powers.
The immunity question arose from special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to force Pence to testify before a Washington D.C. grand jury investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Trump opposed the subpoena on executive-privilege grounds, a position Boasberg rejected.
Pence did not join Trump’s fight but mounted his own, claiming that his role presiding over Congress on Jan. 6 should afford him speech-or-debate immunity.
Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, agreed with Pence, at least to a limited extent: Pence must testify, he ruled, but the speech-or-debate immunity may allow him to avoid answering questions about his legislative role on Jan. 6.
Pence praised the ruling on Wednesday, even as he is considering whether to appeal it for not going far enough.
”For the first time ever, a federal court has recognized that these protections extend to a vice president,” Pence told supporters in Iowa, acknowledging the sealed ruling but saying he was “limited” in how much he could say about it. “I am pleased that the judge recognized the Constitution’s speech and debate protection applies to my work as vice president.”
The drafters of the Constitution included the speech-or-debate clause to guard against executive-branch efforts to coerce lawmakers with the threat of investigation or compelled testimony. But until this week, a court had never decided whether vice presidents — who are not members of the Senate but are officers like the parliamentarian — are covered by the protection.
The Supreme Court has said that immunity under the speech-or-debate clause covers “legislative” activities, such as voting on bills and giving speeches on the floor of Congress. For decades, the courts — particularly in Washington D.C. — have interpreted the clause to cover a broad range of activities connected to those duties, including the actions of congressional aides and officers who help facilitate the work of lawmakers.
The immunity, however, does not extend to purely “political” activities. So while Boasberg’s ruling may allow Pence to avoid testifying about his presiding role on Jan. 6, he might still have to testify about conversations he had with Trump leading up to that day, and he has indicated he is willing to do so.
Before Jan. 6, Trump pressed Pence to use his perch as president of the Senate to refuse to count Joe Biden’s electoral votes, either declaring Trump the victor or sending the election back to the states — an action Pence viewed as unconstitutional and refused to abide. He later returned to the chamber to complete the count of electors, all but sealing the Biden presidency. Trump famously attacked Pence on Twitter amid the chaos at the Capitol, an escalation that Jan. 6 committee investigators cited as a dangerous turning point in the day’s violence.
Two of Pence’s top White House aides — chief of staff Marc Short and counsel Greg Jacob — testified to the grand jury in October after then-Chief District Court Judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump’s similar bid to block their testimony via executive privilege.
Although Boasberg’s precise reasoning remains a mystery because of the secrecy surrounding the grand jury proceedings, legal experts called it a precedent-setting decision that could reshape the understanding of the vice presidency.
“Without seeing the opinion, hard to say much about it beyond the fact that it is clearly in my view correct that the VP enjoys speech-or-debate clause immunity when acting in her capacity as president of the Senate,” said Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor. “It’s also the case that the courts have consistently taken far too narrow a view, in my judgment, of what activities by members are protected under the clause, so I suspect that Boasberg ruled that Pence has to testify about some stuff that I would think ought to be privileged.”
Stan Brand, who helmed the House counsel’s office for Tip O’Neill and today represents top Trump aide Dan Scavino, said applying the speech-or-debate clause to a vice president for the first time is “a victory for the independence of Congress against an overreaching DOJ.”
The Justice Department has at least three times argued that vice presidents should enjoy speech-or-debate protection for their role presiding over the Senate — including in the context of Jan. 6, 2021, when the department adopted the position to fend off a lawsuit from then-Rep. Louie Gohmert and a separate Utah-based lawsuit filed in 2021.
The precise contours of the department’s position in the secret proceedings with Boasberg were not immediately clear.
The Pence immunity decision underscores the extraordinary volume of precedent-setting rulings that are being issued in secret — the result of the typical confidentiality afforded to the grand jury process in criminal investigations. Howell, whose seven-year term as chief judge expired on March 17, issued dozens of secret rulings in Trump-related matters that may have sweeping implications for the separation of powers.
Brand noted that some of the most significant rulings that have shaped the boundaries of the presidency, vice presidency and Congress have emerged in these sorts of proceedings as a result of national crises — from Watergate to Whitewater to the Vietnam War to Abscam.
“We are in the midst of another such episode,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Secret #Pence #ruling #breaks #ground #vice #presidency
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )Powerful blast creates crater in ground near India-Pak border in J-K’s Kathua
[ad_1]
Powerful blast creates crater in ground near India-Pak border in J-K’s Kathua (Photo: Twitter) Hiranagar: A powerful blast has occurred at a hamlet near the India-Pakistan border in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kathua district, creating a huge crater in the ground and triggering fear among the locals, officials said on Thursday.
Sources said it appears to be an IED blast. they said.
Information about the explosion was received around 9.30 pm on Wednesday, SSP Kathua Shivdeep Singh Jamwal told PTI.
“We have also launched a search operation Thursday morning. The bomb squad has collected the samples from the site and sent them for tests,” the SSP said.
Block Development Committee (BDC) chairman Ram Lal Kaliya, a resident of Saniyal village which is just 300 metres from the border post, said, “Around 9.30 pm on Wednesday we heard an explosion. I informed the post incharge who also confirmed the sound of the blast.”
The blast site was located after one-and-half hours, he said, adding that a big crater was found in an agriculture field.
Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Powerful #blast #creates #crater #ground #IndiaPak #border #JKs #Kathua( With inputs from www.siasat.com )
California’s Dem Senate hopefuls vie for higher ground over Silicon Valley Bank debacle
[ad_1]
“What happened in the last financial crisis? Dodd-Frank was put in place to reflect those lessons,” Porter said in an interview, using the colloquial name for the 2010 law shaped to rein in the industry after the Great Recession of the Obama years. “Not even 10 years later, look what happens: The so-called pro-business Democrats and the Trump administration and Republicans voted to weaken the capital holding requirements.”
But Porter’s two main Senate rivals, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), are also pointing to the 2018 vote as an example of Wall Street’s hold over Congress and a leading cause of the regional bank’s failure. Schiff previewed his own proposal Monday on MSNBC to hold bank management accountable. Schiff and Lee both voted against the 2018 bill; Porter, who at the time was a House candidate, said she’d oppose it and is now working on legislation to reverse it.
The California trio’s close and loud positioning on the bank failure may not yield much competitive advantage for any single candidate, despite voters’ laser-focus on an uncertain economy. But it does focus new attention on lingering divisions between Democrats lining up to blame the 2018 legislation and the handful of centrists still in office who voted for it, some of whom face tough reelection battles this fall.
The 2018 measure sparking the current Democratic backlash had rolled back capital requirements put in place for smaller banks in the aftermath of the Great Recession, which some experts and Democrats say would have allowed those institutions to better weather economic volatility.
“The capital requirements are really the bottom line for banks,” said Alexandra Thornton, a senior director for tax policy at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. “When they don’t have enough equity there, it’s other people who are harmed. And then, if the government has to step in, that just creates the expectation that this will happen again and again.”
The Bank Policy Institute, a group that represents mega- and regional banks, has pushed back on claims that the rule change played a role in the ongoing turmoil — noting that the change “does not appear to have been a major factor in SVB’s or Signature Bank’s failure.”
Schiff, who built a national profile on the House Intelligence Committee where oversaw a lengthy investigation into former President Donald Trump, announced his own plan on Monday as lawmakers picked through the wreckage of SVB’s collapse. The Los Angeles Democrat, whose district includes tony swaths of Hollywood and Burbank, said that Congress needs to craft rules that would force SVB’s executives to disgorge bonuses and stock sale proceeds.
“I plan to introduce legislation to claw back those earnings from these delayed bonuses from stock trades that were beneficial in the run up to this run on the bank,” Schiff said during an appearance on MSNBC, adding that the “failure of oversight” and a “failure of the banks’ management” merited different solutions.
For her part, Lee said in a statement that the next step following the Biden administration’s actions was ensuring “that we have the strong regulation in place to prevent future problems, and that we seek accountability for any impropriety or market manipulation.”
Other House progressives, in some ways, see themselves vindicated for their 2018 opposition to the deregulation bill by the fallout from the bank failure and the likely family conversation looming in the party.
“Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse is the predictable and direct outcome of a furious 2018 effort by bank lobbyists to evade basic oversight, transparency, and financial stability in favor of profit,” said Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), in a statement highlighting the group’s raising of the alarm against the legislation, though the liberals singled out Republicans for creating a “future of more chaos for our economy and more impunity for bank misbehavior.”
Nearly half of the 33 House Democrats who voted for the 2018 bill have since left the House, including now-Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). She’s since faced harsh campaign-trail criticism from Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who’s vying for the Senate seat in next fall’s elections, over her past positions on banking regulation.
Some House Democrats still in office who voted for the 2018 bill, like Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), could still face competitive reelection challenges in the future. But Thornton, the Center for American Progress expert, said the banking reform should transcend partisan politics.
“Here’s the thing, members go through elections, and those are difficult. But there should be people on both sides of the aisle — there should be Republicans strongly supporting an increase in capital requirements,” she said.
And it’s not just candidates who are openly criticizing fellow Democratic or Democratic-aligned lawmakers for their past votes. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley, knocked his party colleagues for the vote in a tweet that remarked “[t]oo many Dems voted yes” in 2018.
Feinstein and then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) joined the majority of their party in opposing the 2018 banking bill.
[ad_2]
#Californias #Dem #Senate #hopefuls #vie #higher #ground #Silicon #Valley #Bank #debacle
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
