Friday Cookys

Constant Readers,

I have been at conferences for the past few days, so apologies for the delay in adding another post. There is so much happening lately that it is hard to choose what to write about! But, because it is Friday, I'll make it easy on you with a few short updates on issues I've been following.

1.Ed Jew, Brute?

Yesterday we learned that Ed filed a motion in federal court to have a special defense fund for indigent people pay for the cost of translation services and other items related to his defense against federal charges of bribery, mail fraud and extortion. How can it be? Is Ed really a penniless street urchin? Before you go feeling sorry for Edmund, you should know that he reportedly transferred all his real property to family members as soon as the shit started to hit the fan. His house in the Sunset was raided on May 18, 2007. Between October 2007 and March 2008, he put three properties in a family trust, and transferred one to his wife and one to his brother. Then in early April he filed a motion asking for federal tax dollars to pay for his defense.   

The Examiner ran a story yesterday pointing out the property transfers and Ed's application for legal welfare.

You know what else happened yesterday? Eddie-boy withdrew his motion for federal funds.Download ed_jew_withdrawal.pdf 

Thank you, Joshua Sabatini!

2. I'll Bet They All Take The Valium

A few weeks ago, I put up a video that I shot back in January about the Baze v. Rees death penalty case that was before the Supreme Court. I predicted that the Court would not find that the Kentucky manner of lethal injection is unconstitutional. (Though it is icky.) The Court was not expected to rule on the case until June or July of this year, but on Wednesday, April 16, the ruling came down and...well...I was right. Rightity right. In addition to holding that Kentucky lethal injection protocol is constitutional, the opinion also states:

The broad framework of the Eighth Amendment has accommodated [] progress toward more humane methods of execution, and our approval of a particular method in the past has not precluded legislatures from taking the steps they deem appropriate, in light of new developments, to ensure humane capital punishment. (P. 24.)

I think we know where this fight is going...

3.  Melissa on ERISA

The hearing before the Ninth Circuit on the City's appeal of a District Court ruling that the employer expenditure requirement of the City's Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO) is preempted by ERISA was held yesterday. Interestingly, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA) (the group opposing the employer contributions), yielded several minutes to the US Department of Labor whose attorney also argued that the contribution requirement is preempted.

The same three-judge panel that allowed the HCSO to go into effect (despite the District Court's ruling that the law is preempted) also heard the oral arguments yesterday. When they allowed the HCSO to go forward, the same three judges found that there is "a strong likelihood" that the City will win this appeal. Sooooooo, judges not being the kind of folks who will ever admit that they are wrong...I think it is safe to assume that the Ninth Circuit will overturn the District Court ruling. The GGRA can then ask for another hearing at the Ninth Circuit with all eleven judges (called an en banc hearing) or appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Look for an appeal to the Supreme Court - I 'spect the GGRA has had about all it can take of the Ninth Circuit.

NOTE: Looks like restaurants are already blaming the HCSO for putting them out of bidness...

--Melissa

Comments

[Katherine Graham Cracker]

Thank you so much for staying on top of this story. I hope someone will post a list of the restaurants which now include a surcharge for the health care costs. What a load of crap that is.

[Be_Devine]

Yeah, I have no sympathy for Palmetto. It was a mediocre restaurant in a competitive neighborhood. It's called Darwinism. Somehow other restaurants seem to be doing very well despite the fact that they must provide a living wage and make sure their employees don't have to go on public welfare if they get sick. In San Francisco, mediocre restaurants die. It has nothing to do with health insurance.

And the surcharges are a joke. This is nothing more than the restaurant owners trying to create a political backlash against the basic right for workers to have health insurance. Do they add a "Health Code" surcharge to pay for the measures they (or at least some of them) take to make sure they don't poison us with their food? How about a worker's comp surcharge?