the city and we an appealed that to the court of appeals and in april in last year, april 2013, the california code of appeals reversed the superior court judgment and the 2009 letter upheld in its entirety. for that reason, the zoning administration is an appropriate means to the project is final and not subject to further legal challenge. not to report the outcome of that allegation. even if it did analyze in different means that project could have been approved that is not ground for objecting the eir. that is because the eir already analyzed the possibility. on section 2a. approval for the non-special use district to authorize the intensification of a largest affordable non-conforming use. the masonic temple prevail at the appeal at the verdict of mandate. less the eir already did cover the possibility that an amendment special use district would be necessary however we did prevail at the court of appeal and the final eir actively approved that. the physical impacts on the environment of a project. not the form of project's approval. the ceqa guidelines to find a project analyzed in the ei

now we go back to denver where the 10th circuit court of appeals will make a decision about the constitutional merits of the case and then eventually it may get to the u.s. supreme court for a decision again on the merits. all she said today is that we will wait and see, what the court decides in the state of utah. >> if you look at the polls, america seems to be deeply divided on this issue almost straight down the middle. so even if the supreme court rules further down the road and decides, will this issue go away any time soon? >> well, we have seen generally once the court rules on issues, for example, 1967, on interracial marriages. >> in loving versus virginia. >> in loving versus virginia. then society tends to follow what the law dictates. if the court were to determine that this is a constitutional right under the u.s. constitution, sentiment would probably follow. >> jamie what happens next? >> next we go to denver. the 10th circuit court of appeals, for that circuit, 10th circuit would make a determination what the judge said in the state of utah. then there will be another appeal,

well the pleas for justice of a pakistani men living in the united kingdom were ignored by the court of appeals this week for two years nor khan has been pushing for the english courts to take up the case of his father's death his father was killed by what is believed to be a cia drone strike in northwest pakistan in two thousand and eleven now concert know if the u.k. helped the u.s. conduct that strike but it seems as if his efforts have hit another snag artie's tests are cilia his latest. the court of appeal here in the u.k. essentially blocked a non-person dented case relating to a u.s. drone strike ruling that it could not be heard because that would be asking a u.k. court to pass judgement on the united states now the man behind the case is nor can whose father was a tribal elder from pakistan's northwestern tribal region and luke was killed along with some forty others in a u.s. cia drone strike in march two thousand and eleven but the something to this father was not connected to any terrorism or militancy and even opposed it however on the other hand the cia reportedly still claims tha

pleas for justice of the pompous knowing and loving in the united kingdom or ignored by the court of appeals this week for two years nor pond has been pushing for an english courts to take up the case of his father's back. his father was killed by what is believed to be a c i a drone strike in north west contest on in two thousand and nine and now includes the us the uk how the alaskan got that straight but it seems as if his efforts have hit another snag rt is tess are silly and has the latest. the court of appeal in the uk since we walked in on unprecedented case related to the u s drone strike moment that it could not be heard because i'll be asking a uk court to pass judgment on the united states another one hundred cases nor khan whose father was a tribal elder from the site's northwestern tribal region and he was killed along with some forty others to the u s c i a drone strike in march two thousand eleven of the summons with his father was not connected to the terrorism or militant see any today posted a lever on the other hand the ci is reportedly still claims that it had caught it w

earlier these same arguments were made in a superior court in the judicial challenge of the 2009 of determination. once the court of appeal upheld the appeal, that matter was settled, the 2009 letter of determination was upheld in its entirety. on the environmental effects on the renovation project, this eir is comprehensive and thorough. it's 2 inches thick of single space text and covers every environmental issue imaginable in the neighborhood. one of the painstaking detail on traffic transit loading and pedestrian and bicyclist and noise and recreation and public resources, air quality, light and air. appellants presented no evidence that the physical impacts were not adequately analyzed. the planning department to the board on january 6th, january 3rd go into detail of the appellants arguments. the final eir is complete and objective. on behalf of live nation we request the board uphold and allow the renovations that are needed to modernize. chiu president david chiu: thank you, any questions to the project sponsor. seeing none, let's hear from the members of the public that support the sponsor. please lineup. >> hell

prior administration had appealed the district judge's order finding the city liable and the court of appealsn a set of very unusual moves had stopped the impact of the district court's ruling. >> and removed the judge. >> exactly. commits the city to withdrawing the appeal after we work out some details, some slight modifications to the district court order. once the appeal is dismissed, we will move forward with the remedial process. >> there are still a possible holdup in that the court is allowing the policeman's union to possibly intercede or at issue ofheard on the the settlement. shortly after the city filed its request to settle the stop and frisk, the court said it wanted to hear the lease unions decision. this means it could have not yet dismissed their effort to keep the case alive. this is a statement released but a president of the policeman benevolent association patrick lynch after the news saying -- what is your sense of the base of the claim the policeman's union here would have? >> they seek to intervene in the case to try and so limit or reverse the district court ruling. t

they took the case to the dc court of appeals stating that the nomin nominees were unconstitution an therefore the board had no room to react. the senate either agree with the administration that the president can make appointment at any break, or the senate could continue to block appointments, and literally presidential appointments should only fill vacancies at that time. >> what the president has done here when the senate is convening sessions every three days. these appointments were particularly unprecedented. >> historically presidents were both parties have made recess appointments. sometimes to install officials who would otherwise have a difficult time in the senate confirmation process. the supreme court case of the national labor relations board has given a lengthy 90-minute oral argument. the court will hear from lawyers respecting from both sides and 45 senators concerned about overreach. >>> how did the framers of the constitution except the recession provision to work when they wrote it? what does it mean for the senate to be present in the capitol and in session. for

that's what the court of appeals below concluded. and the idea is that the president could have nominated somebody to that position because it didn't -- because it was already available before the recess. that wasn't a vacancy that didn't occur during the recess. and if you have a situation have a vacancy occurred not in the recess, the president can't get it ratified, then the vacancy continues in the recess, that's contrary to the constitution. >> the challengers argue that happen means to occur to begin, so the positionment becomes vacant during a recess. the administration argued that happening with also be a state of being, and not just a state of becoming, so if the actual vacancy began before the recess and continued into the recess, then that would provide the justification. and if you think about it, does it really make sense to say on the day before the senate went into recess, a position became vacant? on the day after they went into recess it became vacant and now you can. so one could ultimately come out and i think the

circuit court of appeals the second most important court in the country after the supreme court struck down the f.c.c. open internet over the order of the enforces net neutrality so now basically you know in china for example there are four companies there are three big backbone companies and there are four i is p's internet service providers and the provide local internet and they all claim the right to examine everything that you are sending and receiving through the internet and not only that i mean not only does the in some cases because the government owns large chunks of these companies but they're private companies and effects with some of your stock trade on the stock exchange i believe not only have they done things on behalf of the government but you know there are assertions i've not been able to verify one hundred percent that they charge differently based on content and that's what the internet companies in america want to do now and now they want to go to a cable t.v. model where oh if you want the new york times the washington post that's twenty five dollars a month but

circuit court of appeals and you may not be able to do can either of these things anymore more on that after the break. i would rather ask questions to people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on our t.v. question for. i know c.n.n. the m.s.m. b c news have taken some not slightly but the fact is i admire their commitment to cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate. that was funny but it's close enough for the truth and might think. it's because when full attention and the mainstream media works side by side the joke is actually on here. and our teen years we have a different brain. because the news of the world just is not this funny i'm not laughing dammit i'm not how. you got us into the jokes will hand over make us. happy. i think. i'm. a. bit. overblown. did you know the price is the only industry specifically mention in the constitution and. that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy right call for us. to make you know i'm sorry and on t

the court of appeal here in the u.k. essentially blocked a non-person dented case relating to a u.s. drone strike ruling that it could not be heard because that would be asking a u.k. court to pass judgement on the united states now the man behind the case is more con his father was a tribal elder from pakistan small to us or tribal region and he was killed along with some forty others in a u.s. cia drone strike in march two thousand and eleven for the storming to of his father was not connected to any terrorism or militancy and even opposed it however on the other hand the cia reportedly still claims that it had quote a court killed no noncombatants in that strike over two years nor khan has been is seeking clarification on the policies and practices of the british government who is trying to get a judicial review asking the courts to examine whether officials at the british intelligence agency g c h q what in fact shared information about targets in pakistan with the cia and whether this in turn could make the british s

appeals out there in the west, the 10th circuit court of appeals in denver. his is the second time that something of the court of appeals has gone from one of the states has gone to justice sotomayor, who is the 10th circuit justice. she referred this particular one to the full supreme court and the full supreme court has agreed that there should be a hold on same-sex marriage while this case goes to the appeals. this case will be heard probably within the next couple of months by the 10th circuit, then maybe four or five months after that we'll get a ruling from the 10th circuit, and depending what happens there, same-sex marriage could resume in utah, or whoever loses in the 10th circuit will undoubtedly go to the u.s. supreme court and ask them to take the full-up case. so, there are two tracks here to remember, one is the issue itself, which is now on appeal. the second track is what we're talking about, while the issue is on appeal, should same-sex marriage continue or not? and the supreme court has just said, no, it shouldn't. they put a stay on the judg

gay couples cannot get married in utah until the court of appeals, the tenth circuit court of appealsves this case. and if -- and then, of course, only if they decide that gay people have the ride to be married in utah. what the supreme court said is, this case is on hold while the circuit court of appeals, which is the intermediate level court, decides the case. so i think for at least several months, it's clear that same-sex cup he is will not be able to get married in utah. >> all right, jeff. thanks for explaining for us, and obviously we're going to be keeping in touch with the developments throughout the supreme court and where this goes next. thank you, jeff. appreciate it. >>> in just a couple hours, it's going to be the senate that will take up the issue of whether or not to extend unemployment benefits for more than 1 million americans who need this. our christine romans tells us, there is likely going to be a really tough showdown. >> reporter: suzanne, president obama back from vacation, and the big push this week, extending emergency unemployment benefits for 1.3 million

circuit court of appeals. whether these lawsuits have any legs or not, whether they will get any traction. in the heard sense of constitutionality that is can you get 25 votes elected it will depend important part on whether the affordable care act is popular or unpopular and whether the court believes it's disrupting or interfering with the public good when it would invalidated or rather it would rather be doing the public a big favor if it were to invalidate this law. send this issue back to congress where it belongs and let's let them do it right this time. we need health care reform this country. it needs to be good reform. this is not good reform. i agree with what trevor said. this is a good way to make single-payer -- they get a lot of money out of it but that is really what has happened here and we are seeing the consequences now. by the way it's not just the face plant that the law has done out of the tamil as it's run onto the field. just wait until it starts working the way it is supposed to work. th

make it constitutional and to make a long story short there's been several districts in the court of appeals decision with the ruling is binding. there's one to the contrary which on the whole ball lower courts are taking these kind of decisions seriously still and i think over time they will be seen as we discuss in the book there are some points that are not cleared for instance. it's not entirely clear how we draw the line between the power. that is something the court will likely have to consider in the future. >> it's a very important implication in the case that is so overwhelmingly accepted it's not even discussed, and that is from the way that was upheld was the penalty to enforce what used to be precisely because it was so low and reasonable that it reserved the trees are the option. it wasn't coercive and that is the reason that it was upheld. had the case then of hell as either the congress calls or even the tax power here in the center on this issue or the supreme court had advocated, the congress on the penalty turned out to be too low to actually get people to make a bad deal t

rational, i think the task for the court at this stage of the case is to rule on the more big picture of objections that are properly before it, and that the court of appeals ruled on. even if we win everything that's at issue in this court, the case is not over. you are a variety of more specific challenges to the details of the rule that the d.c. circuit found it unnecessary to address. and so if we won on the issues that are before the court, the case would be remanded and it would be an opportunity for the court below to consider those. >> including the over control argument? >> to the extent that any state -- i don't know the painting as applied challenges at this level of detail, but to the extent that any state has a properly preserve challenge to the effect that it is actually likely to be subject to overcontrolled, then that could be heard by the court of appeals. the court of appeals to determine both whether that is, in fact, likely to happen and whether, if it does happen, that would render the rule arbitrary and capricious as to that state. the real problem with the court of appeals methodology was that he said the fact that epa can't absolute

court of appeals by recess appointment. judicial oversight of recess appointments is a blatant conflict of interest. the accord should stay out of this political, partisan -- just leave it to the elected political branches to fight out and the ideological interest groups. there were 25 opposing barack obama's recess appointments. where they really or were they just opposing barack obama? let's leave it to the elected political branch to fight out sonia sotomayor used the term and are -- or large and, just leave it to the elected political branches to, quote, duke it out. thank you. [applause] >> we will have a five minute response from each of our speakers and then open it up for you folks. >> great. that is a very interesting presentation. i guess i am going to speak to the end of the first. the good professor argued that the case is nonjudicial, that the court should stay out of it. he argued that in a brief afore the court and you heard them argue it for five of his 18 minutes just now. that offers up i guess that terrifi

the case set two precedence in the night circuit court of appeals. assuming there's another, there'll be a third ground-breaking decision. this hopefully will pave the way for other people to contest their placement on the list and force the government to take a hard look at what it's doing, depriving its citizens of fundamental rights. how does the precedence change. >> the no fly list is crucial to our safety, and so by ordering the removal of someone from a no-fly list, that's an example of our judge in virginia and organ can look to that are hearing the no fly list cases, you can hear there is a role of unlawful practices. >> does it back it up or does the position change when it's in court? >> our position in court is there is no process where they can get off a fly list. what we are arguing for in court is that there needs to be a process by which if the government places someone on a no fly list in perpetuaty there needs to be a process by which the process can occur, this is the first time in american history that the american government is p

of charge. >> reporter: if the supreme court rules in favor of the religious institutions it could impact beyond churches and also be felt in the private sector. in june, a u.s. circuit court of appeals waived millions of dollars in fines against the store hobby lobby. the company argued the mandate violated their christian values. justice sotomayor gave the justice department until friday to respond. tara mergener for cbs news, washington. >>> at least one federal appeals court has agreed with sotomayor issuing its own stay against part of the affordable care act. a nonprofit company in oklahoma is trying to use their religious affiliation to avoid the birth control requirement. that case will be heard in march. >>> in the legal battle involved jahi mcmath the girl's family continues efforts now to move her out of children's hospital in oakland. right now the state is investigating how the hospital is handling the case. family wants the hospital to release jahi mcmath or allow another doctor to perform a tracheotomy and insert a feeding tube but the hospital says the girl is brain-dead and won't do the procedures. >> they are setting up roadblocks at every road we try to go down to

of determines. however the city and we an appealed that to the court of appeals and in april in last year, april 2013, the california code of appeals reversed the superior court judgment and the 2009 letter upheld in its entirety. for that reason, the zoning administration is an appropriate means to the project is final and not subject to further legal challenge. not to report the outcome of that allegation. even if it did analyze in different means that project could have been approved that is not ground for objecting the eir. that is because the eir already analyzed the possibility. on section 2a. approval for the non-special use district to authorize the intensification of

of determines. however the city and we an appealed that to the court of appeals and in april in last year, april 2013, the california code of appeals reversed the superior court judgment and the 2009 letter upheld in its entirety. for that reason, the zoning administration is an appropriate means to the project is final and

of san jose. it appealed to the ninth u.s. court of appeals. >>> pop star justin bieber arrested today on a slew of charges. see what happened when he appeared in court. >> to water or not to water, that is the question for some residents as they face fines for not keeping the yards green during a drought. >>> he wore three separate hats as a manager and see what he is taking on. >>> a teen was sentenced to a life in prison sentence today. max wade was foundth guilty of firing shots back in 2012. prosecutors claimed thawed, who was 17 at the time was jealous over a girl. that led police to uncover a car thawed stole a year earlier. he could be released in 17 or 18 years. >>> justin bieber is free tonight after being in jail. the 19 year old was arrested for drag races and driving under the influence. here is the video. >> reporter: big trouble today for pop star justin bieber. >> justin got pulled over. >> reporter: he is being arrested after caught allegedly drag racing in miami beach. they were driving up to double the speed limit

if you are convicted of a crime in this country, in america, the court of appeals is your friend. whatever happens, you won't be any worse off than before but that doesn't help amanda knox, whom a court of appeals in italy just recon vikted of a murder that she and her former boyfriend had been cleared of. you'll remember the murder. it was knox's housemate, meredith kercher. she was stabbed to death over and over and over in their rented villa back in '07. knox and that boyfriend, raph l raffaele sollecito were both convicted and sentenced to 20 plus years in prison. in 2011, an appeals court acquitted them for lack of evidence. it changed again and italy's highest court sent the case back to a different court saying, retry it, start over. those verdicts finally came down yesterday and knox got a longer sentence than before. 28 years. she says, it hit her like a train. >> i'm going through waves of emotion in response to it. my first reaction was, no. this is wrong. i'm going to do everything i can to prove that it is. i felt very determined. my family felt very determined. it was

the city filed an appeal with the ninth kirk quit court of appeals by failing to act on a by the to move a's to the south bay. >> oakland business leaders pushing forward to try to secure land for a water front baseball stadium. a five member concoarse yum moving ahead to get control of the terminal in hopes that a's co-owner will build a park there. he did meet with more to transform the complex. >> more baseball note here, former a's manager says his plaque will be put up with out a team logo. he says his career is the culmination of work in chicago and inducted in july. >> we may have beautiful weather here in the bay area this, is a dream for skiers right? skiers welcome that change. >> they sure do. they have been frantic for snow. >> it's interesting. just a small system moving through there today. looks like winter. >> looks like a blizzard. >> rainfall here soon. >> maybe. >> traveling around lake tahoe, back here in the bay area, we have had our 11th day of one record high temperature. now with winds over terrain we have a red flag warning in effect for virtually all of the high

court of appeals issued a much anticipated decision in the open internet case. since it's been so talked about and is of such importance to the kind of goals we're talking about here for the diversity of ownership and the diversity of voices, please allow me to make a couple of observations. one, the court invited the commission to act and i intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will readdress the concepts in the open internet order as the court invited to encourage growth in invasion and enforce against abuse. we've noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission. that's the right and responsible thing to do and we take them up on their commitment. at the same time, we accept the court's invitation to revisit the structure of the rules that it vacated. the great revolution in the internet is how it empowers individuals to both consume and create. it's the kind of opportunity t

this ruling should be on hold while the united states court of appeals decides the case. that could take weeks or months. >> what is it that the supreme court wants the federal court to re-examine. >> the issue here is a really profound one. this is really the big case that a lot of us have been waiting for. >> it seemed kind of simple, jeff. it seemed like the federal judge said, the law in utah banning gays from marrying is unconstitutional. a lot of people believe that the federal constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage, does not give same-sex couples a right to mary. this judge said, my reading of the constitution is that it requires utah to allow this case -- to allow gay people to get married. what makes this case so important is that his reasoning would apply in all 50 states. so if his reasoning is adopted by the tenth circuit, by the united states supreme court, this wouldn't be about the 18 or 19 states that have same-sex marriage now. this would be a case that would give same-sex marriage throughout the united states. so that's why this case is so big.

. >> well, i think it was pretty shocking that the stay was not granted by the tenth circuit court of appeals as well as the district court given the history of stays being granted in these circumstances. but there's something important to remember here. which is the fact the supreme court halted the further issuance of marriage licenses through this stay, that doesn't do anything about the validity of those thousand marriage licenses that are already out there. they remain perfectly valid. >> that is a big -- there are two issues on the table right now, right, matthew? the question of what about those couples? and the question about the law more broadly. i want to play utah attorney general sean reyes talking about what the stay means for those couples. take a listen. >> we don't know the answer yet as to the marriages that have taken place already. there's no precedence, i believe, for this. and this is precisely the uncertainty we were hoping to avoid by requesting a stay immediately upon the decision of the district court. it's unfortunate that many utah citizens have been put into this l

of marriage equality or whether same-sex marriages can be constitutionally allowed, while that continues to work its way through the courts. that issue is pending now before the 10th circuit court of appeals. the state of utah went to the supreme court and said, please stop marriages while we're appealing this, because we might win, and if we do, that raises a question about what marriages will be legal or not that were already done after the judge issued his ruling in december. and they also said to the supreme court, you know, this puts the cart before the horse. the supreme court has yet to rule on this issue. now you have a judge ruling in the lower courts. for all these reasons, the state said you should put a stop. we don't know why the supreme court this morning issued a stay. it was referred to justice sotomayor, who is the circuit justice. she referred it to the full court. there was a simple order from the court not giving any reason for this, which is the usual practice, and there were no noted descents. that's kind of interesting, because sometimes if the court takes an action and some of the court members descent, they will note their descents. there's no noted descents, does

court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. this has happened against substantial republican opposition that has been based on the very analysis that i've just outlined. and this has been facilitated by virtue of the fact that my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from nevada, joined by his democratic colleagues, chose a few weeks ago to exercise what's been referred to as the nuclear option. they broke the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate and they did so so that they can put more people on the bench, so that they can put more people into top-level positions in this administration. while more or less squelching the view of the minority party within the senate. this is unfortunate. but most -- the most unfortunate aspect of it is the fact that it's part of a broader strategy that isn't limited to the d.c. circuit. in fact, it's not even limited to the senate's confirmation process, with respect to these judges or other judges. it extends much more broadly than that. it's part of the

they fail to inform you of that biological opinion is being challenged before the 9th circuit court of appeals, that biological opinion is not applicable at this time. in order for the recs and park department to rely upon it, the army corpse of engineers must allow the city to change the water flow at sharp park and incorporate that in the permit. the fish and wild life service in november 13th, wrote to the army corp of engineers that it includes in the biological opinion that endangers the species act only applicable when authorized by permit issued by the army corp of engineers and that may never happen. it has it's own criteria to determine whether this process is appropriate. until that incurs that biological opinion, they can't rely on that to be the departmental baseline. i have a copy for your review and record. the other issue of concern here and why the environmental impact is we have before you in exhibit f of our appeal expert opinion that explains that there will be significant environmental effects if this project moves forward. this is no ordinary expert. greg okay man develope

for full court of appeals, and appeal to the supreme court, it could be an attempt to try to reclassify broadband under title ii. i think that would be a huge mistake for the economy. but he could do that. there's a docket sitting there since may of 2010. so he is a number of options in front of him. by the way, the transparency options, let me talk about that very quickly which that was left standing. and internet service provider needs to as a matter of law disclosed to the public come this close to the world what its plans are. if its plans are to act in an anticompetitive way, then it has to say so. if it asked in an anticompetitive way and hasn't said so beforehand, in the fcc can come down like a hammer on that internet service provider. in the meantime i would hope chairman wheeler would meet with the leadership of the federal trade commission, state attorneys general, consumer advocates at the state and federal level, as well as maybe even trial lawyers to lay out all of their weapons whether statutory or common law, put them on a table, meet with internet s

court of appeals ruling drew strong reactions from congress. republicans lauded the ruling as a victory for the free market. democrats called it a reaffirmation of the fcc's authority while expressing concerns it could limit the agency's power to preserve net neutrality. joining us now to discuss the decision is congresswoman anna eschew ranking democratic member of the house subcommittee on communications and technology. she represents california's 18th congressional district. good to have you with us. the ruling was 2 to 1 but the language was pretty emphatic. where does it leave congress and the fcc moving forward? >> well, i think that the district or the circuit court's decision is, first of all, a landmark decision, a very, very important one for the american people. i would say that they ruled in favor of what has always been at the heart of telecommunications law in our country, dating back to the early 30s when the fcc was actually the federal communications commission was established, and that is to the public good, to serve the public

district court of appeals for the district of columbia found that the f.c.c. acted improperly. the 81-page ruling said the agency is wrong to classify internet service providers as information services and at the same time regulate them as common carriers, as it does telephone and utility companies. while the f.c.c. decides whether to appeal, amazon and others are watching to see if the broadband networks impose their own rules, favoring some content companies over others. for its part, verizon issued a statement yesterday that said, in part: verizon has been and remains committed to the open internet. this will not change in light of the court's decision. the ruling does not apply to wireless services accessed through mobile devices, a growing share of the market. >> sreenivasan: we have two views on this. from washington i'm joined by craig aaron, president and c.e.o. of free press, a non- partisan media reform group. and robert mcdowell, a senior fellow at the hudson institute. he served as a commissioner on the federal communications commission from 2006 to 2013. craig aaro