If you’re a fan of e-books, like me (and I have been for over a decade), this is welcome news:
Technology giant Apple and major book publishers are being sued by the US Department of Justice over the pricing of e-books.
The US accuses Apple and Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Simon and Schuster and Penguin of colluding over the prices of e-books they sell.
This lawsuit is over the firms’ move to the agency model where publishers rather than sellers set prices.
A former student of then-Professor Obama talks about what he was taught:
Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.
You probably recall (unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last week) that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals demanded that the Department of Justice explain to them exactly what the Obama Administration’s view of judicial review of laws was. Yesterday Eric Holder made a verbal statement about it, but now the letter has been released.
Here’s the money paragraph (misspelling of “Marbury” left intact):
The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S . Ct. 3 138 (20 10) ; FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U .S. 307 (1993) . The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803) . In that case, the Court held that ” [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177
Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged Wednesday that the “courts have final say,” and said his department would respond formally to an appeals court order to explain whether the Obama administration believes judges in fact have the power to overturn federal laws.
Here’s another reason for conservatives to shop for their Coke at Walmart:
Democratic officials Wednesday launched a two-pronged attack on states with new laws requiring identification before voting, the highlight being a call to boycott Coke, Walmart and others that back a leading organization pushing for voter ID laws.
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The first lawsuit on behalf of a private business owner has been filed against ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate, joining seven states in taking the highly controversial mandate to the courts. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, not to be confused with the ACLU) reported:
It is a tremendously important lawsuit. We filed suit today in federal court in St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of a St. Louis business owner and his company. Our argument is clear: the HHS mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs, violates the religious beliefs of our client.