Content is in the eye of the beholder: the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the 1992 Cable Act's "must-carry" provisions

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court should have ruled in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC that the must-carry rules under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 were unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The Court found that the regulations ensuring access for broadcast stations were a content-neutral restriction warranting only intermediate scrutiny, which was satisfied. Favoring one type of broadcaster over another has the effect of favoring certain forms of speech, so the Court should have found the rules content-based and applied the strict scrutiny standard.

Freedom of speech, Cable television, Must carry rules (Broadcasting)

---

When the Supreme Court talks, Congress listens

Article Abstract:

In the case of West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc v Casey the US Supreme Court ruled that in civil rights cases the burden of expert witness fees may not be shifted to the losing party as part of reasonable attorney fees. Though expert witnesses are not explicitly mentioned in the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Act of 1976, the Court's narrow reading frustrated the intent of Congress. Section 113 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 explicitly corrected this, stating that fees for expert witnesses could be so charged. Congressional reasoning was that this was necessary to ensure adequate legal representation in civil rights cases.

Evidence, Expert, Expert evidence, Civil rights, Civil procedure

---

Is Congress just giving taxpayers the Roth deal?

Article Abstract:

Roth IRAs are created from a taxpayer's after-tax dollars, and, in contrast to the old IRAs, have no additional tax burdens once they are established, but taxpayers should beware of the Roth IRA's complexity and long-term uncertainty in terms of federal tax law. Congress must clearly simplify IRA code provisions, especially Roth-like provisions, in future tax law. Moving all IRA provisions into once concise section, free of confusing cross-references, would be a much needed simplification of IRA tax law.

United States, Taxation, Individual retirement accounts

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Entrenching the duopoly: why the Supreme Court should not allow the states to protect the Democrats and Republicans from political competition
• Abstracts: The ethics of the economics of patenting the human genome. The Institutional Determinants of Social Responsibility
• Abstracts: The United States Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment: evolution from Warren to post-Warren perspectives
• Abstracts: A backdoor to policy making: the use of philosophers by the Supreme Court. The Court of International Trade's political party diversity requirement: unconstitutional under any separation of powers treaty
• Abstracts: Planning the future of the Middle Rio Grande Bosque: preserving the river through a revival of public deliberative democracy

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.