skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for SuperLaw

( SuperLaw )

Comments made by SuperLaw

Casino Money Goes To Protecting Indian Sacred Sites

Even reporters at KPBS can't help themselves when it comes to entitling an article in a way to create controversy. The money being spent by the Tribes comes out of their own pockets to protect their sacred lands. Fighting for their culture is not free, and they are paying for it. Is the fact that tribal members are making money from a lawful business somehow evil or make their fight for their sacred places less worthy.

How about a headline that says "Contruction profits being used in an attempt to destroy sacred lands"? That would be accurate. It might even more informative.

September 2, 2011 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Conservatives Move To Unseat SD Superior Court Judges

Excellent interview by Cavanaugh; unfortunately, Mr. Candalore avoided answering legitimate and incisive questions about his candidacy.

While he repeatedly tauted statistics on the number of prosecutors on the bench (which may or may not be correct), he failed to acknowledge that two of the judges (Longstreth and Wohlfeil) and that he and three others are trying to unseat were not prosecutors, but long-time, respected private practictioners.

Most importantly, Mr. Candalore failed to provide any informaton whatsoever on why Judge Lantz Lewis (who was rated "well qalified" by Bar Association) should be replaced by him (who, as was pointed out in the interview, chose not to participate in the Bar's rating process). Mr. Candalore intimated that his "values" were better, but then refused to answer Ms. Cavanaugh's question to identify those values. Judicial Canon 5 prohibits disrespecting the Court, but it does not prohibit a candidate from providing a basis for replacing a sitting, well-qualified judge.

May 19, 2010 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Conservatives Move To Unseat SD Superior Court Judges

A short reply to the above. There are no ethical prohibitions on lawyers (or anyone else) providing campaign contributions in judicial elections, although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the need for recusal where one person donated so much (I believe it was $3,000,000) for a State Supreme Court that heard a multi-million case against that individual's company. Certainly, if there was an attorney who donated a very substantial amount to a judge, the judicial canons might require a judge to disclose that donation (as he or she would have to disclose any other relationship that might create an appearance of impropriety) or to recuse him or herself.

May 19, 2010 at 9:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Costs And Benefits Of Sunrise Powerlink Vary By Community

SDG&E misleads the public how much renewal energy it will carry and the extent of study of the southern route. There is no requirement whatsoever the the Powerlink carry a single watt of renewal energy. It could carry 100% non-renewal power and increase the amount of green house gases that contribute to global warming.

As to the 11,000 page EIR, most of that EIR (and the subsequent debate) focused on the northern route. The southern route that was chosen was studied only as one alternative; it was not studied at a project level. Also, while they call it the I-8, it does not follow I-8: SDG&E refused to study a route went down I-8 that would have avoided Cleveland National Forest and other areas of environmental sensitivity.

If the southern route is to be used, it should be studie at a project level to avoid harm to environmental and cultural resources. And, SDG&E should be required to carry some reasonable amount of renewable energy. UCAN has a suit pending in the California Supreme Court to challenge the EIR and to have these requirements imposed.

What's at stake for SDG&E is a $2 billion investment on which it is guaranteed an 11% annual return regardless of whether it carries renewal energy and irrespective of the environmental harm. Of course it wants to get shovels in the ground quickly: It wants to make money. Making money is not bad, but it should be done properly with a clear understanding of the environmental consequences.

May 5, 2010 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )