March 30, 2016 5:13 AM HomePoliticsMorning Reads for Almost Opening Day (And Almost My Birthday) Morning Reads for Almost Opening Day (And Almost My Birthday) By edatlanta Politics 15 Comments Is it coincidence that two of the top five days in mankind’s history (MLB Opening Day and my birthday) are so close? Probably not. #IntelligentDesign “Big Dipper” by Built to Spill One of These is the Most Pressing Issue in the World Today. You Decide Which. GSU eyes conference title, continued growth. Sam Nunn offers key to prevent ISIS from getting a nuclear bomb. (Hint: get rid of nuclear material lying around). Long commutes are literally killing you and other Georgians. What can “Candide” teach us about gardening? Maybe Less Important, Maybe Not. Koch Brothers want to destroy Yallywood. John Lewis to be keynote speaker at Poynter Center centennial celebrations. Obama’s presentation in Atlanta on Tuesday. Dennis Lockhart, the best Fed Prez in the world, says economy is strong enough to justify raising short-term interest rates. The tragic Georgia connection to the Brussels attack. Share this:TwitterFacebookTumblrRedditEmailPrint Related About Author edatlanta 15 Comments Pete Gibbons Go Cubs Go March 30, 2016 6:34 AM Log in to Reply John Vestal Happy Almost Birthday, Ed! March 30, 2016 6:37 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope So the Braves are gonna lose 100 games, right? March 30, 2016 6:50 AM Log in to Reply xdog 75-87. Better but not good enough to contend in their first year in Cobb. March 30, 2016 10:28 AM Log in to Reply Noway2016 Prayers to the young lady who lost her boyfriend to those radical animals. This is a crusade against the West. How should we respond? March 30, 2016 7:14 AM Log in to Reply John Konop Is this really a battery charge? Looks like a reporter grabbed Trump at a large event, and someone walked in front of her with a lot going on…Do we have any lawyers who could explain how this is illegal? March 30, 2016 7:24 AM Log in to Reply Three Jack Not even close. Politically motivated charge that will be dropped at the first hearing if judge has an ounce of credibility. Amazing how much coverage this BS deal gets while the dem frontrunner and her minions are facing federal felony indictments. It was announced that at least 22 emails in the private server world of Hillary contained ‘highly sensitive’ material. Yet we are left to believe the most serious thing facing a presidential candidate is whether his manager touched a reporter during a press scrum. Backasswards world in which we reside. March 30, 2016 11:56 AM Log in to Reply ScottNAtlanta It was also reported that 157 ‘special’ agents were working on the case until…ooops the story had to be retracted because it was false. Their source lied. Guess they need to vet their “sources” to make sure they are not trying to promote a meme, right? March 30, 2016 6:38 PM Log in to Reply ScottNAtlanta I think the story is more why the Trump campaign lied and said he never touched her when in fact the video shows thats not true. Battery seems a stretch. The lie is concrete. Then again, Trump lies so much its just one to throw on the heap (if you can even see the top of that heap anymore) March 30, 2016 6:43 PM Log in to Reply John Konop Scott, Lie is a strong words…….It is fairly clear he saw someone grapping the candidate, and got between them in a chaotic situation. Does not look like he even saw the person. With that said he should of just apologized for doing his job in a chaotic situation. What I find most disturbing is we have a court system with real victims overwhelmed with cases. Last thing we need is a case like this in the system at tax payers expense. Not only is it a waste of money, cases like this insult and create backlog for victims needing real justice. March 31, 2016 2:21 PM Log in to Reply Saltycracker Good news: avoiding the national political mess I turned to reading my email answers from a couple hopeful local candidates in offices needing a new face. The good news is the iPad mini is ok after throwing it on the floor. March 30, 2016 9:17 AM Log in to Reply John Vestal As you may know, last week the SCOTUS heard oral arguments in 7 cases (consolidated) dealing with the HHS mandate regarding contraception coverage and non-profits wishing to neither provide coverage for certain methods nor be “complicit” in their employees’ obtaining coverage from their contracted insurer by notifying HHS of their refusal to provide that coverage. In an interesting twist, SCOTUS yesterday issued an order requesting from lawyers representing all the parties in these cases ideas for how the coverage can be extended by the plaintiffs’ insurance providers WITHOUT any action by the plaintiffs having to occur to make it happen. From SCOTUSblog’s independent correspondent Lyle Denniston: In the two-page order, which the Justices apparently had been working on since they held a hearing last Wednesday, lawyers were told to file one new brief on each side of the controversy, and then single replies, and to submit all filings by April 20. There was no indication that the Court would hold a new hearing on this deep controversy under the Affordable Care Act. From the specific wording of the new requirement, the Court appeared to have accepted — at least tentatively and maybe only as the basis for further exploration — the view of the non-profit hospitals, schools, and charities that any step they take would involve them in a violation of their religious objections to some or all contraceptive methods, but also to have accepted — again, perhaps only tentatively and for further analysis — the government’s view that it had to work through those non-profits’ existing health insurers to assure cost-free contraceptive coverage to their female employees of child-bearing age. Full text of Lyle’s post on SCOTUSblog is here. Several SCOTUS wonks noted that the tone of questions and comments from the Justices during oral arguments pointed to the possibility of a 4-4 split on the issue. As has already happened in other cases decided since the passing of Justice Scalia, the Court could simply issue a one sentence order affirming the lower courts’ decisions (in this case, all upholding the HHS mandate) by way of a split Court. If that were to happen, however, it might not be binding to the entire country, as another Federal court has issued a finding in favor of plaintiffs in a case not part of the consolidated case argued last week. (h/t to both Lyle Denniston and Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog) March 30, 2016 11:24 AM Log in to Reply chefdavid Judge Rules In Favor Of Erlanger On Production Of Documents In Lawsuit With Hospital Authority Of Dade, Walker, Catoosa. Looks like you boys meetings should have been more open and transparent. I think everyone appointed to a board or committee subject to the open meetings and records requirements should at least have to take an online class. Does anybody know how to pull up the answer and the judges order? I tried to on pacer but couldn’t find it. Maybe Nathan or somebody can write an article on this and include the court docs. Didn’t Hospital authority of Valdosta and Lowndes just get sued for open meetings violations? http://www.chattanoogan.com/2016/3/29/321001/Judge-Rules-In-Favor-Of-Erlanger-On.aspx March 30, 2016 12:27 PM Log in to Reply greencracker Thanks for Candide article. March 30, 2016 3:48 PM Log in to Reply edatlanta For many reasons and in many ways I am the only one who would link to that. March 31, 2016 1:12 AM Log in to Reply Add a Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.