Latest news with #GeneralCourt
Time of India
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pfizergate verdict delivers blow to European Commission
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is being tested again over Pfizergate (Image: PTI) The European Union's General Court has annulled a European Commission decision that denied a journalist from The New York Times daily access to text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and pharmaceutical company Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. The verdict marks a significant legal and political blow to the EU's executive arm, raising fresh doubts about von der Leyen's leadership style and her handling of transparency obligations. "Von der Leyen has gathered more power than any other president before her, leading the Commission with a centralized and secretive approach — and this has clearly backfired," Olivier Hoedeman of Corporate Europe Observatory , a Brussel's based watchdog, told DW. The controversial Pfizergate case involves messages that were reportedly exchanged during the EU's negotiation of a multibillion-euro COVID-19 vaccine contract with Pfizer during the coronavirus pandemic. The existence of the private communication was first hinted at in a 2021 interview, sparking widespread concern over opaque decision-making at the heart of the EU. Later that year, New York Times journalist Matina Stevis-Gridneff submitted a request to access the messages, according to EU transparency laws, which the Commission rejected, claiming it did not possess them. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gạch cao su dễ lắp đặt – Hãy làm mới ngôi nhà của bạn một cách dễ dàng! Gạch | Quảng cáo tìm kiếm Tìm Ngay Undo That refusal prompted the US daily to challenge the decision before the General Court. No 'plausible explanation' The EU court has now concluded that the Commission failed to justify its claim that it did not possess the requested documents credibly — and that it did not demonstrate it had made adequate efforts to locate or preserve them. The judges also ruled that text messages sent in the context of public procurement should be treated as official EU documents. In an interview with DW, Transparency International's Shari Hinds said the decision was "a real victory for transparency," adding that it represented a step toward restoring public trust and institutional accountability. In response to the ruling, the European Commission said it would take note of the General Court's decision and acknowledged the need to provide a more detailed explanation as to why it was not able to provide the requested text messages. However, it underlined that the Court had not challenged the Commission's overall document registration policy, and said that, therefore, no change to these rules was foreseen. "Transparency has always been of paramount importance," the Commission said in a statement, reaffirming its commitment to openness and accountability under the existing legal framework. The EU's main executive body can now appeal the ruling or comply by either releasing the messages — if they still exist — or providing a detailed account for their absence, including information about whether they were deleted and if so under what circumstances. 'Humilitation and resounding defeat' "The Commission keeps repeating its commitment to transparency, but when it comes to implementing those principles, it's falling short," Päivi Leino-Sandberg, Professor of Transnational European Law at the University of Helsinki, told DW, adding that the body did not "even acknowledge the problem." Many members of the European Parliament also reacted sharply. Martin Schirdewan, co-chair of The Left Group called the ruling "a humiliation and resounding defeat" for the Commission. He accused von der Leyen of damaging democracy through her secrecy and demanded that she publish the messages immediately. Anything less, he warned, would be irresponsible — and grounds for her to step down. Hoedeman argued that by presiding over the very institution tasked with enforcing EU law and overseeing the vaccine negotiations directly, von der Leyen had played a dual role that had "created a clear conflict of interest." He said that the ruling was thus not only a scandal for the European Commission but for its president herself. He said that when an institution responsible for enforcing transparency failed to hold its own leadership to account, public confidence eventually took a hit, particularly if the leadership appeared to benefit from a lack of scrutiny. "This has damaged trust in both the Commission and the EU as a whole," he explained. Furthermore, he added that while the Commission had defended its approach by citing the urgency of the pandemic, crisis conditions could not justify a lack of transparency. "The Commission must start seeing transparency as something to embrace, not fear. Otherwise, it fuels conspiracy theories instead of trust." 'Accountability and oversight' needed Transparency watchdogs and legal experts said the court's decision called for a turning point in Brussels' handling of executive communications. "Decisions affecting millions shouldn't be made through private texts," Hinds said. "They need to happen in formal settings, with accountability and oversight." The message from critics is clear: Policymaking, especially when it comes to public health and finance, should not be done in the shadows. The controversy comes at a sensitive time for the EU. As far-right, nationalist forces gain traction in several member states and many citizens grow increasingly skeptical of Brussels, institutional trust is a critical asset. The European Parliament might now demand an independent inquiry, and civil society groups are calling for stricter regulations to ensure all official communications are archived and accessible. Whether von der Leyen can weather the fallout remains uncertain. But with legal scrutiny intensifying and public trust on the line, her presidency now faces one of its most serious tests yet.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Constitutional experts claim legislative audit could create 'interference'
BOSTON (SHNS) – Constitutional experts invited by Senate Democrats to testify Wednesday said that allowing a voter-approved audit of their chambers to take place could lead to 'executive control' and 'indirect interference' in the legislative process. However, another legal expert testifying before a Senate's subcommittee on the new audit law said it is within the state auditor's legal rights to probe the Legislature, and argued that lawmakers should not preemptively dismiss the audit based on hypotheticals that the auditor's office would overstep its authority. 'The power to investigate the General Court could threaten to undermine its basic functioning,' said Lawrence Friedman, a constitutional law professor at New England Law Boston. Friedman is the author of a constitutional law casebook and edited Oxford University Press's series on American state constitutions. Friedman argued that an audit performed by the elected state auditor, a constitutional officer under the executive branch, could lead to 'indirect interference' with how the Legislature conducts itself. 'There lies the possibility that an unscrupulous auditor would use the opportunity to audit these functions as a wedge with which to subject the General Court to continuous audit requests, and should the Legislature fail to respond to the auditor's satisfaction, litigation over those requests, which ultimately could undermine the Legislature's ability to conduct its constitutionally assigned business on its own terms,' he said. Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who has made the legislative audit a top priority, was invited to testify at the hearing but declined, according to subcommittee Chair Sen. Cindy Friedman's office. 'The Senate is determined to malign the work of our office — at all costs — to block the public from being able to view the basic financial and contracting records we have requested,' DiZoglio said in a statement shared with the News Service. 'We did not participate in the Senate's unconstitutional show trial, purported to be a hearing. Senators are not judges and their actions in deciding whether or not they have to follow the law — by holding a kangaroo court on this matter — blatantly violates the Constitution which states that the power to interpret the law rests with the Judiciary — not with the Legislature. Accordingly, I call on the Legislature to immediately seek an SJC opinion on this matter.' One of the key issues in the debate is the scope of the audit that DiZoglio intends to perform. Lawmakers have said they need more information from DiZoglio about what she'd be looking for, and Attorney General Andrea Campbell has also said she needs more information about the scope, as DiZoglio has asked Campbell to enforce the law. Friedman, however, said even a more limited scope 'administrative audit,' as opposed to an audit examining 'core legislative functions,' would still challenge the separation of powers. Any investigation into communications and documents shared between legislators and staff could interfere with deliberative process privilege, he said. This privilege protects the internal communications and documents between legislators and staff during negotiations, aimed at allowing for more open debate outside of the public eye. Ray La Raja, a professor of political science at UMass Amherst who specializes in constitutional democracy, campaign finance and election laws, agreed with Friedman. 'The public needs to understand, and this is something very hard to convey, that a deliberative process sometimes requires people to speak frankly outside the public eye, and that's a tough one to explain… It will have a chilling effect when the executive can interfere and pose questions and reveal dialogue you're having,' La Raja said. Lawmakers have resisted complying with the audit law three months after it went into effect, largely under this unresolved separation of powers argument. La Raja told senators Wednesday that the voter law challenges 'legislative independence… exactly at a time when the premier legislative institution in America, Congress, has never been weaker.' President Donald Trump has signed over 100 executive orders during his first two months in office, prompting some watchdogs to raise alarms around executive overreach. 'With their power seized by an executive at dangerous levels at this time, state Legislatures should be the exemplars of legislative independence. They are the bulwarks against executive overreach, and principal guardians of representative democracy — the idea that government should be divided into three distinct, co-equal branches,' he said. However, the third speaker invited to testify Wednesday, retired attorney and advocate for legislative reform Jeanne Kempthorne, said the comparison of the Trump administration is not directly applicable. 'So, if Elon Musk were to propose to audit Congress and to say, 'Give me access to your data systems and my whiz kids are going to identify some issues for your improvement.' Would that be something you'd advise Congress to consent to? … and how is that different than this?' Sen. William Brownsberger asked Kempthorne. She responded that the auditor is directly elected by the voters. Kempthorne later added that the auditor serves in a different capacity than the president of the U.S. or governor of a state, and that though the auditor is under the executive branch, she does not report to the governor. 'Elon Musk is not the state auditor. Elon Musk has no authority, but it's clearly an intrusion on the functioning, the core functioning of Congress. It's also unduly burdensome,' she said. 'There can be many reasons why that is materially different from what's being presented here.' Kempthorne also argued to senators that voters gave DiZoglio the authority to investigate by a considerable 71% threshold of support, and that the Supreme Judicial Court formerly issued an opinion that the auditor's authority could be 'expanded by statute, so long as those enhancements do not impermissibly invade the province of other branches of government.' Given the strong public support for an audit, she said lawmakers could consent — as previous Legislatures have consented to audits — and if the auditor's office is unduly burdensome in their requests, harassing towards lawmakers, or asks for documents well beyond a reasonable scope, at that point the Legislature could seek an outside opinion from the courts or attorney general. 'The Legislature, I suggest, should be less focused on abstract legalistic theory and far more concerned about the crisis of public confidence in this institution,' Kempthorne said. 'The wise reaction to that crisis of confidence is not to throw more alligators in the moat and reinforce the walls of the citadel, but to allow the audit to proceed unhindered and to commit to far greater transparency.' She continued, 'A frontal challenge to the will of the people, in this historical context, is a mistake. It gravely misreads this moment in history when democratic institutions are under attack.' Sen. Paul Feeney asked her if lawmakers should knowingly cede their constitutional power to another branch in the name of preserving public good will. 'We need to answer for our colleagues in the Senate, if you take this action and, I think you use the word comply or volunteer for an audit, are you as a legislator who, just months ago, raised your hand to uphold the constitution of the commonwealth — are you knowingly violating that in the interest of political expediency?' Feeney asked. Kempthorne, a former State Ethics Commission member and former Common Cause board member, replied that she does not believe there is a risk of violating the constitution, based on the SJC opinion that said the powers of the state auditor could be constitutionally enhanced. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Euronews
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
EU's top court annuls Roberta Metsola's fine against former Liberal MEP over harassment allegations
The General Court has annulled the finding of harassment and the subsequent fine of €3,380 imposed on former Liberal MEP Monica Semedo by the European Parliament's President Roberta Metsola in 2023. ADVERTISEMENT The EU's top court on Wednesday annulled the finding of harassment and the sanction imposed by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola on former MEP Monica Semedo (Luxembourg/Renew Europe/) on the grounds that rights of defence were not respected. Following a complaint by a former parliamentary assistant, the European Parliament's advisory committee adopted a report in November 2002 concluding that the alleged acts constituted psychological harassment. Metsola sent Semedo an anonymised version of the report the following month for her feedback - but the former Luxembourg MEP contested this report and unsuccessfully requested access to the entire file. In April 2023, the head of the European Parliament sanctioned Semedo for the second time during the 2019-2024 mandate for psychological harassment, and imposed a fine of €3,380, despite Semedo strongly denying any wrongdoing. The General Court has now ruled that a person accused of harassment is entitled to a summary of the statements of witnesses heard during the investigation. The EU's top court also said that the summary of witness statements sent to Semedo "did not reflect the substance of the testimony given during the investigation" and that such decisions were flawed by irregularities affecting Semedo's rights of defence. The Court recalled that the failure of the Committee or the President of the Parliament to disclose documents in the file on which the authorities relied "inevitably affects" the legality of the measures adopted. In January 2021, the Luxembourg politician was also suspended for 15 days following allegations of psychological harassment by three parliamentary assistants. Following the decision, she resigned from Prime Minister Xavier Bettel's Democratic Party but remained an independent MEP in the parliament's Liberal group. The European Parliament will have up to two months to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Court of Justice. "The European Parliament took note of the ruling and is looking into it," its press service said.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Do you know the state drink of Massachusetts? It's not what you think
There are some Massachusetts state symbols you probably know. The state flower is the Mayflower, in a nod to the ship the Mayflower. The state dog is the Boston Terrier, which also happens to the the first purebred American dog breed. The state dessert is the Boston Cream Pie, and the state donut is the Boston Cream donut. But, do you know the official state beverage? Here's the Commonwealth's official state beverage and why. Massachusetts' official state drink is cranberry juice, according to the Secretary of State's website. Cranberry juice was made the state's official beverage on May 4, 1970, in order to honor its cranberry industry. According to the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers' Association, cranberry agriculture has been growing in Massachusetts for over 200 years. Pun not intended. The cranberry is also our state berry, as it was made so on July 11, 1994 by the General Court, the Secretary's website said.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Keith Shannon, repeated the sentiment to Wicked Local media partner WCVB in a report last year. You can honor the Commonwealth's state drink by introducing it as a delicious mixer into a cocktails or mocktails you may have at your next social function. The Vodka Cranberry, also known as the Cape Codder, is a cocktail that is comprised of one parts vodka to five parts cranberry juice with a lime slice dropped in as a garnish. It is served over ice in a rocks glass or a highball. You could also try making a Cosmopolitan, which consists of vodka, cranberry juice, Cointreau (also known as triple sec) and lime juice. It is shaken then served in a cocktail glass with an orange swirl. If you're in the mood for a Thanksgiving throwback, you could always make a Harvest Spice Punch. It's a holiday treat that is made of cinnamon whiskey, cranberry juice, frozen cranberries, ginger ale, red wine and whiskey, stirred and served in a punch bowl. For exact measurements: Thanksgiving cocktails and mocktail recipes: Festive flavors featuring apple, cranberry, pumpkin Mike Snider contributed to the reporting of this story. Rin Velasco is a trending reporter. She can be reached at rvelasco@ This article originally appeared on Cape Cod Times: MA's state drink is cranberry juice. How to use it in a cocktail
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Cellphones in schools are a big problem. New Hampshire has a chance to lead on the solution.
"To suggest that even moderate smartphone use is harmless is akin to arguing that a few cigarettes are acceptable." (Photo by Daniel de) The legislative process is much like playing an accordion. At times the process is on a long, stretched-out timetable where institutional vigor hits a low note. Other times the process moves swiftly, screeching as if compressed in response to an urgent issue. It is in the later part of this metaphor that the New Hampshire General Court finds itself over the issue of cellphones in public schools. The General Court and Gov. Kelly Ayotte appear poised to swiftly pass legislation to regulate student cellphone use in public schools. Some may dismiss this as a flash-in-the-pan issue, political posturing, or a backdoor attempt to infringe upon freedom of speech. This may even appear to some as an issue that lies outside of the purview of government intervention, an issue of self-control. These arguments are flat wrong. This issue is one of the most salient and concerning problems of the 21st century. A problem that has yet to bear the full fruit of its wide-ranging consequences. At this point in the public debate, the brain-based science is quite clear about the harmful effects that cellphones have on young minds. To be clear, current research examines the novel effect smartphones, colloquially referred to as cellphones, have on developing minds. This technological innovation sits at the heart of this issue. Social psychologists Jean Twenge and John Haidt are at the forefront of this research. They have extensively documented the devastating effects of smartphone use on adolescent mental health, impulsivity, focus, and social development. The tech environment in which Generations Z and Alpha have been raised has profoundly altered their cognitive and emotional landscapes, leaving them more anxious, distracted, and socially isolated than any previous generation. Twenge's research further highlights how the rise of social media and smartphone accessibility have correlated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm among adolescents. Haidt's work hints at broader civic implications. A generation raised on fleeting digital interactions will struggle with deeper, more meaningful engagement in both personal and political spheres. Despite these startling conclusions, we have failed Generations Z and Alpha. Educators, parents, politicians, and community members have stood idly by as smartphones have eroded attention spans, exacerbated social toxicity, and reshaped childhood development. To suggest that even moderate smartphone use is harmless is akin to arguing that a few cigarettes are acceptable – an outmoded and insidious mindset. It is not enough to suggest that students simply need better impulse-control. The addictive design of social media apps exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of young minds, making self-regulation nearly impossible. Schools have increasingly become the frontline of this issue where educators struggle to maintain student focus in the face of an all-consuming digital presence. Without intervention, the next generation will face even greater hurdles in focus, intellectual perseverance, and meaningful human connection. The primary objection by those who oppose a regulatory response is that the process will act as an end run around free speech protections. Forcing tech and social media companies to develop products within a 'duty of care' framework to mitigate harms is considered a slippery slope. Critics argue that it could lead to stifling regulation and violations of creative rights. This argument might have some validity when it comes to the general public's interaction with tech and social media. After all, an adult has the choice to consent to using specific pieces of technology. However, this is not what this issue is about. This issue is about vulnerable minds having unregulated access to a developmentally harmful product within an environment that is supposed to be nurturing their intellectual growth. Just like harmful substances and products have age and health restrictions, social media and smartphones should be held to the same standards. The consequences of inaction extend far beyond academic performance. The erosion of deep focus and intellectual perseverance threatens not only individual success but also civic and economic stability. The ability to engage in sustained, reasoned discourse is essential to the health of a republic, yet we are raising a generation that struggles to sustain attention long enough to read a book, let alone deliberate on complex societal issues. Moreover, the economic implications of a generation unable to sustain focus and persevere through challenges are staggering. Employers across industries already report difficulties in hiring young professionals who can engage in sustained critical thinking, manage complex work, and maintain professional interactions without digital distractions. If we do not address this crisis, we will see long-term damage to workforce productivity and innovation. These generational harms might be inadvertently setting the table for an aggressive incursion of artificial intelligence within the workforce. This is not an issue that can be left to individual schools, teachers, or even parents alone. It is a collective action problem that demands systemic solutions. A school-by-school or district-by-district approach is inadequate. A true solution will include efforts to educate parents on digital well-being, a rating and age-gating system for addictive content, increased outdoor playtime for all grades, and policies that hold social media companies accountable for user harms. If we acknowledge the full scope of this crisis, broader legislative action must follow – addressing digital harm and ensuring future generations develop healthy digital habits. Political leadership is desperately needed at the state and federal levels. It is time for the legislative accordion to compress and bring about vigorous and swift results. The New Hampshire General Court must take a leadership role within the national movement to protect future generations from the harms of unregulated cellphone use in public schools.
