window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"jmyers": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "232",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "232",
"found": true
},
"name": "John Myers",
"firstName": "John",
"lastName": "Myers",
"slug": "jmyers",
"email": "jmyers@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": "John Myers is Senior Editor of KQED's new California Politics and Government Desk. A veteran of almost two decades of political coverage, he was KQED's longest serving statehouse bureau chief and recently was political editor for Sacramento's ABC affiliate, News10 (KXTV). John was moderator of the only 2014 gubernatorial debate, and was named by \u003cem>The Washington Post\u003c/em> to two \"Best Of\" lists: the 2015 list of top state politics reporters and 2014's list of America's most influential statehouse reporters.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c0ac98482caf0b8229a792662b38722a?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "johnmyers",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "John Myers | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c0ac98482caf0b8229a792662b38722a?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c0ac98482caf0b8229a792662b38722a?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jmyers"
},
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_california-supreme-court": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_548",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "548",
"score": 10.400432
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 557,
"slug": "california-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "California Supreme Court",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 5
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=california-supreme-court",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 5
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_58251": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_58251",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "58251",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1330709996000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "calif-high-court-to-review-pharmaceutical-cos-paying-to-kill-generics",
"title": "Calif High Court to Review Pharmaceutical Companies Paying to Kill Generics",
"publishDate": 1330709996,
"format": "aside",
"headTitle": "Calif High Court to Review Pharmaceutical Companies Paying to Kill Generics | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>By Bernice Yeung, \u003ca href=\"http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/state-court-examine-pay-delay-deals-drugmakers-15133\">California Watch\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California is the first state to examine whether pharmaceutical companies can pay competitors to \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make or sell cheaper generic versions of their prescription drugs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_58256\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://www.flickr.com/photos/grumpy-puddin/5161819684/sizes/m/in/photostream/\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/03/pillsGrumpy-PUddinFlickr-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"pillsGrumpy-PUddinFlickr\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-58256\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Grumpy-Pudding/Flickr\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The California Supreme Court last month \u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/83404641/CIPROGrant\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">agreed to review\u003c/a> a 10-year-old class-action lawsuit involving the antibiotic Cipro (\u003ca href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000878/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ciprofloxacin\u003c/a>), which originally was manufactured by drugmaker Bayer. The suit argues that it was illegal for Bayer to pay a competitor to stay out of the market as part of a settlement in a legal dispute over the Cipro patent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The deal forced hundreds of thousands of Californians to collectively overpay millions of dollars for the drug, the lawsuit claimed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Without generic competition, drug prices are enormously high,” said Joseph Saveri, an attorney with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who is representing California consumers in the case. “These agreements are instrumental in keeping them enormously high.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The class-action case stems from a 1996 settlement of a patent dispute over Cipro between Bayer and Barr Laboratories, which was planning to sell a generic version of the antibiotic. After five years of litigation – and in light of projections that Bayer could lose about $1 billion in profits over several years if a generic were to step into the market – the companies settled the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The terms of the agreement involved Bayer paying Barr nearly $400 million to delay making or selling the generic until after the expiration of the patent in December 2003. Between 1997 and the end of 2003, Bayer raised the price of Cipro by 16 percent and made a profit of about $5 billion, according to court documents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This practice of paying pharmaceutical competitors to delay entry into the market is not unusual. In fiscal year 2011, 28 of these so-called \u003ca href=\"http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/10/mma.shtm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">“pay-for-delay” arrangements\u003c/a> were inked. They involved 25 drugs that had combined annual U.S. sales of more than $9 billion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These types of settlements have been criticized by government agencies ranging from the \u003ca href=\"http://www.ftc.gov/os/testimony/100727antitrustoversight.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Federal Trade Commission [PDF]\u003c/a> to the \u003ca href=\"http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f247700/247708.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">U.S. Department of Justice\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=2022\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California attorney general’s office\u003c/a>. The FTC estimates that as a result of these pay-for-delay deals, American consumers pay an additional $3.5 billion for prescription drugs each year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Drugmakers have largely prevailed when these arrangements are challenged in federal courts. Over the course of defending against the class-action case in California courts in the past decade, Bayer has won in both the trial and appeals courts with judges relying on federal case law. Bayer said the rulings illustrate the legality of these settlements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Bayer believes that the decisions of the trial and appellate courts are correct and will vigorously defend those decisions before the Supreme Court of California,” Bayer spokeswoman Marcy Funk wrote in an e-mail.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Drugmakers Hoechst Marion Roussel, The Rugby Group and Watson Pharmaceuticals, which subsequently purchased The Rugby Group, also are named in the lawsuit because they supposedly received a portion of the Bayer payments to Barr. They did not return requests for comment through their attorneys.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In making the recent argument for California Supreme Court review, attorneys representing the state’s consumers argued that while some federal courts may find these payment settlements permissible, they’re ultimately illegal under California antitrust law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“California law does \u003cem>not\u003c/em> authorize or condone settlements that violate public policy, particularly a settlement where competitors are paid off to prevent competition,” stated \u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/83404594/Cipro-petition-for-CA-Supe-Ct-Review\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">documents\u003c/a> filed by attorneys for consumers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal experts said the Cipro case is an example of the ways that federal and state antitrust legal case law and trends have diverged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal antitrust law “moves around with trends in politics, economic theory,” said University of San Francisco law professor Jesse W. Markham Jr. while state antitrust statutes like California’s Cartwright Act have tended to take a broader view of what is considered an illegal, monopolistic practice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We live under a federal judiciary that has widely adopted a laissez-faire economic theory, so the federal antitrust laws that we have now are the most feeble that we’ve ever had,” Markham said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Given this general split between state and federal courts on antitrust law, the Cipro case is “potentially very significant,” Mark A. Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, wrote in an e-mail.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If reverse payments are declared illegal in California, it may affect the behavior of pharmaceutical companies nationwide, because they will face liability in California if they continue to enter into such agreements,” wrote Lemley, who wrote an \u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/83404664/Amicus-Cipro\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">amicus brief\u003c/a> on behalf of 78 law professors arguing that the settlements are illegal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A ruling in this case could come as early as this fall, and regardless of the outcome, the financial effects won’t be nominal. According to a January Government Accountability Office \u003ca href=\"http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-371R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">report\u003c/a>, Americans spent $307 billion on prescription drugs in 2010, which accounted for about 12 percent of all health care spending. The study also noted that substituting generic drugs for brand-name versions between 1999 and 2010 saved consumers more than $1 trillion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem> Bernice Yeung is an investigative journalist for \u003ca href=\"http://californiawatch.org/\">California Watch\u003c/a>.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1726010425,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 22,
"wordCount": 890
},
"headData": {
"title": "Calif High Court to Review Pharmaceutical Companies Paying to Kill Generics | KQED",
"description": "By Bernice Yeung, California Watch California is the first state to examine whether pharmaceutical companies can pay competitors to not make or sell cheaper generic versions of their prescription drugs. The California Supreme Court last month agreed to review a 10-year-old class-action lawsuit involving the antibiotic Cipro (ciprofloxacin), which originally was manufactured by drugmaker Bayer. The suit argues that it was illegal for Bayer to pay a competitor to stay out of the market as part of a settlement in a legal dispute over the Cipro patent. The deal forced hundreds of thousands of Californians to collectively overpay millions of dollars for",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Calif High Court to Review Pharmaceutical Companies Paying to Kill Generics",
"datePublished": "2012-03-02T09:39:56-08:00",
"dateModified": "2024-09-10T16:20:25-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"path": "/news/58251/calif-high-court-to-review-pharmaceutical-cos-paying-to-kill-generics",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>By Bernice Yeung, \u003ca href=\"http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/state-court-examine-pay-delay-deals-drugmakers-15133\">California Watch\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California is the first state to examine whether pharmaceutical companies can pay competitors to \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make or sell cheaper generic versions of their prescription drugs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_58256\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://www.flickr.com/photos/grumpy-puddin/5161819684/sizes/m/in/photostream/\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/03/pillsGrumpy-PUddinFlickr-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"pillsGrumpy-PUddinFlickr\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-58256\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Grumpy-Pudding/Flickr\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The California Supreme Court last month \u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/83404641/CIPROGrant\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">agreed to review\u003c/a> a 10-year-old class-action lawsuit involving the antibiotic Cipro (\u003ca href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000878/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ciprofloxacin\u003c/a>), which originally was manufactured by drugmaker Bayer. The suit argues that it was illegal for Bayer to pay a competitor to stay out of the market as part of a settlement in a legal dispute over the Cipro patent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The deal forced hundreds of thousands of Californians to collectively overpay millions of dollars for the drug, the lawsuit claimed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Without generic competition, drug prices are enormously high,” said Joseph Saveri, an attorney with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who is representing California consumers in the case. “These agreements are instrumental in keeping them enormously high.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The class-action case stems from a 1996 settlement of a patent dispute over Cipro between Bayer and Barr Laboratories, which was planning to sell a generic version of the antibiotic. After five years of litigation – and in light of projections that Bayer could lose about $1 billion in profits over several years if a generic were to step into the market – the companies settled the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The terms of the agreement involved Bayer paying Barr nearly $400 million to delay making or selling the generic until after the expiration of the patent in December 2003. Between 1997 and the end of 2003, Bayer raised the price of Cipro by 16 percent and made a profit of about $5 billion, according to court documents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This practice of paying pharmaceutical competitors to delay entry into the market is not unusual. In fiscal year 2011, 28 of these so-called \u003ca href=\"http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/10/mma.shtm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">“pay-for-delay” arrangements\u003c/a> were inked. They involved 25 drugs that had combined annual U.S. sales of more than $9 billion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These types of settlements have been criticized by government agencies ranging from the \u003ca href=\"http://www.ftc.gov/os/testimony/100727antitrustoversight.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Federal Trade Commission [PDF]\u003c/a> to the \u003ca href=\"http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f247700/247708.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">U.S. Department of Justice\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=2022\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California attorney general’s office\u003c/a>. The FTC estimates that as a result of these pay-for-delay deals, American consumers pay an additional $3.5 billion for prescription drugs each year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Drugmakers have largely prevailed when these arrangements are challenged in federal courts. Over the course of defending against the class-action case in California courts in the past decade, Bayer has won in both the trial and appeals courts with judges relying on federal case law. Bayer said the rulings illustrate the legality of these settlements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Bayer believes that the decisions of the trial and appellate courts are correct and will vigorously defend those decisions before the Supreme Court of California,” Bayer spokeswoman Marcy Funk wrote in an e-mail.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Drugmakers Hoechst Marion Roussel, The Rugby Group and Watson Pharmaceuticals, which subsequently purchased The Rugby Group, also are named in the lawsuit because they supposedly received a portion of the Bayer payments to Barr. They did not return requests for comment through their attorneys.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In making the recent argument for California Supreme Court review, attorneys representing the state’s consumers argued that while some federal courts may find these payment settlements permissible, they’re ultimately illegal under California antitrust law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“California law does \u003cem>not\u003c/em> authorize or condone settlements that violate public policy, particularly a settlement where competitors are paid off to prevent competition,” stated \u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/83404594/Cipro-petition-for-CA-Supe-Ct-Review\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">documents\u003c/a> filed by attorneys for consumers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal experts said the Cipro case is an example of the ways that federal and state antitrust legal case law and trends have diverged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal antitrust law “moves around with trends in politics, economic theory,” said University of San Francisco law professor Jesse W. Markham Jr. while state antitrust statutes like California’s Cartwright Act have tended to take a broader view of what is considered an illegal, monopolistic practice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We live under a federal judiciary that has widely adopted a laissez-faire economic theory, so the federal antitrust laws that we have now are the most feeble that we’ve ever had,” Markham said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Given this general split between state and federal courts on antitrust law, the Cipro case is “potentially very significant,” Mark A. Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, wrote in an e-mail.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If reverse payments are declared illegal in California, it may affect the behavior of pharmaceutical companies nationwide, because they will face liability in California if they continue to enter into such agreements,” wrote Lemley, who wrote an \u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/83404664/Amicus-Cipro\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">amicus brief\u003c/a> on behalf of 78 law professors arguing that the settlements are illegal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A ruling in this case could come as early as this fall, and regardless of the outcome, the financial effects won’t be nominal. According to a January Government Accountability Office \u003ca href=\"http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-371R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">report\u003c/a>, Americans spent $307 billion on prescription drugs in 2010, which accounted for about 12 percent of all health care spending. The study also noted that substituting generic drugs for brand-name versions between 1999 and 2010 saved consumers more than $1 trillion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem> Bernice Yeung is an investigative journalist for \u003ca href=\"http://californiawatch.org/\">California Watch\u003c/a>.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/58251/calif-high-court-to-review-pharmaceutical-cos-paying-to-kill-generics",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_1758",
"news_457",
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_18543"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_52575": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_52575",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "52575",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1326220828000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1326220828,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Today's California Supreme Court Redistricting Case Explained",
"title": "Today's California Supreme Court Redistricting Case Explained",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/redistricting.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-52625\" title=\"redistricting\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/redistricting.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>The California Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in \u003cem>Vandermost v. Bowen\u003c/em> , a rather complicated case related to the redistricting lines that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission drew last year, and which the state Republican Party is none too happy about. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Our Sacramento Bureau Chief John Myers was at the courtroom \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/01/10/california-supreme-court-redistricting-case/#tweet\">\u003cstrong>tweeting\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>. His blog post on today's arguments is now up. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It was a debate inside the chambers of the state's highest court that only legal beagles and redistricting junkies would love,\" Myers writes. If either of those describes you, \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2012/01/10/the-supreme-question-which-senate-districts-for-2012/\">\u003cstrong>click here to read on\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier, Myers explained what's at stake in the case:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>As everyone will remember, voters stepped in and stripped the legislature of its power to draw political boundaries, first in 2008 with Prop 11 and then in 2010 with Prop 20, handing the task to an independent citizens commission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In those two measures there is specific language that lays out what happens if the maps are challenged in court and what happens if someone tries to overturn them by qualifying a referendum through the ballot. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That's where we are now: We have a group of Republicans that have filed a ballot referendum, and gathered signatures in the process of being verified and counted to see if the measure qualifies for the November ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so the question in front of the state Supreme Court court this morning is what happens while that process is moving forward. What happens if the supporters of that referendum think it is likely to qualify for the ballot, and what happens if it actually does qualify for the ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because the supporters of this referendum (and a lawsuit challenging the maps as well) contend that the law now says the disputed state senate maps drawn by the independent commission cannot be used in 2012 if they're being challenged with a ballot referendum. They say the state Supreme Court would have to step in and draw their own maps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The defendants in the case are Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and the state of California through the attorney general's office. They're going to make the case that the court does not have to step in and draw new temporary maps for the state senate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the end of the day, this is really a fight over what political districts are drawn to elect members of the California State Senate in 2012. Will the voters be looking at districts that were drawn by the independent citizens commission or will they have to use districts that are temporary and drawn by the California Supreme Court, or possibly even the old districts, which have existed for the last 10 years?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs, which are a Republican activist from Orange County supported by other members of the California Republican Party, believe the court has to step in and block the use of those state senate maps drawn by the independent commission. They believe that the language of Prop 20 mandates that the court step in and block the use of them, even temporarily, until the voters get to weigh in on the referendum that they hope will be on the November ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are two practical effects to this entire case: First, what happens to candidates? You've got candidates already lining up to run for the California State Senate in 2012; in some cases they have taken out the filing papers already, and they're planning to run based on where they think the district boundaries are that were set by the citizens redistricting commission. If the court intervenes, those candidates may find they no longer live in that district or that the district lines have changed in a way that they no longer want to run for office. So one practical argument you'll hear is that this process is already underway and it's too late to redraw the lines for 2012.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think you'll see the court rule sooner rather than later, because we are getting very tight here on time in terms of elections for 2012. We already have candidates taking out filing papers and raising money, and ballot documents are being drafted in counties across California. So if those senate districts that the commission drew are going to be blocked and not used, folks are going to need to know that very soon.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"tweet\">\u003c/a>Click on the play button below to replay John Myers' tweet coverage from the court...\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=2536329891/height=550/width=470\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"470px\" height=\"550px\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>http://www.calchannel.com/\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "52575 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=52575",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/01/10/california-supreme-court-redistricting-case/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 753,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 17
},
"modified": 1326228392,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The California Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Vandermost v. Bowen , a rather complicated case related to the redistricting lines that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission drew last year, and which the state Republican Party is none too happy about. Our Sacramento Bureau Chief John Myers was at the courtroom tweeting. His blog",
"title": "Today's California Supreme Court Redistricting Case Explained | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Today's California Supreme Court Redistricting Case Explained",
"datePublished": "2012-01-10T10:40:28-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-01-10T12:46:32-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-supreme-court-redistricting-case",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/52575/california-supreme-court-redistricting-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/redistricting.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-52625\" title=\"redistricting\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/redistricting.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>The California Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in \u003cem>Vandermost v. Bowen\u003c/em> , a rather complicated case related to the redistricting lines that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission drew last year, and which the state Republican Party is none too happy about. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Our Sacramento Bureau Chief John Myers was at the courtroom \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/01/10/california-supreme-court-redistricting-case/#tweet\">\u003cstrong>tweeting\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>. His blog post on today's arguments is now up. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It was a debate inside the chambers of the state's highest court that only legal beagles and redistricting junkies would love,\" Myers writes. If either of those describes you, \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2012/01/10/the-supreme-question-which-senate-districts-for-2012/\">\u003cstrong>click here to read on\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier, Myers explained what's at stake in the case:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>As everyone will remember, voters stepped in and stripped the legislature of its power to draw political boundaries, first in 2008 with Prop 11 and then in 2010 with Prop 20, handing the task to an independent citizens commission.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In those two measures there is specific language that lays out what happens if the maps are challenged in court and what happens if someone tries to overturn them by qualifying a referendum through the ballot. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That's where we are now: We have a group of Republicans that have filed a ballot referendum, and gathered signatures in the process of being verified and counted to see if the measure qualifies for the November ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so the question in front of the state Supreme Court court this morning is what happens while that process is moving forward. What happens if the supporters of that referendum think it is likely to qualify for the ballot, and what happens if it actually does qualify for the ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because the supporters of this referendum (and a lawsuit challenging the maps as well) contend that the law now says the disputed state senate maps drawn by the independent commission cannot be used in 2012 if they're being challenged with a ballot referendum. They say the state Supreme Court would have to step in and draw their own maps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The defendants in the case are Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and the state of California through the attorney general's office. They're going to make the case that the court does not have to step in and draw new temporary maps for the state senate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the end of the day, this is really a fight over what political districts are drawn to elect members of the California State Senate in 2012. Will the voters be looking at districts that were drawn by the independent citizens commission or will they have to use districts that are temporary and drawn by the California Supreme Court, or possibly even the old districts, which have existed for the last 10 years?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs, which are a Republican activist from Orange County supported by other members of the California Republican Party, believe the court has to step in and block the use of those state senate maps drawn by the independent commission. They believe that the language of Prop 20 mandates that the court step in and block the use of them, even temporarily, until the voters get to weigh in on the referendum that they hope will be on the November ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are two practical effects to this entire case: First, what happens to candidates? You've got candidates already lining up to run for the California State Senate in 2012; in some cases they have taken out the filing papers already, and they're planning to run based on where they think the district boundaries are that were set by the citizens redistricting commission. If the court intervenes, those candidates may find they no longer live in that district or that the district lines have changed in a way that they no longer want to run for office. So one practical argument you'll hear is that this process is already underway and it's too late to redraw the lines for 2012.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think you'll see the court rule sooner rather than later, because we are getting very tight here on time in terms of elections for 2012. We already have candidates taking out filing papers and raising money, and ballot documents are being drafted in counties across California. So if those senate districts that the commission drew are going to be blocked and not used, folks are going to need to know that very soon.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"tweet\">\u003c/a>Click on the play button below to replay John Myers' tweet coverage from the court...\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=2536329891/height=550/width=470\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"470px\" height=\"550px\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>http://www.calchannel.com/\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/52575/california-supreme-court-redistricting-case",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_332"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_46705": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_46705",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "46705",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1320964544000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "watch-live-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court-in-redevelopment-funds-case",
"title": "Calif. Supreme Court Case Could Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies",
"publishDate": 1320964544,
"format": "aside",
"headTitle": "Calif. Supreme Court Case Could Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO — The crux of the legal fight waged this morning in front of California’s seven Supreme Court justices seems to be who controls the fate of local redevelopment agencies: legislators or voters?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_46767\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/callsupremecourt.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/callsupremecourt.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"callsupremecourt\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" class=\"size-full wp-image-46767\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The court today. AP/Jeff Chiu\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>And even then, is that fate a zero sum game — that is, must the agencies continue to exist exactly as they are now? Or not at all?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 70-minute courtroom debate in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos rekindled much of the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/07/18/budget-lawsuit-1-redevelopment/\">four month fight\u003c/a> over the budget and its action to abolish and then resurrect — with conditions — some 400 local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) across the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The stakes are high. For the state, losing the case means another $1.7 billion in budget red ink (and that, on top of additional \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/11/california-controller-john-chiang-says-state-has-15-billion-cash-shortfall.html\">deficit pressures\u003c/a> announced elsewhere today). For RDAs, it’s either a new revenue sharing system… or total elimination.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The back-and-forth in the San Francisco courtroom seemed to hint that the justices are grappling less with whether the Legislature has the power to abolish RDAs — a power that the Court seems poised to uphold — and more with whether the budget provisions that dissolve and then reconstitute RDAs are, as the attorney for the locals argued, “joined at the hip.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that’s not a small issue, especially for redevelopment officials. If the two budget provisions (ABx26 and ABx27) can be separated, then redevelopment supporters face the very real possibility that only ABx26, the abolishment bill, survives. That would mean RDAs across the state must close up shop for good.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The redevelopment agencies took a gamble on this lawsuit,” said Ross Moody, the deputy state attorney general representing Governor Brown’s budget director. “They could’ve just accepted…the new fiscal reality that we’re all living in.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Steven Mayer, the attorney representing cities and redevelopment agencies, focused his remarks to the Court on Prop 22, saying that the two RDA budget bills circumvent the initiative “with the stroke of a pen.” He didn’t dispute the general power of the Legislature to abolish redevelopment agencies — \u003ca href=\"http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/archives/8989\">created by statute\u003c/a> in the 1940s and funded by the growth in property tax revenues from their communities — but rather argued that Prop 22 blocks the Legislature from dictating the use of redevelopment funds in the event those RDAs are dissolved.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The Legislature can’t dissolve the RDAs and take their money and divert it to non-redevelopment purposes,” Mayer told the Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_46770\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 199px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/RDASupCt-2-199x300.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/RDASupCt-2-199x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"RDASupCt-2-199x300\" width=\"199\" height=\"300\" class=\"size-full wp-image-46770\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">AP/Jeff Chiu\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But again, it’s going to be a Pyrrhic victory for redevelopment agencies if they only convince the Supreme Court that the Legislature’s power is limited to their existence. And that’s why the case is so focused on whether the two bills (abolishing agencies, resurrecting them with new revenue-sharing rules) are inseparable. Or not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legislators wrote language stating the two are separable — a point raised in a pointed exchange led by Justice Goodwin Liu. “How could it be any clearer?” said Liu after reading the relevant passage from the legislation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The attorney for the RDAs replied by quoting transcripts of the legislative debate from this summer — transcripts that he said prove several legislators only supported the budget because a compromise had been struck to offer RDAs the chance to stay in business under a revenue-sharing plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s unclear just when the high court will answer all (or some) of these questions, though we know it will be before mid January. That’s when RDAs are expected to hand over the first half of the $1.7 billion in local tax dollars. The state Department of Finance has already calculated the \u003ca href=\"http://www.dof.ca.gov/assembly_bills_26-27/view.php\">amounts expected from each redevelopment agency\u003c/a>; a spokesperson says 212 local RDAs are appealing the estimates as they now exist. Although only about 100 local agencies have notified the state that they’ll participate in the new ‘revenue sharing’ RDA system, it’s expected that if the state prevails in this case, most will do so… given that it would then be the only way to stay in business.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That assumes, though, that the Supreme Court doesn’t offer a split decision — invalidating only the ‘revenue sharing’ legislation. If that happens, local redevelopment — at least, as it’s existed in California for more than 50 years — will effectively be over.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721101351,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 16,
"wordCount": 770
},
"headData": {
"title": "Calif. Supreme Court Case Could Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies | KQED",
"description": "SAN FRANCISCO — The crux of the legal fight waged this morning in front of California’s seven Supreme Court justices seems to be who controls the fate of local redevelopment agencies: legislators or voters? And even then, is that fate a zero sum game — that is, must the agencies continue to exist exactly as",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Calif. Supreme Court Case Could Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies",
"datePublished": "2011-11-10T14:35:44-08:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-15T20:42:31-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"path": "/news/46705/watch-live-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court-in-redevelopment-funds-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO — The crux of the legal fight waged this morning in front of California’s seven Supreme Court justices seems to be who controls the fate of local redevelopment agencies: legislators or voters?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_46767\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/callsupremecourt.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/callsupremecourt.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"callsupremecourt\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" class=\"size-full wp-image-46767\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The court today. AP/Jeff Chiu\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>And even then, is that fate a zero sum game — that is, must the agencies continue to exist exactly as they are now? Or not at all?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 70-minute courtroom debate in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos rekindled much of the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/07/18/budget-lawsuit-1-redevelopment/\">four month fight\u003c/a> over the budget and its action to abolish and then resurrect — with conditions — some 400 local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) across the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The stakes are high. For the state, losing the case means another $1.7 billion in budget red ink (and that, on top of additional \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/11/california-controller-john-chiang-says-state-has-15-billion-cash-shortfall.html\">deficit pressures\u003c/a> announced elsewhere today). For RDAs, it’s either a new revenue sharing system… or total elimination.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The back-and-forth in the San Francisco courtroom seemed to hint that the justices are grappling less with whether the Legislature has the power to abolish RDAs — a power that the Court seems poised to uphold — and more with whether the budget provisions that dissolve and then reconstitute RDAs are, as the attorney for the locals argued, “joined at the hip.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that’s not a small issue, especially for redevelopment officials. If the two budget provisions (ABx26 and ABx27) can be separated, then redevelopment supporters face the very real possibility that only ABx26, the abolishment bill, survives. That would mean RDAs across the state must close up shop for good.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The redevelopment agencies took a gamble on this lawsuit,” said Ross Moody, the deputy state attorney general representing Governor Brown’s budget director. “They could’ve just accepted…the new fiscal reality that we’re all living in.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Steven Mayer, the attorney representing cities and redevelopment agencies, focused his remarks to the Court on Prop 22, saying that the two RDA budget bills circumvent the initiative “with the stroke of a pen.” He didn’t dispute the general power of the Legislature to abolish redevelopment agencies — \u003ca href=\"http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/archives/8989\">created by statute\u003c/a> in the 1940s and funded by the growth in property tax revenues from their communities — but rather argued that Prop 22 blocks the Legislature from dictating the use of redevelopment funds in the event those RDAs are dissolved.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The Legislature can’t dissolve the RDAs and take their money and divert it to non-redevelopment purposes,” Mayer told the Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_46770\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 199px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/RDASupCt-2-199x300.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/RDASupCt-2-199x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"RDASupCt-2-199x300\" width=\"199\" height=\"300\" class=\"size-full wp-image-46770\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">AP/Jeff Chiu\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But again, it’s going to be a Pyrrhic victory for redevelopment agencies if they only convince the Supreme Court that the Legislature’s power is limited to their existence. And that’s why the case is so focused on whether the two bills (abolishing agencies, resurrecting them with new revenue-sharing rules) are inseparable. Or not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legislators wrote language stating the two are separable — a point raised in a pointed exchange led by Justice Goodwin Liu. “How could it be any clearer?” said Liu after reading the relevant passage from the legislation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The attorney for the RDAs replied by quoting transcripts of the legislative debate from this summer — transcripts that he said prove several legislators only supported the budget because a compromise had been struck to offer RDAs the chance to stay in business under a revenue-sharing plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s unclear just when the high court will answer all (or some) of these questions, though we know it will be before mid January. That’s when RDAs are expected to hand over the first half of the $1.7 billion in local tax dollars. The state Department of Finance has already calculated the \u003ca href=\"http://www.dof.ca.gov/assembly_bills_26-27/view.php\">amounts expected from each redevelopment agency\u003c/a>; a spokesperson says 212 local RDAs are appealing the estimates as they now exist. Although only about 100 local agencies have notified the state that they’ll participate in the new ‘revenue sharing’ RDA system, it’s expected that if the state prevails in this case, most will do so… given that it would then be the only way to stay in business.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That assumes, though, that the Supreme Court doesn’t offer a split decision — invalidating only the ‘revenue sharing’ legislation. If that happens, local redevelopment — at least, as it’s existed in California for more than 50 years — will effectively be over.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/46705/watch-live-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court-in-redevelopment-funds-case",
"authors": [
"232"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_152",
"news_70"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_44602": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_44602",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "44602",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1319664244000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1319664244,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California Supreme Court Rejects Two GOP Challenges to Redistricting ",
"title": "California Supreme Court Rejects Two GOP Challenges to Redistricting ",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) The California Supreme Court has unanimously rejected two Republican challenges to the state's new electoral maps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/redistricting.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/redistricting.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"redistricting\" width=\"225\" height=\"225\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-44608\">\u003c/a>The state's high court on Wednesday rejected petitions challenging the validity of the state Senate and congressional redistricting maps recently adopted by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The court voted 7-0.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters approved the redistricting commission to independently draw California's legislative and congressional districts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The panel in July approved final versions of the district maps for Congress, the state Assembly and Senate, and the state Board of Equalization, which administers sales and use taxes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republican leaders contend the Senate and congressional maps failed to comply with the Voting Rights Act and claim the new maps do not meet constitutional criteria. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Related\u003c/em>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/10/26/redistricting-lawsuits-rejected/#more-10476\">\u003cstrong>Odds of redistricting survival go up dramatically\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> (John Myers, Capital Notes)\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "44602 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=44602",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/10/26/california-supreme-court-rejects-two-gop-challenges-to-redistricting/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 136,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 8
},
"modified": 1398475488,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) The California Supreme Court has unanimously rejected two Republican challenges to the state's new electoral maps. The state's high court on Wednesday rejected petitions challenging the validity of the state Senate and congressional redistricting maps recently adopted by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The court voted 7-0. Voters approved the redistricting commission",
"title": "California Supreme Court Rejects Two GOP Challenges to Redistricting | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Supreme Court Rejects Two GOP Challenges to Redistricting ",
"datePublished": "2011-10-26T14:24:04-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:24:48-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-supreme-court-rejects-two-gop-challenges-to-redistricting",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/44602/california-supreme-court-rejects-two-gop-challenges-to-redistricting",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) The California Supreme Court has unanimously rejected two Republican challenges to the state's new electoral maps.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/redistricting.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/redistricting.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"redistricting\" width=\"225\" height=\"225\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-44608\">\u003c/a>The state's high court on Wednesday rejected petitions challenging the validity of the state Senate and congressional redistricting maps recently adopted by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The court voted 7-0.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters approved the redistricting commission to independently draw California's legislative and congressional districts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The panel in July approved final versions of the district maps for Congress, the state Assembly and Senate, and the state Board of Equalization, which administers sales and use taxes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republican leaders contend the Senate and congressional maps failed to comply with the Voting Rights Act and claim the new maps do not meet constitutional criteria. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Related\u003c/em>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/10/26/redistricting-lawsuits-rejected/#more-10476\">\u003cstrong>Odds of redistricting survival go up dramatically\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> (John Myers, Capital Notes)\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/44602/california-supreme-court-rejects-two-gop-challenges-to-redistricting",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_332"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_36087": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_36087",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "36087",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1312403659000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1312403659,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Interview: Analyzing the Upcoming Legal Question That Could Kill Prop 8",
"title": "Interview: Analyzing the Upcoming Legal Question That Could Kill Prop 8",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Last week the California Supreme Court announced the next chapter in the long saga of Proposition 8 would be written September 6, when it will hear oral arguments on the question of standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_36112\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffsSM2.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-36112\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffsSM2-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The plaintiffs that sued to overturn Prop 8. (Photo: KQED/Scott Shafer)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The court's legal opinion on this issue may very well determine the fate of Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California only to be nullified by a federal district court on constitutional grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because the state of California in the persons of Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend Proposition 8, the law's original sponsors took it upon themselves to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, which promptly asked for guidance from the California Supreme Court on the rather arcane legal question of whether a ballot initiative's sponsors had the right to defend a measure in the absence of support from state officials.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that's where we are. Earlier this week, The California Report's Scott Shafer asked UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar to explain the legal issue of standing as it pertains to the Proposition 8 case. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar said that If the California Supreme Court offers an opinion to the federal court that initiative sponsors don't have any special rights to standing under state law, it's likely that the federal court would accept that and the appeal by Prop 8 backers would die, because it would not have any legitimate backers under the law. They could then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it's unlikely the court would hear the case, Amar says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Listen to the interview below. An edited transcript follows each audio clip:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing1.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Vik Amar Part 1\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n[audio:http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing1.mp3|titles=prop8standing1]\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Summarize the fundamental question the court will consider\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The federal constitution limits the kinds of disputes that federal courts can hear. Article III of the constitution limits the federal courts to resolving only cases or controversies.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">Prop 8 defenders take the position \"if not us, then who?\"\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As a law professor there's a lot of things I might think about and want a legal answer for. For example, a lot of us might want an answer to the question of whether President Obama could have invoked the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt-ceiling impasse if it had come to that. But just because you want a question resolved doesn’t meant that courts can give you an answer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So in the federal courts, there's developed this doctrine known as standing, and unless both parties to a lawsuit have a particularized interest in its outcome, a federal court cannot weight in and speak about the legal merits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question in this case is whether the proponents of Prop 8 who sponsored it for the ballot have any distinctive interest in whether Prop 8 remains valid or not, such that they can defend it in court when the ordinary defenders of state law, the attorney general and the governor, have decided not to defend it\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Given that these proponents defended it the first time around in the lower court trial, why wouldn't they be allowed to now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To be blunt, I don't think the trial court paid a whole lot of attention to the question of whether the proponents had standing to defend the measure in the absence of the attorney general and the governor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's true that they were allowed to intervene in the case. But intervening when there's already a governor and attorney general there who presumably will defend it is different than standing to defend in the absence of those public defendants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The short of it is is that the lower court didn't really focus on this issue as much as would have been ideal. That's why when the case got to the 9th Circuit, the court saw the issue but didn't have a good record on which to resolve it, which is why the 9th Circuit has been thrashing around a little on the question, including seeking input from the California Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Is there a difference between the state's interest and voters' interest? In other words, the backers of Prop 8 are saying 'we're standing up for the voters, because no one else will…\"\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ordinarily in our government we rely on our elected representatives to represent our interests as voters. In states like California, where you have a direct democracy device like initiatives, things are a little more complicated because the very presence of an initiative suggests a belief on the part of Californians that sometimes elected officials in both the legislative and/or executive branch can't always be counted on to vindicate what the people of California really want.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So Prop 8 defenders or proponents take the position \"if not us, then who?\" Should the voters of California pass a law that should be allowed to die on the vine because the elected representatives aren't doing the people's work?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">The question: Are Prop 8 sponsors good surrogates for the voters when the voters never gave them that power?\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>I think that's a plausible argument. The problem, though, is that the voters who passed Prop 8 never explicitly deputized the proponents of Prop 8 to speak on behalf of the people. Millions of people voted for Prop 8 for all kinds of reasons. And the people who voted for Prop 8 and made it law may not fully agree with the people who wrote and proposed it, so the question is whether they are good representatives or surrogates for the voters when the voters never gave them that power within the text of the proposition itself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think this would have been an easier question if Prop 8 had had a provision in it that said in the event that this proposition passes and is challenged in court, and the attorney general and the governor do not defend, then the proponents of the measure who sponsored it for the ballot shall be authorized to defend it. That would be a much easier case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The same day that Prop 8 passed, the California redistricting commission measure passed, and that did have a provision in it that contemplated the possibility of a legal challenge and did empower the proponents of the measure to defend it in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the one hand, hindsight is 20-20, but this is an issue that careful initiative thinkers could have had on their minds.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing2.mp\">\u003cstrong>Vik Amar Part 2\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n[audio:http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing2.mp3|titles=prop8standing2]\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this issue of standing with regard to Arizona's English-only law. How is that relevant here if at all? \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's very important because ultimately the question of whether the Prop 8 sponsors have standing in federal court is one of federal constitutional law over which the Supreme Court could have the final say if it wants to take the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Arizona decision over a decade ago suggests that the Supreme Court is a little bit skeptical of initiative-sponsor standing in federal court. But the Supreme Court in that case did not actually render a holding; it had some language in that case that indicated that at that moment the justices didn't seem to think that initiative backers should have standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But in this case, that is going to be explored in more depth and the outcome is going to turn on that issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's one other possible difference. As the 9th Circuit recognized when it asked the California Supreme Court for some input: this body or area of law involves a complicated interplay between federal standing doctrine and state law. So it's possible that Arizona state law is different than California state law in that in California, perhaps initiative sponsors have more rights and a stronger interest in vindicating the initiative that they sponsored.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That's exactly what the California Supreme court is being asked to weigh in on: How distinctive, how important are he sponsors of initiatives under California state law? And then the 9th circuit federal court will use that information to help it decide whether standing exists for the purposes of a federal lawsuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Has this issue been dealt with by the California Supreme Court before?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has had a few sentences in a few cases that might tend to suggest that standing under state law exists on the part of initiative sponsors. But just as was true in the Arizona case, there really is no clear holding in the California Supreme Court, which is why it has a lot of leeway to come up with an answer that it thinks is best today.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing3.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Vik Amar Part 3\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n[audio:http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing3.mp3|titles=prop8standing3]\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In the case of legal standing, is there a liberal-conservative split?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Questions like standing are complicated to examine from the perspective of political or ideological inclination. On the one hand, you could say that conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want courts meddling with what legislatures do. So they should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to courts to reduce litigation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, a conservative might want a standing doctrine to be more generous to Prop 8 backers, to make sure that conservative initiatives like Prop 8 aren't killed by liberal elected politicians like attorneys general and governors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So standing and doctrines like it sometimes invert political instincts, because these doctrines are manipulable enough that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other standing cases down the road, where the parties may be different and your inclinations as to a result may be different.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "36087 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=36087",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/08/03/interview-analyzing-the-legal-question-to-be-decided-by-the-calif-supreme-court-that-could-kill-prop-8/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1693,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 39
},
"modified": 1312407672,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Last week the California Supreme Court announced the next chapter in the long saga of Proposition 8 would be written September 6, when it will hear oral arguments on the question of standing. The court's legal opinion on this issue may very well determine the fate of Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that banned same-sex",
"title": "Interview: Analyzing the Upcoming Legal Question That Could Kill Prop 8 | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Interview: Analyzing the Upcoming Legal Question That Could Kill Prop 8",
"datePublished": "2011-08-03T13:34:19-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-08-03T14:41:12-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "interview-analyzing-the-legal-question-to-be-decided-by-the-calif-supreme-court-that-could-kill-prop-8",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/36087/interview-analyzing-the-legal-question-to-be-decided-by-the-calif-supreme-court-that-could-kill-prop-8",
"audioUrl": "http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2011/08/prop8standing1.mp3",
"audioDuration": null,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Last week the California Supreme Court announced the next chapter in the long saga of Proposition 8 would be written September 6, when it will hear oral arguments on the question of standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_36112\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffsSM2.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-36112\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffsSM2-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The plaintiffs that sued to overturn Prop 8. (Photo: KQED/Scott Shafer)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The court's legal opinion on this issue may very well determine the fate of Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California only to be nullified by a federal district court on constitutional grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because the state of California in the persons of Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend Proposition 8, the law's original sponsors took it upon themselves to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, which promptly asked for guidance from the California Supreme Court on the rather arcane legal question of whether a ballot initiative's sponsors had the right to defend a measure in the absence of support from state officials.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that's where we are. Earlier this week, The California Report's Scott Shafer asked UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar to explain the legal issue of standing as it pertains to the Proposition 8 case. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar said that If the California Supreme Court offers an opinion to the federal court that initiative sponsors don't have any special rights to standing under state law, it's likely that the federal court would accept that and the appeal by Prop 8 backers would die, because it would not have any legitimate backers under the law. They could then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it's unlikely the court would hear the case, Amar says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Listen to the interview below. An edited transcript follows each audio clip:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing1.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Vik Amar Part 1\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "audio",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing1.mp3|titles=prop8standing1"
},
"numeric": [
":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing1.mp3|titles=prop8standing1"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Summarize the fundamental question the court will consider\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The federal constitution limits the kinds of disputes that federal courts can hear. Article III of the constitution limits the federal courts to resolving only cases or controversies.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">Prop 8 defenders take the position \"if not us, then who?\"\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As a law professor there's a lot of things I might think about and want a legal answer for. For example, a lot of us might want an answer to the question of whether President Obama could have invoked the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt-ceiling impasse if it had come to that. But just because you want a question resolved doesn’t meant that courts can give you an answer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So in the federal courts, there's developed this doctrine known as standing, and unless both parties to a lawsuit have a particularized interest in its outcome, a federal court cannot weight in and speak about the legal merits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question in this case is whether the proponents of Prop 8 who sponsored it for the ballot have any distinctive interest in whether Prop 8 remains valid or not, such that they can defend it in court when the ordinary defenders of state law, the attorney general and the governor, have decided not to defend it\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Given that these proponents defended it the first time around in the lower court trial, why wouldn't they be allowed to now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To be blunt, I don't think the trial court paid a whole lot of attention to the question of whether the proponents had standing to defend the measure in the absence of the attorney general and the governor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's true that they were allowed to intervene in the case. But intervening when there's already a governor and attorney general there who presumably will defend it is different than standing to defend in the absence of those public defendants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The short of it is is that the lower court didn't really focus on this issue as much as would have been ideal. That's why when the case got to the 9th Circuit, the court saw the issue but didn't have a good record on which to resolve it, which is why the 9th Circuit has been thrashing around a little on the question, including seeking input from the California Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Is there a difference between the state's interest and voters' interest? In other words, the backers of Prop 8 are saying 'we're standing up for the voters, because no one else will…\"\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ordinarily in our government we rely on our elected representatives to represent our interests as voters. In states like California, where you have a direct democracy device like initiatives, things are a little more complicated because the very presence of an initiative suggests a belief on the part of Californians that sometimes elected officials in both the legislative and/or executive branch can't always be counted on to vindicate what the people of California really want.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So Prop 8 defenders or proponents take the position \"if not us, then who?\" Should the voters of California pass a law that should be allowed to die on the vine because the elected representatives aren't doing the people's work?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">The question: Are Prop 8 sponsors good surrogates for the voters when the voters never gave them that power?\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>I think that's a plausible argument. The problem, though, is that the voters who passed Prop 8 never explicitly deputized the proponents of Prop 8 to speak on behalf of the people. Millions of people voted for Prop 8 for all kinds of reasons. And the people who voted for Prop 8 and made it law may not fully agree with the people who wrote and proposed it, so the question is whether they are good representatives or surrogates for the voters when the voters never gave them that power within the text of the proposition itself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think this would have been an easier question if Prop 8 had had a provision in it that said in the event that this proposition passes and is challenged in court, and the attorney general and the governor do not defend, then the proponents of the measure who sponsored it for the ballot shall be authorized to defend it. That would be a much easier case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The same day that Prop 8 passed, the California redistricting commission measure passed, and that did have a provision in it that contemplated the possibility of a legal challenge and did empower the proponents of the measure to defend it in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the one hand, hindsight is 20-20, but this is an issue that careful initiative thinkers could have had on their minds.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing2.mp\">\u003cstrong>Vik Amar Part 2\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "audio",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing2.mp3|titles=prop8standing2"
},
"numeric": [
":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing2.mp3|titles=prop8standing2"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this issue of standing with regard to Arizona's English-only law. How is that relevant here if at all? \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's very important because ultimately the question of whether the Prop 8 sponsors have standing in federal court is one of federal constitutional law over which the Supreme Court could have the final say if it wants to take the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Arizona decision over a decade ago suggests that the Supreme Court is a little bit skeptical of initiative-sponsor standing in federal court. But the Supreme Court in that case did not actually render a holding; it had some language in that case that indicated that at that moment the justices didn't seem to think that initiative backers should have standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But in this case, that is going to be explored in more depth and the outcome is going to turn on that issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's one other possible difference. As the 9th Circuit recognized when it asked the California Supreme Court for some input: this body or area of law involves a complicated interplay between federal standing doctrine and state law. So it's possible that Arizona state law is different than California state law in that in California, perhaps initiative sponsors have more rights and a stronger interest in vindicating the initiative that they sponsored.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That's exactly what the California Supreme court is being asked to weigh in on: How distinctive, how important are he sponsors of initiatives under California state law? And then the 9th circuit federal court will use that information to help it decide whether standing exists for the purposes of a federal lawsuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Has this issue been dealt with by the California Supreme Court before?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has had a few sentences in a few cases that might tend to suggest that standing under state law exists on the part of initiative sponsors. But just as was true in the Arizona case, there really is no clear holding in the California Supreme Court, which is why it has a lot of leeway to come up with an answer that it thinks is best today.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing3.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Vik Amar Part 3\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "audio",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing3.mp3|titles=prop8standing3"
},
"numeric": [
":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/prop8standing3.mp3|titles=prop8standing3"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In the case of legal standing, is there a liberal-conservative split?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Questions like standing are complicated to examine from the perspective of political or ideological inclination. On the one hand, you could say that conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want courts meddling with what legislatures do. So they should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to courts to reduce litigation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, a conservative might want a standing doctrine to be more generous to Prop 8 backers, to make sure that conservative initiatives like Prop 8 aren't killed by liberal elected politicians like attorneys general and governors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So standing and doctrines like it sometimes invert political instincts, because these doctrines are manipulable enough that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other standing cases down the road, where the parties may be different and your inclinations as to a result may be different.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/36087/interview-analyzing-the-legal-question-to-be-decided-by-the-calif-supreme-court-that-could-kill-prop-8",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_35939": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_35939",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35939",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1312305604000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1312305604,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Prop 8 Standing Question May Be a Close Call; Oral Arguments Set for Sept 6",
"title": "Analysis: Prop 8 Standing Question May Be a Close Call; Oral Arguments Set for Sept 6",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Months after agreeing to a request by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court has set a date (September 6th) for oral arguments to consider whether state law allows proponents of ballot measures to defend them in court when no one else will.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_35949\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-35949\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffs\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffs.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"150\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs. (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 is awaiting the State Supreme Court's decision on standing before it returns to the merits of this appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar says the legal question is complicated and is not easily categorized in liberal versus conservative terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On the one hand you could say conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want the courts meddling with what the Legislature does,” says Amar. “So conservatives should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to federal courts to reduce litigation and reduce lawsuits.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, says Amar, “a conservative may want standing doctrine to be a little more generous to Prop. 8 backers to make sure initiatives like Prop. 8 aren’t killed by liberal elected politicians, like attorneys general and governors. So standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts because these doctrines are easy enough to manipulate so that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other bind cases down the road … where your result inclinations may be different.”\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">Standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts.\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>If the court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not give initiative proponents legal standing, it’s nearly certain the Prop. 8 appeal will die. And, Amar says, the chances the U.S. Supreme Court would take up an appeal of that are \"infinitesimally small.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar adds, “the U.S. Supreme Court I think has no burning desire to weigh in on gay marriage, especially since this is only a question about California.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One other thing: In choosing September 6th, Chief Justice \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tani_Cantil-Sakauye\">Tani-Cantil Sakauye\u003c/a> signals what we all assume: Governor Brown's nominee \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=4360\">Goodwin Liu\u003c/a> will be confirmed when the Commission on Judicial Appointments meets on August 31st. In addition to Cantil-Sakauye who chairs that panel, the other members are Attorney General Kamala Harris and Presiding Justice \u003ca href=\"http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Joan_Klein\">Joan Dempsey Klein\u003c/a>, of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles), senior presiding justice of the state Courts of Appeal. The Chief Justice is a Republican. Harris and Klein are Democrats (Klein was appointed to the bench in 1978 by Jerry Brown in his first term as governor).\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This case will give us the first glimpse of how the new Chief Justice and presumably the junior member of the court, Justice-to-be-Liu, will deal with the question of same sex marriage, although the underlying issue here is standing.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "35939 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=35939",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/08/02/analysis-prop-8-standing-question-may-be-a-close-call-in-hearing-set-for-sept-6/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 505,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 11
},
"modified": 1312314715,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Months after agreeing to a request by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court has set a date (September 6th) for oral arguments to consider whether state law allows proponents of ballot measures to defend them in court when no one else will. The 9th Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge",
"title": "Analysis: Prop 8 Standing Question May Be a Close Call; Oral Arguments Set for Sept 6 | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Prop 8 Standing Question May Be a Close Call; Oral Arguments Set for Sept 6",
"datePublished": "2011-08-02T10:20:04-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-08-02T12:51:55-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "analysis-prop-8-standing-question-may-be-a-close-call-in-hearing-set-for-sept-6",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/35939/analysis-prop-8-standing-question-may-be-a-close-call-in-hearing-set-for-sept-6",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Months after agreeing to a request by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court has set a date (September 6th) for oral arguments to consider whether state law allows proponents of ballot measures to defend them in court when no one else will.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_35949\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-35949\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffs\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/Prop8plaintiffs.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"150\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs. (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 is awaiting the State Supreme Court's decision on standing before it returns to the merits of this appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar says the legal question is complicated and is not easily categorized in liberal versus conservative terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On the one hand you could say conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want the courts meddling with what the Legislature does,” says Amar. “So conservatives should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to federal courts to reduce litigation and reduce lawsuits.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, says Amar, “a conservative may want standing doctrine to be a little more generous to Prop. 8 backers to make sure initiatives like Prop. 8 aren’t killed by liberal elected politicians, like attorneys general and governors. So standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts because these doctrines are easy enough to manipulate so that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other bind cases down the road … where your result inclinations may be different.”\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">Standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts.\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>If the court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not give initiative proponents legal standing, it’s nearly certain the Prop. 8 appeal will die. And, Amar says, the chances the U.S. Supreme Court would take up an appeal of that are \"infinitesimally small.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar adds, “the U.S. Supreme Court I think has no burning desire to weigh in on gay marriage, especially since this is only a question about California.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One other thing: In choosing September 6th, Chief Justice \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tani_Cantil-Sakauye\">Tani-Cantil Sakauye\u003c/a> signals what we all assume: Governor Brown's nominee \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=4360\">Goodwin Liu\u003c/a> will be confirmed when the Commission on Judicial Appointments meets on August 31st. In addition to Cantil-Sakauye who chairs that panel, the other members are Attorney General Kamala Harris and Presiding Justice \u003ca href=\"http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Joan_Klein\">Joan Dempsey Klein\u003c/a>, of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles), senior presiding justice of the state Courts of Appeal. The Chief Justice is a Republican. Harris and Klein are Democrats (Klein was appointed to the bench in 1978 by Jerry Brown in his first term as governor).\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This case will give us the first glimpse of how the new Chief Justice and presumably the junior member of the court, Justice-to-be-Liu, will deal with the question of same sex marriage, although the underlying issue here is standing.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/35939/analysis-prop-8-standing-question-may-be-a-close-call-in-hearing-set-for-sept-6",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_35141": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_35141",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35141",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1311699105000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1311699105,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Brown Nominate UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to State Supreme Court",
"title": "Brown Nominate UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to State Supreme Court",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_35143\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 140px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/07/goodwinlu.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/07/goodwinlu.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"goodwinlu\" width=\"140\" height=\"196\" class=\"size-full wp-image-35143\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo: UC Berkeley\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown is nominating UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brown announced his pick Tuesday, calling Liu ``an extraordinary man and a distinguished legal scholar.''\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Liu previously was President Barack Obama's choice for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But that nomination was blocked by Republicans, who objected to Liu's written positions and said he was too inexperienced for the post. Liu eventually withdrew his candidacy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 40-year-old Georgia native graduated from Yale Law School. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and worked as an appellate litigator in Washington before joining the UC Berkeley faculty in 2003.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Liu would replace Justice Carlos Moreno, who announced his retirement earlier this year. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "35141 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=35141",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/07/26/brown-nominate-uc-berkeley-law-professor-goodwin-liu-to-state-supreme-court/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 135,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 7
},
"modified": 1311699641,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown is nominating UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. Brown announced his pick Tuesday, calling Liu ``an extraordinary man and a distinguished legal scholar.'' Liu previously was President Barack Obama's choice for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But that nomination was blocked by",
"title": "Brown Nominate UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to State Supreme Court | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Brown Nominate UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to State Supreme Court",
"datePublished": "2011-07-26T09:51:45-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-07-26T10:00:41-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "brown-nominate-uc-berkeley-law-professor-goodwin-liu-to-state-supreme-court",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/35141/brown-nominate-uc-berkeley-law-professor-goodwin-liu-to-state-supreme-court",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_35143\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 140px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/07/goodwinlu.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/07/goodwinlu.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"goodwinlu\" width=\"140\" height=\"196\" class=\"size-full wp-image-35143\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo: UC Berkeley\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Gov. Jerry Brown is nominating UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brown announced his pick Tuesday, calling Liu ``an extraordinary man and a distinguished legal scholar.''\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Liu previously was President Barack Obama's choice for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But that nomination was blocked by Republicans, who objected to Liu's written positions and said he was too inexperienced for the post. Liu eventually withdrew his candidacy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 40-year-old Georgia native graduated from Yale Law School. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and worked as an appellate litigator in Washington before joining the UC Berkeley faculty in 2003.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Liu would replace Justice Carlos Moreno, who announced his retirement earlier this year. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/35141/brown-nominate-uc-berkeley-law-professor-goodwin-liu-to-state-supreme-court",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_1457",
"news_30"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_29571": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_29571",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "29571",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1307054895000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "video-california-supreme-court-chief-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-comment-about-her-looks",
"title": "Video: California Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye on Legislator's Comment About Her Looks",
"publishDate": 1307054895,
"format": "aside",
"headTitle": "Video: California Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye on Legislator’s Comment About Her Looks | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>Earlier this month, Assembly Majority Leader \u003ca href=\"http://www.charlescalderon.com/\">Charles Calderon\u003c/a> (D-Whittier) found himself in hot water with women legislators and lawyers’ groups for comments he made about California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. From the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/05/two-prominent-women-lawyers-gr.html\">Sacramento Bee\u003c/a>, May 6:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Two prominent women lawyers’ groups are the latest to lambaste Assemblyman Charles Calderon for what they said were inappropriate comments about California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye at a committee hearing on Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Whittier Democrat, at the Assembly Judiciary Committee to push his controversial bill to decentralize control of California courts, said the issue wasn’t about Cantil-Sakauye.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But he also said: “It isn’t ‘Is she nice?’ ‘Cause she is. ‘Is she smart?’ ‘Cause she is. ‘Is she attractive?’ ‘Cause she is. It isn’t about that.”\n\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Yesterday, in a \u003ca href=\"http://www.nbclosangeles.com/multimedia/California_s_New_Chief_Justice_Reflects_on_First_Six_Months_Los_Angeles-122940373.html\">news interview\u003c/a> with NBC Los Angeles, the Chief Justice spoke about that comment, sounding pretty peeved. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I was troubled by that… But when it comes from majority leader in the context of a very serous hearing where courts are lining up, where all the attorneys who are there are on the side of judicial council opposing that bill and a critical question is asked, ‘why are you taking this power away from the new chief justice four months into her administration,’ that’s when that answer is unresponsive and is offensive, and is not at all responsive to the question. So that’s the problem.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Her answer starts at around :50 of the video.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Related: \u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103290900\">The Chief Justice on KQED’s Forum radio show\u003c/a>\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721147600,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 11,
"wordCount": 285
},
"headData": {
"title": "Video: California Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye on Legislator's Comment About Her Looks | KQED",
"description": "Earlier this month, Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) found himself in hot water with women legislators and lawyers’ groups for comments he made about California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. From the Sacramento Bee, May 6: Two prominent women lawyers’ groups are the latest to lambaste Assemblyman Charles Calderon for what they said",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Video: California Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye on Legislator's Comment About Her Looks",
"datePublished": "2011-06-02T15:48:15-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T09:33:20-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/29571/video-california-supreme-court-chief-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-comment-about-her-looks",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Earlier this month, Assembly Majority Leader \u003ca href=\"http://www.charlescalderon.com/\">Charles Calderon\u003c/a> (D-Whittier) found himself in hot water with women legislators and lawyers’ groups for comments he made about California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. From the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/05/two-prominent-women-lawyers-gr.html\">Sacramento Bee\u003c/a>, May 6:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Two prominent women lawyers’ groups are the latest to lambaste Assemblyman Charles Calderon for what they said were inappropriate comments about California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye at a committee hearing on Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Whittier Democrat, at the Assembly Judiciary Committee to push his controversial bill to decentralize control of California courts, said the issue wasn’t about Cantil-Sakauye.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But he also said: “It isn’t ‘Is she nice?’ ‘Cause she is. ‘Is she smart?’ ‘Cause she is. ‘Is she attractive?’ ‘Cause she is. It isn’t about that.”\n\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Yesterday, in a \u003ca href=\"http://www.nbclosangeles.com/multimedia/California_s_New_Chief_Justice_Reflects_on_First_Six_Months_Los_Angeles-122940373.html\">news interview\u003c/a> with NBC Los Angeles, the Chief Justice spoke about that comment, sounding pretty peeved. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I was troubled by that… But when it comes from majority leader in the context of a very serous hearing where courts are lining up, where all the attorneys who are there are on the side of judicial council opposing that bill and a critical question is asked, ‘why are you taking this power away from the new chief justice four months into her administration,’ that’s when that answer is unresponsive and is offensive, and is not at all responsive to the question. So that’s the problem.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Her answer starts at around :50 of the video.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Related: \u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103290900\">The Chief Justice on KQED’s Forum radio show\u003c/a>\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/29571/video-california-supreme-court-chief-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-comment-about-her-looks",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_2582",
"news_1135"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_21724": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_21724",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "21724",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1301426111000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1301426111,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Interview: California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Proposition 8",
"title": "Interview: California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Proposition 8",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_21769\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 248px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CantilSakauye.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-21769\" title=\"CantilSakauye\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CantilSakauye.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"248\" height=\"140\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo: Office of Judge Cantil-Sakauy\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Over the last year, we've heard a lot about the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/proposition-8/\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>lawsuit from a lot of people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>None of those people, however, have been the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, which will decide the key issue of whether Prop 8 proponents have \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/05/proposition-8-trial-same-sex-marriage-issue-of-standing/\">standing\u003c/a>, or the legal right to defend the measure, later this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Well, until now, that is. Scott Shafer interviewed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on KQED's \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103290900\">Forum\u003c/a> this morning, and she had some interesting things to say about the Proposition 8 lawsuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cantil-Sakauye addressed the question of standing, which the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court handed to the California justices to decide. She also defended the state court's scheduling of the case, the expedited timeline of which she called \"unprecedented,\" despite the request of anti-Prop 8 lawyers for an even faster resolution. And she addressed a frequent point of contention: whether judges let their personal beliefs interfere with their decisions:\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\n\"I believe that in my 20 years I have not ever seen a judge be influenced by his or her personal beliefs on the matter,\" she said. \"I think perhaps there might be an evolution of a judge, so that one who is a new and inexperienced judge is going to face those questions for the first time, and that in facing those questions for first time is going to have to harken back to his or her oath, and remember that you are making these decisions on these issues regardless of how political they are based on the constitution and the rule of law. Over time..that becomes easier and easier and easier.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We're not a particularly political group,\" she added. \"Our focus is really narrow.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Listen to the segment:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CalSupremeCourtJustice.mp3\">\u003cem>California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Proposition 8\u003c/em>\u003c/a>[audio:http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CalSupremeCourtJustice.mp3]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The full show \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103290900\">archive\u003c/a> will be available later today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Related\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202487469590\">Cantil-Sakauye Wants to Shake Things Up\u003c/a> (Law.com)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "21724 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=21724",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/03/29/california-supreme-court-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-proposition-8/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 346,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 11
},
"modified": 1363127544,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Over the last year, we've heard a lot about the Proposition 8lawsuit from a lot of people. None of those people, however, have been the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, which will decide the key issue of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing, or the legal right to defend the measure, later",
"title": "Interview: California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Proposition 8 | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Interview: California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Proposition 8",
"datePublished": "2011-03-29T12:15:11-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-12T15:32:24-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-supreme-court-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-proposition-8",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/21724/california-supreme-court-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-proposition-8",
"audioUrl": "http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2011/03/CalSupremeCourtJustice.mp3",
"audioDuration": null,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_21769\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 248px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CantilSakauye.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-21769\" title=\"CantilSakauye\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CantilSakauye.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"248\" height=\"140\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo: Office of Judge Cantil-Sakauy\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Over the last year, we've heard a lot about the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/proposition-8/\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>lawsuit from a lot of people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>None of those people, however, have been the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, which will decide the key issue of whether Prop 8 proponents have \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/05/proposition-8-trial-same-sex-marriage-issue-of-standing/\">standing\u003c/a>, or the legal right to defend the measure, later this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Well, until now, that is. Scott Shafer interviewed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on KQED's \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103290900\">Forum\u003c/a> this morning, and she had some interesting things to say about the Proposition 8 lawsuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cantil-Sakauye addressed the question of standing, which the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court handed to the California justices to decide. She also defended the state court's scheduling of the case, the expedited timeline of which she called \"unprecedented,\" despite the request of anti-Prop 8 lawyers for an even faster resolution. And she addressed a frequent point of contention: whether judges let their personal beliefs interfere with their decisions:\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\n\"I believe that in my 20 years I have not ever seen a judge be influenced by his or her personal beliefs on the matter,\" she said. \"I think perhaps there might be an evolution of a judge, so that one who is a new and inexperienced judge is going to face those questions for the first time, and that in facing those questions for first time is going to have to harken back to his or her oath, and remember that you are making these decisions on these issues regardless of how political they are based on the constitution and the rule of law. Over time..that becomes easier and easier and easier.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We're not a particularly political group,\" she added. \"Our focus is really narrow.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Listen to the segment:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CalSupremeCourtJustice.mp3\">\u003cem>California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Proposition 8\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "audio",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CalSupremeCourtJustice.mp3"
},
"numeric": [
":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/CalSupremeCourtJustice.mp3"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The full show \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201103290900\">archive\u003c/a> will be available later today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Related\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202487469590\">Cantil-Sakauye Wants to Shake Things Up\u003c/a> (Law.com)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/21724/california-supreme-court-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-proposition-8",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1135"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_20275": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_20275",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20275",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1300291830000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1300291830,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Sponsors of Proposition 8 File Opening Brief in State Supreme Court Case",
"title": "Sponsors of Proposition 8 File Opening Brief in State Supreme Court Case",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_20288\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 210px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8Md.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-20288\" title=\"Prop8Md\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8Md.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"210\" height=\"143\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex couple kisses in front of Prop 8 supporters (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Sponsors of Prop. 8 Monday filed their \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/prop-8-brief-3-14-11.pdf\">opening brief\u003c/a>in the State Supreme Court case examining the question of whether California law gives official proponents the right to defend their measure \"when public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is the question the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel asked the Supreme Court to answer. The outcome will help settle the key question of whether Prop. 8 proponents have \"legal standing\" to appeal the district court's decision that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution. The current and past Governor (Schwarzenegger) and Attorney General (Brown) agree with that decision and declined to appeal it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In their brief, attorneys representing Protect Marriage cite numerous cases where, they claim, California courts \"repeatedly allowed official proponents of initiatives to defend those measures\" when government officials \"might not do so with vigor.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The brief also describes a \"special interest\" proponents have \"in intitiatives they have sponsored\" and that they are entitled to participate as \"real parties in interest.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The answering brief by opponents of Prop. 8 is due March 28. Oral arguments could some as soon as September. The Supreme Court recently rejected a request by attorneys for two same sex couples to expedite the schedule.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal experts say the question of standing here is a \"close call\" that could go either way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Imperial County also sought to defend Proposition 8 as a government entity with interest in the case, but the 9th Circuit rejected its claim.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Related:\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/prop-8-brief-3-14-11.pdf\">Prop 8 sponsors' opening brief in California Supreme Court case\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "20275 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=20275",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/03/16/proposition-8-sponsors-file-opening-brief-in-state-supreme-court-case/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 275,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1363127738,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Sponsors of Prop. 8 Monday filed their opening briefin the State Supreme Court case examining the question of whether California law gives official proponents the right to defend their measure "when public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so." This is the question the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel asked the",
"title": "Sponsors of Proposition 8 File Opening Brief in State Supreme Court Case | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Sponsors of Proposition 8 File Opening Brief in State Supreme Court Case",
"datePublished": "2011-03-16T09:10:30-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-12T15:35:38-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "proposition-8-sponsors-file-opening-brief-in-state-supreme-court-case",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/20275/proposition-8-sponsors-file-opening-brief-in-state-supreme-court-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_20288\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 210px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8Md.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-20288\" title=\"Prop8Md\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8Md.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"210\" height=\"143\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex couple kisses in front of Prop 8 supporters (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Sponsors of Prop. 8 Monday filed their \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/prop-8-brief-3-14-11.pdf\">opening brief\u003c/a>in the State Supreme Court case examining the question of whether California law gives official proponents the right to defend their measure \"when public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is the question the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel asked the Supreme Court to answer. The outcome will help settle the key question of whether Prop. 8 proponents have \"legal standing\" to appeal the district court's decision that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution. The current and past Governor (Schwarzenegger) and Attorney General (Brown) agree with that decision and declined to appeal it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In their brief, attorneys representing Protect Marriage cite numerous cases where, they claim, California courts \"repeatedly allowed official proponents of initiatives to defend those measures\" when government officials \"might not do so with vigor.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The brief also describes a \"special interest\" proponents have \"in intitiatives they have sponsored\" and that they are entitled to participate as \"real parties in interest.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The answering brief by opponents of Prop. 8 is due March 28. Oral arguments could some as soon as September. The Supreme Court recently rejected a request by attorneys for two same sex couples to expedite the schedule.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal experts say the question of standing here is a \"close call\" that could go either way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Imperial County also sought to defend Proposition 8 as a government entity with interest in the case, but the 9th Circuit rejected its claim.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Related:\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/prop-8-brief-3-14-11.pdf\">Prop 8 sponsors' opening brief in California Supreme Court case\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/20275/proposition-8-sponsors-file-opening-brief-in-state-supreme-court-case",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_18725": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_18725",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18725",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1299190365000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1299190365,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California Supreme Court Says Prop 8 Case Already Being Fast-Tracked",
"title": "California Supreme Court Says Prop 8 Case Already Being Fast-Tracked",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>A response to \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2011/03/02/asked-and-answered-no/\">yesterday's post\u003c/a> about the California Supreme Court rejecting a request by attorneys fighting Prop. 8 to speed up its timeline for deciding a key legal question:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>State Supreme Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton points out that although the court rejected the expedited timeline, \"... the court in fact has already expedited the Prop. 8 case by setting a special briefing schedule and oral arguments in September. Although September may seem like a long way away for arguments, it's actually earlier than the court would normally schedule them in a case accepted for review in February.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I would add that by responding to the 9th Circuit within six weeks, the Supreme Court sent another signal it understands the importance of the case and its urgency.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "18725 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=18725",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/03/03/california-supreme-court-says-prop-8-case-already-being-fast-tracked/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 129,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 5
},
"modified": 1363130032,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "A response to yesterday's post about the California Supreme Court rejecting a request by attorneys fighting Prop. 8 to speed up its timeline for deciding a key legal question: State Supreme Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton points out that although the court rejected the expedited timeline, "... the court in fact has already expedited the Prop.",
"title": "California Supreme Court Says Prop 8 Case Already Being Fast-Tracked | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Supreme Court Says Prop 8 Case Already Being Fast-Tracked",
"datePublished": "2011-03-03T14:12:45-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-12T16:13:52-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-supreme-court-says-prop-8-case-already-being-fast-tracked",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/18725/california-supreme-court-says-prop-8-case-already-being-fast-tracked",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>A response to \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2011/03/02/asked-and-answered-no/\">yesterday's post\u003c/a> about the California Supreme Court rejecting a request by attorneys fighting Prop. 8 to speed up its timeline for deciding a key legal question:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>State Supreme Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton points out that although the court rejected the expedited timeline, \"... the court in fact has already expedited the Prop. 8 case by setting a special briefing schedule and oral arguments in September. Although September may seem like a long way away for arguments, it's actually earlier than the court would normally schedule them in a case accepted for review in February.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I would add that by responding to the 9th Circuit within six weeks, the Supreme Court sent another signal it understands the importance of the case and its urgency.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/18725/california-supreme-court-says-prop-8-case-already-being-fast-tracked",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_163"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_18579": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_18579",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18579",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1299112409000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1299112409,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California Supreme Court Won't Speed Up Timeline For Prop 8 Case",
"title": "California Supreme Court Won't Speed Up Timeline For Prop 8 Case",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_18586\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 225px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-18586\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffs\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8plaintiffs-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"225\" height=\"170\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs. Photo: KQED\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Without comment, the State Supreme Court is rejecting a request by attorneys fighting Prop. 8 to speed up its timeline for deciding a key legal question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/02/16/proposition-8-battle-moves-to-california-supreme-court/\">agreed\u003c/a> last month to answer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/04/ninth-circuit-proposition-8-ruling/\">question\u003c/a> of whether state law gives sponsors of ballot measures the legal authority to defend an initiative when no one else will, it was clear the legal fate of Prop. 8 would be delayed by 10 months or more. So attorneys representing the two same-sex couples fighting Prop. 8 asked the Supreme Court to move up its schedule for briefing and oral arguments, which will not be held before September.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tuesday the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/california-supreme-court-refuses-to-speed-up-ruling-on-key-issue-in-gay-marriage-battle.html\">denied\u003c/a> that request.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Combined with yesterday's suggestion by A.G. Kamala Harris that the 9th Circuit lift its stay on Judge Walker's ruling (a completely different issue), the efforts represent a push by supporters of same-sex marriage to open the door to marriage more quickly. It seems unlikely any of these efforts will be successful, since few if any of the judges involved want this case expedited.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Indeed, it's not inconceivable that Prop. 8 will be reversed by California voters before it ever reaches the U.S. Supreme Court -- an outcome that would no doubt disappoint attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson but avoid a possible loss at the Supreme Court level.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That said, it might be hard to raise funds for a new ballot measure while the case is still pending. In other words, relax -- it's going to be a while before this thing is settled.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "18579 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=18579",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/03/02/california-supreme-court-wont-speed-up-timeline-on-prop-8-case/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 276,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 8
},
"modified": 1363130193,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Without comment, the State Supreme Court is rejecting a request by attorneys fighting Prop. 8 to speed up its timeline for deciding a key legal question. When the Supreme Court agreed last month to answer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals question of whether state law gives sponsors of ballot measures the legal authority",
"title": "California Supreme Court Won't Speed Up Timeline For Prop 8 Case | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Supreme Court Won't Speed Up Timeline For Prop 8 Case",
"datePublished": "2011-03-02T16:33:29-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-12T16:16:33-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-supreme-court-wont-speed-up-timeline-on-prop-8-case",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/18579/california-supreme-court-wont-speed-up-timeline-on-prop-8-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_18586\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 225px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-18586\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffs\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/03/Prop8plaintiffs-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"225\" height=\"170\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs. Photo: KQED\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Without comment, the State Supreme Court is rejecting a request by attorneys fighting Prop. 8 to speed up its timeline for deciding a key legal question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/02/16/proposition-8-battle-moves-to-california-supreme-court/\">agreed\u003c/a> last month to answer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/04/ninth-circuit-proposition-8-ruling/\">question\u003c/a> of whether state law gives sponsors of ballot measures the legal authority to defend an initiative when no one else will, it was clear the legal fate of Prop. 8 would be delayed by 10 months or more. So attorneys representing the two same-sex couples fighting Prop. 8 asked the Supreme Court to move up its schedule for briefing and oral arguments, which will not be held before September.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tuesday the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/california-supreme-court-refuses-to-speed-up-ruling-on-key-issue-in-gay-marriage-battle.html\">denied\u003c/a> that request.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Combined with yesterday's suggestion by A.G. Kamala Harris that the 9th Circuit lift its stay on Judge Walker's ruling (a completely different issue), the efforts represent a push by supporters of same-sex marriage to open the door to marriage more quickly. It seems unlikely any of these efforts will be successful, since few if any of the judges involved want this case expedited.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Indeed, it's not inconceivable that Prop. 8 will be reversed by California voters before it ever reaches the U.S. Supreme Court -- an outcome that would no doubt disappoint attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson but avoid a possible loss at the Supreme Court level.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That said, it might be hard to raise funds for a new ballot measure while the case is still pending. In other words, relax -- it's going to be a while before this thing is settled.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/18579/california-supreme-court-wont-speed-up-timeline-on-prop-8-case",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_163"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=california-supreme-court": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 48,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 64,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_58251",
"news_52575",
"news_46705",
"news_44602",
"news_36087",
"news_35939",
"news_35141",
"news_29571",
"news_21724",
"news_20275",
"news_18725",
"news_18579"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_tag_california-supreme-court": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_548": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_548",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "548",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 557,
"slug": "california-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-supreme-court"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_1758": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1758",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1758",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Economy",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Full coverage of the economy",
"title": "Economy Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2648,
"slug": "economy",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/economy"
},
"news_457": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_457",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "457",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 16998,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/health"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_18543": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18543",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18543",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 466,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/health"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_332": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_332",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "332",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Citizens Redistricting Commission",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Citizens Redistricting Commission Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 340,
"slug": "citizens-redistricting-commission",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/citizens-redistricting-commission"
},
"news_152": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_152",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "152",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Government",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Government Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 159,
"slug": "government",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/government"
},
"news_70": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_70",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "70",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "state budget",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "state budget Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 71,
"slug": "state-budget",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/state-budget"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 331,
"slug": "perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger"
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_1457": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1457",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1457",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Goodwin Liu",
"slug": "goodwin-liu",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Goodwin Liu | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 1469,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/goodwin-liu"
},
"news_30": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_30",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "30",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Jerry Brown",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Jerry Brown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 30,
"slug": "jerry-brown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/jerry-brown"
},
"news_2582": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2582",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2582",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "government",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "government Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2598,
"slug": "government-2",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/government-2"
},
"news_1135": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1135",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1135",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Tani Cantil-Sakauye",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Tani Cantil-Sakauye Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1146,
"slug": "tani-cantil-sakauye",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/tani-cantil-sakauye"
},
"news_163": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_163",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "163",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Scott Shafer Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 170,
"slug": "scott-shafer",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/scott-shafer"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
