Posted on 01/18/2007 3:56:30 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN DIEGO – The First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco announced Thursday that it would hear oral arguments Feb. 14 in the case challenging the constitutionality of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act, known as Proposition 71.
Under the California Constitution, the Appeals Court must render a decision in the case within 90 days of the hearing, absent additional briefings required by the court.
The plaintiffs in the case – People's Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation (represented by the Life Legal Defense Foundation), and the California Family Bioethics Council – are appealing an April decision by the Alameda County Superior Court.
The court rejected the plaintiff's claims, and found Proposition 71 to be constitutional and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the agency that is carrying out the measure, to be in full compliance with statutory requirements, accountable to the public, and subject to state government oversight.
“We are eager to see this litigation end so we can get on with our work,” said Zach Hall, president of the state stem cell institute created under Proposition 71. “Fortunately, because of the strong support of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the leadership of our chairman, Bob Klein, and the generosity of private philanthropists, we have been able to pursue our scientific mission in spite of the lawsuit.
“We want to put the bond funds to work as soon as possible, so that the research that California voters overwhelmingly approved can move forward as rapidly as possible toward therapies and cures.”
If the Superior Court judgment is affirmed, the plaintiffs can then appeal to the California Supreme Court.
They have 40 days from the date the Appellate Court's decision is final to file a petition for review. The California Supreme Court must decide whether to take the case within 60 days after that, but the court can extend that to 90 days. The Supreme Court is not required to accept an appeal.
This should be interesting.
What is the Life Legal Defense Foundation arguement here? Is the article only against them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.