An appellate court has upheld references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting arguments they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling Thursday.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

In a separate 3-0 ruling, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Sacramento athiest Michael Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, prompting the appeals court to take up the case again.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.

A federal court has upheld regulations that require cable TV companies to make channels they own available to satellite TV providers and other rivals on equal terms.

Friday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia leaves in place the Federal Communications Commission "program access" rules. The ruling marks a setback for Cablevision Systems Corp. and Comcast Corp., the cable companies that had challenged the rules in court.

Comcast has nonetheless pledged to extend those rules to the local NBC and Telemundo stations it would control as part of its proposed combination with NBC Universal. Comcast is seeking FCC and Justice Department approval to buy a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co.

A Philadelphia jury has found Rockwell Automation Inc., sued as successor to Allen-Bradley Company, liable for the asbestos-related death of Navy electrician's mate, David Lanpher. The liability finding is the first-ever asbestos-exposure verdict against Rockwell.

The case was tried as a reverse bifurcated proceeding - a multi-phase trial that requires the jury to determine first if the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and if so, what amount of damages is reasonable to compensate for pain, suffering, loss of consortium, and other circumstances related to the plaintiff's illness. In Phase I, defendants remain unknown to the jury, and plaintiff's counsel is not permitted to discuss or make recommendations about the scope or amount of the award.

Phase II, the liability hearing , occurs if the jury finds that the plaintiff's illness was indeed caused by asbestos exposure. In Phase II, the jury hears evidence about the asbestos-containing products identified by the plaintiff, and determines which - if any - manufacturers are responsible for the plaintiff's illness. This in turn, directs how many manufacturers are apportioned a share of the damages awarded in Phase I.

In Lanpher vs. Alfa Laval, Inc., the jury found Rockwell - the lone defendant at verdict - to be one of eight manufacturers responsible for Mr. Lanpher's asbestos exposure and subsequent mesothelioma. As such, Rockwell is responsible for one-eighth, or 12.5 percent, of the $6.5 million awarded to the Lanpher family.

Phase I concluded on February 19, 2010. The final verdict was delivered on March 5, 2010, at the end of Phase II.

Mr. Lanpher, an active and gainfully employed 71-year-old husband, father and grandfather, had reportedly been in perfect health prior to his diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in August 2007. He died on July 13, 2008 - less than one year later, and just one day after completing the video deposition in which he sharply recalled the types, names and brands of the asbestos-containing products that caused his illness and cut short his life.

Via video deposition, Mr. Lanpher recounted enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1954. During his 20-year career as an electrician's mate, he worked in the engineering spaces of the USS Chemung, USS Randolph,  USS Remey, USS Brough, USS Dashell, USS Benewah, and USS Wright. His assignments required him to handle various engine parts and components, including asbestos-containing insulating boards and motor control units. He recalled cutting and filing parts, including asbestos-containing motor control units manufactured and sold by Allen-Bradley, and the dust that he regularly breathed in tight quarters. He was honorably discharged in 1973, and worked as an electrician in Phoenix, Arizona, until he became too ill to work in 2007.

Mr. Lanpher's wife, Pauline, and daughter and son-in-law, Nancy and Terry Perkins, traveled from Phoenix for the trial. The family was present during both Phase I and Phase II verdicts, and were relieved and satisfied with the trial's outcome.

Ginsburg was speaking Thursday at a conference of female judges, many who are elected. She approves of the campaign by her former colleague, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to end judicial elections and the vast sums of money spent on those campaigns.

Ginsburg says that if there's one reform she would make, that would be it.

The state's ailing system to defend the poor has struggled almost since its start in 2005, hamstrung not just by the costly Brian Nichols case but also because of the lukewarm support from legislators and a dismal economy.

The state now can't afford to pay to defend the accused in several capital punishment cases, leaving them waiting in jail for years before their trials start. Some, like Khan Dinh Phan, have appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court for help. They have asked that their cases be dismissed because the delays violated their right to a speedy trial.

Georgia has faced similar problems before. State legislators created the public defender system precisely because individual counties struggled to provide adequate legal defense for the poor. But prosecutors and defense attorneys say it may take drastic measures to recover from the Nichols' case, one of the statewide system's first high-profile tests.

Prosecutors said Nichols' defense should have cost about $500,000. But expenses ballooned with expert witnesses and attorneys fees. Nichols was spared death and sentenced to life in December 2008 for killing of a judge, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a federal agent during the rampage.

Amy Victoria Beck had arrived in court with her lawyer on Wednesday for her arraignment, but it was postponed until March 25.

She is jailed in lieu of $175,000 bail. Her lawyer, Michael Williamson, says she wants to stay there for the time being to avoid the media.

Authorities say Beck arrived at Burbank police headquarters on Monday and said she was tormented with guilt.

Police say she confessed to having sex with one of her male students last year.

Prosecutors charged Beck with five counts, and she faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.

The case had been closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.

Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.

The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.

The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, whose office prosecuted Runyan, praised the court's ruling.