Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Supreme Court decision a 'victory for pregnant women' in workplace

    03/27/2015 11:31:24 AM PDT · by Citizen Zed · 11 replies
    Peggy Young, a pregnant mother, was a driver for UPS. Though other workers received a “lighter duty” accommodation for conditions like sprained ankles, Ms. Young was denied an accommodation during her pregnancy, in violation of the federal PDA. Ms. Young lost in the two lower courts, and today the United States Supreme Court reversed their decisions in favor of Ms. Young. Ironically, during the course of the legal action, UPS changed its policy to grant “light-duty” to pregnant employees. The case drew widespread attention as pro-life advocates agreed with abortion supporters that pregnant women deserved protection in the workplace.
  • Nine Obamacare takeover elements at stake in King v. Burwell

    03/25/2015 7:34:19 PM PDT · by TurboZamboni · 9 replies
    The Hill ^ | 3-9-15 | Twila Brase
    As the Supreme Court considers oral arguments in the King v. Burwell Obamacare subsidy case, the media is awash in claims that a King win will be a political disaster, forcing Republicans to save the illegal Obamacare subsidies issued in the 37 states without a state-based exchange. But the real disaster is the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the dangers the federal takeover of healthcare poses for patients, doctors, pocketbooks and health freedom. These very real dangers include: Socializing Medicine – The ACA sets up Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to nationalize the delivery of medical care. ACOs, sometimes called “HMOs...
  • Obamacare’s Fate? Here’s What A Key Supreme Court Justice Just Said That Could Be A Huge Clue

    03/25/2015 12:11:01 PM PDT · by Jim Robinson · 39 replies
    Western Journalism ^ | March 24, 2015 | by NORVELL ROSE
    As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case whose outcome could prove to be a death blow to Obamacare — the case known as King v. Burwell challenging whether enrollees through the federal signup site, healthcare.gov, are entitled to premium-reducing subsidies — one key justice has casually dropped what could be a huge clue to his thinking. And this potential clue suggests to some court watchers that Justice Anthony Kennedy — who often casts the high court’s swing vote — may be siding with plaintiffs who want to gut a key part of Obamacare and likely bring the law crashing...
  • Wisconsin Is Finally Free to Implement Voter ID Law

    03/23/2015 4:47:58 PM PDT · by afraidfortherepublic · 15 replies
    The Daily Signal ^ | 3-23-15 | Hans von Spakovsky
    Great news for those interested in election integrity and common sense reforms like voter ID: the Supreme Court today removed the final legal obstacle to implementing Wisconsin’s voter ID law. The Court refused to hear the American Civil Liberties Union’s appeal of a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that threw out the injunction issued against the state’s ID law by federal district court Judge Lynn Adelman. Adelman, a Clinton appointee and former Democratic state senator, had thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court, claiming that he did not have to follow the Court’s prior 2008 opinion in Crawford v....
  • U.S. Supreme court rejects challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law

    03/23/2015 9:44:14 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 11 replies
    Reuters ^ | 03/23/2015 | LAWRENCE HURLEY
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to Wisconsin's Republican-backed law requiring voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot, a measure Democrats contend is aimed at keeping their supporters from voting. The justices declined to hear an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law. The ACLU said it then filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to try to keep the law from taking effect immediately. Republican Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said the law cannot be implemented for the state's April 7 election because absentee ballots are already...
  • Supreme Court turns away challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law

    03/23/2015 8:30:15 AM PDT · by Cincinatus' Wife · 35 replies
    Washington Post ^ | March 23, 2015 | Robert Barnes
    The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law, which it had previously kept from going into effect before November’s elections. The court’s decision not to review a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the law was a victory for Gov. Scott Walker (R) and perhaps other states that have tightened voting procedures to require additional identification.
  • Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

    03/22/2015 12:28:41 PM PDT · by PROCON · 106 replies
    AP ^ | March 22, 2015
    Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble. But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.
  • Confederate Flag License Plate Battle Reaches Supreme Court

    03/22/2015 8:11:04 AM PDT · by DUMBGRUNT · 86 replies
    chronicle bulletin ^ | 22 Mar 2015 | unknown
    The nine justices will hear a one particular-hour oral argument in a case that raises the situation of how states can let or reject politically divisive messages on license plates with out violating absolutely free speech rights. States can generate revenue...
  • Daughter of Two Moms Comes Out Against Gay Marriage

    03/20/2015 6:49:23 AM PDT · by SoFloFreeper · 29 replies
    A South Carolina woman’s new essay about being raised by her lesbian mom contains a surprising revelation: she opposes marriage equality. “Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s,” writes Heather Barwick, a 31-year-old mother of four, in The Federalist. “I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”
  • A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas

    03/20/2015 5:10:59 AM PDT · by cotton1706 · 54 replies
    americanthinker.com ^ | 3/20/15 | Mark J. Fitzgibbons
    Everything you really need to know about the Constitution (and that’s barely an exaggeration) -- why it is structured the way it is, what led to it, its purposes -- is found in pages 2 – 12 of the March 9 concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Dept of Transportation v Assn of American Railroads case. Although it received little media attention, Justice Thomas has provided us a masterpiece of constitutional thinking, explaining why “administrative law” -- the practice of delegating to bureaucrats the making and enforcement of rules with the force of law – is so profoundly unconstitutional....
  • Would A Supreme Court Decision In Favor Of Gay Marriage End The Religious Right?

    03/17/2015 7:22:13 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 41 replies
    The Daily Caller ^ | March 16, 2015 | W. James Antle III, managing editor
    If the Supreme Court decides that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, will that signal the end of social conservatism? People have long predicted the end of the religious right and, increasingly, even the demise of “white Christian America.” These obituaries typically prove premature. First, why assume a loss at the Supreme Court will end the religious right’s reason for existence? Organized social conservatism was built from such defeats, including high court rulings against school prayer and legalizing abortion. The school prayer decision will turn 53 in June. Roe v. Wade turned 42 in January. Neither of those...
  • Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court? (George Wallace Would be Proud)

    03/17/2015 12:09:03 PM PDT · by C19fan · 26 replies
    NY Times ^ | March 17, 2015 | William Baude
    IT is time to talk about President Obama’s contingency plan for health care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges. While the legal issues are dry lawyers’ fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high. The government estimates that millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses. While the administration may well prevail, it has expressed remarkable pessimism about its options if it does lose. The...
  • Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court?

    03/17/2015 7:08:42 AM PDT · by PROCON · 57 replies
    nytimes ^ | March 17, 2015 | William Baude
    CHICAGO — IT is time to talk about President Obama’s contingency plan for health care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges. While the legal issues are dry lawyers’ fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high. The government estimates that millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses.While the administration may well prevail, it has expressed remarkable pessimism about its options if it does lose....
  • The Sum of All Obamacarian Fears

    03/16/2015 4:35:17 AM PDT · by rootin tootin · 3 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 3/16/2015 | David Catron
    If you carefully consider the claims of Obamacare’s defenders in King v. Burwell you will discover that their worst fear, sanctimonious pretense notwithstanding, is not the loss of insurance subsidies for some Americans. The most terrifying prospect for proponents of PPACA is that the Court will let Congress clean up its own mess. They do not want our elected representatives to have another chance to consider the will of the voters while revising Obamacare ... Nothing scares Obamacarians more than the will of the people.
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Birthday: 10 Gifts to Get the 'Notorious' Supreme Court Justice

    03/15/2015 10:33:38 AM PDT · by PROCON · 36 replies
    abcnews.go.com ^ | March 15, 2015 | VERONICA STRACQUALURSI
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest sitting Supreme Court Justice, turns 82 Sunday. To borrow the words of the late rapper Biggie Smalls, who inspired Ginsburg’s “Notorious R.B.G.” nickname, if you don’t know, now you know. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg is the second woman justice in U.S. history and, as Reuters reported, she has no plans to retire anytime soon, despite some calls for her to step down. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Embraces ‘Notorious R.B.G.’ Tees Justice Ginsburg Earns Her 'Notorious' Nickname With Black Gloves To celebrate, here are 10 things (some farfetched, others easy...
  • Corporations are the Enemy (Scotus case that would impose same-sex “marriage”)

    03/13/2015 3:49:36 PM PDT · by NYer · 28 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | March 13, 2015 | AUSTIN RUSE
    A man I know was a top executive at a major American media company, one of the biggest and most influential in the world. A young man came into his office one day asking to display a rainbow sticker with the words “safe space.” This was a decade ago and this man, a faithful Catholic, felt confident he could demur without reprisal though he could see the veiled threat of being “outed” as less than gay friendly, as a homophobe.But, in these post-Brendan Eich days, it is doubtful my friend would feel as safe to say no because things...
  • How the Supreme Court is about to explode America’s racial wealth gap

    03/14/2015 1:41:25 PM PDT · by EveningStar · 101 replies
    Salon ^ | March 14, 2015 | Sean McElwee and Catherine Ruetschlin
    Yet again, conservatives on the Supreme Court are poised to do significant damage to minority communities When discussing race, the conservative argument is best expressed by the famous words of Chief Justice John Roberts: “The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Translation: America has done bad things in its history, but those bad things are gone now, so we should move past those horrors and look forward. Conservatives believe that if blacks and Latinos simply work hard, get a good education and earn a good income, historical...
  • CAAP Calls on Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Decision

    03/13/2015 9:14:04 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 10 replies
    Breitbart's Big Government ^ | March 12, 2015 | Dr. Susan Berry
    The founder and president of a coalition of black pastors has called upon U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case that is currently before the high court. In a recent press release, Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) cited Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s “stated bias” as reason to recuse themselves in order to preserve the integrity of the court. Owens and his organization have launched a petition to bring attention to the alleged “lack of impartiality” on the part of the two justices. In February, Ginsburg,...
  • Justice Obama

    03/13/2015 5:12:52 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 24 replies
    The Washington Monthly's Political Animal ^ | March 12, 2015 | Ed Kilgore
    So in his turn writing “Tilting at Windmills” in the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, contributing editor (and esteemed friend) Steven Waldman needs just three sentences to toss out a very interesting idea: If Hillary Clinton wins, Obama should be her first Supreme Court appointment. It’d be good for her, and very good for progressives. Would he want it? It’s possible he’d view it as too confining, but it may be the only job a former president can get that won’t seem like a step down. Jeffrey Toobin actually devoted a long op-ed back in 2010 to Obama’s sterling...
  • The "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton

    01/09/2002 6:24:33 PM PST · by Tolerance Sucks Rocks · 37 replies · 331+ views
    The Center for Reclaiming America ^ | January 9, 2002 (posting date) | By Greg Hoadley
    Sandra Cano is the woman whose name was used against her will to legalize late-term abortion in Doe v. Bolton, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. As she recalled, she was trying to file for a divorce from her husband and regain custody of her small children. She never sought, had, or even believed in abortion. Sandra Cano, the former "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton. After she dropped out of school in the ninth grade, she married at 17 to a man she later learned was a convicted child molester. Throughout her marriage, Sandra's husband would disappear ...
  • Touchdown! Notre Dame Scores Big on HHS Mandate at Supreme Court

    03/10/2015 2:26:27 PM PDT · by NYer · 12 replies
    NC Register ^ | March 9, 2015 | MATT HADRO/CNA/EWTN NEWS
    WASHINGTON —  In a potentially groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a federal court ruling against the University of Notre Dame on the HHS contraception mandate and sent it back for reconsideration by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The university is “gratified” by the decision, said its vice president of public affairs and communications, Paul Browne. Notre Dame officials had requested the case be remanded by the court in light of the Hobby Lobby decision last June. “Notre Dame continues to challenge the federal mandate as an infringement on our fundamental right to the free exercise of our...
  • Federalism Will Sink, Not Save, Obamacare

    03/10/2015 7:12:19 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 10 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/10/2015 | Josh Blackman
    With the Supreme Court on the brink of invalidating an IRS rule that provides billions of dollars of subsidies in states that did not establish Obamacare exchanges, defenders of the law have suddenly become fair-weather federalists. They argue that the Obamacare regulation must be upheld, because invalidating it would intrude on state sovereignty. Yes, you read that right: Allowing the federal government to expand the reach of Obamacare and its mandates into states that refused to create Obamacare exchanges would promote states’ rights. While this argument may seem crazy on its face, it has emerged as a Hail Mary effort...
  • King v. Burwell's Very Existence Says a Lot About Obamacare

    03/10/2015 5:12:49 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 12 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 10, 2015 | Michael Barone
    On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the IRS's decision to pay subsidies to lower-income health insurance buyers in states with federal insurance exchanges -- even though the Obamacare legislation authorizes subsidies only in states with exchanges "established by the state." The Obama administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the president's signature law says what it doesn't say. Nevertheless, initial analyses of the oral argument suggest the government might win. The four Democratic-appointed judges seemed determined to advance arguments that, if you look at the statute as a...
  • Sen. Brown: Why Not ‘Medicare for the Whole Country?’ It ‘Would Be Terrific’

    03/10/2015 6:16:22 AM PDT · by Whenifhow · 40 replies
    CNS News ^ | March 9 2015 | Craig Millward
    While speaking with liberal talk-radio host Thom Hartmann last week, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he agreed with the idea of lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 0, and essentially establishing a national, government-run health care system, claiming it “would be terrific.” Hartmann, while discussing the King v. Burwell case now before the Supreme Court, which could potentially end federal Obamacare subsidies for people in 34 states, said to Sen. Brown on Mar. 3, "Might it be a good time to start talking about alternatives, like, for example what Robert Ball, the guy who wrote the Medicare bill...
  • Here's What Scalia Said About Obamacare Last Week. It's Not What He Said 3 Years Ago.

    03/09/2015 9:59:11 AM PDT · by TangledUpInBlue · 36 replies
    Huff Post ^ | 3/9 | Jonathon Cohn
    It's going to be at least a few weeks, and probably a few months, before we know what the Supreme Court is going to do with Obamacare. But Wednesday's oral arguments in King v. Burwell have already made something very clear: Justice Antonin Scalia isn't too worried about intellectual consistency. Among the many issues that came up Wednesday were the likely consequences if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby prohibiting the federal government from distributing Obamacare's tax credits in two-thirds of the states. Millions of people depend on those tax credits to purchase health insurance; without the...
  • US Supreme Court Throws Out Lower Court Decision On Obamacare Contraception Rules

    03/09/2015 6:38:15 AM PDT · by mn-bush-man · 67 replies
    CNBC ^ | March 9, 2015 | CNBC
    Headline Only at this point
  • Freedom Yes, Redefining Marriage No (Poll: By 2-1 Margin, Americans want states deciding marriage)

    03/06/2015 3:19:28 PM PST · by xzins · 40 replies
    CNS ^ | March 6, 2015 | Peter Sprigg
    Supreme Court Gay Marriage FILE - In this June 25, 2013 file photo, Vin Testa of Washington waves a rainbow flag in support of gay rights outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court will hear arguments over same-sex marriage on April 28 and make audio of the proceedings available later that day. The gay marriage cases mark the only time this term that the court has agreed to the quick release of audio recordings. But the court is continuing its ban on providing video of its sessions or even live-streamed audio. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) By an...
  • Super Bowl, World Series champs back gay marriage at court

    03/06/2015 11:04:29 AM PST · by massmike · 19 replies
    http://news.yahoo.com/ ^ | 03/06/2015 | Mark Sherman
    The New England Patriots are for same-sex marriage. So are the San Francisco Giants. The reigning baseball and football champions, along with baseball's small-market Tampa Bay Rays, are among the thousands of businesses, religious groups, advocacy organizations and politicians who are filing legal briefs at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage. The Patriots play in Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry, and the Giants represent a city that is notable for its gay and lesbian community. Rays president Brian Auld said it was important that his team stand up, as well. "We're a small...
  • The Danger Lurking in a Possible Supreme Court Victory for Obamacare ("President Ted Cruz")

    03/06/2015 10:20:26 AM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 27 replies
    The Nation ^ | March 5, 2015 | George Zornick
    When the Supreme Court heard arguments in King v. Burwell on Wednesday, it was forced to consider whether just a few words in the Affordable Care Act—“exchange established by the state”—meant that people living in states with federal exchanges shouldn’t be receiving any subsidies to buy health insurance. If the justices ultimately don’t think the language is clear either way, they could still invoke what’s known as the Chevron deference to uphold Obamacare in its current form. In 1984, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a precedent that courts should defer to relevant agencies if a legislative text does...
  • Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

    03/06/2015 8:36:21 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 94 replies
    Huff Post ^ | 03/05/2015 | Alexander C. Kaufman
    Big business has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Exactly 379 corporations and employer organizations urged the Supreme Court to strike down state bans on gay marriage, according to a friend-of-the-court brief obtained by The Huffington Post. The document was expected to be filed late Thursday morning. “Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships,” reads the brief, filed by global law firm Morgan Lewis. “Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law...
  • Kennedy Won’t Save Obamacare’s Bacon

    03/06/2015 5:26:20 AM PST · by rootin tootin · 24 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 3/6/2015 | David Catron
    Supporters of the “Affordable Care Act” have been rather glum of late. Since the Supreme Court agreed to hear King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the Obama administration’s decision to funnel insurance subsidies through federal exchanges established in the 36 states that refused to create PPACA “marketplaces,” they have rather ironically bemoaned the possibility that five unelected justices could do irreparable damage to the law with one “wrong ruling.” Consequently, they have desperately grasped at a thin straw tossed their way by Justice Anthony Kennedy during Wednesday’s oral arguments about the case. In an exchange with Michael Carvin, who...
  • More Than 300 Republicans Call on Supreme Court to Recognize Gay Marriage Nationally

    03/05/2015 7:06:54 PM PST · by PROCON · 105 replies
    time.com ^ | Mar. 5, 2015 | Zeke J Miller
    Signers include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sens. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie BakerMore than 300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants have filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage late Thursday. The amicus brief, organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, was filed for the four same-sex marriage cases the Court will hear on April 28 that could legalize the unions nationwide. In 2013, Mehlman marshaled a similar effort for the case that overturned California’s Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage...
  • John Roberts' One Question on ObamaCare May Be Huge (Next president could reinterpret)

    In yesterday's arguments about ObamaCare before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts surprised observers by saying almost nothing. But the single question he did ask might well have tipped his hand, writes Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker. If Toobin is right, it's a mixture of good and bad news for the White House: Roberts would vote to keep the law in place—but leave the door open for a future president to gut it. Roberts' question came after Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that under precedent set in a Chevron case, the Obama administration has the flexibility to...
  • Supreme Court Schedules Argument in Same-Sex Marriage Case For April 28

    03/05/2015 7:58:12 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 32 replies
    NBCNews.com ^ | 03/05/2015 | Pete Williams and Erin McClam
    The Supreme Court has set April 28 as the date for historic arguments on gay marriage. The justices agreed in January to definitively answer whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriage. A ruling is expected by the end of the term in late June. The court granted cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. It will decide whether states can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and whether they can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.
  • Regime to Justice Roberts: Catastrophe If You Rule Against Obamacare

    03/04/2015 6:31:11 PM PST · by Kaslin · 111 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh
    RUSH: Here's how the Regime's doing it. The Regime and the Drive-Bys are trying to intimidate the court, trying to influence the court, trying to shape the court. Josh Earnest, press briefing at the White House today. A reporter said, "One of the justices this morning suggested the court could give states time to prepare for the impact if it decided to rule against the government in this case. I'm just wondering if you have any response to that, Josh. Would that be feasible? Just wait 'til next year for a decision like that to take effect?" EARNEST: It's important...
  • Some Glimmers Of Hope From SCOTUS In ACA Case

    03/04/2015 8:38:02 AM PST · by E. Pluribus Unum · 12 replies
    There are glimmers of hope contained in the reports of today's Supreme Court arguments in the case brought by the Competitive Enterprise Institute challenging federal subsidies to people who buy health insurance on the exchanges.This case is all about whether the language in a statute is to be interpreted without regard to any other sections of the statute or whether context is important. Justice Elena Kagan framed a question around that very issue.SCOTUSBlog: But much of the early questioning was dominated by a real-life hypothetical from Justice Kagan, suggesting that petitioner’s reading does not accord with everyday usage.She offered...
  • Antonin Scalia: Won’t Congress Fix Obamacare?

    03/04/2015 2:53:41 PM PST · by DoodleDawg · 64 replies
    National Journal ^ | 3/4/15 | Sam Baker
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia seems to have faith that Congress would fix Obamacare if the Court weakens it—but not so much faith in the Congress that wrote the law in the first place. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, warned the Court during oral arguments in King v. Burwell on Wednesday that a ruling invalidating Obamacare's insurance subsidies in most of the country would have disastrous consequences. Premiums would skyrocket, millions of people would lose their coverage, and many states' individual insurance markets could descend into chaos, he said. But Scalia wasn't sure it...
  • If it’s ambiguous, does government win? Roberts finally speaks.

    03/04/2015 11:15:53 AM PST · by Cincinatus' Wife · 73 replies
    Washington Post ^ | March 4, 2015 | Sandhya Somashekhar and Robert Barnes
    11:26: When a law is ambiguous, the court often defers to the agency in charge of administering it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said just that, and that the IRS’ interpretation that subsidies were available to all was a reasonable one. Verrilli resisted questions about ambiguity, saying it was clear. But if not, he said, the agency does deserve deference. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he was concerned about giving the power to allocate billions of dollars in subsidies to an agency. It was then that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked his only...
  • Supreme Court ‘Bitterly Divided’ Over Obamacare

    03/04/2015 10:30:33 AM PST · by E. Pluribus Unum · 75 replies
    The Daily Caller ^ | 03/04/2015 | Rachel Stoltzfoos
    The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday as it began hearing arguments on the fate of Obamacare.Justices seemed “bitterly divided” during “heated” arguments over the law, reported The New York Times. If they rule that the federal subsidies the Internal Revenue Service has doled out for Obamacare plans are illegal, millions of people would no longer be able to afford their plans, and the entire law would be crippled. The four liberal justices indicated strong support for the Obama administration’s position, in opposition to the most conservative members of the court. Those four will likely have to win over either...
  • Argument analysis: Setting up the private debate on the ACA [SCOTUS]

    03/04/2015 10:55:22 AM PST · by BuckeyeTexan · 19 replies
    SCOTUSblog ^ | 03/04/2015 | Lyle Denniston
    Analysis One of the most important functions of oral argument in the Supreme Court is that it can strongly shape the next round: the private deliberations among the nine Justices as they start work on a decision.  The much-awaited hearing Wednesday on the stiff new challenge to the Affordable Care Act strongly suggested that Topic A in private could well be: how bad will we make things if we rule against the government? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who seemed decidedly more sympathetic to the government than might have been expected, worried over a constitutional blow against the states.  But even the two Justices...
  • Seven Things You Should Know about the IRS Rule Challenged in King v. Burwell ​

    03/04/2015 6:52:02 AM PST · by afraidfortherepublic · 9 replies
    Nationanl Review ^ | 3-4-15 | Michael F. Cannon
    And none of them make the IRS look very good. This week, the Supreme Court considers King v. Burwell. At issue is whether the IRS exceeded its authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by issuing a final IRS rule that expanded the application of the Act’s subsidies and mandates beyond the limits imposed by the statute. King v. Burwell is not a constitutional challenge. It challenges an IRS rule as being inconsistent with the Act it purports to implement. The case is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation. Here are seven things everyone needs to know about...
  • Why the Supreme Court Will Rule in Favor of Obamacare

    03/04/2015 6:26:30 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 43 replies
    The New Republic ^ | 03/04/2015 | Abigail R. Moncrieff
    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, which will decide whether health insurance subsidies should be available nationwide or only in those 16 states that established exchanges. Several questions have recently emerged over the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ case, including issues of jurisdiction and congressional intent, but there’s an even deeper flaw: The plaintiffs’ interpretation would render the statute unconstitutional. Several of my colleagues and I made this case in an amicus brief to the Court. If the plaintiffs’ interpretation carries the day, then Obamacare has threatened states that failed to establish exchanges with...
  • Obama says there's no 'legal basis' for the Supreme Court to dismantle Obamacare subsidies...

    03/02/2015 7:53:40 PM PST · by PROCON · 33 replies
    dailymail.co.uk ^ | Mar. 2, 2015 | Reuters and David Martosko,
    Obama says there's no 'legal basis' for the Supreme Court to dismantle Obamacare subsidies and defends the lack of a Plan B if he's wrong Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that could gut the Affordable Care Act Planitiffs say the law itself forbids the federal government from offering insurance subsidies in states that didn't set up their own exchanges Dozens of states opted to let Healthcare.gov sell policies to their citizens, and those people could be left twisting if the court rules against Obama Republicans say Congress has a 'Plan B' but it's likely...
  • Why Chief Justice Roberts will save Obamacare again

    03/02/2015 5:44:11 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 85 replies
    Fortune.com ^ | 03/02/2015 | Roger Parloff
    The Supreme Court’s credibility is at stake in Wednesday’s argument While the Obamacare challenge being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday is not an easy case, it does hinge upon an inescapably far-fetched claim—one that, if it prevails, will cause deep, lasting damage to the court’s credibility in the eyes of about half the nation’s population. I suspect Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., won’t let that happen. The challengers’ central argument in King v. Burwell is that the Affordable Care Act—the signature achievement of the Obama Administration and the most significant social legislation in a generation—must be given an...
  • King v. Burwell Is Much Bigger Than Obamacare

    03/02/2015 4:31:16 AM PST · by rootin tootin · 7 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 3/2/2015 | David Catron
    John Adams, in a 1775 essay referencing the Roman historian Livy and other sources, wrote that a republic was “a nation of laws, not of men.” As recently as fifty years ago, most Americans would have intuitively understood his point and why it was relevant to their lives. Today, it isn’t clear that the President of the United States, the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the members of our “news” media would grasp the meaning of Adams’ words, much less that they still matter today. We will soon discover if the same can be said of the Supreme Court....
  • Obamacare threatens to end John Roberts’s dream of a nonpartisan Supreme Court

    03/01/2015 10:54:57 AM PST · by Beave Meister · 42 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | 3/1/2015 | Robert Barnes
    The first time the Affordable Care Act came before the Supreme Court, its constitutional foundation under attack, John G. Roberts Jr. was its unlikely savior. In a spectacular display of spot-welding, the chief justice joined fellow conservatives on some points and brought liberals on board for others. Roberts was the only member of the court to endorse the entire jerry-rigged thing, and even he made sure to distance himself from the substance of the law. (“It is,” he wrote, “not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”) Still, his efforts rescued President Obama’s signature...
  • A Child of Gay Parents Writes to Justice Kennedy (in support of traditional family)

    02/27/2015 2:51:13 PM PST · by NYer · 50 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | February 27, 2015 | KATY FAUST
    Dear Justice Kennedy,June is nigh, and with it will comes your ruling on the most contentious political issue of our time: marriage.I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of us children...
  • Supreme Court seems to side with Muslim woman in discrimination case

    02/25/2015 10:17:47 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 17 replies
    Washington Post ^ | 02/25/2015 | Robert Barnes
    The Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to agree with a Muslim woman who charged that retailer Abercrombie & Fitch violated anti­discrimination laws when it denied her a job because her head scarf conflicted with the company’s dress code. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took up the case of Samantha Elauf, who was denied a job at one of the chain’s stores in Tulsa. Elauf, then 17, had worn a head scarf, or hijab, since she was 13. At issue in the case was whether Elauf needed to volunteer that she wore the head scarf for religious reasons to trigger a...
  • Supreme Court Rules Against Prosecuting Fisherman Under Post-Enron Anti-Shredding Law

    02/25/2015 9:53:08 PM PST · by Behind Liberal Lines · 22 replies
    Washington, DC (February 25, 2015) – This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Yates v. United States. This case highlights the problem of overcriminalization and specifically the dangerous consequences stemming from prosecutorial expansion of the laws passed by Congress. In Yates v. United States, the Court today rejected the government's use of an overly broad interpretation of a post-Enron anti-shredding statute (18 U.S.C. §1519), a statute that provides for up to a 20-year prison sentence, to prosecute a fisherman for the disappearance of some undersized fish from his shipping vessel. While the dissent differed in its interpretation...
  • Supreme Court to hear 401(k) fee case

    02/23/2015 4:49:17 PM PST · by Red in Blue PA · 4 replies
    Retirement savers may soon get a boost from the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the country's highest court will hear arguments in a case that revolves around the investment fees paid by 401(k) plan participants. In the initial class-action lawsuit, Tibble v. Edison, participants in the 401(k) plan sponsored by California-based utility Edison International argued that they were being charged excessive fees.