Free Republic

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 ...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Headline Only at this point

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...