Posts

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases on Contraceptive Mandate – Hobby Lobby

Photo Credit: AP By Jennifer Haberkorn

The Supreme Court has agreed to revisit Obamacare, this time to review the requirement that most employers provide contraceptive coverage in their employee health insurance plans.

On Tuesday, the court accepted two cases centered on the issue of business owners’ religious expression.

It’s another test for the embattled health care law, which is already struggling under the weight of a botched website and a political backlash after millions of Americans saw their current insurance plans cancelled for 2014.

The case could also rekindle the same clash that unfolded during the 2012 presidential campaign, when Republicans attempted to make the contraception rule an important issue. A ruling against the contraception coverage rule wouldn’t knock down the whole health law, but it would give more fuel to its opponents.

This is not Obamacare’s first trip to the high court. In 2012, the court ruled in favor of another controversial piece of the law — the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to have health insurance. Chief John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court to uphold the mandate, a surprise move that kept a key piece of the law intact.

Read more from this story HERE.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: LifeNews By Steven Ertelt

Hobby Lobby’s battle against the HHS mandate is headed to the Supreme Court, as the high court today agreed to hear its lawsuit against the controversial provision in Obamacare. The Obama administration is attempting to make it comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to take up Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions. This is good news to the Green family, who own the store.

“This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans’ religious liberty,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that religious freedom in our country should be protected for family business owners like the Greens.”

The Obama administration says it is confident it will prevail, saying, “We believe this requirement is lawful…and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

“My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case,” said Mr. Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO. “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

Read more from this story HERE.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Block Texas Abortion Law

Photo Credit: APA split U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to block implementation of a new abortion law in Texas that already has prompted a dozen clinics in the state to stop performing the procedure.

The provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility in case women have complications.

The court was split 5-4, with the conservative wing of the court in the majority. The four liberal justices said they would have overturned the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals October 31 ruling that allowed the law to take effect.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by two of his conservative colleagues, wrote an opinion explaining the rationale in favor of leaving the appeals court decision intact.

Scalia criticized the four dissenters, saying that their suggested outcome would “flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Will the Supreme Court Rule That Treaties Override the Constitution?

Photo Credit: TerrellAfterMath.comIn 2012, National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius was considered by many to be one of the most significant Supreme Court cases heard in decades. On its outcome would depend the continued liberty of the American people. For if our elected officials can force the public to purchase government-approved health insurance, what can they NOT demand the American people acquire?! The full effects of the unconscionable betrayal of the Constitution and the American public by Chief Justice John Roberts are only beginning to be realized.

If the NFIB decision pronounced an end to our liberty, the Court’s upcoming ruling in Bond vs U.S. has the potential to literally end the 240 year history of the United States. For at issue in this case is the following question: When the United States joins an international treaty, may Congress pass laws toward its implementation that violate the Constitution? The Obama Regime, through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, says YES. For during oral arguments on November 5th, Verrilli told the Court that “…once a treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, Congress has the power to pass any law necessary and proper to implement the treaty.” ANY law! The constitutional limits on Congressional power may be ignored at the whim of lawmakers.

As a result, the United Nations would effectively make the laws by which the American people are governed. The UN Small Arms Treaty would, for example, wipe out the 2nd Amendment as international police acquire authority to order–even carry out–the disarming of the American people.

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Opens Hearing on Public Prayer—With a Prayer

Photo Credit: APThe United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case examining whether sectarian prayer should be allowed at government meetings.

The Supreme Court began the day’s session with its traditional opening, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” The irony of the high court hearing a public prayer complaint after its own mention of God was not lost on the justices.

Atheists sued the town of Greece, N.Y. for its practice of opening its town council meetings with mostly Christian prayers, and asking everyone to rise for those prayers. A federal appeals court sided with the plaintiffs, who insisted that any prayers said at council meetings must be nondenominational and inclusive, and the town then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia asked Thomas Hungar, who argued for the town of Greece, if he objected to the way the Supreme Court opens its sessions.

“But you — but you – you had no problem, Mr. Hungar, with the marshal’s announcement at the — at the beginning of this session. ‘God save the United States and this honorable court,’” Scalia said. “There — there are many people who don’t believe in God.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Politicians on Both Sides of the Pew Hope Supreme Court Case Has a Prayer

Photo Credit: Fox News When the Supreme Court this week takes up the issue of prayer before government meetings, both Republicans and Democrats will be looking to a higher power.

According to the Miami Herald, the Obama administration has joined conservative state and federal lawmakers in urging the Supreme Court to allow politicians to say prayers during government meetings.

Among those keeping close tabs on the issue is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who wants to hear prayers in the Senate before he and his colleagues get down to work.

Rubio is joined by legislators in Texas, too, who also want to say prayers before meetings. And in Arizona, both the House and Senate begin the day with a legislative prayer.

“It’s part of our history and decorum.” – Donna Kafer, Arizona’s legislative chaplain

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court to Consider New Obamacare Case

picture - supreme-courtObamacare is before the U.S. Supreme Court again. On Thursday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) lawyers filed the first viable petition for Supreme Court review involving Kathleen Sebelius’ HHS Mandate, which requires employers to provide abortion-related insurance coverage, even if those employers have a religious objection to abortion.

Section 1001 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) requires all large employers to offer “preventive services” to their employees or face enormous financial penalties. With President Obama’s approval, Sebelius issued a regulation that defined preventive services to include access to birth control, including those that cause abortions after conception.

The regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) only allows narrow exceptions, such as for churches, but leaves other religion-oriented or religiously-owned employers subject to the regulation.

Over 60 lawsuits have been filed nationwide against this unprecedented government command. Many involve nonprofit entities, such as the University of Notre Dame. But roughly 35 of these lawsuits involve for-profit businesses which are wholly owned by a person or family with a religious belief against abortion, such as devout Christians.

These lawsuits argue both that the HHS Mandate violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as well as a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The federal appeals courts have split on whether a religiously-owned business can claim religious-liberty protections and whether requiring people to provide abortion-related services is a substantial burden on religious faith…The [Supreme] Court will likely vote in November whether to hear arguments in the case, which, if granted, would occur next spring.

Read more from this story HERE.

Lipstick on the Obamacare Pig

Photo Credit: SUZANNAH HOOVER

Photo Credit: SUZANNAH HOOVER

By Stephen F. Hayes. It’s been one year since the Supreme Court decision that allowed Obama administration officials to begin implementing the Affordable Care Act, and the frequency and volume of reports about the challenges facing those reforms—and the difficulties they are visiting on those who were supposed to benefit from them—are increasing dramatically.

Jeff Vernon, an employee of Scrambler Marie’s restaurant in Toledo, Ohio, told a local reporter that the owners were cutting his hours to avoid penalties under Obamacare. Businesses with more than 49 employees have to offer insurance to all “full-time” workers—defined as those who put in 30 hours or more each week. The result, for Vernon: $400 less in take-home pay every month. “That leaves me $27.50 for two weeks to live off of,” he explained. Vernon said the owners tried to avoid the cuts but didn’t have any other recourse. “They were real good about that,” he added. “The last thing they wanted to do was cut people. They don’t want to fire anybody.”

Other business owners haven’t been able to avoid eliminating jobs. A Gallup poll taken in June found that nearly one in five small businesses—19 percent of those surveyed—have cut workers “as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act.” The same poll, first reported by CNBC, found that 41 percent of those interviewed had suspended hiring because of Obamacare. The poll of 603 business owners with less than $20 million in annual sales also found that 55 percent believe Obamacare will lead to higher health care costs, while just 5 percent saw future cost savings.

The steady stream of negative stories in recent months is one reason the Obama administration is preparing a massive public relations campaign to promote the launch of health care exchanges on October 1, 2013—which is fewer than 100 days away. The administration is seeking to enlist high-profile athletes and celebrities to sell Obamacare and its alleged benefits. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, told reporters last week that HHS officials are working with major American sports leagues on the campaign. Read more from this story HERE.

_________________________________________________________________

Obamacare ‘is still unconstitutional’ one year after Supreme Court approval

By Rand Paul. One year ago, the Supreme Court upheld a law that radically transforms our health care system in a way that continues to frighten and beleaguer most Americans.

Friday is the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. The 5-4 decision declared that the federal government could force Americans to buy health insurance — not just any insurance, but insurance covering procedures dictated by the federal government. Obamacare established a labyrinth of red tape and bureaucracy, colossal even by Washington standards, and most important — penalizes the uninsured through the individual mandate.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declared that the individual mandate could be considered a tax and that the power to tax was also the power to enforce the law. Dissenting Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. vehemently disagreed, writing in their dissent: “[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. [W]e have never — never — treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’”

I think that Obamacare is still unconstitutional. I still think that Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito got it right.

One year later, the federal health care law is even more concerning. In addition to potentially causing upward of 20 million Americans to lose their private health insurance policies, it could destroy an estimated 800,000 jobs. Read more from this story HERE.

_________________________________________________________________

NFL says no to promoting Obamacare

By Sandhya Somashekhar and Lenny Bernstein. The National Football League is used to big, bruising battles. But on Friday, it announced that it was likely staying out of one of the roughest fights in Washington: the war over Obamacare.

Earlier this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius disclosed that the administration was in talks with the sports organization to help promote the law, which enters a new phase as advocates prepare to begin enrolling millions of Americans in health insurance this fall.

On Friday, Republican leaders in the Senate issued a stern warning to sports organizations not to partner with the administration on an issue marked by such “divisiveness and persistent unpopularity.”

Asked about the congressional letter, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league had not made any commitment to the administration. “We have responded to the letters we received from members of Congress to inform them we currently have no plans to engage in this area and have had no substantive contact with the administration about [the health-care law’s] implementation,” he said in an e-mail.

The NFL’s decision is the latest blow to the administration over the health-care law, which faces enormous hurdles as key portions go into effect in the coming months. Chief among the challenges is the political opposition to the law, which has persisted since its passage in 2010 despite hopes on the part of advocates that it would eventually be accepted as the law of the land. Read more from this story HERE.

Court Watchers: Justice Roberts, Others, Likely to Decide Homosexual Marriage Case Based Upon Public Opinion

Photo credit:  Guillaume Paumier

Photo credit: Guillaume Paumier

The dramatic shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage is likely to affect the Supreme Court’s historic rulings on the issue later this month, say legal scholars.

The justices often say they do not worry at all about politics or public opinion, and simply do what they believe the law compels them to.

But it will be hard if not impossible for them ignore the enormous transformation in opinion on same sex marriage, court watchers say, especially with two cases that offer them flexibility in how to rule.

“I have to think the justices — and especially the chief — are very cognizant of the shifting public opinion,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

..

The marriage cases present a challenge for the conservative chief justice. Roberts likely doesn’t want the court to be on the wrong side of history. He might also be able to help limit the reach of an ostensibly liberal decision, as he did last year with President Obama’s healthcare law.



Read more from this story HERE.

Paul Wants to Lead Supreme Court Challenge to Fed’s Tracking of Americans’ Calls, Emails (+video)

Photo Credit: Fox News

Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday he wants to mount a Supreme Court challenge to the federal government logging Americans’ phone calls and Internet activities.

Paul, R-Ky., a leading voice in the Libertarian movement, told “Fox News Sunday” he wants to get enough signatures to file a class-action lawsuit before the high court and will appeal to younger Americans, who appear to be advancing the cause of less government and civil liberties.

“I’m going to be asking all the Internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class-action lawsuit,” he said. “If we get 10 million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington.”

Paul, a first-term senator and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said he disagrees with President Obama’s argument that the National Security Agency collecting 3 billion calls daily and other information is a modest invasion of privacy.

“That doesn’t look like a modest invasion of privacy,” he told Fox. “I have no problem if you have probable cause … but we’re talking about trolling through a billion phone records a day.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Chief Justice Roberts’ Lesbian Cousin: He’ll Rule In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage

Photo Credit: AP

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ cousin, a lesbian seeking to get married in California who will have reserved seating for relatives at two upcoming cases, wrote that she believes her cousin will rule in favor of same-sex marriage in an op-ed posted on the National Council for Lesbian Rights.

A spokesperson for the court did not respond to questions about a potential conflict for Roberts.

“I know that my cousin is a good man,” Jean Podrasky, 48, of San Francisco wrote. “I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law.

“I believe he understands that ruling in favor of equality will not be out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit. I am hoping that the other justices (at least most of them) will share this view, because I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings,” she added.

In her op-ed, Podrasky cited Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as a policymaker who was persuaded on the matter because of a family member who was gay.

Read more from this story HERE.