Posts

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.

Rush Limbaugh: Churches Could Be FORCED To Marry Gays

Photo Credit: WND

If the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriages across America, then churches could be forced to perform homosexual weddings, even if they oppose the idea on religious grounds.

That’s according to radio host Rush Limbaugh, who thinks there’s a good chance of it happening.

“The Catholic Church can be forced to give away abortifacients and birth-control pills. Why can’t the Church be forced to marry gay couples who want the sacrament? Any church,” Limbaugh said on his top-rated program Wednesday afternoon.

“I think it’s a pretty safe bet that that kind of thing will happen. Among militant leftists, attacking organized religion is part of the political agenda, whether gay or not.”

Limbaugh continued: “If you had to roll the dice on it, you say, ‘Yeah that’ll be the next phase.’ When it becomes legal and a church refuses to do it, don’t go some place that will, sue the people that won’t. That’s just a political philosophy of people on the left.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Tackles Gay Marriage As Advocates Line Up For Historic Argument

Photo Credit: Lost Albatross

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California’s ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states.

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.

Read more from this story HERE.

Why Marriage Matters For America And Conservatism

Photo Credit: Ken Weingart Some former officials in the Republican Party are urging the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the nation. But support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman is essential to American—and conservative—principles. Indeed, nothing could be less conservative than urging an activist court to redefine an essential institution of civil society.

As my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?, and in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.

Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. We know that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and cause welfare programs to grow even more.

Read more from this story HERE.

Dread Scott Decision-Florida Governor Caves On Obamacare

Photo Credit: Irish CentralLongtime foe of Obamacare, Florida Governor Rick Scott, did an about face and agreed to implement the first step of it yesterday. The Governors decision shocked many republican leaders around the country as many of them jostle with the unpopular health care program.

Many republicans and conservatives derided the governor for his decision. The conservative group, Americans For Prosperity released this statement:

“Governor Scott’s announcement today is extremely disappointing. Governor Scott had been a national leader in the fight against President Obama’s health care takeover. He was elected because of his principled conservative leadership against ObamaCare’s overreach, and led the charge, with Attorney General Pam Bondi, to take Obamacare to the Supreme Court. But today he came out in support of the Medicaid expansion he vowed to oppose.”

But Fox News contributor, Dr. Charles Krauthammer said that Governor Scott sees this as the best decision for his state. Dr. Krauthammer said it was “an honorable decision to make.”

Perhaps it was the promise of no cost to Florida for the first three years and then only a 10% payment for it in the 4th year.

Perhaps it was the realization he has lost every battle to overturn Obamacare since its unpopular inception and he might as well accept that it has been mandated the law of the land.

Losing the battle in the Supreme Court struck a huge blow against opponents of Obamacare, but Mitt Romney’s loss to Obama in the election basically guaranteed Obamacare was the law of the land.

Although Obamacare is the law of the land and is being heralded as such, there is much doubt the country can actually afford to pay for it.

The nation is already 16 trillion in debt and piling on billions more debt on a daily basis, without adding all of the upcoming expense of Obamacare.

Governor Scott is a pragmatist and no one thinks his motives are anything but for the best interests of his state. So perhaps his decision is based on a belief that Obamacare will eventually collapse upon itself and he might as well get as much of the free benefits that he can before they are gone.

Governor Scott is only the seventh republican governor to accept the Obamacare mandate, but this might edge the other Governors to follow his lead and add more burdens on the federal government to cover states Obamacare expenses. This will further strain the already out of control deficit and perhaps hasten a showdown with an economic reality the Obama administration has refused to face for the past four years.

Perhaps the Obama administration will dread the Scott decision. Time will tell.

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Wants Answers After Soldier Jailed for Killing Suspected Terrorist Who Attacked Him

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the federal government to explain its punishment for a U.S. soldier convicted of shooting and killing a suspected terrorist who was attacking him.

The word comes from the parents of Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, Scott and Vicki Behenna, who have been raising awareness of their son’s case through the Defend Michael website.

Lower courts have concluded that since Michael Behenna was holding the terror suspect at gunpoint, he gave up the right to defend himself when the suspect allegedly lunged for his service weapon.

The suspect, Ali Mansur, was thought to be involved in a series of attacks on American troops. The judges determined Behenna was conducting an “unauthorized” interrogation when Mansur lunged for Behenna’s weapon and he fired.

Behenna, an Army Ranger, was given a 15-year sentence and now is in Fort Leavenworth.

Read more from this story HERE.