Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

If Courts Rule Against Trump's Travel Ban, We've Got a Problem

Many suspect a long, drawn-out battle in the courts over Trump's travel ban.  A battle that may go all the way to the Supreme Court.  However, if Trump's ban is struck down, we have an even bigger problem with our "visa" program, which also restricts many citizens from entering the country.

Except in the case of Canada and 38 countries with a "visa waiver" status, any citizen of another country wishing to enter the U.S. is required to obtain a visa for work, education, and tourism from the U.S. Embassy in their country, as noted in this statement from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website:
"A foreign national or alien entering the U.S. is generally required to present a passport and valid visa issued by a U.S. Consular Official, unless they are a citizen of a country eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, or are a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. or a citizen of Canada."
Even in the case of those countries issuing a "visa waiver",  the stay is limited to 90 days; and you must present a valid passport from your country of origin to travel into and around the United States.

In terms of shutting down visa access, the State Department's website says this:
"U.S. Embassies and Consulates are sometimes forced to limit or at times suspend visa services because of natural disasters, civil unrest, war and/or security concerns, among other reasons. The list below notes the U.S. Embassies and Consulates that currently provide limited visa services, locations where visa services are suspended, and countries that do not have embassies or consulates."
So, basically, Trump isn't doing anything that hasn't been within the purview of the U.S. for years.  Those who say what Trump is doing is unconstitutional or outside the law should take a good look at those existing laws.  For example, if a person is a citizen of Belarus, Minsk, you can only receive a visa for the following reasons:
"Although full visa services are suspended until further notice, U.S. Embassy Minsk processes nonimmigrant visa applications for the following limited categories: A visas for diplomats and government officials; G visas for employees and representatives to international organizations; B visas for relatives of Belarusian diplomats serving at Belarusian diplomatic missions in the United States; visas for family and medical emergencies requiring urgent travel; visas for U.S. Government-sponsored travel and programs; and visas for senior citizens, 70 years of age and older. Review the U.S. Embassy Minsk website for more information. "
Last I checked, Belarus is not an Arab country and not covered under Trump's ban.

Further, Section 212(f) of the 1952 Nationality and Immigration Act states this:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Obviously the whole travel ban confusion has more to do with politics and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" than reality.

References:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Entering the U.S. - Documents required for Foreign Nationals (International Travelers): https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/572/~/entering-the-u.s.---documents-required-for-foreign-nationals-(international

U.S. Department of State: Countries with Limited or No U.S. Visa Services: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/countries-with-limited-or-no-u-s--visa-services.html

The Past Six Presidents Have All Used The Executive Power To Block Certain Classes Of Immigrants: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-past-six-presidents-have-all-used-executive-power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/


Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Merrick Garland---if Hillary Wins and the Senate Flips

I have always thought that Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court was nothing but a political move.  While Garland is "supremely" qualified, he is too moderate for either Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's tastes.  Don't be surprised if his nomination is pulled by Obama if Hillary wins, thereby leaving the nomination process in her hands.  If the Senate flips to Democratic control, there will be nothing stopping her from seating a young, far left nominee that will affect the high court for decades to come.

Both Obama and Hillary are very aware of what the Supreme Court means to an extremely liberal administration.  The very left-leaning Obama and his "pen" actions on executive orders have yielded just a 45% win rate in the court. Compare that to an average win rate of more than 60% for all other administrations in the last 50 years.  Obama was so liberal that the 4 liberal Justices on the court sided with their conservative counterparts by handing down a total of 44 unanimous decisions against him.

The Republican Senate probably made a horrible tactical decision by not approving the appointment of Garland; especially since they have known for months that a potential loser like Trump was their party's nominee. Now, there is a distinct possibility that the first liberal court since before 1970, can wind up being more extreme than ever imagined.  At stake will be decisions on gun control, late term abortions, extreme air and clean water rulings, and every liberal direction Hillary Clinton can take us.  When she takes office, she will quickly begin her run for a second term, by showing her suppporters that she means to take care of business for them.  A more liberal Supreme Court will assist by not blocking her actions.

References:

Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/merrick-garlands-instinct-is-for-the-middle/2016/03/16/59a82132-eb91-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?tid=a_inl

What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/

Obama Has Lost In The Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-45-years-of-conservative-rulings-heres-what-a-liberal-supreme-court-would-do/2016/02/19/efa63ad4-d589-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.457a9e4162ae


Friday, May 27, 2016

Hillary Lies About "Common Sense" Gun Control

In January on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton said this about gun control:
More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I'll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands.
Of course, to the average person this all sounds very reasonable. That is...until you understand that Hillary Clinton believes that the Supreme Court got it wrong when it found a ridiculous firearm law in Washington, D.C. unconstitutional.

That case, generally referred to as "Heller", overturned the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which was passed by the Washington, D.C. city council.  The unreasonableness of this law was widespread; it basically left people defenseless in their own homes.

The law banned any civilian ownership of handguns, automatic weapons, and high-capacity semi-automatic weapons made on or after 1976. In addition, a homeowner must secure a weapon in the home by first unloading it, and then by either disassembling it, or by securing it with a trigger lock.  This is what Hillary thinks is common sense gun control.  In essence, under that law, the only weapons you could own after 1975 were bolt-action rifles and non-repeating shotguns. Further, in order to defend yourself in your own home, you would have to reassemble it, or unlock it, and then load it.   Try asking a home intruder or rapist to wait while you reassemble and reload your gun.  If its a shotgun, you'd better hope there is no more than one or two assailants and that you're a very good shot.

Simply, Hillary's belief that "Heller" was a travesty proves that she doesn't believe in the second amendment, and that so-called common-sense gun control could take all your guns away; including handguns.

Further, she also believes that victims of firearm violence and their families should be able to sue gun manufacturers and dealers out of existence.  If that isn't taking guns away in a backdoor fashion then I don't know what is.  Maybe, when a drunk driver kills someone while driving a Ford, we should sue both Ford and the dealership that sold the car. After all, the logic is the same.

Only an idiot lawyer like Hillary Clinton would think her proposals are common sense gun control.

References:

Hillary on Gun Control: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+gun+control&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#eob=m.0d06m5//short

Hillary Clinton Opposes Heller Gun Rights Ruling, Adviser Says: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/hillary-clinton-believes-pivotal-gun-rights-ruling-was-wrong-adviser-says

District of Columbia v. Heller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975

Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings - BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

Why Hillary Clinton is wrong on gun liability - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/keane-gun-liability-hillary-clinton/

Friday, March 25, 2016

Is Merrick Garland a Political Pawn of Obama?

By all accounts, Barack Obama is the most liberal President of modern times. Proof of this, is in the fact that his record of defending his policies in the Supreme Court have placed him dead last among all Presidents since 1946.


So, when it came to replacing Justice Scalia on the nation's high court, it was expected that he would attempt to tilt it decidedly left with another very liberal Justice nomination.  But, no. Instead, he nominated a moderate: Merrick Garland.

So what gives?

Well, this is just another way for the President to embarrass the Republican-led Senate and the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  In other words, it's politics.  By nominating an eminently qualified moderate, he can now sell the concept that McConnell and the rest of the GOP are being unreasonable if they fail to give Garland a hearing and a up and down vote.   Should they go through the motions of having a hearing, but reject Garland's appointment with a down vote, he can still continue to claim that the Republicans are being unreasonable.

In my opinion, I don't think Garland is the kind of jurist that Obama really wanted.   I'm sure that he wanted someone younger and one who would support more extreme liberal policies far into the future.  But Garland -- in an election year -- provides him with a unique political opportunity to attempt to return the control of the Senate to the Democrats.  If so, this would benefit the next President; should that President be a Democrat.  Similarly, if the next President is a Republican, a Democrat-led Senate would derail anything he might need done.  Obama sees this as a win-win for at least four more years after he leaves office.

References:

Obama has struggled at the Supreme Court: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/despite-this-weeks-victories-obama-has-struggled-at-the-supreme-court/

McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-mcconnell-supreme-court-20160320-story.html

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has a record of restraint, not activism: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-legal-analysis-20160318-story.html

Merrick Garland Is A 'Qualified' Supreme Court Nominee: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee-obama/#57b6b6a82d6a

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Yes Hillary. Elections Will Have Consequences For Alito's Replacement

Following the death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, when Hillary Clinton heard that the Republicans may block any Obama nominee with a filibuster, said that "elections have consequences" and President Obama won his election and won the right to nominate a justice and the Senate should vote on that nomination.

Of course that's only one side of the story.  Hillary and then-Senator Barack Obama both filibustered George Bush's Justice Sam Alito nomination in 2006, attempting to deny a  vote.   She even tried to do the same with the John Roberts nomination for Chief Justice. Now that the same may happen to an Obama nominee, she is demanding that just the opposite be the case.

What Hillary can't seem to acknowledge is her own statement. Yes, "elections" do "have consequences".  Obama may have won the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when he won his reelection in 2012, but in 2014, the voters gave the Republicans control of the Senate, and the right to approve or deny any nominee. Also, Hillary seems to forget that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, blocked the approval of Bush nominee Priscilla Owen to the Appellate Court for 4 years.  She was in the Senate at that same time and never once condemned Reid for not bringing that nomination to the floor for four years; not the 8 or 9months that might take place in the Senate after Obama nominates someone.

In essence, that's the type of false argument causing many Democrats to think twice about her, and now side with Bernie Sanders.

References:

Hillary Clinton on death of Antonin Scalia: ‘Elections have consequences’: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/157745/in-denver-speech-hillary-clinton-reacts-to-scalias-death-elections-have-consequences

Hillary has no regrets about trying to filibuster Alito, Roberts: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-trying-filibu/

The Senate yesterday approved the nomination of Priscilla R. Owen as a federal appellate judge, ending a four-year battle over the Texas jurist and marking the first tangible results of a bipartisan Senate agreement on judicial appointees: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052500411.html

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito: https://www.google.com/search?q=+fillibuster+alito&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Friday, February 19, 2016

Why a Liberal-Biased Supreme Court is So Dangerous

When our founders wrote the Constitution, they provided for a Judicial branch of government to insure that the laws of our country and the actions of its citizens were in full compliance with the Constitution.  If those citizens felt that the existing Constitution was either too constrictive or not restrictive enough, they allowed for a process to amend it.

Liberal Democrats however, have always felt that the process of amending the Constitution was too burdensome, and instead, they believe it should be more of a  "living" document; subject to broader Supreme Court interpretations based on the will of society at the time of their decisions. Of course, their definition of the "will of society" is almost always based on the will of Democrats and not necessarily society as a whole.  Most Republicans believe that Supreme Court decisions should be based on the Constitution as written.

This fact was clearly found to be the case in a 2014 Pew Research poll on the subject.  70% of Democrats said that the Constitution is subject to interpretation based on current times.  On the other side of the political aisle, 69% of Republicans felt that the Constitution should be interpreted as written. Among Independents, the issue was near equally split.

Now, with the death of Justice Scalia, President Obama is the recipient of the Democrat's dream of a lifetime by being able to tilt the Supreme Court to a liberal bias; and, in doing so, insure that the court starts making decisions by putting their political fingers in the air in order to sense which way the Democratic party's political winds are blowing.  Thus, instead of the Court being truly blind, it will become an extension of the Democratic Party.  That's a very dangerous thing; not just for Republicans, but for the country.  With the court having a liberal majority, laws passed by Republicans will surely be struck down, and laws written by Democrats will be automatically upheld.  Is that what we truly want from our nation's highest court?

Lastly, before Scalia's death, and at a time when the Supreme Court was dominated by conservative Justices, Gallup asked if people thought the high court was too conservative, too liberal, or just right.  In response, only 20% thought the court was too conservative. 40% thought it was just right; and 37% thought the existing conservative court was too liberal.  My guess is that poll will be substantially different if Obama gets his way.  And, it won't just be 37% liberal bias.

References:

The Living Constitution: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss

Americans divided on how the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/31/americans-divided-on-how-the-supreme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/

Polling Report: Judiciary: http://www.pollingreport.com/court.htm

pb




Monday, February 15, 2016

What Scalia's Death Means to 'The Little Sisters of the Poor'

The Supreme Court has yet to hear arguments on the Little Sisters of the Poor's case regarding being forced to provide contraception under ObamaCare.  However, Justice Scalia's death may have just sunk their cause.  Unless at least one liberal Justice votes to side with the sisters, at the very least, there would be a split-decision along party lines.  In that case, their lower court loss before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals would stand.  Thus, it would be the first time in the history of the U.S. that the high court would deny someone their religious rights under our Constitution with no possible redress unless ObamaCare is repealed.

And, don't think that other decisions by the court won't result in liberal wins for the very same reason.  It is unbelievably strange that Scalia -- a devout Catholic -- would have possibly hurt the Little Sisters -- a Catholic charitable organization -- through his own death.

References:

Court rules against Little Sisters of the Poor: Government to force nuns to violate faith or pay massive IRS penalties: http://www.becketfund.org/tenth-circuit-rules-against-little-sisters-hhs-mandate/

This Is What Happens When the Supreme Court Is Tied: http://time.com/4220760/supreme-court-tie-antonin-scalia/

A devout Italian Catholic and a Ronald Reagan appointee, Scalia was one of the most conservative members of the bench, and he was known not just for his legal mind, but for his Catholic core:  http://time.com/4220768/antonin-scalia-dead-catholic-legacy/

Friday, June 26, 2015

Why the Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage Was Inevitable

In our union of states, reciprocity is paramount.  Each state recognizes educational degrees received in other states.  Each state recognizes and accepts the validity of marriages in other states.  So, when there are just 13 left that don't recognize gay marriage, the reciprocity of the union has to be preserved making same sex marriage universally acceptable and recognizable in all 50 states.

My concern is that, if gay marriage is now the law of the land, will any religious objection to it be voided?  Will the refusal of preforming a gay marriage by a Church be overridden by what the Supreme Court just did?  My guess is that we will have nothing but one court battle after another in which gays fight any and all objections to their marriages.  Mark my words.

Reference:

Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/


Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity On ObamaCare

ObamaCare is a broken and bad law and most people know it.

In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from 6/14 to 6/18, only 8% thought that the President's healthcare program was working well; the rest said it either needed to be changed or repealed. Similarly, a 6/10 to 6/14 poll by CBS/New York Times found that only 9% thought that the law should be kept as is. In a May 29-31 poll by CNN and ORC, only 11% thought ObamaCare was a success.

However, with the latest Supreme Court's decision on subsidies, it will continue as is for at least another year and a half that Obama has left in office.

Had the high court ruled otherwise, Congress would have been forced to do something about it because the loss of subsidies would have been the leverage that the GOP needed to make major changes.  Changes that the President would have to accept, and not veto, because the lack of subsidies would gut the law's major attractiveness for low income enrollees.  The vast majority of those enrolled (86%) have only signed up because they were getting subsidies which cut their monthly premiums by an average of 72%. Yet, we still have 35 million Americans who are uninsured because they can't get subsidies, and therefore can't afford insurance under, laughably, the Affordable Care Act . Compare that to the only 10.2 million who have signed up for ObamaCare over the last two years with only 1.4 million (14%) of them paying full-price.

References:

Supreme Court saves Obamacare: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/

Polling Report: Summary of Health Policy Polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

86 Percent of Health Law Enrollees Receive Subsidies: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/11-7-million-americans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

Meet the Health-Law Holdouts: Americans Who Prefer to Go Uninsured: https://www.google.com/search?q=Meet+the+Health-Law+Holdouts%3A+Americans+Who+Prefer+to+Go+Uninsured&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

ObamaCare sign-ups officially beat 2015 goal: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243771-obamacare-sign-ups-officially-beat-goal

Obamacare subsidies cut premiums by average of 72 percent: HHS: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/9/obamacare-subsidies-cut-premiums-average-72-pct/?page=all

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Obama Wins No Matter How Supreme Court Decides On Subsidies

No matter if you call it  King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, Pruitt v. Burwell, or Indiana v. IRS, the Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments as to whether or not enrollees in the Federal exchanges (aka Healthcare.gov or HCgov) are eligible for Federal subsidies.  At stake are millions of  Healthcare.gov enrollees who may lose those subsidies.  To put this into perspective, ACAsignups.net is reporting that as of 3/2/15, 11.76 million had signed up for ObamaCare health plans.  But, of that number nearly 9 million were signed up through HCgov, and, approximately 87% of that number or 7.83 million  are qualified for and should receive some amount of subsidies. Subsidies that may be struck down by the highest court if it rules to side with King.

Now, many have written that if the Supreme Court rules favorably in the case of King (the primary umbrella suit for all of the other suits), ObamaCare will unravel because subsidies are the key to reducing the number of uninsured lower income families.  But, there's more to that decision than just what is legal.  As usual, that "more" is politics.

Certainly, if the Supreme's vote that federal subsidies in the federal exchanges are legal, then Obama and the Democrats are winners.  But, what if the subsidies are struck down.  What then?  At that point, Democrat politics will kick into high gear.  Even though the Democrats are wholly responsible for writing a flawed legislation that, legally, would deny millions their subsidies, they will still use that court defeat to blame the Republicans. 

First, they will blame those 36 states run by Republican Governors and Legislatures for denying millions of people subsidies by not setting up their own ObamaCare exchanges and, instead, relying on the HC.gov for their enrollments.  Then, they will pressure the Republican House and Senate to come up with a solution to re-instate those subsidies.  If they aren't re-instated, the President and the Democrats "and" the mainstream media will hammer the Republicans right through the 2016 Presidential election cycle.  That has already started.  The Kaiser Family conducted a poll and 64% of  wanted Congress to act if the subsidies are struck down by the Supreme Court.  This despite the fact that, according to a RealClearPolitics summary of several polls, only 39.6% even approve of the law.

So, there you have it.  Obama wins no matter what happens, and once again, Republicans are being boxed in by something that not even one of them voted for and which is negatively viewed by most Americans.  Go figure!


References:

King v. Burwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell

87% of Obamacare Enrollees Qualify for Subsidies: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/87-of-obamacare-enrollees-qualify-for-subsidies-increase-over-last-year

ACAsignups.net: http://acasignups.net/

Most uninsured Americans live in states that won't run their own ObamaCare exchanges:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/most-uninsured-americans-live-in-states-that-wont-run-their-own-obamacare-exchanges/

Public Approval of Health Care Law: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

64% Want Congress to Act if Subsidies are denied: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102373740

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Supreme Court To Review 4 Words That Could Kill ObamaCare

Once before, the Supreme Court reviewed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and found the tax imposed on those not buying healthcare to be constitutional because, under the Constitution, Congress has been explicitly given the right impose taxes.

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to be the arbiter in whether or not subsidies can be given to low income enrollees who have purchased their insurance through anything but State-run Exchanges. This tune it will all come down to the wording that appears in Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter A › Part IV › Subpart C › § 36B of ObamaCare which covers premium assistance (subsidies).  And the words that matter -- those which define who may receive subsidies -- are as follows:
"and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State..."
More importantly, the Court decision will all come down to the last four words of the above line: "established by the State...".  What "established by the State" seems to imply is that any low income enrollee, in any of the 36 States who didn't establish their own Exchanges, aren't eligible for subsidies.  Thus, forcing millions to fully pay their own premiums.

Now, Obama's attorneys are going to argue that it was never the intent of ObamaCare to not give low income insureds a subsidy and, those people shouldn't be punished for a wording error (typo) in the law; arguing that it possibly should have said "for the State" and not "by the State".   This too is a ridiculous argument.  The universality of the subsidies could have been maintained by simply saying "and which were enrolled in through an Exchange" period.  There is no need to add the words "established by the State".

But the wording is very explicit, and those on the other side of this case are going to argue that it was intentional; further arguing that the intent was to punish Republican States for not setting up their own exchanges.  Thus forcing Republican Governors and Legislatures to face the voters over not having provided subsidies for their poorest of people.  Otherwise, the restrictive language of "by the State" would not even be needed.  But, punishment was the intent, and, in 2012, one of the chief architects of the law, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber made this quite clear when he said this about crafting that part of the law:
"What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits-but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."
Clearly, the intent was to use this portion of the law politically. This in much the same way that Democrats tried to defeat those Republican Governors who didn't expand Medicaid under ObamaCare.  However, not one Republican Governor who refused to expand Medicaid lost their governorship in the last election.

My guess is that the high court will side against Obama's Justice Department and rule that the subsidies outside of State exchanges are invalid.  But, in doing so, they may specify that enrollees who are currently receiving those subsidies can continue to receive them -- assuming they are still eligible -- on the basis that they entered into a "good faith" contract with the federal government for their health insurance.  Though, beyond this, ObamaCare will not be able to provide additional subsidies.  Thus, it will be up to the President and the new Republican Congress to fix it.  We'll see how that goes.

Of course, if subsidies are ruled out for non-State Exchanges and the wording of law isn't changed through legislative action, much of the intent of the law -- that to insure most of those who can't afford insurance -- is lost.  As a result, millions won't be able to sign up for ObamaCare because of cost (mostly younger people) and then, those forced to sign up because of need (usually older and/or sicker) will only see their premiums get more expensive.  

Ultimately, ObamaCare will only be seen as a bigger failure than it already is.


References:

Supreme Court to hear Obamacare subsidies case: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN0IR1Z720141107

26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B

Liberal Paul Krugman: Death by Typo The Latest Frivolous Attack on Obamacare: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

An ACA Subsidy Smoking Gun? | RealClearPolicy: http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/07/25/an_aca_subsidy_smoking_gun_1023.html

Liberal Website: The New Republic: The Supreme Court Is Now a Death Panel: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120206/supreme-court-obamacare-decision-king-v-burwell-life-or-death

Americans Vote Against Greater Medicaid Reach: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/05/us-voters-say-no-to-obamacare-medicaid-expansion

Good Faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith

Obamacare's Success Depends on Young Buyers: http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Obamacare-young-healthcare-insurance/2013/07/26/id/517196/

The Public Disapproval Of ObamaCare Continues: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

How The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision Is Being Distorted By Media

In headline after headline, the Supreme Court decision, siding with Hobby Lobby, is being grossly distorted by calling it a decision against a woman's reproductive health; or, more generally: contraception.  This is a complete lie.

What is not being told, is the fact that Hobby Lobby and the other litigant, Conestoga, already provided insurance with contraceptive coverage for 16 of 20 methods of contraception that were mandated by ObamaCare; meeting the contraception needs of 95% of the women working at their companies. Their's was not an argument against providing contraception or, somehow, a kind of war against women's reproductive health.  What they did object to is having to be told by Obama and his Department of Health and Human Services that they have to provide therapeutic abortion drugs such as Plan B as part of their medical insurance plans.  This is the only and true basis of their religious objection.

I think one of the most distorted headlines about the Supreme Court decision was this from NBC: "Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control."  It paints "employers", in a broad brush fashion, being able to deny birth control coverage. That is simply a lie.  The decision by the high court was limited to companies that are non-public owned and whose ownership is closely held by, for example, a family -- as was the case for Hobby Lobby.  All other employers must comply with the ObamaCare mandate to provide total contraceptive coverage; including abortive drugs.

The reality is that many, if not most employers had already provided some forms of contraception; and, they did so long before ObamaCare.  It is just good business in several ways.  Coverage of contraception is a recruiting tool that is able to attract good, qualified female employees; just as other benefits would.  Also, a pregnancy can be very costly to a company.  Under existing laws, women are entitled to maternity leave with their jobs held for them when they return.  As a result, companies must hire some form of temporary help to cover the loss of a woman on leave.  While some lower level jobs are easy to cover with temporary help, some higher level vacancies must be supplemented with extremely expensive consulting and contract labor.

Now, one last important note.  ObamaCare is designed to literally destroy the system of employer-based insurance in this country.  That's why the penalty for not providing it is so low; relative to the cost of providing insurance. So, the Hobby Lobby win is a moot point because, that company, like so many others, will probably elect to pay the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty and force their employees to buy their own insurance through the exchanges; assuming ObamaCare hasn't been repealed.  And, once an employee is in the exchange, all forms of contraception are covered; including those designed to be abortive.

References:

New Research Shows that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Provide the Contraceptive of Choice to Over 95% of Women it Ensures: http://reproductiveresearchaudit.com/new-research-shows-that-hobby-lobby-and-conestoga-provide-the-contraceptive-of-choice-to-over-95-of-women-it-ensures-only-330-women-likely-not-covered-for-abortion-causing-drugsdevices/

Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control:  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

Obamacare And The End Of Employer-Based Health Insurance:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/11/14/obamacare-and-the-end-of-employer-based-health-insurance/

Obamacare Architect Emanuel: Most Employers Will Drop Health Coverage: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Emanuel-employers-drop-health/2014/03/21/id/560906/

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before

Normally, the lawyers for the Executive Branch have done pretty well when the actions of the Presidents, cabinets and, agencies are challenged in the courts and, ultimately, in the Supreme Court; winning 70% of their challenges.

But, as reported last year, Obama's not-so-tour-de-force team of lawyers has lost two-thirds of their high court challenges.  In fact, the latest loss --  Obama's deemed-unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board -- was the 12th such loss in just 2-1/2 years where there was a unanimous decision against him.  Even two members of the high court who were appointed by the President -- Sonya Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan -- have voted against him in those unanimous losses because there was obvious Administration overreach.

I think, to many, this shows that Obama is running the government in an imperial fashion and without regard to the Constitution of the United States; a document that he, under oath, pledged to uphold.  Sadly, not every executive order from this President will be challenged but, many should be.

Once again, the sheer number of court challenges and subsequent losses speaks volumes to the lawlessness of his go-it-alone use of executive orders.  If the Congress -- on both sides of the aisles -- aren't willing to stop him then, the power of government will, forevermore, be shifted to the President and away from Congress.  While the Democrats might approve of the Obama's actions today, there will come a time when there is a sitting GOP president who, based on precedent, could do the same thing; and, this is a very dangerous path to be on.  Even the noted liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, has expressed his concerns over Obama's overreach of power.

While some might balk at Speaker of the House John Boenher's lawsuit being filed against Obama's use of executive actions, it is the first real action being taken to reel-in this overreach of power for those executive actions that haven't yet made it to the courts or that never will.  Also, the very announcement of the lawsuit gives many Americans a heads-up on what is going on in the White House.  To me, this is a better alternative than bringing politically-damaging impeachment proceedings against the President,  even though, some of what he's done is truly impeachable.  Given Obama's track record in the courts, Boehner's lawsuit has a good probability of winning.

References:

Obama administration has lost two-thirds of Supreme Court cases: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/26/obama-administration-lost-two-thirds-of-cases-duri/?page=all

Obama Suffers 12th Unanimous Defeat at Supreme Court: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke

George F. Will: Stopping a lawless president: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-stopping-a-lawless-president/2014/06/20/377c4d6e-f7e5-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

Cutting Through The Fog:  Why Obama's Executive Orders Are Lawless: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-obamas-executive-orders-are-lawless.html

Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/04/turley_obamas_become_the_very_danger_the_constitution_was_designed_to_avoid.html

Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/25/boehner-plans-to-file-suit-against-obama-over-alleged-abuse-executive-power/

Boehner to Seek Bill to Sue Obama Over Executive Actions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/politics/boehner-to-seek-bill-to-sue-obama-over-executive-actions.html?_r=0







Thursday, April 24, 2014

With More Than 50 Years Of Affirmative Action, Have Blacks Benefited Economically?

To those on the political left, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to side with the will of the Michigan voters to ban Affirmative Action quotas for college admissions is tantamount to promoting state-wide racism.  But, to many others, Affirmative Action unfairly uses racial discrimination to fight racial discrimination; especially in college admissions where some well qualified non-Blacks can be denied enrollment because the college must meet a Black enrollment quota.  So, in theory, by broadly forcing quotas for education and employment, African Americans should have greatly improved their economic stations in life.  But, is this the case with more than 50 years of active Affirmative Action behind us?  To that question, one need only look at this chart:

Click on Chart to Enlarge
What this clearly shows is that, while all median incomes by race have improved since 1965, Black  incomes have consistently remained at roughly 65% of what all races, combined, are being paid.  Of course, some would argue that this only proves that racism still exists in America. On the contrary, this just proves that Affirmative Action is a complete failure.  A failure because Blacks are still falling behind in their incomes.  As I have written before, education is the only true key to erasing income inequality. 

To that point, one need only to look at a few statistics.  When it comes to race and educational attainment rates, 84% of Blacks hold a high school diploma and 19% hold a college degree.  Compare that to Whites statistics of 87.6% and 30.3%; respectively.  Then, too, when Blacks do go to college, the graduation rate is only 32% as compared to 50% for Whites.

Forcing colleges to enroll less qualified students, who are more likely to not graduate, while rejecting more qualified applicants, who are more likely to graduate, is not only unjust but a waste of our country's limited college education availability.  To solve income inequality among Blacks, we need to address why there are higher percentages not graduating from High School. At the same time, we need to improve the quality of education so that Blacks, entering college, can have a reasonable expectation of graduating.  Otherwise, simply sending them to college without the proper educational background is a totally fruitless endeavor.

To me, the Supreme Court's decision may actually turn out to be a positive for African Americans because no longer can they depend on Affirmative Action to get them into college.  As a result, if they truly want to go, they will have to seriously work harder to achieve that goal.  Thus, a better educated Black America should emerge with more sharing in the American Dream.

References:

U.S. top court upholds Michigan ban on college affirmative action: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/us-usa-court-race-idUSBREA3L0Y820140422

Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

Failing Education: The True Cause Of Income Inequality:  http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/search?q=income+inequality

Education Attainment By Race: https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0229.pdf

U.S. College Graduation Rates By Race: http://edpond.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-college-graduation-rates-by-race-by.html

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor On Mandated Contraception: Stupidity On Display!

During the initial oral arguments, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan posed this to the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties attorney's as a solution to their client's religious objection of having to provide contraception coverage to all their employees:
"Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead."
What do these two high courts justices seem to think a "tax penalty" is for?   Do they think its a charitable donation?  No, the penalty is intended to "force" employers to provide insurance to their employees with an included contraception mandate. To say "nobody is forcing" these two companies to provide health insurance is plain stupidity.

Then, too, those words seem to imply that "freedom" -- as in "freedom of religion" and as guaranteed by our Constitution -- now comes with a penalty.  A penalty that would cost Hobby Lobby $26 million dollars a year by Justice Kagan's own calculation!

What these justices don't "want" to understand is that the contraception mandate was never defined in the initial health care law nor, is it to be found in the Constitution.  It was one of the 22,000 pages of regulations that were spawned by the original Affordable Care Act.  And, it was a discretionary decision made by Obama and his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius.  Initially, as an interim ruling in 2011 (a year after the law was enacted), it was then finalized and made permanent in 2012.  So, the issue here is whether or not this President has the right, by dictate, to override the rights that are protected by our Constitution. Is it possible that these two female justices are siding with the President on the basis of their gender bias? 

References:

Supreme Court Women Raise Questions on Contraception Coverage: http://time.com/37055/supreme-court-women-dominate-arguments-on-contraception-coverage/

Supreme Court seeks compromise in contraception case: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/25/supreme-court-religion-contraception-hobby-lobby/6860479/

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (on contraception): http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html


Thursday, July 5, 2012

Medicaid And Medicaid Expansion: The Dirty "Big" Secrets The Democrats Don't Want You To Know


Last week, when ObamaCare was  "generally" upheld by the Supreme Court, a key provision of that law, the forced expansion of Medicaid, was actually struck down.  In a 7-to-2, majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has no right to tell the states that they must expand Medicaid and and eat the cost or lose all federal funding for their existing Medicare programs.  Since then, at least 8 Governors  -- all Republicans --  have declared that they won't participate in the expansion; citing budget deficits being behind their decisions.

Surprisingly, the Democrats and the main stream media have been somewhat cold in saying or reporting anything about this.  The only time the press actually mentions it, at all, is to paint some Republican Governor in a negative light by noting that thousands of low-income citizens will be without access to health care.  But, that's an intentionally political deception.  For starters, only about 42% of low-income wage earners are without any health insurance.  The majority either get employer-provided insurance; or buy it directly, themselves; or, get their care through the Veterans Administration or through the Medicare disability program.  Secondly, since 1986, anyone in America, not insured, could go to an emergency room and expect to get care without question or any real commitment to pay.  Which is what those uninsured low-income people have been doing for years.


Just so you know. Medicaid is a program that was designed to give health care access to the very poorest of our country.  Basically, those people and families whose incomes fall below the currently defined threshold for poverty are all eligible for this program.  The cost of the program is shared by both the federal government and by the states; with the federal government currently covering 57% of the expense. In 2010,  Medicaid had 53 million participants and the overall cost was $409 billion.

Now to the dirty "big" secrets.  

Secret 1: Medicaid is an extremely expensive program.

As I indicated, above, the 2010 overall cost of Medicaid was $409 billion.  When you divide that number by the number of program participants, you get a per person cost of $7717.  But, you see, that per capita cost is $2677 higher than what the Kaiser Family Foundation said it would cost to buy private, individual health insurance in 2010; proving that, once again, the government never does anything cheaper than the private sector.  That's something to keep in mind when liberals tout the savings and benefits of ObamaCare.  And, that high cost is the reason that many states have adopted a program called HIPP (Health Insurance Premium Payment) whereby Medicaid participants are given a check and allowed to buy their own insurance; saving  millions in the process. The concept of HIPP is one of the programs by which Republicans are eying to reduce the massive cost of both Medicaid and Medicare.

Secret 2: 41% of the population already receives government sponsored health care.

Of the government sponsored health care programs, Medicaid is the largest with more than 60 million participants.  But if you add an estimated 50 million Medicare participants, and 8 million children in CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program), along with 8.7 million people who are getting federal disability insurance, and another million Vets receiving health care from the Veterans Administration, you get a total of nearly 128 million Americans who are getting their health care from the U.S. government. That's 41 percent of the population. 

Secret 3: The Expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare was a deceptive move to greatly expand government sponsored health care in America.


For decades, Democrats have dreamed of having a government-run, single-payer health care system in this country; feeling that the current private insurance system disproportionately provides health care to the more affluent of our society.  So, when they started crafting ObamaCare, they seized on the opportunity of progressing that "dream" by expanding Medicaid to the supposed 25 million-low income people who, in theory, make up the majority of the uninsured. The rest of the uninsured would be addressed through the Individual Mandate or through the new health care insurance exchanges.  But the dirty secret here is that there are really about 90 million people in America who are classified as low-income wage earners; of which, about 75 million who could, in theory, be eligible for Medicaid under  ObamaCare. The Democrats are only counting the 25 million of that 75 million because they would have you believe that the remaining 50 million, who already get their health insurance in some other way, would continue to do so.  This is another deception.  Why would anyone continue to pay for my health insurance if  they knew they could get Medicaid insurance for free?  Simply speaking, the Democrats put the Medicaid expansion into ObamaCare so the 75 million more Americans would source their health care from the government; bringing the total being served by the government to 52%.  And, that 52% is a majority base that Democrats could use to win elections.

Secret 4: The cost of the new Medicaid expansion was intentionally hidden by forcing the states to pick up the cost.

By any measure, the expansion of Medicaid to 25 million low-income families and individuals would have a cost in excess of $200 billion the first year; and, then, grow at an estimated rate of 7.3% per year, compounded, thereafter.  That was a hefty chunk of change that would have driven federal deficits up by at least $2.5 trillion in 10 years.   So to avoid this cost and deceptively show that ObamaCare would be deficit neutral, the Democrats offloaded the cost to the states.  And, to make sure the states paid for the program, they inserted language into the ObamaCare law that said that they would lose all federal funding for Medicaid if they didn't fund the expansion.   Of course, as mentioned in the first paragraph, the Supreme Court found this to be thuggery and coercion and struck it down.  But, the fact remains:  If your state does pick up the cost of the expansion, it will show up in you pocketbook in the form of some new tax; for rich and poor, alike.

Secret 5: Medicaid patients will suffer from substandard health care in the future.

Medicaid, like its sister program, Medicare, attempts to control costs by squeezing doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers on the payments that they receive from the government.  As a result, an increasing number of health care providers are either dropping or refusing to take Medicaid (and Medicare) patients.  Like cattle, Medicaid patients are being herded into high volume, low quality, clinics for their medical care; waiting long hours or even days to see a physician or specialist.  So, increasingly, the more affluent of our society are being treated by the good doctors and getting good care.  Something that the Democrats wanted to fix by taking over the health care system. Just like Canada and England, nationalized health care necessarily induces long delays and lower quality into the system. Like the old saying says: "Medical care delayed can be the same as medical care denied.  Especially, when the patient died!"

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Justice Roberts Pontius Pilate Moment on ObamaCare

In all gospel writings on the subject, Pontius Pilate refused to condemn Jesus Christ for claiming to be king of the Jews because such a claim was not a violation of Roman law.  To Pilate, it was purely a Jewish matter. So, he sent the issue back to the Jewish people for any punishment and, he symbolized this by literally washing his hands in front of an angry Jewish crowd that had amassed outside of his office window. 

In many ways, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts did the same thing as Pontius Pilate by his siding with the 4 liberals on the Supreme Court in upholding both ObamaCare and its individual mandate.  Thus, he figuratively washed his hands and the court's hands by, in essence,  sending it back to the people and Congress to resolve.   At the same time, he gave the court the  appearance of being apolitical; even though the rest of the court voted along politically ideological lines.

So, now, ObamaCare has become a big issue, besides the economy, for the voters in November.  If  the people want to keep it intact, they can vote for Obama and other Democrats.  If not, the voters will run them all out of town.

In a strange way, the Roberts decision may have actually given an advantage to the Republicans.  First of all, the law is already known to be broadly unpopular; even though many Americans like certain parts of it.  By upholding the law, on a constitutional basis, and sending it back to the people, Roberts may have actually energized voter turnout; with a higher number of Republicans and Independents coming out on election day to vote for those who would overturn the law.  At the same time, Roberts may have suppressed some amount of Democrat votes because it took away the anticipated campaign strategy that Obama would energize his voting base by running against a conservative Supreme Court.   Additionally, the court's decision exposes the penalties of ObamaCare as being a tax.  Something that the President specifically lied about when he was selling its passage.  That fact, alone, may turn off a certain number of voters.

All and all, today's Supreme Court decision may have been a good thing for the Republicans and the country.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

America No Longer Has Immigration Enforcement

OK, the Supreme Court says Arizona can ask suspected illegals for their "papers".  But, so what?  If Arizona can't arrest them without federal permission and Obama and his Justice Department won't give that permission, then, we no longer have "any" immigration enforcement.  Someone really needs to sue the Obama Administration for failing to uphold their constitutional responsibilities by choosing to ignore federal immigration laws.  No American President should be allowed to pick-and-choose which laws will be enforced and which ones will be ignored.  In fact, a president choosing not to enforce federal law may be committing an impeachable offense.

One last thing.  Nowhere did you hear charges of judicial activism on the Arizona immigration decision.  That's because our conservative dominated Supreme Court sided with the liberals in striking down 3 of the key 4 mandates of the Arizona immigration law; proving that the court was more concerned with constitutionality than politics-based judicial activism.  Believe me, that fact will all be lost if ObamaCare is struck down on a 5-4, conservative basis.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

ObamaCare And Judicial Activism

With a decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare just hours away, Democrats are already saying that any defeat of ObamaCare would be a blatant case of judicial activism by a conservative dominated court.   But, let's not forget that judicial activism goes both ways.  It's just as much judicial activism for a liberal justice to support an obviously liberal law as it for a conservative justice to strike it down.

Hopefully, all the Supreme Court justices will put their politics aside and come to a decision that truly is in line with our constitution.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Arizona And The Feds Spar Over Immigration

This week, the Supreme Court will begin its constitutional review of the new Arizona law mandating that during traffic stops, police check the immigration status for anyone suspected of being here illegally.  In doing so, anyone found to be illegal would be arrested. The Obama Justice Department argues that the Arizona law is unconstitutional because only the Federal government can enforce immigration laws.

First let me say that this is an obvious electioneering attempt by the Obama administration to secure the Hispanic vote in the Fall. And more importantly, I believe Arizona to be well within its rights to arrest illegals.  It is certainly no different than when a police officer conducts a background check for federal wants and warrants during traffic stops.  Certainly, in those cases, the Department of Justice absolutely "expects" the officer to make an arrest for a federal crime.  If so, then why shouldn't a police officer do the same for the federal crime of illegally entering and living in this country?