[OPINION] SUPREME COURT’S WHITE LIE ON OBAMACARE

The GOP-majority Supreme Court saved President Barack Obama’s bacon Thursday with a political ruling that papered over his signature Affordable Care Act. Writing for the majority in the 6-3 King v. Burwell decision, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the 900-page law was written behind closed doors with little debate or amendment and thus was “inartfully” drafted. It was the court’s obligation, he wrote, to translate bill language limiting the government subsidies to enrollees in “an exchange established by the State” as meaning enrollees in federal exchanges also can get subsidies.

Roberts always has been a consummate politician in his role as guardian of the big bench. The President George W. Bush appointee had good reason to fear how the public might react if the Supreme Court overturned a law that benefits millions of Americans.

Thirty-four states rely on federal Obamacare exchanges. That’s 6 million people, 87 percent of whom bought health care with federal tax credits. Roberts cited a study that predicted that cutting off those subsidies would result in a 47 percent increase in premiums and a 70 percent decline in enrollment.

Between a rock and a hard place, Roberts argued that Congress surely never meant to cut out subsidies in states without their own exchanges, because “it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”

I sympathize, but Roberts has to know he’s wrong. Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the White House, explained during a 2012 speech that the federal law limited subsidies to enrollees of state exchanges in order to “squeeze” states to act. Quoth Gruber, “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.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley — no conservative he — wrote last year, “I believe that the text is clear in the Act and that the Obama Administration effectively altered the language when 34 states decided to defy the government and refuse to create state exchanges.”

Via: The American Spectator

Continue Reading....

Congress Has a Plan to Defend Your First Amendment Rights After Court’s Marriage Ruling

...

In the wake of Friday’s 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, many of the millions of Americans who voted to define marriage as an exclusively male-female institution in their state constitutions will be wondering: What does this mean for me?

Congress must move swiftly to pass the First Amendment Defense Act.

If five judges on the Supreme Court have pronounced, in a breathtaking presumption of power, that all 50 states must redefine marriage, what does that mean for the countless institutions within our civil society—churches and synagogues, charities and adoption agencies, counseling services and religiously affiliated schools—that are made up of American citizens who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman?

Will federal government agencies follow the heavy-handed approach taken by the present majority of Supreme Court justices—say, by revoking the non-profit, tax-exempt status of faith-based schools that continue to operate on the basis of their religious beliefs about marriage?

Nowhere in the majority’s 28-page opinion will you find a reliable answer to these questions. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts explains why.

“Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights,” Roberts writes, because “they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right.”

It’s true that Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, acknowledges—as if in passing—that “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths,” including their conviction that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Supreme Court rules against EPA on Emissins from Power Plants,

Washington (CNN)In a loss for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided to set limits on the emissions of toxic pollutants from power plants without first considering the costs of the industry to do so.

The Obama administration argued that air pollutants like mercury and arsenic are associated with birth defects, cancer and other risks, especially for pregnant women and children. They say coal and oil fired power plants are the single biggest contributor to mercury contamination of rivers and lakes.

The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to regulate hazardous pollutants from power plants if the regulation is found to be "appropriate and necessary."

The EPA determined it was appropriate to regulate coal and oil fired power plants.

At issue in this case was whether the EPA violated the Clean Air Act when it declined to consider costs in determining whether it was appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants.

Twenty-three states and some in the industry argued that the EPA should have considered costs when making a threshold determination on whether to regulate.

"EPA's decision that it is 'appropriate' to achieve $ 4 million to $6 million in health benefits at a cost of $9.6 billion is not reasonable, imposes great expenses on consumers, and threatens to put covered electric utilities out of business," lawyers for Michigan and 22 other states argued in Court briefs.

Opponents in the industry said that under the EPA rule the industry will be forced to spend billions of dollars to regulate conventional pollutants that are already regulated under other Clean Air Act programs.

On the other hand, the EPA argued that it didn't take costs into consideration initially because the threshold decision is meant to be based on public health alone. Lawyers for the agency said that once it was determined that the air pollutants from coal and oil fired power plants posed a major hazard to public health they moved to the next stage of process under the Clean Air Act to determine what the limits on these pollutants should be. When they considered that issue, they did take costs into consideration.

"EPA did exactly what the Clean Air Act requires," said Neil Gormley a lawyer with Earthjustice DC a group that filed a brief in support of EPA. "The agency correctly focused on public health initially and considered costs once it had the information it needed."

"When you add up all the costs and all the benefits, " Gormley said. "The health benefits of this rule dwarf the costs to the industry. The public gets $9 dollars of health benefits for every $1 dollar the industry spends."

Via: CNN

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court Throws Out Arizona, Kansas Voter ID Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a joint-appeal from Arizona and Kansas on Monday that would have allowed the states to require applicants to show proof of citizenship while registering to vote.

In throwing out the case, SCOTUS uphold a Nov. 2014 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Election Assistance Commission — the federal agency overseeing changes to states’ voter registration processes — was, “not required to grant the states’ request that proof of citizenship be added to registration requirements,” reportsReuters. The court believed that the federal registration form — requiring applicants to swear they are citizens under the threat of perjury — was a sufficient safe-guard against voter fraud.

Both the Obama administration and various voter-rights groups — including the League of Women Voters and the League of United Latin-American Citizens — urged the Supreme Court not the hear the case, and SCOTUS’ rejection marks what Bloomberg called a landmark victory for the, “groups that battled the two states in court.”

The Court’s decision comes only days after last week’s historic rulings on both the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. (RELATED: Graham On Gay Marriage, We Still Need To Fight For Religious Rights)

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court upholds use of drug implicated in botched executions

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the use of a controversial drug that has been implicated in several botched executions. Two of the justices said for first time that death penalty itself probably is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 in a case from Oklahoma that the sedative midazolam can be used in executions without violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The drug was used in executions in Arizona, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2014 that took longer than usual and raised concerns that it did not perform its intended task of putting inmates into a coma-like sleep.

Justice Samuel Alito said for a conservative majority that arguments the drug could not be used effectively as a sedative in executions is speculative.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Under the court's new rule, it would not matter whether the state intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake."

Alito responded, saying "the dissent's resort to this outlandish rhetoric reveals the weakness of its legal arguments."

In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the time has come for the court to debate whether the death penalty itself is constitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion.

The Supreme Court's involvement in the case began in January with an unusually public disagreement among the justices over executions.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court Ruling On Gay Marriage May Pave Way For Expanded Gun Rights…

With the high court’s latest ruling on same-sex marriages, some contend the decision could lead to increased gun rights, specifically national CCW reciprocity, by using the same argument.

Friday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those sanctioned by other states.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the landmark decision that arguably made same sex marriage a reality in the 13 remaining states that continued to ban the practice.

With similar logic applied, gun rights advocates argue that the nation’s patchwork of firearms laws governing the concealed carry of handguns are now circumspect under the same guidelines. In short, they reason if marriage equality is guaranteed from state to state, then so should concealed carry rights.

“To paraphrase what Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said about same-sex marriage,” noted Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a statement Friday, “no right is more profound than the right of self-preservation, and under the Constitution, all citizens should be able to exercise the right of self-defense anywhere in the country. It disparages their ability to do so, and diminishes their personhood to deny the right to bear arms they have in their home states when they are visiting other states.”

While every state has a framework to issue concealed carry permits, they are under no obligation to recognize those issued by other states and territories. For example, Illinois and Hawaii only recognize permits issued by their respective jurisdictions. In contrast, Ohio recognizes licenses from any other state regardless of whether Ohio has entered into a reciprocity agreement.

Via: Guns

Continue Reading.....

Big Damage to Hiring Emerges as Key Impact Of Obama’s Healthcare

The judicial decision to uphold all of the president’s health-care subsidies may be disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.

Click Image to Enlarge

The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new-business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.

Across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment — right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.

Because of Obamacare, there’s an additional 0.9% Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8% tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health-care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical-expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health-policy premiums.

Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job.

There is so much talk about “secular stagnation,” inequality, and stagnant wages these days. But there’s little talk about the negative economic impact of Obamacare. It’s a much bigger story than SCOTUS jurisprudence.

A couple of examples.

First, there’s the problem of the 49ers and the 29ers. The business mandates and penalties imposed by Obamacare when small firms hire a 50th employee or ask for a 30-hour workweek are so high that firms are opting to hold employment to 49 and hours worked to 29. Lower employment and fewer hours worked are a double death knell for growth.

The BLS sheds light on this: Although part-time work has fallen during the recovery, to 7 million from around 9 million, it hovered around 4 million during the prior recovery. Part-time employment, which as a share of total employment peaked at around 20% in 2010 and has slipped to about 19%, hovered around 17% during most of the prior expansion. Obamacare?

Everybody is complaining about the low labor-force participation rate and the equally stubborn reduction in the employment-to-population rate. But why are we surprised? Obamacare is effectively paying people not to work.

Via: New York The Sun

Continue Reading....

SUPREME COURT WILL RULE IN AZ REDISTRICTING CASE MONDAY—HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

U.S. Supreme Court

Chances are good you’re still celebrating today’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling and Thursday’s Obamacare victory, but the U.S. Supreme Court still has a few major cases to resolve, including a really important one about redistricting powers that will directly affect Arizona residents.

We won’t pretend that the redistricting of voting boundaries is an inherently sexy topic—even the name of the case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, is snooze-worthy. But how districts are drawn and who gets to control the process is something of the utmost importance. And because the outcome of this case will set national precedence, the ramifications of a ruling either way will be felt for a very, very long time.

So here is what you need to know about the case in plain English: how it came to be, what’s at stake, and what the outcome could mean for the future. 

Every 10 years, following the national census, Arizona redraws its two voting district maps—one for the nine U.S. Congressional delegates, and one for the 90 state legislators. Until 2000, the job of delineating districts fell on the state Legislature to figure out.

But since elected officials in this state are almost always Republicans, some people started getting upset that one party held all of the redistricting power and could manipulate boundaries to benefit their own party and retain control. (This process is called gerrymandering.)

In 2000, Arizona voters approved Proposition 106, which took away the map-drawing power from the Legislature and gave it to an independent bi-partisan group called the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The AIRC is comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent, and is tasked with deciding voter districts based the following criteria: 

• That the boundaries of both congressional and legislative districts be “contiguous, geographically compact, and respect communities of interest—all to the extent practicable;” 
• That district lines follow “visible geographic features, city, town, and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts;” 
• And perhaps most importantly, that "competitive districts be favored where doing so would not significantly detract from the goals above.

Via: Phoenix News Times

Continue Reading....

Overthrow the Judicial Dictatorship: The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.

Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”

Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.

In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Ted Cruz Has An EPIC Message For ‘Rogue’ Supreme Court Justices

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did not hold back in expressing what he thinks about the Supreme Court’s two most controversial decisions in recent memory.

Cruz told radio talk show host Sean Hannity: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz went on. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”

“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

Via: Western Journalism

Continue Reading....

THE SILENCING: Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”

A wealth of commenters were not pleased.

• “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”

• “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”

• And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”

• “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”

The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Alito Warns: Defenders of Traditional Marriage Now Risk Being Treated as Bigots by Governments, Employers, Schools

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage is a right, Justice Samuel Alito said the court had falsely likened opposition to same-sex marriage to racism and that its decision “will be used to vilify Americans unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

Alito warned that in the wake of the court’s ruling, Americans who dare to publicly express views in favor the traditional understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman will risk recrimination.

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” Alito wrote.

“By imposing its own views on the entire country,” he said, “the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

Here is a key excerpt from Alito’s dissent:

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reas­sure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The system of federalism established by our Constitu­tion provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex mar­riage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facili­tates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn- about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading..... 

Clarence Thomas: ‘Decision Threatens the Religious Liberty Our Nation Has Long Sought to Protect’

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage is a right, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the court’s “decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “the free exercise” of religion—which is not confined to “worship” that takes place within a religious building, but engages all aspects of a person’s life.

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect,” Thomas said in his dissent.

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” said Thomas. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability,” Thomas concluded.

Here is a key excerpt from Thomas’s dissent:

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.

The history of religious liberty in our country is familiar: Many of the earliest immigrants to America came seeking freedom to practice their religion without restraint. See McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1422–1425 (1990). When they arrived, they created their own havens for religious practice. Ibid. Many of these havens were initially homogenous communities with established religions. Ibid. By the 1780’s, however, “America was in the wake of a great religious revival” marked by a move toward free exercise of religion. Id., at 1437. Every State save Connecticut adopted protections for religious freedom in their State Constitutions by 1789, id., at 1455, and, of course, the First Amendment enshrined protection for the free exercise of religion in the U. S. Constitution.

But that protection was far from the last word on religious liberty in this country, as the Federal Government and the States have reaffirmed their commitment to religious liberty by codifying protections for religious practice. See, e.g., Reli­gious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq.; Conn. Gen. Stat. §52–571b (2015).

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so ful­filling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religiouspractice.7

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious prac­tices, the People have long elected to afford broader pro­tections than this Court’s constitutional precedents man­date. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional defi­nition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with poten­tially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.... 

Republican Presidential Candidates Blast Gay Marriage Ruling

The Republicans running for the White House blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling released Friday that will allow gay couples in all 50 states to get married, expressing concerns about the “religious liberty” of Christians who support traditional marriage.

“This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said. “This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.”

“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.”

Added Bush: “It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the supreme being can do-redefine marriage,” Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said. “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

“Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input,” said Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. “The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices.”

“While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land,” said Ben Carson, who prefers civil unions for gay couples. “I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.”

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

[AUDIO] Cruz: Rulings among the 'darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history'

 

“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” he said on The Sean Hannity Show, the Fox pundit’s radio program, on Friday.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism.”

 

While many other Republican presidential hopefuls sent out statements deriding the Friday decision, Cruz’s campaign did not. 

He took to the Senate floor to slam the Affordable Care Act ruling on Thursday, panning it as “disgraceful.”

 

“Six justices joined the Obama administration, you now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oath,” he told Hannity Friday. 

 

He then shifted to Friday’s decision. 

 

“Today, this radical decision purporting to down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution,” he said. 

 

“They are simply making it up. It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

 

Cruz has warned against this decision for months and filed text for a constitutional amendment in April that defines marriage as heterosexual. 

 

In a narrow victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the four liberal-leaning justices on Friday to make those marriages legal across the country. He framed marriage as a fundamental right and argued that it would be a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause to bar same-sex couples from marrying. 

 

But all four conservative justices penned dissents criticizing that ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision has “nothing to do” with the constitution. Fresh off of his scathing dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 decision to back the administration’s expansion of health care subsidies to those in states that hadn’t set up localized exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia also penned his own dissent. 

 

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” he wrote. 

 

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

America's Obamacare Nightmare Is Just Beginning

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could continue to subsidize health-insurance coverage through Healthcare.gov, the federal exchanges. An ecstatic President Obama declared that Obamacare is “here to stay.”

No, it’s not.

A judicial victory doesn’t automatically translate into a political victory, let alone a policy success. Once they’ve quaffed their celebratory champagne, the president and White House staff will need to suit up and get ready to play some hard-nosed defense.

Here’s why. The driving force behind health reform has been the desire to control rising health-care costs. From 2008 onwards, President Obama promised that his reform agenda would reduce the annual cost for the typical American family by no less than $2,500. After a while, it became a rather tiresome talking point. But it was pure nonsense from the start.

(Recommended: America's 5 Worst Presidents Ever)

Health-care spending increases were slowing down well before Congress enacted Obamacare. But with the onset of Obamacare, health-insurance premiums in the exchanges jumped by double digits, while deductibles increased dramatically. If you liked your doctor, you would be able to keep you doctor, the president insisted, but maybe not, in reality, depending upon whether or not your physician networks narrowed. Looking toward 2016,health insurers say premium costs will soar.

In the days, weeks and months leading up to the King v. Burwell decision, commentators obsessed over the roughly 6.4 million persons who could lose health-insurance subsidies. With the Court’s ruling, they can keep the federal subsidies. But that doesn’t come close to ending the debate.

(Recommended: America's 6 Best Presidents Ever)

Roughly 6.4 million persons in thirty-four states could have been negatively affected if the Court struck down the federal exchange subsidies. But there is a much wider universe of persons adversely affected by the law: the roughly 15 million persons in the individual and small group market who don’t get—and won’t get—the federal government’s health-insurance subsidies. Under Obamacare, millions of Americans are forced to pay more for their government standardized coverage, regardless of whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not, or whether or not it forces them to pay for medical procedures that violate their ethical, moral or religious convictions.  

Via: The National Interest

Continue Reading....