The voice of opposition past, Justice Kennedy may save Obamacare now

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Justice Anthony Kennedy was furious when a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama’s healthcare law. As he read the dissenting opinion from the bench three years ago, his anger was palpable. The majority regards its opinion “as judicial modesty," he declared. "It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial over-reaching.”

That was Kennedy on June 28, 2012.

Now, as the country awaits a ruling in the second major challenge to Obama's signature Affordable Care Act, a question is whether the justice who was the voice of the opposition then could provide the critical fifth vote to uphold the law on the nine-justice court now.

At stake are the tax-credit subsidies that have helped low- and moderate-income Americans obtain health insurance. The challengers say the government unlawfully extended those subsidies to states that did not create local insurance exchanges but instead relied on the federal exchange. If the court strikes down the subsidies, millions of Americans in at least 34 of the 50 states could lose coverage.

Five years after its passage, the Affordable Care Act has become ingrained in American life even as it remains politically divisive. “This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another," Obama, a Democrat, declared in a speech last week. Republicans have called for repeal and among the related lawsuits simmering in lower courts is a dispute brought by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives over Treasury Department payments to healthcare insurers.

IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT

In the case before the court, the unique issue along with Kennedy's record and his comments in oral arguments raise the possibility he will join the four liberal justices to endorse the law. Three years ago, his fellow conservative Chief Justice John Roberts cast the swing vote with the liberals to uphold the law. It marked a rare episode when Kennedy, the usual key justice on this divided bench, did not control the outcome of a momentous case.

It is impossible to predict with confidence how the court will resolve the case, King v. Burwell. A ruling is anxiously awaited by officials in Washington and the insurance and healthcare industries nationwide.

What is known: Two days after the March 4 oral arguments this year, the justices, per their usual practice, took a vote in a small conference room off Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers. The most senior justice on the winning side then assigned the opinion for those in the majority; the senior justice on the dissenting side tapped a writer for the main dissent. Drafts of dueling opinions began circulating among the chambers.

Via: Yahoo News

Continue Reading.....

HHS Chief: Congress Must Fix Obamacare If Supreme Court Unravels Law

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said Wednesday if the Supreme Court unravels federal subsidies in the Affordable Care Act it will be up to Congress and the states to come up with a new plan.

Burwell said the Obama administration would do “everything” it can to communicate with states should the court decide against the government in the King v. Burwell case.

The Supreme Court will decide King v. Burwell later this month, weighing whether enrollees in the health care program may purchase subsidies through the federal exchange—or just those using state-run exchanges.

“The critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors to determine if those [federal] subsidies are available,” Burwell told the House Ways and Means Committee in a contentious hearing.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Get us in your inbox.

The plaintiffs in the case argue the Affordable Care Act’s current wording only allows the purchase of federal subsidies in state exchanges.

“We believe we are implementing the law as it was written, as it was intended,” Burwell said.

Dan Holler, the communications director for Heritage Action, the lobbying arm of The Heritage Foundation, refuted Burwell’s assertion, pointing to Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber’s acknowledgment that the goal of state exchanges was to “coerce states.”

“The Obama administration routinely ignores the law as drafted and intended,” Holler said.

If the Supreme Court rules against the government, Burwell said President Obama would sign alternative legislation solely if it improves “affordability, quality and access.”

House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said regardless of what the Supreme Court decides it is clear the president’s health care law is “busted” and that “no quick fix can change this fact.”

Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., sternly fired back.

“What’s busted is not ACA, but your attacks on it,” he said. “Endless attacks and never coming up with a single comprehensive alternative all these years. So you are armchair critics while millions have insurance who never had it before.”

Via: The Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

Federal Appeals Court Delivers 'Significant Victory' for Catholics Fighting HHS Mandate

(CNSNews.com) - In a 2-1 ruling on Friday, a federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the rights of both individuals and companies to challenge Obamacare's contraception-abortifacient-sterilization mandate.

It is the first decision of its kind in the ongoing litigation against the requirement that all employers -- despite their deeply held religious beliefs -- must arrange and pay for employee health insurance that covers no-cost contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization, under penalty of fine.

"This is a significant victory for protecting the religious beliefs of individuals and corporations," said Edward White, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, who represents one of the plaintiffs, an Illinois company.

"It is also important to note that the appeals court determined that the HHS mandate should not move forward against our clients while this issue is being litigated. It has been our position from the beginning that the HHS mandate violates America's longstanding history of protecting conscience rights. The mandate is unlawfully compelling employers such as our clients to do the following: abandon their faith to comply with the law, or follow their faith and pay significant annual penalties to the federal government. The decision by the appeals court is encouraging as this issue heads to the Supreme Court."

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.....

10 COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT TOPPLED IN WASHINGTON

A stone monument of the Ten Commandments that sits on a street behind the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington and was the subject of controversy in the past has been toppled by vandals.

The 3-foot-by-3-foot granite monument weighs 850 pounds and sits out front of the headquarters of Faith and Action, a Christian outreach ministry. The group installed the tablets in a garden outside its offices in 2006, and the group's president said the tablets were angled so that justices arriving at the high court would see them.

The Rev. Robert Schenck, who heads the organization, said the damage to the monument happened sometime between Friday night and Saturday night. A minister who works in the area alerted the group to the damage around 9 p.m. Saturday.

The monument had been pushed over so that the words of the Ten Commandments are now face down. Vandals bent a steel rod that secures the monument to a thick concrete base to an almost 90 degree angle. The monument itself is not damaged, Schenck said.

"Whoever did this was determined to get it done because it's not something you could easily do," Schenck said, adding that the vandals also installed a "For Rent" yard sign by the monument and that the vandalism was reported to police.

Officer Anthony Clay, a Metropolitan Police Department spokesman, said Monday that the case remains open.

Schenck said he did not know how much it would cost to bring the tablets upright, but the organization plans to reinforce the monument and install a security camera that monitors the area. He said they also plan to ask a neighboring organization and the U.S. Supreme Court for their security footage during the time when the monument was vandalized.

Schenck said that he wasn't angry about the damage and that, in a way, the vandals had helped the organization convey important messages: "We all violate the Ten Commandments" and "We all violate God's rules."

The group bought the stone tablets at a charity auction in 2001. They were one of four removed by a federal court order from the fronts of public schools in Adams County, Ohio.

Via: Breitbart
Continue Reading....

ARIZ. GOV. JAN BREWER SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLIC BENEFITS TO YOUNG ILLEGAL ALIENS

(TheBlaze/AP) — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday ordered state agencies to deny driver’s licenses and other public benefits to young illegal immigrants who obtain work authorizations under a new Obama administration policy.

In an executive order, Brewer said she was reaffirming the intent of current Arizona law denying taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

Young illegal immigrants around the nation on Wednesday began the process of applying for federal work permits under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The federal policy defers deportations for that group if they meet certain criteria, including arrival in the United States before they turned 16 and no convictions for certain crimes.

After President Barack Obama announced the policy change in June, Brewer labeled it “backdoor amnesty” and political pandering by the Democratic president.

Arizona has been in the vanguard of states enacting laws against illegal immigration.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned parts of the Arizona enforcement law known as SB1070 but ruled that a key provision on requiring police to ask people about their immigration status under certain circumstances can be implemented.

The Obama administration challenged that law in 2010 after Brewer signed it into law.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading...