ILLEGAL ALIEN HEALTH INSURANCE EXPANDED IN 35 CALIFORNIA COUNTIES

A panel of eight County Medical Services Program (CMSP) board members appointed largely by unelected, government administrative officials unanimously decided Thursday to give health insurance to illegal aliens that aren’t low income and don’t qualify for California’s Obamacare health exchange Covered California.

Under the CMSP decision, those illegal aliens, mostly identified as adults by theSacramento Bee, would be provided health coverage. This applies to the 35 member counties of CMSP. They are largely rural counties. It’s aimed at covering those that remain uninsured after the state’s Obamacare exchange and Medi-Cal, low-income health insurance, are considered. Expansion includes several doctor visits and $1,000 in prescription drugs the Bee reports. It could begin in 2016.

Migration Policy Institute estimates 3 million illegally present foreign nationals in California alone.

While this program operates outside of the health exchange, California is aggressively moving toward providing health insurance to foreign nationals illegally present in the state under the state’s Obamacare exchange Covered California as well.

Governor Jerry Brown Wednesday signed California’s budget including a provision to give an estimated 170,000 illegally present foreign national children Medi-Cal coverage at a cost of $130,000. This despite President Obama’s 2009 lie as he promised before Congress that illegal aliens would not be able to enroll. It’s reminiscent of another Obama lie, “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Democrats have also introduced legislation in California, SB 4, that would provide a waiver allowing illegal aliens to enroll in state healthcare exchanges.

Meanwhile Gov. Brown has declared illegal aliens are welcome in California and even went so far as to threateningly call it un-Christian to deny them amnesty.

The CMSP also approved bumping eligibility for both legal and illegal residnets, up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level according to the Bee. The federal poverty level for a single individual is just under $12,000 for 2015. Extra cost of the program will amount to approximately $6-9 million.

The CMSP, “has responsibility for setting program eligibility standards, defining the scope of covered healthcare benefits, and determining payment rates for healthcare providers delivering emergency and non-emergency services to CMSP members,” according to its own website. Advanced Medical Management serves as the CMSP’s third party administrator.

CMSP faced budget strain before Medi-Cal expansion and creation of Covered California. According to the Bee it now enjoys a cushy $225 million reserve.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

WATCH: Arab Media Mocks Obama as Weak Against Islamic Terror [Spoof]

Via: You Tube

Obama At Eulogy For Rev. Pinckney: “By Taking Down Confederate Flag, We Express God’s Grace”, Sings ‘Amazing Grace’

Always about his agenda.

Perhaps he missed the fact that Rev. Pinckney, unlike Obama, was a man who actually talked with others, and compromised. Pinckney voted to have the confederate flag at the capitol in South Carolina.

So once again Obama made it less about the person concerned, Reverend Pinckney, and more about himself.

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading....

NOM Knew They Would Lose on Marriage Equality But They Don’t Care

It’s been a red-letter day for people who support equal rights under the law (also known as our Constitution’s 14th Amendment), but what about the conservatives who don’t? We’ve definitely been hearing from them today, but the statement from Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage sounds as if they knew they were fighting a losing battle, but don’t really care and will continue to fight that losing battle:

“Though expected, today’s decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.

“Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it. The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today’s ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority. Today’s decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.”

The argument that SCOTUS has no right to make a decision like this always becomes a talking point, but then what is their function, exactly? And if the Court had ruled the way conservatives had wanted, would they still have the authority? And what about the majority of Americans who favor marriage equality?

 

NO. Brian Brown and his fellow conservatives don’t care about the details, apparently. So he can go ahead and keep fighting. And keep losing.

Via: Mediaite

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..... 

Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Bring Us Peace

For decades, a growing narrative from LGBT activists has convinced a great portion of the U.S. public that cultural peace would reign if social conservatives could just get with the times on marriage.

This narrative has recently gained new legs with rulings by federal judges that say marriage laws are based in animus against people with same-sex attractions. Likewise, states and localities regularly pass so-called “non-discrimination laws” that restrict freedom of speech, religion, property ownership, and more.

Despite today’s ruling, however, social conservatives should reject this flawed thinking—not just because of their love for people with same-sex attractions, or because of the Supreme Court’s abuse of the U.S. Constitution, but to protect the American values of free speech and religious liberty.

Indeed, a simple look at the last 10 years of same-sex “marriage” laws in Canada and other nations shows that rather than bring a new utopia to America, changing the legal definition of marriage would lead to further restrictions of religious liberty, undermine parental rights, and lead to worse formative years for children.

Repressing Free Speech and Religious Practice

In Canada, redefining marriage has led straight to the persecution of Christians. Just a decade ago, Canada made same-sex marriage legal, leading to fines for a Catholic-owned Knights of Columbus hall for refusing to host a homosexual wedding reception. Likewise, in 2005, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry was called before a Human Rights Tribunal for writing a public letter defending Catholic doctrine on marriage. The complaint was withdrawn, but the message was clear: Dissent is not tolerable under the new regime.

In America, religious freedom includes religious expression, but not so in Canada, it appears. A Catholic church at which two cohabiting homosexual men were altar servers came to the attention of the local bishop due to a letter signed by 12 parishioners.

When Bishop Nicola de Angelis went to the priest, citing Catholic doctrine, one of the servers launched a human-rights case. The case sought $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 from each of the 12 parishioners who signed the letter. It was also dropped, but not until the bishop, like Henry, had spent considerable money in his legal defense.

Canada was one of the first nations to legally redefine marriage, but other nations are seeing similar consequences of trying to undermine what God has created. Mayors in France have been told they could not refuse to preside over same-sex ceremonies and a British marriage registrar was denied freedom for her religious beliefs, though just months earlier a demoted government employee’s right to criticize marriage redefinition was protected by courts. Of course, the same thing has already been happening in North Carolina, where civil magistrates whose consciences prevent them from performing gay marriage ceremonies must quit their job or face fines.

Via: The Federlist

Continue Reading...

Roberts Warns Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Gay Marriage

Churches could lose their tax-exempt status with the IRS if they refuse to recognize the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissenting opinion.

He cited a comment made months ago by the U.S. government’s top lawyer on the same-sex marriage case.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.

“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

During oral arguments in April, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether schools that teach that marriage is between one man and one woman would face treatment similar to pro-segregation schools during the civil rights era.

“It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli replied. “I don’t deny that.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Feds: West Side drug dealer had customers lined up around the corner

James Triplett had his customers lined up around the corner in broad daylight, the feds say.

Not for concert tickets. Not for iPhones.

For heroin.

Now 42 people are facing state or federal drug charges for their alleged roles in supplying and distributing heroin around West Grenshaw and Independence in the North Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side. Among them is the 33-year-old Triplett, also known as “Trell,” who authorities said controlled the drug market in the area.

Investigators even included a photo in a federal criminal complaint spanning more than 200 pages. They said the photo depicts a line of people waiting June 16 to get their hands on heroin supplied by Triplett’s organization in the 3700 block of West Grenshaw.

The photo was taken just south of the Eisenhower Expressway, which has come to be known as “Heroin Highway.”

The feds said Triplett’s suppliers sometimes put the heroin in bags with logos that included green Playboy bunnies, Hershey kisses, basketballs, Batman, black pandas or “purple ladies.”

Chicago Police and Drug Enforcement Administration agents assigned to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force led the investigation. Sixteen people face federal charges. They include Triplett, who is charged with drug conspiracy and faces a minimum of 10 years in prison if convicted. Another 26 face state charges.

Authorities said they arrested 32 people in all Wednesday morning, confiscating 12 guns, $50,000 in cash, nearly half a kilogram of heroin and more than half a kilogram of cocaine. They also searched several homes, three alleged stash houses and seized two cars, including a 2014 Maserati GranTurismo.

The federal defendants, all of who were in custody Wednesday, began appearing in the afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez.

Via: Chicago Sun Times

Continue Reading.....

Hillary Flashback: 'No,' New York Should Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton was staunchly opposed to recognizing same-sex marriage. She expressed that sentiment clearly in this 2002 interview with TV host Chris Matthews (starting at 2:05 mark):

"Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of so much in this country," liberal host Matthews started. "People come here, a lot of immigrants. The New York Times recently began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just straight people getting married, but gay people who want to announce their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?"

Clinton delivered a one-word response: "No."

The crowd booed in response.

Clinton flip-flopped on same-sex marriage in 2013 when she released a recorded video saying she now supported the policy switch.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading....

Open-Borders Sociology Prof. Behind New DHS Rule Freeing Illegal Alien Families

A renowned open-borders sociology professor with published research on “victims of deportation policies” is behind the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new regulation ordering the release of illegal immigrant families in U.S. custody.

This week DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced the outrageous new policy that will let illegal immigrant families go free in the U.S. All they have to do is claim a “credible or reasonable fear of persecution in their home countries,” Johnson said. The country’s top homeland security official explained that he decided to create this new measure after conducting numerous visits to family residential centers, including one in Karnes, Texas, where he spoke to the Central American mothers who “came to this country seeking a better life for their children and themselves.”

Based on the detention center visits and chats with illegal immigrants Johnson concluded that the government had to make “substantial changes” in detention practices with respect to families with children. “In short, once a family has established eligibility for asylum or other relief under our laws, long-term detention is an inefficient use of our resources and should be discontinued,” Johnson said. DHS is also ensuring access to lawyers, paid for by American taxpayers, for the detained illegal aliens as well as social workers, educational services and comprehensive medical care.

Of interesting note is that Johnson failed to mention the driving force behind his agency’s new policy. His name is Luis Zayas and he is the dean of Social Work at the University of Texas, Austin. In late May a group of pro-illegal alien members of congress, led by amnesty champion Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, wrote Johnson a letter demanding an end to the use of family detention for illegal immigrants. “It is undeniable that detention in a secure facility is detrimental to mothers and children and is not reflective of our values as a nation,” the letter states. “Children require special protections and should not be placed in jail-like settings.”

To back the claim, the lawmakers cite an affidavit written by Zayas, who asserts that children of undocumented or illegal immigrants are often the unintended victims of deportation policies. The professor has examined the effects of deportation on the psychosocial functioning of U.S.-born children of illegal alien Mexicans, according to his university biography, and often testifies in immigration courts on behalf of children and their families. “Presently, Zayas is focusing on the plight of citizen-children whose parents are being deported,” the public university biography states.

This background information is important because Zayas is the expert cited in the persuading letter Congress fired off to Johnson. Zayas determined that the detained illegal immigrant children are “facing some of the most adverse childhood conditions of any children I have ever interviewed or evaluated.” The professor further concluded that “detention has had serious and long-lasting impacts on the psychological health and well-being” of families at one center and that these impacts were evident in families who were detained for as little as two weeks. Days later the agency created after 9/11 to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, actually caved into this absurd assessment.

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading....

Clinton Lawyer, Soros Back Anti-Voter ID Lawsuits

George Soros and Clinton lawyer Marc Elias engaging in multi-state effort to overturn ID laws

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer is behind a multi-state push challenging voter identification laws implemented in recent years, efforts that are expected to reach numerous other states ahead of the 2016 elections.

Marc Elias, a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton and a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie, has filed lawsuits in three states thus far. The nationwide campaign is being fueled with money from the liberal billionaire George Soros.

Elias first began exploring the possible challenges back in January 2014. Soros then became involved, vowing to throw his weight behind the effort in collaboration with Elias.

“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times.

“It is disingenuous to suggest that these laws are meant to protect against voter fraud, which is nearly nonexistent,” Soros political adviser Michael Vachon added. “Clearly they are meant to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”

Soros has pledged $5 million to propel the campaign. Elias did not return a request for comment concerning his dealings with Soros or the total number of lawsuits they plan on bringing forward. A request for comment from George Soros’s press office was also not returned by press time.

Democrats ramped up their efforts last month to challenge voter ID laws implemented by Republican legislatures and governors, claiming that the laws disenfranchise minority voters.

The first in the series of lawsuits was filed in Ohio on May 8. Three weeks later, on June 1, a second suit was filed in Wisconsin. On June 11, a third lawsuit was filed in Virginia. Further suits are expected to follow in other states.

Elias is working independently on behalf of his firm, Perkins Coie, though the Clinton camp supportsthe effort. Perkins Coie has pulled in more than $40 million from Democratic clients since 2000.

The suits came as Hillary Clinton made comments about voting in a number of public speeches.

During a speech in Houston on June 4 at historically black Texas Southern University, Hillary Clintoncalled for a universal, automatic voter registration for 18-year-olds along with early voting up to 20 days before an election.

Via: WFB

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.... 

CALIFORNIA: Legislature Votes to Mandate Vaccinations for CA Kids

Proponents of the bill say the passage is a victory for science and public health, while opponents decry the bill’s infringement upon parental rights.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, said in a prepared statement that the issue at hand with SB277 was not “whether or not you support vaccines” but “about the freedom to make our own choices as citizens”:

“I am concerned this legislation is yet another overreach of the state trying to dictate how we live our lives. As a mother, I made the choice to have my children vaccinated because I believe that was right for my family. By denying the ability for parents to choose what is right for their children, we are robbing Californians from one of their most essential liberties. This is not about vaccines; it is about whether or not the government should be telling us how to raise our children.”

But during the Assembly hearing, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said, “As a mother, I understand that the decisions we make about our children’s health care are deeply personal. While I respect the fundamental right to make medical decisions as a family, we must balance out with the fact that none of us has a right to endanger others. SB277 strikes a balance.”

“This isn’t just about Disneyland,” said Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, D-San Ramon, referring to the measles outbreak that occurred last year. “And this isn’t just about the need to make sure we wait for a crisis.”

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Republicans, Stunned by the Supreme Court, Plot Next Anti-Obamacare Moves

Rep. Tom Price tears a page from the health care bill during a press conference at the Capitol on March 21, 2012.(Win McNamee/Getty)

 Congressional Republicans were in a state of shock Thursday after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare's insurance subsidies nationwide, but they quickly laid out next steps in their quest to repeal the health care law.

"Everybody's stunned," said Rep. Dave Brat, a Virginia Republican. "I think the logic and the plain language was going to be the other direction. … This is a stunner."

"I'm surprised," said House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas. "I believe it is unlawful and unconstitutional for us to have tax provisions where people in different states are dealt with different ways."

For months, Republicans have been crafting a post-King v. Burwell strategy, confident the Court would rule in their favor and strike down the law's insurance subsidies in 34 states using the federal insurance marketplace. They had planned to use the opportunity to extract major concessions from President Obama, like repealing the individual mandate, hoping a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs—which would have left 6 million people without the tax credits that many need to be able to afford their insurance plans—would force the president to cave.

Now, some Republicans are returning to a long-shot legislative strategy to repeal the law: budget reconciliation. "I would anticipate that we would move in the direction of repealing all Obamacare that can be repealed through reconciliation," said House Budget Chairman Tom Price of Georgia.

Republicans left the reconciliation language broad in the budget resolution that they passed earlier this year, which Price said should allow them to repeal major parts of the health care law. "That was clearly contemplated in our budget to allow for the committees of jurisdiction that deal with health care to be the ones that will be offering reconciliation proposals," Price said.

The budget-reconciliation rule allows the Senate to bypass the need for a 60-vote threshold to complete action on a bill, muting the minority party's ability to block the bill. A similar technique was used to pass Obamacare.

If Republicans carry through with their threat, there is no doubt that Obama would veto the legislation. But Price said that isn't the point. "The goal is to have the American people speak to their representatives in numbers large enough to be able to get this administration to move in the right direction, or the next administration to move in the right direction."

Unfortunately for Republicans, the budget-reconciliation process limits lawmakers' ability to add new policy, which means the technique can be used only to repeal the parts of the law that deal with revenue and spending. That technique wouldn't dismantle the entire law, but it could certainly do enough damage to it to make it unworkable.

House Speaker John Boehner would not commit to any specific future plan in his post-ruling remarks, noting that much of the GOP dialogue was about what to do following a Supreme Court victory.

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....