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

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

"federal registration form... was a sufficient safe-guard against voter fraud"

June 30, 2015 Arizona , Daily Caller 0 Comments
Supreme Court Throws Out Arizona, Kansas Voter ID Appeal 

By Christian Datoc, Jun. 29, 2015, Daily Caller

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,” reports Reuters. 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.

More: www.dailycaller.com

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com  
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 29, 2015

They must be homophobes! (sarcasm)

June 29, 2015 IJ Review , Religious Leaders 0 Comments
5 Religious Leaders Say Exactly What They Believe About The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

By Jennifer Van Laar, Jun. 29, 2015, IJ Review

1. Jim Daly, Focus on the Family:

In the days to come, we must remember to season our words with salt. It’s time to be a light in these dark times. It is not time to be combative and caustic. Now, more than ever, we must emulate Jesus Christ. We must continue to show that loving kindness as we talk with our neighbors and friends who see this issue differently.

2. Max Lucado, Best-Selling Christian Author

“Something good will come out of this. Maybe now we can have this discussion where we need to have it. Face-to-face. In neighborhoods. Over dinner tables. Perhaps the hate-filled words will subside and clear thinking will gain traction; the shouting will diminish and the heart-felt dialogue will increase.”


Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com 

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tell Us Something We Don't Know

June 29, 2015 My Way AP , United States Supreme Court 0 Comments
Liberal Justices Prevail In High-Profile Supreme Court Cases

By Mark Sherman, Jun. 27, 2015, My Way AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court term that is nearing its end shows how silence can signal success.

With a notable paucity of dissents and not a single word to say about same-sex marriage, health care or housing discrimination, the court's liberal justices prevailed in almost every important case in recent months.

"It looks like the ground under First Street is slightly tilted to the left," said Carrie Severino, a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and a conservative commentator, referring to the court's address.

The four liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — were content to sign on to Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that preserved a key piece of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.


Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com 

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Cannot list Israel as place of birth

June 27, 2015 Israel , Jerusalem 0 Comments
ICYMI: Supreme Court strikes down law in Jerusalem Passport Case

By Arian de Vouge, CNN, Jun. 8, 2015

(CNN)The Supreme Court struck down part of a federal statute Monday that allowed Americans born in Jerusalem to record in their passport "Israel" as the place of birth.

The 6-3 decision is a victory for the Executive, and a loss for Congress and the 12-year-old boy caught in the middle of a separation of powers dispute.

For the last 60 years, the United States policy has been to recognize no state as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage.

More: www.cnn.com

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com 

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, June 26, 2015

Let The Fun Begin!

June 26, 2015 Affordable Care Act , Dylan Stableford 0 Comments
SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling: 2016 Presidential Candidates, Other Politicians Weigh In

Credit: Virginia Pickering/Flikr
By Dylan Stableford, Jun. 25, 2015, Yahoo.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the provision of tax subsidies under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

It was the second time in three years the nation’s highest court has handed the Obama administration a key victory in its fight to defend the law, which has been under unremitting attack from conservatives since its passage.

“The Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” Obama said in a statement from the White House Rose Garden after the court ruling. “This is a good day for America.”

Shortly after the court’s decision was handed down, those hailing the ruling — and hating on it — lit up Twitter.

More: www.yahoo.com

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com  

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Let's hope they take his advice

June 26, 2015 Sen. Ted Cruz , The Washington Times 0 Comments
Ted Cruz: 'Rogue Justices" Ought To Resign And Run For Congress

Credit: ivn.us
By Seth McLaughlin, June 25, 2015, The Washington Times

Sen. Ted Cruz delivered a full-throated critique Thursday of the Supreme Court, saying that it is clear that the “rogue justices” that ruled in favor of Obamacare subsidies are “lawless” political foot soldiers that have joined forces with the Obama administration.

Speaking on the Senate floor, the Texas Republican and 2016 GOP presidential candidate said that if the “justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office.”

The remarks came shortly after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Obama administration is lawfully doling out Obamacare’s subsidies in dozens of states despite contested language in the law that sparked a legal battle with major political and economic ramifications.

More: www.washingtontimes.com

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Scalia: "words no longer have meaning"

June 26, 2015 Obamacare , President Barack Obama 0 Comments
Supreme Court Upholds Tax Subsidies Under Obamacare 

By CBS Washington, JUN. 25, 2015

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.

The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

More: www.washington.cbslocal.com

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com 

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Do the words matter?

June 26, 2015 Associated Press , Mark Sherman 0 Comments
Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies 

By Mark Sherman, Jun. 25, 2015, Yahoo/AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sent a clear message Thursday that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is here to stay, rejecting a major challenge that would have imperiled the landmark law and health insurance for millions of Americans.

Whether you call it the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, or in the words of a dissenting justice, SCOTUScare, Obama's signature domestic achievement is, as the president himself put it, "reality."

The 6-3 ruling, which upheld financial aid to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to help pay for insurance premiums regardless of where they live, was the second major victory in three years for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of the law. And it came on the same day the court gave him an unexpected victory on another subject, preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.


Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com 

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, September 26, 2014

Rasputin would be confirmed easier

September 26, 2014 Attorney General Eric Holder , President Barack Obama 0 Comments
Limbaugh: Is Holder Obama's Choice To Replace Ginsburg?

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder
Source:  www.frontpagemag.com
By Daily Rush, Sept. 26, 2014, Teaparty.org

Suggests AG stepping down to make it easier for president to make nomination

(Daily Caller) – Rush Limbaugh apparently thinks Eric Holder may be stepping down to make it easier for President Barack Obama to nominate him to the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise.

“There may be a Supreme Court vacancy — and I can see Barack Obama nominating Eric Holder to fill it,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday, according to my colleague Matt Lewis’ transcription on Twitter.

Currently there are no vacancies on the High Court, but four of the nine justices are over 70. While it is hard to imagine one of the conservative justices resigning while Obama is president, it isn’t impossible in theory to imagine liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 81, resigning her seat so a liberal president could nominate her replacement. But Ginsberg just rejected the possibility in an interview with Elle Magazine.

“Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have?” she said. “If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court.”

“[The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court,” she added. “So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”

Read the full story:  www.teaparty.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Father of Obamacare Makes a "Speak-O" By Larry Elder

July 31, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , CATO Institute 0 Comments
Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both
Romneycare and Obamacare
Source:  www.townhall.com
By Larry Elder, Jul. 31, 2014

Last week, by 2-1 vote, a Washington, D.C., appellate panel ruled that the Obama administration unlawfully changed Obamacare. Meanwhile, on the same day, on the same question, a panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the other way. This issue is headed for the Supreme Court.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, is -- according to CNBC -- the "intellectual godfather" of what is perhaps Obamacare's most serious court challenge. Cannon says when Congress drafted Obamacare, they made it clear: Tax credits, grants and other subsidies would be available only to those enrollees who sign up via state-funded exchanges.

Right after the appellate court decision, Cannon told me; "The way the [ACA] law works ... and it's all there in black and white, the statute gives states the ability to veto certain parts of the law's regulatory scheme, including the subsidies that shift from enrollees in the health insurance exchanges the cost of their very expensive insurance ... to the taxpayers. That's what those subsidies are there for, to shift those costs from the enrollee to the taxpayer. States have the power to veto those subsidies, and all they have to do is not cooperate -- not implement the law by creating a health insurance exchange or doing other things."

But only 14 states agreed to set up their own exchanges. So Obama simply picked up his pen and rewrote the law to give the tax credits to the federal exchange as well.

Cannon says: "So what these lawsuits are about is the people who are being injured by that decision by the administration -- the people who are being subject to those taxes, those penalties, even though they are by law exempt, saying, no, wait a second, what you are doing here is illegal. The law is clear; you don't have the authority to implement those provisions where states have vetoed them. Congress gave states that power. If you want to call this a glitch, you can call it a glitch, but it's a glitch that has to be fixed by Congress, because that's who writes the laws in this country -- not the IRS, not the executive. If you want to fix the law, go back to Congress."

Defenders of the administration's decision claim that Congress actually just made a boo-boo, a drafting error, an unintentional mistake by not giving the fed exchange the same benefits. And therefore Obama's interpretation is simply following the intention of Congress.

But Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare, admitted in early 2012 that Congress wanted credits to go only to state exchanges, and the feds used this as an inducement to "squeeze" the states into setting up their own state-run exchanges: "The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its [health insurance exchange] backstop, I think, partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think 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."

A week earlier, Gruber said: "By not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars. ... That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens."

Flash forward, and once the appellate panel decisions came in, Gruber changed his tune: "We can go to the people who wrote it and say did you ever intend this as a poison pill or is it a typo every single one says it's a typo? And every single one of them will say this is just a typo. So there is no mystery here."

And three days later, Gruber was confronted with his 2012 statements that subsidies are tied to state exchanges. His explanation? Gruber said: "I was speaking off the cuff. It was just a mistake. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o -- you know, like a typo."

Expect SCOTUS again to come down 5-4. But this time Justice Roberts will get it right. As Cannon put it: "This is not a constitutional challenge to the law. It's not asking any court to strike down the law. It's actually asking them to uphold the law."

Respected leftwing law professor Laurence Tribe, who once taught Obama, supports Obama's action. But he concedes that the administration faces an uphill battle. "I don't have a crystal ball," said Tribe. "But I wouldn't bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare."
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 27, 2014

GUEST Columnist: Richard J. Chrystie

July 27, 2014 Andrea Miller , Forrett v. Richardson 0 Comments
Can An 80-Year-Old Man Shoot An Unarmed 'Pregnant' Fleeing Felon -- In The Back?

Robbery suspects Andrea Miller and Gus Adams
Photos:  Long Beach Police Department 
By Richard J. Chrystie, Jul. 27, 2014

In Long Beach, a homeowner, named Tom Greer, was attacked and beaten in his home by two burglars. Despite his injuries -- including a broken collarbone -- Greer managed to get his gun. He shot at his assailants and the intruders fled. As they ran out, one of them, a woman, said, “Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant.” He shot her anyway, in the back, twice. She was not, in turns out, pregnant. And apparently neither she nor her male companion was armed. Her alleged male accomplice was later captured and charged with murder in his partner’s death, residential robbery, burglary, grand theft firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon. Authorities are investigating whether to file murder and attempted murder against the homeowner. 

A friend, Richard J. Chrystie, who retired from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office after 30 years, offered his analysis: 

Penal Code section 197 sets forth justifiable homicide by any person. This includes killing of another in self-defense, in defense of habitation, in defense of family members, to apprehend a fleeing felon and in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. Penal Code section 198.5 provides for the use of deadly force by any person against someone who has forcibly and unlawfully entered their home. You can look these sections up on the Internet for the full text.

But beyond that, here is some case law regarding the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon by peace officers that, in my opinion, is applicable to non-peace officers as well.

The case law cited most often is the United States Supreme Court case of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1. Tennessee v. Garner stated when deadly force can and cannot be used to prevent the escape of a felony suspect. The following two paragraphs from that case have been cited many times in many subsequent cases and should be read slowly, thoughtfully and, preferably, out loud in order to gain a full understanding of the principles expressed therein:
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. . . . A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead . . . .
The opinion then continued:
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. 471 U.S. at pp. 11-12.
The later Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case of Forrett v. Richardson 112 F.3d 416 (9th Cir. 1997), expanded upon the language of Tennessee v. Garner. In the Forrett case, police officers had probable cause to believe that Forrett had just committed a residential burglary where he shot two of the occupants of the burgled premises. The officers went in foot pursuit of Forrett and shot him in order to prevent his escape. The Forrett case stated that so long as the officers have probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, officers may use deadly force to prevent the escape of the suspect and that “the suspect need not be armed or pose an immediate threat to the officers or others at the time of the shooting.” 112 F.3d at p. 420.

The Forrett case also held that the fact the police might have used some other means to prevent the escape of suspect Forrett short of the use of deadly force did not mean that the use of deadly force was unreasonable. It stated:
The Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement officers to exhaust every alternative before using justifiable deadly force. See Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1148 (7th Cir. 1994). The alternative must be reasonably likely to lead to apprehension before the suspect can cause further harm. It is not . . . any alternative that might lead to apprehension in the future. The option must be reasonable in light of the community’s strong interest in security and preventing further harm. See Kinney v. Indiana Youth Ctr., 950 F.3d 462, 465 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting public interest in preventing dangerous individuals from escaping into the community). 112 F.3d at p. 420.
The California case of Kortum v. Alkire (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 325, set forth the law in California regarding the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon and, although predating Tennessee v. Garner and Forrett v. Richardson, expresses the same principles later expressed in those cases. Kortum v. Alkire states:
[T]he applicable sections of the California Penal Code, as construed by the courts of this state, prohibit the use of deadly force by anyone, including a police officer, against a fleeing felony suspect unless the felony is of the violent variety, i.e., a forcible and atrocious one which threatens death or serious bodily harm, or there are other circumstances which reasonably create a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another. 69 Cal.App.3d at p. 333, underline added.
To illustrate application of the principles expressed in the above case law: if officers had seen Christopher Dorner fleeing from them, they could have shot him in the back.

Would this law apply to the shooting of a fleeing felon by a non-peace officer? In my opinion, the answer is yes.

Consider the following scenario. You – Larry Elder – are awakened at 3:00 a.m. by a sound in your living room. You grab your handgun and cautiously walk towards the source of the sound. In the dim light you see a man holding a bag. Before you can react, he turns towards you and fires a shot. It misses. You then hear two or three clicks as he tries to fire additional shots but his gun does not fire. He then throws his gun at you. You duck to avoid being hit. He then says to you, “This ain’t over asshole” and runs out your front door. You quickly follow and see him now about 10 feet from your door running away. Can you shoot him?

Referring to the case law above, my answer is yes. Recall the language from Tennessee v. Garner – “if there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.” There is also “public interest in preventing dangerous individuals from escaping into the community.” Furthermore, “the suspect need not be armed or pose an immediate threat to the officers or others at the time of the shooting.” 

Let’s add this to the scenario. Suppose you had a houseguest who was an L.A.P.D. officer, and he was also awakened by the noise and saw the man shoot at you and flee. Could he shoot the fleeing man as he ran from your house? Under Tennessee v. Garner and the other cases cited above, there is no question the answer is yes. There is no reason the answer should be any different for you shooting the man.

So was the 80-year-old man justified in shooting the woman outside his home? Yes. She and her accomplice had committed a crime “involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm” They had broken the man’s collar bone which is “serious physical harm.” Since they had burglarized him twice before, there was every reason to believe they might do it again and next time might kill him. Furthermore, shooting the fleeing burglars would serve the “public interest in preventing dangerous individuals from escaping into the community.”

So in my opinion, the 80-year-old man was justified in shooting the fleeing burglar even though she was not “armed or pose an immediate threat to the officers or others at the time of the shooting.” If the case had been presented to me when I was a deputy district attorney, I would not have filed charges against the 80-year-old man.

At any rate, this is my analysis. The case law was taken from an article regarding police use of deadly force appearing in the July 2002 issue of my publication, The Law Enforcement Legal Reporter. The law has not changed from that time.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 --Hasn't stopped him

July 08, 2014 Attorney General Eric Holder , John Fund 0 Comments
By John Fund, Jun. 26, 2014, Nationalreview.com

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that wereunanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).

The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.

So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”

Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.

Read the full story:  www.nationalreview.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Forbes: Hobby Lobby Decision Should Not Have Been A Surprise --The scary thing is that 4 dissented

July 06, 2014 David Davenport , Forbes.com 0 Comments
By David Davenport, Jun. 30, 2014, Forbes.com

You can bet on hand-wringing and outrage about judicial activism and political motives behind the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case but, in fact, this case was all but decided in 1993 when Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Both the liberal justices who dissented in the case, and others who attack the decision as conservative activism, should instead be aiming their arguments at Congress for enacting that law, because today’s court opinion is a relatively straightforward and narrow application of the RFRA.

Unhappy with a Supreme Court decision that narrowed religious freedom (Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 1990), Congress took matters into its own hands and passed the RFRA. Whereas the Court in Smith said that “neutral, generally applicable laws could be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest, “ the RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Few may understand that Congress, as a co-equal branch with the Supreme Court under the Constitution, has the power to pass laws and, in some cases, thereby alter constitutional interpretation through legislation.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, then, established a high bar for any law impacting religious liberty, saying that not only must the government have a compelling interest in doing so, but it must use the “least restrictive alternative” available to accomplish its purposes. That is to say, if there is another way to accomplish the government’s purpose with a lesser restriction on religious liberty, that is what is required. In the case of contraceptive services, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had already created such an alternative for religious nonprofits (churches and religious associations), providing that insurance administrators make those services available to individuals without imposing any cost-sharing on the religious organization. The Court in Hobby Lobby simply, and narrowly, said: Apply that same alternative to family businesses that have religious objections to the contraceptive services required by the ACA. Nothing dramatic or even surprising here—any politics or activism came in passing the RFRA, not in the Supreme Court’s application of it in Hobby Lobby.

Read the full story:  www.forbes.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Obama Mocks Congress One Day After SCOTUS Rebuke --Take your Constitution and stick it...

June 28, 2014 House Speaker John Boehner , President Barack Obama 1 Comments
United States Supreme Court
By Rob Garver, Jun. 27, 2014, Finance.yahoo.com

In a combative speech Friday morning, President Obama made clear that a rebuke from the Supreme Court this week was not going to stop him from trying to work around a gridlocked Congress as he tries to implement his agenda.

He even took a moment to indirectly mock House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who this week threatened to sue Obama over his use of executive orders to enact policy changes.

Related: Tipping Point – America’s Government Is Now Broken

The remarks on Friday were especially significant, coming as they did just a day after the Supreme Court ruled that Obama had violated the Constitution by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board during a three-day congressional recess. In his remarks, the president made clear he is not only unrepentant about his use of executive orders – he’s prepared to keep moving in the same direction.

“I’m not going to let gridlock, and inaction, and willful indifference, and greed, threaten the hard work of families like yours,” the president told a supportive crowd on the shore of Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. “We can’t afford to wait for Congress right now. That’s why I’m going ahead and moving without them wherever I can.”

Rattling off a series of executive orders, including an increase in the minimum wage for federal contractors, a cap on student loan payments, and more, he contrasted the White House’s action with the relative inaction of the legislative branch.

Related: Boehner v. Obama Case Might Never Get to Court

“Now Republicans are mad at me for taking these actions. They’re not doing anything, and then they’re mad that I’m doing something,” Obama said. “I’m not sure which of the things I’ve done they find the most offensive, but they’ve decided they’re going to sue me for doing my job.”

Read the full story:  www.finance.yahoo.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, March 27, 2014

"OCare: No Insurance Is Better than Unapproved Insurance" --"Wrong" insurance penalized 18x's more than no insurance.

March 27, 2014 Health Insurance , Obamacare 0 Comments
By Jeffrey H. Anderson, Mar. 26, 2014, The Weekly Standard

Would President Obama prefer that you have health insurance of which he doesn’t approve, or no health insurance at all?  Well, based on the penalties in play under his signature legislation, it would appear that he prefers for you to have no insurance at all than to have the “wrong” insurance (as defined, of course, by his administration).

As those who have been following the Hobby Lobby case—argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday—know, under Obamacare, the “wrong” kind of insurance includes policies that don’t provide “free” coverage of, among other things, the abortion drug ella, contraception, and sterilization (but only sterilization for women).  (Coverage of cancer or heart disease—apparently being less essential—need not be “free.”)   

Read the full story:  www.weeklystandard.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Post: Media bias in covering conception-Obamacare SCOTUS

March 26, 2014 Birth Control , Christianity 0 Comments
By Katie Yoder, Mar. 26, 2014
In the case of Hobby Lobby’s fight for religious freedom, what you report is just as important as who you report – at least for the broadcast networks.
The evening news programs lavishly quoted the liberal female Supreme Court justices in their Hobby Lobby reports yesterday. Among ABC, CBS and NBC, the nets recognized only one conservative justice’s opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts.
On Tuesday, March 25, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments from craft-store Hobby Lobby and cabinet-maker Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., both owned by Christian families, in the wake of the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. The mandate would force employers to supply contraception and abortion-inducing drugs for employees regardless of religious belief. 

The evening of the 25th during “CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley,” Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford offered the sole airtime to a conservative justice. Crawford noted Justice Roberts, “suggested the law’s contraception requirement forced religious business owners to violate their conscience” and quoted Justice Roberts warning “they [business owners] have to pay for methods of contraception that they believe provide abortions."
Read the full story:  www.newsbusters.org
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

"Supreme Court Women Raise Questions on Contraception Coverage" --Ladies, why REQUIRE employer to provide anything?

March 26, 2014 Birth Control , Christianity 0 Comments
By Charlotte Alter, Mar. 25, 2014

The three women of the Supreme Court dominated questioning at the beginning of Tuesday’s oral arguments in a case pitting religious business owners against the new health care reform law’s mandate that employer-provided insurance cover contraceptive care. 

The court case will determine whether Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft store chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet company, can be exempted from providing contraception coverage to female employees through federally mandated health insurance policies. 

Supreme Court proceedings make for notoriously difficult and unreliable predictors of how justices might rule on a case. That said, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasted no time in pressing the corporate challengers, according to the Wall Street Journal‘s live blog of the oral arguments.

Read the full story:  www.time.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,