Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Jerks! Republicans Not Voting For Trump

Hillary Obama

Jerks! Republicans Not Voting For Trump

Food For Thought and this is Very Crucial:  The Supreme Court

If you are a Republican that won’t vote for Trump, think about this:

  • If Trump wins and he turns out to be a jerk as President, he’ll be tossed out in 4 years.  Do you think he’ll be as bad a President as Obama?  The guy has done pretty well managing a very large business so at least he’s got some credentials and is not a community organizer like Obama.
  • If Hillary wins, because ‘you’ didn’t feel dignified enough to vote for Trump, you, your children, and grand children will live under Hillary’s designated Supreme Court justices and their liberal rulings for many years to come (even if she’s a terrible President).

Even after Hillary is gone AND even if she is followed by a Republican President after 4 years that you do like, its most likely SHE will have CONTROL over future Supreme Court decisions.

Food For Thought and this is Very Crucial:  The Supreme Court

Some people have brought up the fact that they won’t vote for Trump for whatever reason. I just want to put something in perspective:

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant, and Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, Thomas is 67.

Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

Think about that… 7-2 rulings…for LIBERAL policies!!

If the next President appoints the next 5 justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation … and 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than any 5-4 decisions which are viewed as lacking in mandate.

obama gun control ammo

Hillary to go after Second Amendment!

Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

A “No” vote for Trump ‘is’ a vote for Hillary !

Hear this! If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

Remember Romney? Three million conservatives who had voted for McCain did not cast a vote for Romney (for whatever reason) and the result was four an additional 4 years of B.H.O.

If you are not convinced yet, I’ll leave with one final thought:
Hillary is already on the record as saying that her buddy, B.H.O. (Yep, that’s Barack Obama) “would make a great Supreme Court Justice.”

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS?

If elected President, Hillary will make Obama a Supreme Court Justice!  He and she will continue to destroy our country taking away all of our rights including the Second Amendment!

Supreme Court appointee
Supreme Court appointee

Supreme Court to Decide Marriage Rights for Gay Couples Nationwide

Supreme Court to Decide Marriage Rights for Gay Couples Nationwide

By

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether all 50 states must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, positioning it to resolve one of the great civil rights questions in a generation before its current term ends in June.

The decision came just months after the justices ducked the issue, refusing in October to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision, which was considered a major surprise, delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states withsame-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.

Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.

The cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear on Friday were brought by some 15 same-sex couples in four states. The plaintiffs said they have a fundamental right to marry and to be treated as opposite-sex couples are, adding that bans they challenged demeaned their dignity, imposed countless practical difficulties and inflicted particular harm on their children.

The pace of change on same-sex marriage, in both popular opinion and in the courts, has no parallel in the nation’s history.

Gay rights advocates hailed the court’s move on Friday as one of the final steps in a decades-long journey toward equal treatment, and they expressed confidence they would prevail.

“We are finally within sight of the day when same-sex couples across the country will be able to share equally in the joys, protections and responsibilities of marriage,” said Jon W. Davidson, the legal director of Lambda Legal.

Supporters of traditional marriage said the Supreme Court now has a chance to return the issue to voters and legislators.

“Lower court judges have robbed millions of people of their voice and vote on society’s most fundamental relationship — marriage,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy and lobbying group. “There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the courts to silence the people and impose a nationwide redefinition of marriage.”

The Supreme Court’s lack of action in October and its last three major gay rights rulings suggest that the court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. But the court also has a history of caution in this area.

It agreed once before to hear a constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban, in 2012 in a case called Hollingsworth v. Perry that involved California’s Proposition 8. At the time, nine states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to marry.

When the court’s ruling arrived in June 2013, the justices ducked, with a majority saying that the case was not properly before them, and none of them expressing a view on the ultimate question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage.

But a second decision the same day, in United States v. Windsor, provided the movement for same-sex marriage with what turned out to be a powerful tailwind. The decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states that allowed such unions.

The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion stressing that state decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, ones that emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffered from bans on same-sex marriage. In a remarkable and largely unbroken line of more than 40 decisions, state and federal courts relied on the Windsor decision to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

The most important exception was a decision in November from a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Writing for the majority, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton said that voters and legislators, not judges, should decide the issue.

That decision created a split among the federal appeals courts, a criterion that the Supreme Court often looks to in deciding whether to hear a case. That criterion had been missing in October.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision upheld bans on same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The Supreme Court agreed to hear petitions seeking review from plaintiffs challenging those bans in each state.

The court said it will hear two and a half hours of argument, probably in the last week of April. The first 90 minutes will be devoted to the question of whether the Constitution requires states “to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.”

The last hour will concern a question that will be moot if the answer to the first one is yes: whether states must “recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.”

The court consolidated the four petitions, not all of which had addressed both questions.

Two cases — Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, from Ohio, and Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-562, from Tennessee — challenged state laws barring the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

“Ohio does not contest the validity of their out-of-state marriages,” the plaintiffs seeking to overturn the ban wrote in their brief seeking Supreme Court review. “It simply refuses to recognize them.”

State officials in Ohio had urged the justices to hear the case. “The present status quo is unsustainable,” they said. “The country deserves a nationwide answer to the question — one way or the other.”

Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee, a Republican, took a different approach from those of officials in the other states whose cases the Supreme Court agreed to decide. He did what litigants who have won in the lower court typically do: He urged the justices to decline to hear the case.

The Michigan case, DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-571, was brought by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses. They sued to challenge the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear their case, they asked the justices to do away with “the significant legal burdens and detriments imposed by denying marriage to same-sex couples, as well as the dignity and emotional well-being of the couples and any children they may have.”

Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, joined the plaintiffs in urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Kentucky case, Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-574, was brought by two sets of plaintiffs. The first group included four same-sex couples who had married in other states and who sought recognition of their unions. The second group, two couples, sought the right to marry in Kentucky.

In his response to the petition in the Supreme Court, Gov. Steven L. Beshear, a Democrat, said he had a duty to enforce the state’s laws. But he agreed that the Supreme Court should settle the matter and “resolve the issues creating the legal chaos that has resulted since Windsor.”

Florida becomes 36th state to legalize gay marriage

Florida becomes 36th state to legalize gay marriage

Supporters of same-sex marriage erupted into cheers and tearful hugs after a judge ruled that same-sex marriages could begin in Miami-Dade County on Monday.

By Tribune wire reports 

Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage ended statewide at the stroke of midnight Monday, and court clerks in some Florida counties wasted no time, issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings for same-sex couples overnight.

But they were beaten to the punch by a Miami judge who found no need to wait until the statewide ban expired. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel presided over Florida’s first legally recognized same-sex marriages Monday afternoon.

gay lesbian wedding marriage legal legalize

Still, most counties held off on official ceremonies until after midnight early Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle’s ruling that Florida’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional took effect in all 67 counties. Florida’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, is still pursuing state and federal appeals seeking to uphold the ban voters approved in 2008, but her effort to block these weddings until the courts finally rule was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And now that same-sex marriage is a reality in Florida, Bondi’s spokeswoman told The Associated Press “the judge has ruled, and we wish these couples the best.”

The addition of Florida’s 19.9 million people means 70 percent of Americans now live in the 36 states where gay marriage is legal.

“It’s been a long time coming. We’re just so excited and so happy,” said Osceola County Commissioner Cheryl Grieb moments after she married Patti Daugherty, her partner of 22 years, at the Osceola County Courthouse in Kissimmee, just south of Orlando. Dressed in matching white pants and white embroidered shirts, the couple stood under a canopy of lace and ribbons as County Clerk of Court Armando Ramirez officiated and U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., served as a witness. A countdown clock was placed in the front of the room, and supporters counted down to midnight 10 seconds before the clock struck 12.

“I’m hyped up at the moment,” said Grieb, whose marriage was the first in Osceola County and was followed by 27 others in the early morning hours.

Outside the courthouse, about 20 protesters held signs reading “God says male and female should be married” and “Sodom and Gomorrah,” but same-sex marriage supporters ignored them.

In Key West, at the southern tip of Florida, Aaron Huntsman and William Lee Jones, exchanged nuptials early Tuesday dressed in matching black tuxedos with blue vests, shortly after getting the first marriage license issued to a same-sex couple in the Florida Keys. Several hundred people attended the wedding staged on the steps of the Monroe County Courthouse.

During vows, Huntsman and Jones exchanged handmade silver rings, embraced and kissed. Afterward, Jones removed a large silver-toned bracelet that completely encircled his left wrist. He called it “my shackle of inequality.”

“I’m elated. Overjoyed that I am finally legally recognized with the man I have loved for 12 years now,” said Jones, whose marriage was followed by nine others in Monroe County overnight.

In Palm Beach County, celebrity financial adviser Suze Orman showed up at a mass wedding of 100 couples at a Delray Beach courthouse to support two friends getting married. Orman, who married her wife, Kathy Travis, a decade ago in South Africa, said she was happy same-sex couples were finally being recognized legally in Florida, where she lives part of the time.

“This is an investment in validity,” Orman said.

Broward Clerk Howard Forman also planned to officiate a mass wedding overnight at his county courthouse, and Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer planned to do the same at city hall later in the morning. Churches throughout the state were holding mass weddings for same-sex couples on Tuesday.
On Monday, gay and lesbian couples in Miami got a head-start when Zabel said she saw no reason why same-sex couples couldn’t immediately get their marriage licenses.

Then, she married two couples, Karla Arguello and Cathy Pareto and Todd and Jeff Delmay, in her chambers, packed with supporters and news media for the event.

“Finally, Florida recognizes us as a couple,” Pareto said. “It’s just — I don’t know, sweet justice.”

But while the news was largely met with cheers or even shrugs from Florida’s more liberal enclaves, signs of opposition were evident farther north, where more conservative Floridians live.

In Jacksonville, Duval County Court Clerk Ronnie Fussell shut down the courthouse chapel, saying no marriage ceremonies — gay or straight — would be allowed there. At least two other counties in northeast Florida did the same.

“The day is going to come very soon where America is going to wake up and say, ‘Whoa! Wait a second! I wanted two guys to live together. I didn’t want the fundamental transformation of society,'” said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy council. He led the petition drive to put the gay marriage ban on the ballot back in 2008.

Republican Jeb Bush, who opposed gay marriage while serving as Florida’s governor and who now may seek the presidency, sought a middle ground Monday.

In a statement, he urged people to “show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue — including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”

Obama Administration Changing Birth Control Mandate Exemption After Court Loss

Obama Administration Changing Birth Control Mandate Exemption After Court Loss

by the DailyCaller.com

The Obama administration will release a revamped religious exemption for Obamacare’s mandate to provide contraceptives to employees at no cost, senior officials said Tuesday evening.

The administration filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver Tuesday that announced its plan to create a new exemption.

The change comes after the Supreme Court’s several hits against the birth control mandate and the administration’s work-around for religious nonprofits. The court granted an injunction at the beginning of the month to Wheaton College, a small Christian university in Illinois, clearing it from the administration’s work-around until the pending case against the mandate is concluded. (RELATED: Supreme Court Grants Christian College Injunction Over Obamacare Religious Exemption)

The White House currently requires religious nonprofit employers to sign a federal form to signify their moral objection, which notifies the insurer that it, instead, must provide birth control coverage at no cost to the employee.

Unborn babyWheaton is one of many religious organizations — including a women’s Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor — suing over the exemption, which the college believes violates its religious freedom by forcing it to sign the form, making it complicit in providing contraceptives that violate its religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court said Wheaton was required only to file a letter with the federal government stating its objections instead of filling out the federal form.

In response, the Obama administration is preemptively attempting to change the way its religious exemption functions. It hopes to have a new plan within a month.

Obamacare“This is part of ensuring that all women have access to contraception coverage,” a senior administration official said in a statement to the press. “The administration believes the accommodation is legally sound, but in light of the Supreme Court order regarding Wheaton College, the Departments intend to augment their regulations to provide an alternative way for objecting non-profit religious organizations to provide notification, while ensuring that enrollees in plans of such organizations receive separate coverage of contraceptive services without cost sharing.”

Supreme Court 2013
US Supreme Court Judges

The Wheaton decision was a surprise to some after the Supreme Court also ruled the requirement for closely held businesses to provide all 20 types of contraceptive coverage to employees violated Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the closely-watched Hobby Lobby lawsuit.

Some — most notably Justice Sonia Sotomayor — believed the majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case buffeted the religious exemption because it cited the workaround as an option that burdened religious employers less than the mandate itself. Sotomayor issued a lengthy dissenting opinion to the injunction for Wheaton in response, signaling that the mandate’s religious exemption may not survive future court battles either.

Harry Reid Goes After ‘Five White Men’ Following the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision

Harry Reid Goes After ‘Five White Men’ Following the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision

by Jason Howerton, The Blaze

A day after vowing to “do something” about the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby ruling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated Democrats’ desire to undermine the high court’s decision by attacking the “five white men” who voted in favor of the Christian, family-owned business.

There’s just one glaring problem with his statement: Justice Clarence Thomas is black. The Washington Free Beacon was one of the first outlets to pick up on the gaffe.

Supreme Court  Justice Clarence Thomas

Credit: AP

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Reid told reporters on Tuesday. “This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous and we are going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote.

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito in the 5-4 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case.

Roll Call has the video:

Will the Supreme Court get another shot at Obamacare?

Will the Supreme Court get another shot at Obamacare?

Obama Obamacare affordable care act Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court last week chipped away at one part of the Affordable Care Act, but its ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case left most of Obamacare intact. Other court cases, however, are making their way through the court system in an attempt to deliver a more fatal blow to the controversial law.

As early as this week, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hand down a ruling on whether the federal government can give subsidies to Obamacare recipients in states with federally-run health care exchanges. If the appeals court rules in favor of the law’s opponents, it could cripple the law. More than half of the states rely on federally-run marketplaces, and were subsidies not available in those states, Obamacare could be too costly for many customers.

The case, Halbig v. Burwell, rests on how the court system interprets a poorly-worded sentence in the Affordable Care Act.

Section 1311 of the law says the federal government will give subsidies to eligible consumers who buy insurance from an exchange “established by the State.” The Halbig suit — and three other similar cases — argue that, consequently, subsidies aren’t available to customers in the 34 Obamacare exchanges that were established by the federal government. (Here’s a list of which states have state-run exchanges and which have federally-run exchanges.)

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law first made the case against the subsidies, arguing that Congress wanted the subsidies to serve as a reward for states that established their own exchanges. Obamacare’s “congressional sponsors created incentives for states to implement much of the law and reasonably expected that states would do so,” they wrote.

However, there’s no need to guess congressional intent given the law was passed by Congress four years ago. In fact, seven high-ranking Democrats who helped craft Obamacare, as well as dozens of state lawmakers, filed a brief in the case to explain the true intent of the law.

“The purpose of the tax credit provision was to facilitate access to affordable insurance through the Exchanges–not, as Appellants would have it, to incentivize the establishment of state Exchanges above all else, and certainly not to thwart Congress’s fundamental purpose of making insurance affordable for all Americans,” they wrote.

Nicholas Bagley, an expert in health law at the University of Michigan Law School, told CBS News that the “the challenger’s argument about legislative intent is pretty adventurous.”

The argument, he said, attempts to “exploit poorly-drafted statutory language and transform that into a radical re-conceptualization of what the Affordable Care Act was meant to do.”

Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, agreed that the legal basis for the challenge focuses intently on one poorly-drafted phrase.

“So much of the language of the act makes clear the congressional intent was to extend subsidies to federal exchanges,” he said. “When you look beyond one sentence… I think the picture is quite clear what’s going on in the Affordable Care Act.”

Still, during the oral arguments in March, at least one of the three judges from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was skeptical of the administration’s arguments in the case.

Should the Obama administration lose, it would very likely request an en banchearing, Bagley explained, which would require all 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case. Given that most of the judges were appointed by Democrats, the administration would have a better chance of winning that round. Yet if the government lost again, it would likely ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

“If the government asks the Supreme Court to review the case, it would be very likely to accept review, especially on an issue of this importance,” Bagley said.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is fending off a challenge to the Affordable Care Act on another front in Wisconsin. On Monday, a federal judge considered whether Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., should be allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against the ACA. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the federal subsidies for lawmakers and congressional staffers who purchase health insurance through Obamacare exchanges.

The controversy stems from a provision in the law requiring congressmen and their staff to get their insurance from the state-based health care exchanges — in order to ensure members of Congress weren’t receiving special treatment. However, that meant that members of Congress and their staff were the only people in America directly cut off from their employer-provided health insurance subsidies because of Obamacare (whether or not other Americans have been off as an indirect result of the law is a different story). This was particularly troublesome for low-paid staffers.

To work around this problem, the administration crafted a compromise rule, allowing congressional employees getting insurance through the exchanges to still get employer contributions to their premiums.

“It’s Congress’ role to actually make or change or repeal laws,” Johnson saidoutside of the courthouse on Monday. “They can’t do it through presidential fiat.”

Before Johnson can proceed with the case, a federal judge needs to determine whether or not the senator has standing — in other words, whether he has a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit or has been personally harmed by the president’s actions. Johnson argues he has standing because he and other lawmakers were “asked to be complicit in something we do not believe to be lawful.” Additionally, he said that providing his staff with subsidies could harm his reputation with his constituents.

Schwinn called the argument “bizarre,” given that the Obama administration in this case is actually trying to help, rather than harm, Johnson’s staff. He added, “It doesn’t even really help them,” but rather “puts them in the position they were in prior to the Affordable Care Act.”

“It’s a very bizarre theory to get into federal court, and in my view underscores the political nature of this challenge and so many challenges to Obamacare,” Schwinn said.

After Monday’s hearing on the standing issue, Johnson said he was encouraged that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach even entertained his arguments, the Green Bay Press-Gazette reported. The judge said he would issue a ruling on the matter of Johnson’s standing in “short order.”