BREAKING NEWS: SCOTUS UPHOLDS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AS A TAX

Tags

obama, Obamacare, Repeal, SCOTUS, SCOTUS Rulings, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rulings

THE BLAZE

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its decision on the controversial ‘individual mandate‘ embedded in President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, ruling that it is constitutional.

The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 millions of uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.

‘The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read,’ SCOTUS Blog reports….

continue reading

WHAT THIS DECISION MEANS IS STILL UNFOLDING……..WILL FOLLOW UP.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT OBAMACARE MUST AT ALL COSTS BE REPEALED.

 

 

THE FIGHT CONTINUES………….

BREAKING NEWS: SCOTUS RULES 7 TO 2 AGAINST UNION in KNOX v. SEIU

Tags

First Amendment, First Amendment Violations, Knox v. SEIU, Labor unions, SCOTUS, SCOTUS Rulings, SEIU, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rulings, Union Dues, Unions

Here is the link to the ruling:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-94a1b2.pdf

SCOTUS BLOG

The Court rules that the case is not moot, first. It then rules on the merits: the union’s treatment of nonmembers who had opted out when they got notice of the dues ran afoul of the First Amendment.

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined. Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg joined. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan.

Excerpt Alito’s Opinion: (pgs. 18, 25-27)

…By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers and permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate. The SEIU, however, asks us to go farther. It asks us to approve a procedure under which (a) a special assessment billed for use in electoral campaigns was assessed without providing a new opportunity for nonmembers to decide whether they wished to contribute to this effort and (b) nonmembers who previously opted out were nevertheless required to pay more than half of the special assessment even though the union had said that the purpose of the fund was to mount a political campaign and that it would not be used for ordinary union expenses. This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible…

…Which side should bear this risk?

The answer is obvious: the side whose constitutional rights are not at stake. “Given the existence of acceptable alternatives, [a] union cannot be allowed to commit dissenters’ funds to improper uses even temporarily.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 444. Thus, if unconsenting nonmembers pay too much, their First Amendment rights are infringed. On the other hand, if unconsenting nonmembers pay less than their proportionate share, no constitutional right of the union is violated because the union has no constitutional right to receive any payment from these employees. See Davenport, 551 U. S., at 185. The union has simply lost for a few months the “extraordinary” benefit of being em- powered to compel nonmembers to pay for services thatthey may not want and in any event have not agreed to fund.
As we have noted, by allowing unions to collect any fees rather than opt-in schemes when annual dues are billed, our cases have substantially impinged upon the First Amendment rights of nonmembers. In the new situation presented here, we see no justification for any further impingement. The general rule—individuals should not be compelled to subsidize private groups or private speech—should prevail.

Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and socialissues without government interference. See, e.g., Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010). But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights. The First Amendment creates a forum in which all may seek, without hindrance or aid from the State, to move public opinion and achieve their politicalgoals. “First Amendment values [would be] at serious riskif the government [could] compel a particular citizen, or adiscrete group of citizens, to pay special subsidies for speech on the side that [the government] favors.” United Foods, 533 U. S., at 411. Therefore, when a public-sectorunion imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent…

For those unfamiliar with Knox v. SEIU, you can catch up by listening to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments below.

Suggested reading:  Supreme Court to hear NRTW case against SEIU’s polical $$$ grab from unwilling workers

What more proof do we need? If elected, Mitt Romney, WILL NOT repeal Obamacare

Tags

Election 2012, Health & Human Services, Healthcare Reform, Mitt Romney, obama, Obamacare, Progressive Establishment, Progressive Republican, Republican Party, RINO, Romneycare, Supreme Court Rulings

After all, Obamacare is Mitt Romney’s baby on steroids so what makes you think that he will repeal Obamacare, especially in light of Romney’s appointment to his presidential transition team, i.e., former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt.

Many refer to Leavitt as a profiteer of Obamacare and rightfully so.

I refer you to an article written on June 27, 2011 entitled, Health exchanges: A new gold mine:

Cheryl Smith and Brett Graham may live in Salt Lake City — but you’d be hard pressed to find them in Utah these days.

The pair lead the health exchange practice at the consulting firm Leavitt Partners and, ever since the health care reform law passed, they have been in hot demand.

Smith and Graham aren’t the only Leavitt Partners employees pulling extra hours. Staff at the firm has doubled over the past year, as has office space in the Salt Lake City headquarters. Leavitt has forged new partnerships across the industry and has even begun turning down some potential clients because of lack of capacity.

The secret to its success: the health reform law and the millions of dollars it invests in health exchanges, the new marketplaces that states must launch by 2014 or risk the federal government coming in and taking over the task.

More than $300 million in exchange grants has already flowed into the states since the Affordable Care Act passed. That number will grow exponentially in the coming months, as states move from the initial steps of passing exchange legislation to the more lucrative task of setting them up.

For health consultants and information technology vendors, it’s already shaping up to be a gold mine….

…‘There is a group that feels as though they don’t want to be associated with the Affordable Care Act,’ said Leavitt Partners CEO Michael Leavitt, who was Health and Human Services secretary under President George W. Bush. ‘Privately, though, it’s clear that several of those are planning behind the scenes, because they don’t want to have a federal exchange…

READ FULL ARTICLE

In mid-May, the New Mexico Human Services Department awarded Leavitt Partners a $1 million contract to assist in the structuring of the state’s health insurance exchange.

…Leavitt Partners of Salt Lake City won the contract through a competitive bidding process and will assist the state with grant applications, technical work and overall development of New Mexico’s health insurance exchange, HSD said in a news release. The firm will also help the state apply for more federal insurance exchange grants and write bid specifications for the construction of the site, said HSD spokesman Matt Kennicott.

The federal Affordable Care Act requires states to set up insurance exchanges where low-income people and others can shop for health insurance. The law says the exchanges must be operational by Jan. 1, 2014….

CONTINUE

Leavitt Partners was founded in 2009 several months before the passage of Obamacare.

What does the Romney appointment represent?

Until now, I have intentionally avoided posting much on the subject of Mitt Romney in the hopes that he would eventually provide me with something positive of which I could post.

I can no longer remain silent.  The appointment of Mike Leavitt to lead Romney’s transition team represents business as usual, smacks of crony capitalism and betrayal pre-Romney entering the White House.

A review of the Leavitt Partners website reveals that partners of the firm are well connected DC operatives and players of the Progressive establishment with a vested interest in Obamacare.  That in itself should be of concern.

For example:

Rich McKeown — President and CEO of Leavitt Partners. An attorney by training, McKeown co-founded Leavitt Partners with Gov. Michael O. Leavitt and, in his previous role, served as the chief of staff of the Department of Health and Human Services, where he oversaw the day-to-day operations of the nation’s largest federal department and the department most central to the implementation of federal health reform.

David Merritt — A senior advisor at Leavitt Partners and former CEO of the Center for Health Transformation. He has served as a health care advisor to several presidential campaigns and is the editor of Paper Kills 2.0, the sequel to the award-winning book about health care, Paper Kills.

Andrew Croshaw — A partner at Leavitt Partners and a former senior executive advisor to then Secretary Michael O. Leavitt at Health and Human Services. A Harvard MBA graduate, Croshaw has private sector experience with Eli Lilly and Novartis, and is an expert on value-driven health care….

From Mitt Romney down, Obamacare is high stakes.  Hence, in spite of the spin, Americans can be sure of one thing in the event of a Romney win.  Mitt Romney will not repeal Obamacare.  He will dance around the issue, maybe even perform a dog and pony show but in the end, Obamacare will not be repealed under Romney’s watch.

The implementation of Obamacare is a treasure trove for Mike Leavitt, among others.  Furthermore, Leavitt’s firm has already assessed various scenarios surrounding the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare for their own self-enrichment.

If you still do not get it, just test it out over at Health Reform Bracketology and see for yourself.

Clearly, Mitt Romney does not get it.  Romney is only pretending to hear the calls for repeal when in fact such calls are falling upon deaf ears.

Suggested reading:  Michael Leavitt has profited from Obamacare. So what?

Victory for the Fourth Amendment: SCOTUS Rules Warrants Needed for GPS Monitoring

Tags

Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment Violations, GPS Vehicle Tracking, Invasion of Privacy, Invasive procedures, Law Enforcement, obama, Obama Administration, Obama doctrine, Oppression, Progressivism, SCOTUS, SCOTUS Rulings, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rulings, Warrants

WIRED.com

“The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday the authorities need a probable-cause warrant from a judge to affix a GPS device to a vehicle and monitor its every move.

The decision (.pdf) in what is arguably the biggest Fourth Amendment case in the computer age, rejected the Obama administration’s position that American’s had no privacy in their public movements. The government had told the high court that it could affix GPS devices on the vehicles of all members of the Supreme Court, without a warrant.

‘We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’’ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

The justices agreed to hear the case to settle conflicting lower-court decisions — some of which ruled a warrant was necessary, while others found the government had unchecked GPS surveillance powers….”

READ FULL ARTICLE

Every once in a while, we are blessed with the assurance that the Constitution of the United States is still valid in spite of those out to destroy it.

Should we expect to Obama to unleash and assault against SCOTUS at tomorrow night’s SOTU?  We all know how Comrade Obama despises those checks and balances.

See decision, United States v. Jones (pdf).

JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia (via Natural Born Citizen) via loopyloo305

Tags

Dirty bureaucrats, Dirty Politicians, Eligibility, fraud, Freedom of Information Act, Government corruption, Government coverups, John McCain, Judiciary, Justia, obama, Oregon, Public Record, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rulings, Tim Stanley, Wayback Machine

“This is an important story my friends. Mr. Donofrio has been covering this story for sometime. Whether you have an opinion about the validity of Barack Obama’s eligibility or not, the documentation that he provides in regard the Justia changing and altering records is stunning. It doesn’t matter whether they did this to help Mr. Obama or to help Mr. McCain, who also had questions raised about his eligibility, is beside the point. The point that someone who represents Justice would manipulate the facts in order to obtain a result that is favorable to them, is frightening. What other situations have they done this in? Is this the first time they have manipulated data? How can we trust the facts that they have represented previously? Have people lost their right to appeal based on what results they have gotten from Justia? This is anarchy and lawlessness on the part of the very system that purports to represent truth and justice. From the response by the CEO of this organization, you have to wonder if this is fraud from the very top.

‘JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Yesterday, in a stunning development, Justia CEO Tim Stanley blocked Wayback Machine access to all US Supreme Court cases published by Justia.com.  This is the epitome – the textbook definition even – of hypocrisy.…”

Read full post

Transparency is a myth America and as it turns out, freedom of information is selective.

 

 

Nothing is, as it seems America.  We are being made fools of, lied to, betrayed, denied and manipulated.

When will it be enough?  The offenders, all of them, must be called out, exposed and held accountable.

SPREAD THE WORD.

Is Peter DeFazio Planning to Impeach Chief Justice Roberts?

Tags

Peter DeFazio, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rulings, Tyranny

Received this email the other day from Human Events Daily and thought I’d share.  Peter DeFazio wants to impeach Justice Roberts for perjury?  Is he serious?  Is this where Progressives are trying to take us? Where they move to impeach a Supreme Court justice for not ruling in their favor?

The looney left as usual are up to no good in their attempts to deconstruct the Republic.

“It’s come to this: Democrats are so desperate at trying to mobilize the left wing of their base to prevent an electoral bloodbath next week that one congressman is actually promising to impeach Justice John Roberts from the Supreme Court. Why? Because Roberts allegedly “perjured” himself in the Citizens United case when he, along with four of his colleagues, struck down portions of campaign finance law as unconstitutional. You see, Roberts wasn’t acting as an objective “umpire,” but as an activist, flippantly overturning precedent to quench his conservative worldview. Or whatever the little voices inside the Democrats’ heads are saying.

The Representative making the pledge is Oregon’s Peter DeFazio. This kooky Democrat told a local radio station that he’s working with fellow liberal lawmakers to “prepare articles of impeachment against Roberts, researching what he said in his confirmation hearings.”

“I think he probably perjured himself.”

Listen to the audio yourself and hear the narrative: It’s not that voters have given liberals and their agenda the middle finger. Nope: It’s that John Roberts’s Court hijacked our democracy! — Jason Mattera”