Skip to content

Shameful SCOTUS Rules for Faux Marriage – Supreme Court Saves Obamacare by Rewriting it – IRS Deleted 24,000 Lois Lerner Emails After Subpoena – Trade Pacts Destroy Jobs – James Traficant’s Last Public Speech – Fast Track the Way to Loss of Sovereignty – Should We Bless the Jews?

June 26, 2015

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Supreme Court Once Again Saves ObamaCare by Rewriting It

IRS Deleted Backups Of 24,000 Lois Lerner Emails Months After Subpoena

Obamacare Travesty: The Supreme Court Continues To Make Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air

Warren Buffett: Derivatives Are Still Weapons Of Mass Destruction And ‘Are Likely To Cause Big Trouble’

FBI: Obama’s Trusted Advisor Jarrett Related to Communists

Confederate Flag Controversy: Will Obama Resign Because His Family Owned Slaves?

The TPP Isn’t Over: It Can Still Be Stopped

No Jobs from Trade Pacts

US Will Provide Weapons for NATO Commandos to Attack Ukrainian Separatists

WikiLeaks: bin Laden’s Death Certificate Doesn’t Exist

Every Mass Shooting Shares One Thing In Common & It’s NOT Weapons





Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Cruz Flips Against TPA/ Fast Track; Sessions Hammers ObamaTrade

Written by 

Citing corruption, “backroom deal-making,” and leaks that show the Obama administration is violating its assurances not to include immigration in its trade agreements, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas; shown on left) reversed his earlier support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and voted Tuesday against the cloture measure to end debate on Fast Track authority for the president. Even with Cruz’s defection, however, President Obama and his Republican allies in the Senate succeeded in getting the 60-vote super-majority they needed to cut off debate. The 60-37 vote sets up a vote on TPA itself, which is scheduled for Wednesday. If it passes then, it will go to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law. Although most commentators are viewing TPA passage now as a done deal, it is still possible that it could be derailed again, as recent history has shown the battles over these pseudo-“free trade” pacts are full of surprises.

In an op-ed published on today, Senator Cruz explained why he has switched from pro to anti on TPA. “The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress,” Cruz wrote. “And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.”

As a general matter, Cruz said, he supports free trade. “But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include,” the Texas senator noted.

Since his earlier pro-TPA vote on May 22, Cruz says, two troubling material changes have come to light. The first was the revelation by WikiLeaks regarding the secret Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, which President Obama is attempting to use to open the immigration floodgates.

Another straw that broke the camel’s back for Cruz was the deal-making by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), promising a corporate welfare plum to Democrats and Republicans alike, in the form of billions of dollars for the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.; shown top-right), who has been the leading principled opponent of Fast Track in the Congress, provided many more reasons why his colleagues should vote against handing TPA/Fast Track to President Obama. In a speech on the Senate floor, Sessions pointed out that the main objection to TPA is that it will almost guarantee passage of three major ObamaTrade packages that threaten our national sovereignty: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).

Among the many crucial arguments Sen. Sessions makes are:

• Contrary to arguments of GOP leaders that TPA “empowers” Congress, it is a surrender of Congressional authority “for six years,” not only to President Obama, but to whomever follows him to the White House;

• The TPP/TTIP/TiSA, according to the Obama administration and our foreign partners, are “living agreements”  that will continue to evolve, meaning they will mutate into whatever the trade architects (or future leaders) want them to be;

• The TPP/TTIP/TiSA subject the United States to rulings of international tribunals;

• TiSA could be used to undermine our immigration laws by forcing the U.S. to issue more temporary worker visas;

• President Obama is “breaking arms and heads” not to increase trade, but to get the political “trans-national union,” with international law that can be used against America’s interests.

Photos at top: Senators Ted Cruz (left) and Jeff Sessions


Friday, 26 June 2015

Supreme Court Once Again Saves ObamaCare by Rewriting It

Written by 

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, using the acronym for the court, declared Thursday as a majority of his colleagues once more rewrote the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to save it.

In the case of King v. Burwell, the court ruled 6-3 that the plain language of the ACA means something entirely different. Although the law specifically states that refundable tax credits for the purchase of insurance are available only when coverage is bought on “an exchange established by the state,” the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — found this phrase “ambiguous.”

“If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms,” Roberts wrote for the majority. Indeed, he observed, “petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning … are strong.” But Roberts, who also helped rescue ObamaCare in 2012 by recasting its penalties as taxes and changing the terms of its Medicaid expansion, found that “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

“The phrase ‘an exchange established by the state’ … may be limited in its reach to state exchanges,” Roberts argued. “But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all exchanges — both state and federal — at least for purposes of tax credits.”

In truth, the language of the law is unambiguous. It quite clearly states that the tax credits — which, by virtue of being refundable, are actually subsidies — are available only on state exchanges, and with good reason. “The ACA’s legislative history,” noted columnist George Will, “demonstrates that the subsidies were deliberately restricted to distribution through states’ exchanges in order to pressure the states into establishing their own exchanges.” ACA architect Jonathan Gruber, too, was under this impression, telling an audience in 2012, “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

Unfortunately for Democrats, 34 states have thus far refused to establish exchanges, forcing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to do so in their stead. Rather than see ObamaCare undermined by the lack of subsidies — the individual mandate kicks in only when coverage is deemed affordable, and absent subsidies, it rarely is — the Internal Revenue Service declared that the tax credits would be offered to anyone buying exchange coverage regardless of whether that exchange was established by a state or by HHS. Four Virginians took the Obama administration to court over the regulation, and that is the case that wound up before the Supreme Court as King.

Roberts and his cohorts also apparently believe it is their job to modify the law, or at least ratify the Obama administration’s modifications, in order to preserve the ACA. Their opinion goes into great detail about the reasons for including the tax credits and the supposedly “calamitous” consequences of enforcing the law as written — namely that the exchanges would collapse into a “death spiral” once so many people were exempted from the individual mandate and only those in immediate need of insurance actually bought it.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

“In other words,” blogged Reason’s Peter Suderman, “there would have been policy implications to a ruling for the plaintiffs. That is almost certainly true, but it is not an excuse to rewrite the clear language of the law.”

Simply ruling that the law means what it says, after all, would not necessarily have put an end to ObamaCare. Congress could have reinstated the subsidies or come up with other ways it (mistakenly) thought the law could be made to work. And, yes, it might have repealed the ACA.

“The Supreme Court, however, decided not to take any chances on democracy, so … it effectively changed the statute,” observed David French of National Review.

That was too much for Scalia, who penned a withering and often humorous dissent in which he was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

“Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is ‘established by the state,’” Scalia remarked. “But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Scalia referred to the court’s assertion that “established by the state” means “established by the state or the federal government” as “quite absurd,” adding that “the court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.” He called various portions of the court’s reasoning “feeble,” “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” a “defense of the indefensible,” a “dismal failure,” and “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”

Scalia agreed that the phrase needed to be read in the context of the entire law. “Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.” He also pointed out that the majority ignored context where it did not help them reach their seemingly foregone conclusion.

Scalia summarized the majority opinion thus: “The court’s interpretation clashes with a statutory definition, renders words inoperative in at least seven separate provisions of the act, overlooks the contrast between provisions that say ‘exchange’ and those that say ‘exchange established by the state,’ gives the same phrase one meaning for purposes of tax credits but an entirely different meaning for other purposes, and … contradicts the ordinary meaning of the words Congress used.”

“Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty,” Scalia wrote. The two cases in which the court has upheld ObamaCare in the face of plain English, he maintained, “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Of course, not everyone was upset with the court’s decision. President Barack Obama, for one, praised it, saying, “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

Republicans, meanwhile, vowed to continue fighting to overturn or at least modify the law — though, as the Washington Post reported, “party leaders were privately breathing a sigh of relief” because now they won’t have to come up with a solution to lost subsidies. Still, the ruling is likely to increase the pressure on GOP candidates to come up with ObamaCare alternatives should the party retake the White House next year.

But whether ObamaCare is repealed, replaced, or left unchanged, the damage has been done. The court’s decision not to interpret the law as written but to change it to make it work, Will lamented, “facilitates what has been for a century progressivism’s central objective, the overthrow of the Constitution’s architecture,” turning the three branches of government from checks on each other to partners in crime.



No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: