SCOTUS Decision Day on Hobby Lobby Challenging ObamaCare’s Contraception Mandate … Major Decision Just Hours Away (Update: Hobby Lobby Wins 5-4 Over Obamacare)
1st Amendment and Freedom of Religion at stake this morning at the SCOTUS …
It is decision day for The Supreme Court of the United States on the issue before them of Holly Lobby challenging the Obamacare contraception mandate. Holly Lobby, the for-profit businesses is challenging the requirement in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. As the National Journal reports, SCOTUS won’t strike down Obamacare’s contraception mandate completely because that is not what the two companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, have asked of the Court. They haven’t asked the justices to ax the entire policy; however, a ruling for the law’s challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.
The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer.
The most contentious is that brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses have challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It is the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law’s individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.
Supporters of Hobby Lobby cite a few factors potentially leaning in their favor, including the tone of oral arguments in March and a unanimous decision last week finding President Obama overreached in making recess appointments to a labor board.
“Absolutely, we win — we are very confident after oral argument in March that we will prevail in this case,” Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby, told Fox News. She suggested this, too, is a case of government “overreach.”
CNN – Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University discusses the ramification of today’s SCOTUS decision.
I predict 6-3 in favor of Hobby Lobby. Then again, this SCOTUS has disappointed me before.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the major opinion and said, it was difficult to distinguish between closely held corporations and the people who own them. The religious liberty law was not intended to discriminate “against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that owners of private companies can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide insurance covering birth control for women.
The decision, which applies only to a small number of family or other closely-held companies, means an estimated several thousand women whose health insurance comes via such companies may have to obtain certain forms of birth control coverage elsewhere.
In a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the justices said the companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the law known as Obamacare. The companies in the case said they did not object to all birth control but certain methods they said were tantamount to abortion, which they oppose for religious reasons.
In their last decision of the nine-month term, the justices ruled for the first time that for-profit companies can make claims under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was enacted to protect religious liberty.
Democrats go mental over the decision and threaten to respond to SCOTUS decision. But wait, isn’t it now law of the land? Isn’t that what Democrats, including Obama, say when the GOP tries to end Obamacare?
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) Bill: “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act” Allows Taxpayers to Use Same Lame Excuses as IRS
WHY SHOULDN’T THE AMERICAN TAX PAYERS BE ALLOWED TO USE THE SAME EXCUSES AS THE IRS?
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) is introducing a bill to Congress that would allow “We the People” to be on the same footing as the IRS. After all, it is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people. The bill titled, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act” would allow taxpayers who do not produce documents for the Internal Revenue Service to be able to offer a variety of dubious excuses similar to the same ones that the IRS offered to House investigators in the IRS scandal where the IRS purposely targeted conservative non-profit groups.
Feel free to come up with your own, maybe they can be submitted as amendments.
“The United States was founded on the belief government is subservient and accountable to the people. Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to follow laws the Obama administration refuses to follow themselves,” said Stockman. “Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama administration uses.”
Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:
1. The dog ate my tax receipts
2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction
3. Traded documents for five terrorists
4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room
6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car
7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
9. Was short on toilet paper while camping
10. At this point, what difference does it make?
The full text of the resolution follows:
If there was aver a reason for term limits or competency tests for politicians, the below audio of Charles Rangel is exhibit one.
In an interview expected to air tonight on Talkline Communications with Zev Brenner, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) compared the Tea Party to the Hamas terrorist group. Really Charlie, comparing the Tea Party to a terrorists group who kills innocent people? In a discussing with Rangel, who could barely make sense and struggled to connect the dots, Rangel went on to say that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is equivalent to the Hamas terror group as part of the newly created Palestinian unity government.
Who knew the the principles of Our Founding Fathers were like Hamas? In the mind of a radical Leftist like Rangel, Constitutional Conservatives are terrorists. Who knew that a balanced budget, being fiscally responsible and spending withing your means with no deficit spending, protecting free markets, eliminating the national debt, eliminating excessive taxes and allowing the people spend their money not the federal government, reducing the size of government, promoting civic responsibility and actually abiding by the United States Constitution was a terrorist act?
“We know that these victims these kids are being held by people that have no moral standards… the question is how do we handle these types of people who don’t mind dying. They hate so much that they don’t mind dying themselves,” Rangel asserted. “And you have to admit this complex to have someone to think that attacking human beings and innocent by missiles, and destroying the lives of children that they are going to get some reward after they die. That’s worst than the tea Party’s thinking.”
At this point, the radio host interrupted the congressman, “You can’t compare the Tea Party to Palestinian terrorists!”
“Well, i am just saying that is a cult type of thinking-its’ a poor analogy when you talk about terrorism-but when you talk about not recognizing the United States as a nation, not recognizing the president, trying to repeal bills that are already law and sticking to the principles of the civil war, you know these are people that you cannot talk rationally to and the president can’t,” Rangel explained the comparison. “And at some point, if the Palestinians come to the table and say they can’t control the people in the backroom, the same way Republicans say they can’t control the Tea Party — the Republican Party would no longer exits because they can’t control the Tea Party — and the Palestinian Authority… if they believe in this partnership with terrorists.. then they cannot come to the table.. You cannot talk to a person who says their primary goal is to have you distinguished. There is no conversation there.”
“Comparing a vicious terrorist organization responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, including children to the Tea Party is offensive to the families of Hamas’ victims and to all Americans and Israelis,” Espaillat supporter Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz told JP. “I find the Tea Party beneath contempt and disagree with their extremist policies on every issue, but it is reckless to put them in the same category as Hamas. I am surprised that the Congressman would make such a senseless statement.”
“This comparison minimizes the magnitude of the evil acts of Hamas and should be retracted,” Dinowitz added.
United States Patent & Trademark Office Cancels the Washington Redskins Trademark Registration … Says Football Team’s Name “Disparaging to Native Americans”
JUST CURIOUS, HOW WAS THE NAME “REDSKINS” CONSIDERED OK FOR 82 YEARS?
Don’t ask for things, you might just open Pandora’s box … The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark stating that Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups. However, the action does not prevent the NFL’s Washington Redskins from using the name, with no patent protection, the team could lose revenue from preventing others to produce and sell merchandise using the same name.
But of course it is only a coincidence that this issue has grown with the presence of a community agitator as president.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark registration on Wednesday, a move that won’t force the NFL team to change its name but fuels the intense fight by opponents to eliminate what they view as a racial slur against Native Americans.
The 99-page decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the team’s name and logo are disparaging. It dilutes the Redskins’ legal protection against infringement and hinders the team’s ability to block counterfeit merchandise from entering the country.
But its effect is largely symbolic. The ruling cannot stop the team from selling T-shirts, beer glasses and license-plate holders with the moniker or keep the team from trying to defend itself against others who try to profit from the logo.
From Eugene Volokh at the WAPO: 2-to-1 decision, Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. (USPTO TTAB June 18, 2014). A quick excerpt:
[T]hese registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) [which bars, in relevant part, registrations of marks that "may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute"]. This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks.
Hmm, so who is next, the Cleveland Indians? And those of you at Atlanta Brave games doing the “tomahawk chop” will be arrested and cited for a hate crime.
Legal Insurrection opines, if the “Redskins” trademark is cancelled by USPTO as “disparaging,” are “Negro” and “Colored” next? So does that mean the United Negro College Fund and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People should have their trademarks revoked?
Other names up for consideration, the Washington Scandals, Washington Tyranny, Washington PC’s, or my personal favorite the Washington Waste.
- Would more available information on the mental capacity of people trying to purchase guns help stop some of the violence?
Daily Commentary – Friday, June 13, 2014 Download
- When will the next one be? Where do these people get their ideas? What are we to do to stop it?
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, June 11, 2014 Download
Jonathan Turley Says Barack Obama is the President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be … Constitutional Tipping Point
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT …
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley went on the Hannity Show and said the unthinkable, or should we say the unmentionable when it comes to Barack Obama, he compared him to Richard Nixon. Jonathan Turley, who mostly supports the policies of Obama, stated that we are at a tipping point constitutionally. Turley went on to call the Obama presidency an “imperial presidency, an uber presidency” and one “where the president can act unilaterally.” Folks, this is coming from a liberal. Then came the money line … “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.
SEAN HANNITY: We do have co-equal branches of government, separation of powers. You teach this regularly. You agree with the president politically. For you to say we are at a tipping point constitutionally — now, I agree with you. What does that mean considering our constitution is our rule of law and they are ignoring it?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, unfortunately our system is changing, and it’s changing without a debate. Or even a discussion about what we’re going to do in the future when we have a three branch system, a tripartite system but one branch is so dominant. What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I’ve called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that.
What’s troubling is that we have a system that has been stable precisely because these are limited and shared powers. This president has indicated that he’s just not willing to comply with some of those aspects. He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you’re not allowed to go it alone.
SEAN HANNITY: If I broke the law, why do I think they would be the first people to hand kickoff me, perp walk me and send me off to jail. This is just my belief system. Paranoia or truth?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.
Sen. John McCain Questions Swap “Highest High-Risk” Terrorists as White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice Defends United States Negotiating with Terrorists over Exchange of GITMO 5 for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT THE US WILL RUE THE DAY …
White House national security adviser Susan Rice went on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ with Candy Crowley to defend the Obama administration’s decision to exchange five GITMO “high risk” Taliban detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Rice also spun the fact that the Obama administration broke the law in not notifying Congress 30 days prior that there was a negotiation in process. But of course, what difference does it make with this administration, all they do is break the law, thumb their nose at separations of power and The US Constitution. Let alone negotiating with terrorists. How and why would something like this be deemed so sensitive that Congress was not notified? ” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ “What does this tell the terrorists? That if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists Cruz called the prisoner swap “very disturbing.”
White House national security adviser Susan Rice defended the Obama administration’s decision to exchange Guantanamo detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, amid criticism that the United States negotiated with terrorists in the process.
She also said the “acute urgency” of Bergdahl’s health condition justified President Obama’s not notifying Congress beforehand that Bergdahl was being swapped for five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
“What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield,” Rice said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Susan Rice went on to parrot President Obama in saying, “What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield.” However, there appears to be just one little problem with that statement … Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was not left on the battlefield, by all accounts he left his
From The Daily Caller: CNN’s Candy Crowley Grills Susan Rice: ‘Point Blank, Did The US Negotiate With Terrorists?’
Once again the Obama administration is playing games with words. Newsflash to Susan Rice by the associative property, if a=b and b=c then a=c, you negotiated with terrorists.
CNN host Candy Crowley pressed White House national security adviser Susan Rice on the Taliban prisoner swap conducted Saturday, asking “point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists” in violation of its long-held policy?
Crowley spoke with Rice on Sunday about the exchange of five high-ranking Taliban detainees — two of which are accused of the mass murder of religious minorities in Afghanistan — for Army Sgt. Bowe Berghdahl, whom many claim was captured after deserting his post and walking into the Afghan wilderness in 2009.
Berghdahl was captured by the Haqqani network, a close ally of the Taliban and an acknowledged terrorist organization according to the State Department.
“Point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists for his release?” Crowley asked.
“Candy, what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield,” Rice replied. “It’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind.”
John McCain went on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ and questioned the swap of “highest high-risk people” for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. McCain called the GITMO detainees, “These are the hardest of the hard core” and added that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Current and former U.S. officials welcomed the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier held prisoner in Afghanistan, but voiced concern about the release of five members of the Taliban who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay as part of a negotiated prisoner swap.
“These are the hardest of the hard core. These are the highest high-risk people, and others that we have released have gone back into the fight,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview on “Face the Nation,” adding that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz Wins 2016 Presidential Straw Poll at a Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana
If Ted Cruz is Constitutionally allowed to run for President … He will be a real threat to Democrats and establishment Republicans …
Texas Senator Ted Cruz won the 2016 Presidential straw poll at a Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Cruz finished first with 30.33%, Dr. Ben Carson second with 29.38% and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul finished third with 10.43%. They were followed by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Governor Rick Perry rounded out the top five, at 5.06% and 4.90%, respectively. Moderate RINO’s Florida’s former Governor Jeb Bush came in 7th with 4.42% and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came in dead last with 1.11%. During his speech Cruz said that Republicans would take back the Senate, they will retire Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and remove Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
Cruz finished in first place in the annual conference’s presidential straw poll at 30.33%. Dr. Ben Carson, a Fox News commentator and conservative activist, finished in second with 29.38% while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, was third with 10.43%.
Fox News host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Governor Rick Perry rounded out the top five, at 5.06% and 4.90%, respectively.
Neither Carson nor Paul spoke at the conference, but their support was a show of confidence by the traditionally more conservative crowd. The annual meeting of activists features of who’s who of big-name Republican politicians. It is an important appearance for potential presidential candidates to make.
More moderate Republicans also skipped the conference, but many fared much worse in the straw poll. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in dead last with 1.11% while Florida’s former Gov. Jeb Bush and current Sen. Marco Rubio and came in seventh and eighth at 4.42% and 3.32 %, respectively.
Nobody Cares what any politicians in Washington says. Power in politics, sovereignty in America is with We the People!
MUST WATCH VIDEO
Ted Cruz, an ardent defender of The Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment said during his speech, “In Texas, we define gun control real simple. That’s hittin’ what you aim at.” Cruz Also went on to say, “that following the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT the president didn’t do what she should have done. What he should have done is he should have stood up and said we are going to go after violent criminals and we are going to come down on violent criminals like a ton of bricks. instead he used it as an excuse to come after the rights of law abiding citizens.”
Cruz consistently pointed out that Democrats and establishment gray-beard Republicans both says that things can’t get done. Yet time after time in examples of drone strikes against Americans, Second Amendment gun control, foreign affairs and provisions in the International monetary fund. All won by conservatives.
Too often the establishment GOP says it can’t be done because they are afraid to take a position. In order for there to be change, not only must Democrats go, so must the establishment Republicans who have long forgot what they were sent to Washington, DC to do.
THE CONSERVATIVE BATTLE AGAINST OBAMACARE: HOW DO YOU WIN ELECTIONS … YOU DON’T WIN IT BY STANDING FOR NOTHING …
Cruz went on to blast the establishment same old-same old way of doing things within the GOP of trying to win elections. There is a cluster of political consultants who keep running losing campaigns, making the same mistakes and keep coming back to donors to make the same failed mistakes that did not win the previous times. He stressed that the way you win elections is you stand for principle and you empower the people.
- The 2001 attack was carried out in the same Isla Vista community also on a Friday night
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, May 28, 2014 Download