‘I Wasn’t 100 PERCENT SOBER’ For The State Of The Union Address States GINSBURG

February 13, 2015

Christian Patriots:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justices, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan listen as U.S. President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union speech before members of Congress in the House chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — We now know why it appears that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to fall asleep during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last month – she was drinking beforehand.

In a lighthearted moment before an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Thursday night, the 81-year-old Ginsburg cracked up telling the story that she “wasn’t 100 percent sober” before going to the State of the Union.

“The audience – for the most part – is awake because they’re bobbing up and down all the time and we sit there stone-faced, sober judges,” Ginsburg said. “At least I wasn’t 100 percent sober because before we went to the State of the Union we had dinner.”

Ginsburg said that Justice Anthony Kennedy was the culprit, bringing wine to dinner.

By CBS Washington
Read more at CBSDC

Christian Patriots:

Studies: 8 Million People Will Lose Health Care If Supreme Court Decides To Gut Obamacare

January 12, 2015

ThinkJustice:

If a lawsuit seeking to gut the Affordable Care Act succeeds in the Supreme Court, enrollment in plans purchased through the law’s health exchanges would decline by 9.6 million people and unsubsidized premiums in this market would spike by 47 percent in the states impacted by the ruling, according to a study released last week by the RAND Corporation. Although a footnote to the study explains that 1.6 million of these individuals would be able to find coverage through some other source, that still leaves 8 million people without health insurance.

RAND’s conclusions are largely corroborated by an Urban Institute study, also released last week, which concludes that “a victory for the plaintiff would increase the number of uninsured by 8.2 million people” and that “average nongroup premiums in 34 states would increase by 35 percent, affecting those purchasing inside and outside those Marketplaces.”

Although the RAND study predicts a 47 percent increase in premiums should the Supreme Court side with the plaintiffs in a case known as King v. Burwell, the actual consequences for most people insured through Affordable Care Act plans would be even worse. The law gives states a choice to either set up their own exchange or allow the federal government to do so for them. A single passage of the Affordable Care Act, if read out of context, seems to suggest that tax credits that help most Obamacare customers pay for their insurance are only available in states that run their own health exchange. Although the entire law makes clear that all exchanges, whether run by the federal government or a state, should provide tax credits, a minority of the lower court judges to consider the issue — all of whom are Republicans — have agreed with the plaintiffs’ reading of the law. The Supreme Court has five Republicans and only four Democrats.

RAND’s prediction that premiums will spike 47 percent in states impacted by a hypothetical victory for the plaintiffs in King refers to “[u]nsubisidzed premiums in the ACA-complaint individual market.” In other words, this is the premium spike that consumers will face after accounting for the fact that they’ve already lost a tax credit that dramatically reduces the cost of most exchange consumers’ premiums. Approximately 87 percent of consumers in the exchanges receive some level of tax credit.

According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, the average Obama consumer who receives a tax credit would face an immediate 322 percent premium hike if they lost that credit — and that’s before accounting for the additional premium spike described by the RAND study. In poorer states, the average hike is likely to be much higher. In Mississippi, according to health reporter Jonathan Cohn, it could be as high as 1,800 percent!

More at ThinkJustice:

Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain “closely held” for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.

The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama’s supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign.

“Today is a great day for religious liberty,” Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News.

The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form “unlawful.” The court’s four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

But Alito held that in the case before the court, the religious objections cited were legally legitimate, under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that “substantially burdens” freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.

“If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would,” Alito wrote.

The Supreme Court challenge was brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The for-profit businesses 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 was 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.

Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court were those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation’s religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argued that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses.

The question now before the Obama administration is how it might try to accommodate businesses that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers.

Alito suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations — by letting the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision “potentially sweeping” because it minimizes the government’s interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. “And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer’s religious beliefs,” Ginsburg said.

The Obama administration argued earlier this year that the case is not just about birth control, and that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages.

Alito clarified that the decision Monday is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

By, FoxNews.com

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

By, Lorra B. Chief Writer for Silent Soldier.

http://SilentSoldier.us