Tag Archives: supreme-court

Read the 7 Most Ridiculous Lines from Justice Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent

by LavonneGaines Posted on June 25, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s insurance subsidies in a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts. Legal experts had long dismissed the merits of the case, and it even turned out that the plaintiffs had questionable standing.

But to three of the court’s conservative justices, the court’s decision to side with the government is a sign not only that the court is full of partisan hacks, but also that words themselves hold no meaning.

In a blistering 21-page dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia accused John Roberts of abandoning his judicial independence to defend Obamacare at any and all costs. “Normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved,” Scalia writes.

Just how absurd is it, in Scalia’s mind, that the court upheld the subsidies? Here are his other prime quotes of indignation at the majority’s opinion:

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.'”
“The decision rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare”.
“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”
“You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”
“Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!”
“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”
“The cases 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.”

View post:

Read the 7 Most Ridiculous Lines from Justice Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Read the 7 Most Ridiculous Lines from Justice Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent

The Nation’s Most Conservative Court Just Shut Down Two-Thirds of Texas Abortion Clinics

by FVBGertrud Posted on June 9, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Federal judges upheld a sweeping anti-abortion law on Tuesday in a decision that will shutter most abortion clinics in Texas.

The ruling held that the law, HB 2, which requires abortion facilities to comply with hospital-like standards, does not pose an undue burden for the majority of women seeking abortion in Texas, millions of whom will now have to travel hundreds of miles for an abortion.

The law calls for clinics to follow the state’s rules for ambulatory surgical centers, facilities that are very costly to operate. In 2013, Planned Parenthood opened a brand-new ASC in Forth Worth at a cost of $6.5 million. Only seven abortion clinics in Texas comply with ASC standards; 13 other clinics face imminent closure.

Whole Woman’s Health, the plaintiff in the case, vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and to ask the justices to put the ruling on hold immediately. Unless the Supreme Court steps in, the clinics will be forced to close in 22 days. The case, if it goes before the high court, could result in a definitive ruling on when an abortion restriction is too restrictive and constitutes an “undue burden.”

“Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to devastate access to reproductive health care on such a sweeping scale,” said Nancy Northrup, the CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Whole Woman’s Health in the lawsuit.

The ruling is a broad victory for Texas on what most consider the most restrictive abortion law in the country: Other provisions of HB 2, which were not a part of Tuesday’s ruling, have already closed more than 20 abortion providers across the state. Judges were drawn from the most conservative appeals court in the country, US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio are the only cities which have abortion clinics that comply with the ASC standards If the decision goes into effect, more than 1.3 million women of reproductive age in Texas will live 100 miles or more from the nearest abortion clinic. Three-quarters of a million women will live 200 miles away or more. The westernmost clinic in Texas will be located San Antonio, leaving a swath of Texas 550 miles wide without an abortion provider. El Paso, at the western tip of the state, will become the largest US city without an abortion provider.

The ruling also exempts a clinic in McAllen—temporarily—from a portion of the law that requires abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with local hospitals. The McAllen clinic failed to acquire admitting privileges for administrative reasons and was facing immediate closure. It is the only abortion provider in the Rio Grande Valley—the next closest clinic is 200 miles away. For this reason, the judges ruled that the McAllen Whole Woman’s Health can remain open until another abortion clinic opens nearby.

The Supreme Court is currently debating whether to consider a challenge to a Mississippi law requiring similar admitting privileges.

Abortion foes cheered Tuesday’s decision. Americans United for Life, the legal arm of the anti-abortion movement, said in a statement that the ruling “advances Texas’ interests in safeguarding maternal health and protecting women from substandard abortion facilities and practices.”

Texas legislators invoked safety standards in 2013 when they passed the law. Abortion providers, however, and mainstream medical organizations, maintain that it is not necessary to do first-trimester abortion in a hospital-like setting in order to perform them safely. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes that less than one half of one percent of all abortions involve major complications.

“The justice system and our elected politicians have put a road full of unnecessary hurdles in front of every woman in Texas who has decided to end her pregnancy,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder of Whole Woman’s Health, on Tuesday. “For scores of Texas women, the repercussions of this ruling will be devastating.”

Link:  

The Nation’s Most Conservative Court Just Shut Down Two-Thirds of Texas Abortion Clinics

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Nation’s Most Conservative Court Just Shut Down Two-Thirds of Texas Abortion Clinics

A Republican Senator Just Sent Out a Tweet So Stupid Our Children Will Learn About It in Stories

by LandonOlmstead Posted on June 8, 2015

Mother Jones

Sen. John Thune (R-World Of Pure Imagination) sent out this tweet today in reference to the King v. Burwell lawsuit that’s about to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Not unlike the challenge to Obamacare it is referencing, the tweet is deeply stupid.

The health care subsidies those 6 million people could lose are a part of the Affordable Care Act. Conservative enemies of Obamacare are the only reason those subsidies are at risk.

Words! Meaning! John Thune likes putting the former in combinations that are completely devoid of the latter.

Original link:

A Republican Senator Just Sent Out a Tweet So Stupid Our Children Will Learn About It in Stories

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Republican Senator Just Sent Out a Tweet So Stupid Our Children Will Learn About It in Stories

This Study Will Add Fuel to the Abortion Wars

by MelHXBothrifn Posted on May 7, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday, the New York Times carried a front-page story reporting new research that could have a profound impact on the nation’s abortion debate: a study concluding that a small number of premature infants born at 22 weeks can survive with intensive treatment.

The study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine, followed 5,000 infants born between 22 and 27 weeks of gestation. Seventy-eight of those infants were born at 22 weeks and given treatment to increase their chances of survival; 18 of them survived. Of the 18, which the researchers followed up on as toddlers, 6 experienced severe impairments, from blindness to debilitating cerebral palsy, and 7 were relatively healthy.

The news has huge implications for the the medical community, where there has been debate about how much treatment to provide to babies born at this stage of gestation. But it could also have sweeping consequences for the fight against abortion rights—giving abortion opponents new support for a popular abortion ban, while possibly undermining their quest to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion.

In the immediate future, the news is most likely to impact the coming congressional debate over House Republicans’ proposed 20-week abortion ban, which many see as a direct challenge to Roe. In that ruling, the justices forbid the states from banning abortion before a fetus was viable outside the womb. A 20-week ban, mainstream medical groups have argued, bars abortion before viability.

But abortion foes may use this new study to argue that 20 weeks is indeed within the range of viability, and a ban on procedures after 20 weeks is legal. (When abortion opponents talk about 20-week bans, technically, they mean 22-week bans. Click here to read a full explanation.)

Viability, however, is not a bright red line. And this new research is less of a breakthrough and more of a rigorous confirmation of what smaller, less systematic studies have already observed. One such study found that 85 percent of infants born at 22 weeks (or 20 weeks, in political parlance) die within 12 hours. Another study found that 98 percent of 22-week-old infants are born with major health issues such as brain hemorrhaging, and 93 percent die within a year. (The University of California-San Francisco Medical Center, by contrast, states that no infants born earlier than 23 weeks have survived.) Some major medical groups have been debating whether to move average viability to 23 weeks from 24 weeks. But there are no signs that the study will cause medical organizations to set 22 weeks as the new average viability.

Abortion foes have always had dual motives for pushing 20-week abortion bans. (About 2 percent of all abortions would be affected by a 20-week abortion ban. About 13,000 women sought these abortions in 2011, the most recent year for which there is reliable data.) In public, they insist that these bans are only preventing abortions of viable infants. The majority of the medical community wouldn’t agree, but there is broad public support for the idea of banning abortion on viable pregnancies.

At the same time, as I reported earlier this year, 20-week bans are designed to bring a challenge to Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court. In Roe, the justices ruled that states could not set a specific date for viability. (That determination was left up to doctors.) The legal wing of the abortion rights movement is fighting some 20-week bans, which have been passed in 10 states, on the grounds that they violate Roe. If one of those cases were to make it to the Supreme Court, it could be an opportunity for the justices to overturn Roe‘s viability standard altogether.

Here’s Samuel Lee, a former lobbyist for Missouri Citizens for Life, explaining how a measure he wrote, requiring doctors to perform viability tests before providing abortions to women who appeared to be at least 20 weeks pregnant, was designed to overturn Roe:

The 20 weeks gestational age was chosen to push the envelope on when the state’s interest in protecting the life of the unborn child could take place. It was designed as an opportunity to attack the Roe trimester framework, while still giving the Court some wriggle room (the statute required a determination of viability, not a prohibition of abortion after viability). It was an opportunity for the Court to discuss an interest by the state in protecting unborn human life earlier than the viability line of demarcation permitted…It was chosen because it was earlier than the earliest limits of viability at the time, but not so early that the unborn child could never be viable.

The Supreme Court upheld Lee’s provision in 1989. Later, Justice Thurgood Marshall’s papers revealed that the conservative majority in Webster had come within one vote of using the 20-week provision to strike down Roe entirely.

If the average age of viability were to inch backward toward 22 weeks—with this study being the first step—then 20-week abortion bans would cease to pose a broad constitutional challenge to Roe. At the time of its ruling, after all, the Supreme Court majority noted that average viability began at 28 weeks (the start of the third trimester), but it was possible that fetuses would someday be viable as early at 24 weeks.

In other words, the medical advances behind this new research don’t automatically undermine Roe—especially when it comes to something as nebulous as viability. But they may fuel the drive for a national 20-week abortion ban.

*Abortion opponents typically count the weeks of pregnancy from the date of fertilization, while the medical community uses the more rigorous method of counting the weeks of pregnancy from the start of a woman’s last menstrual period. In medical terms, then, the House Republicans’ 20-week abortion ban is actually a 22-week abortion ban. Unless we’re talking about the bans, this article uses the medical method of dating a pregnancy.

View original article:

This Study Will Add Fuel to the Abortion Wars

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Study Will Add Fuel to the Abortion Wars

Jessica Williams Expertly Trolls Gay Marriage Opponents With Tribute to "Hate Class of 2015"

by DrusillJnb Posted on May 5, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Though divided in oral arguments, in the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in favor of gay marriage in the landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges. This could signal the death knell for same-sex marriage opponents, who may soon be forced to accept a new gay-friendly law of the land.

Realizing it may be her last chance to rub elbows with the “Hate Class of 2015,” The Daily Show correspondent Jessica Williams recently met up with opponents outside the Supreme Court to bid a fond farewell—a “wrong side of history” yearbook signing and A-plus trolling included.

Watch below:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

View this article:  

Jessica Williams Expertly Trolls Gay Marriage Opponents With Tribute to "Hate Class of 2015"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jessica Williams Expertly Trolls Gay Marriage Opponents With Tribute to "Hate Class of 2015"

87 Reasons To Rethink the Death Penalty

by CaseyYZQswynlze Posted on May 4, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Stanley Griffin was deemed intellectually disabled when he was 16. He scored an abysmal 65 on an IQ test, which put him among the lowest 1 percent of Americans in terms of his intellectual capacity. (An average score is 100.) He was spelling and doing math on a third-grade level. His school designated him mentally retarded and put him in special ed. He even competed in the Special Olympics.

As Griffin grew older, he had trouble finding and holding any job. It took him seven tries to finally pass the test required to drive a semi truck, and when no one would hire him even then, he resorted to manual labor. But his contractor brother wouldn’t let Griffin use power tools because he couldn’t manage them properly; Griffin was oblivious to danger, too, and would walk dangerously close to the backhoe. He tried, and failed, to master simple plumbing—even a Denny’s application proved overwhelming. His mental deficiencies left him unable to live alone, pay bills, or even purchase his own clothing because he would get so flummoxed by the math.

Somewhere along the way, Griffin began getting into trouble and having run-ins with the law. In 1990, at age 25, he was tried and convicted for burglary and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He served 12, but things only went downhill after his release. He ended up homeless, and finally, in 2012, Griffin was convicted of strangling to death 29-year-old Jennifer Hailey in College Station, Texas, and violently assaulting her 9-year-old son, who had witnessed her murder. He was tried and found guilty. The prosecutor asked for the death penalty and the jury obliged.

There is little question Griffin should have been locked away. At the same time, he should never have been a candidate for the death penalty. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute people who are intellectually disabled—a polite alternative to “mentally retarded”—regardless of the nature of their crimes. Their “diminished capacities,” the court further noted, made such defendants far less likely to be deterred by the threat of death, which is one of the few remaining justifications for capital punishment.

Continue Reading »

See original article: 

87 Reasons To Rethink the Death Penalty

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 87 Reasons To Rethink the Death Penalty

The Future of Lethal Injection Is Being Debated at the Supreme Court. Read These 6 Stories Now.

by KarineGettinger Posted on April 29, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Same-sex marriage is not the only major item on the Supreme Court’s docket this week: Today, the court will begin considering the future of a drug used in lethal injections. The suit, Glossip v. Gross, was brought by three Oklahoma inmates sentenced to death and challenges the use of the sedative Midazolam. The inmates’ lawyers argue that the drug—used in the botched execution of Clayton Lockett, who gasped for air and writhed in pain for a prolonged period as he was put to death—violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

While only four states currently administer Midazolam, a Supreme Court ruling upholding its use could lead more states to employ the drug in executions. An opposite ruling could make lethal injection, and death penalty execution in general, rarer than it is now. Outlawing Midazolam, one of the few available lethal injection drugs, could leave states without any viable alternatives. Ahead of the oral arguments, read up on Mother Jones‘ best coverage of lethal injection and death penalty issues.

The story of the botched Oklahoma execution that sparked the Supreme Court case.
Why lethal injection is a terrible way to kill people.
The facts on the lethal injection cocktail, which includes Midazolam, that states have begun using.
Sometimes, the executioners administering the drug have no idea what they’re doing.
Arizona has a particularly bad track record on lethal injection.
The story of Ohio’s effort to shield what happens in the execution chamber.

Taken from: 

The Future of Lethal Injection Is Being Debated at the Supreme Court. Read These 6 Stories Now.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Future of Lethal Injection Is Being Debated at the Supreme Court. Read These 6 Stories Now.

Why Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying So Hard to Discriminate Against LGBTs?

by MargariBlohm Posted on March 13, 2015

Mother Jones

Sharon Bishop-Baldwin, a plaintiff in the case that challenged and defeated Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban, married her wife in October of last year, just hours after the Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal. “It is a great day to be gay in Oklahoma. It’s an even better day to be married,” she told the Dallas Morning News. One would think that the story would end there.

But soon afterwards, Bishop-Baldwin, an advisor at Oklahomans for Equality, encountered some potential setbacks: A slew of bills introduced since the beginning of 2015 aimed at making it easy for businesses to opt out of serving gay couples and more difficult for gay couples to get married. Other states, including Arkansas, Arizona, and Colorado, have introduced similar pieces of legislation—perhaps fueled by the Supreme Court’s announcement that it would decide the legality of gay marriage in all 50 states in April.

Oklahoma has been a hub for this push, with at least 12 anti-LGBT bills introduced since the beginning of the year. “We have all of them—our lawmakers didn’t miss any tricks,” says Bishop-Baldwin. “We are as upset by the animus behind the bills as we are by the content of them.”

Fortunately for Bishop-Baldwin and other gay advocates, the most controversial bills weren’t heard—meaning they were effectively killed—during the last day of the state’s legislative session yesterday. Some of the anti-LGBT bills, however, remain on the table.

Here’s a sample of the most contentious legislation:

Killed: House Bill 1599 would have prohibited public funding of any activity supporting same-sex marriage, likely leading to a confrontation between state and federal authorities.

Killed: House Bill 1598 would have protected a parent’s right to bring a child to “conversion therapy” that aims to eliminate same-sex attraction.

Killed: House Bill 1371 would have allowed small businesses, like florists, bakers, or photographers, to refuse to provide wedding services if the business owner disagrees with the wedding on religious grounds.

Approved: House Bill 1125 does away with marriage licenses altogether—for straight and gay couples—instead requiring marriage officiants to file “certificates of marriage” after the fact. Rep. Todd Russ, who introduced the bill, said its purpose is to “protect” county clerks from being forced to issue licenses to same-sex couples. The bill now goes to the senate.

Approved: Senate Bill 788 and House Bill 1007 allow clergy to refuse to solemnize a marriage that violates their religious belief. Critics point out that federal law already grants clergy this right. The bills now go to the house and senate, respectively.

With the death of the most extreme bills on Thursday, LGBT advocates have declared a modest victory. When I spoke with Bishop-Baldwin on the phone after the legislative session ended yesterday, she said, a little sardonically: “It is a great day in Oklahoma.” She paused and sighed, adding, “It’s a shame in Oklahoma that we have to fight this kind of crap.”

More here – 

Why Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying So Hard to Discriminate Against LGBTs?

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying So Hard to Discriminate Against LGBTs?

Cruz the Politician Champions the Death Penalty. Cruz the Private Lawyer Did Something Else.

by BenLansford Posted on March 12, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In December, when a mentally ill Texas man convicted of murder was poised to be executed—and a number of prominent conservatives were calling to postpone the killing—Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declined to criticize the pending execution. “I trust the criminal-justice system to operate, to protect the rights of the accused, and to administer justice to violent criminals,” Cruz declared. This was not shocking. As a politician and public officeholder, he has long supported capital punishment. While running for Senate in 2012, Cruz repeatedly mentioned his win as Texas solicitor general in a case before the Supreme Court that preserved the death penalty for a Mexican citizen convicted of raping and murdering two Houston teenage girls.

Yet as a lawyer in private practice two years earlier, Cruz had argued that the criminal-justice system, in at least one instance, had gone awry and nearly killed the wrong man. This happened when Cruz was assisting the case of a Louisiana man wrongfully convicted of robbery and murder who spent 18 years in prison—14 of them on death row—before being freed. As an attorney for this man, Cruz argued that local prosecutors could not be trusted, that institutional failures in the justice system had nearly led to his client’s execution, and that this fellow was owed $14 million in restitution because of these miscarriages of justice. But after his experience in this dramatic case—which included coauthoring a passionate brief presented to the Supreme Court—Cruz the politician would still offer a full-throated endorsement of the criminal-justice system and capital punishment.

This case began long before Cruz, fresh off his stint as Texas solicitor general, joined the Houston office of the high-powered Morgan Lewis law firm in 2008 to build its appellate and Supreme Court practice. Twenty-four years earlier, in 1984, a prominent New Orleans businessman was shot and killed outside his home. A month later John Thompson, a 22-year old African American father of two, and Kevin Freeman were arrested and charged with the murder. Afterward, Thompson was charged with attempted armed robbery that had occurred three weeks following the murder. (Thompson was arrested for the attempted theft after the father of the three victims showed them a photo of Thompson that had appeared in the newspaper in connection with the murder case and his children said they believed Thompson was the fellow who had tried to rob them.)

Continue Reading »

Read article here:

Cruz the Politician Champions the Death Penalty. Cruz the Private Lawyer Did Something Else.

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cruz the Politician Champions the Death Penalty. Cruz the Private Lawyer Did Something Else.

In Anti-Obamacare Case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Questions the Foundation of the Lawsuit

by ImogeneEnright Posted on March 4, 2015

Mother Jones

During the Supreme Court oral arguments Wednesday morning in King v. Burwell, the case that threatens to destroy Obamacare, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasted no time in grilling the attorney seeking to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act about a significant technical matter that could blow up his case. As soon as Michael Carvin, the Jones Day partner representing the four plaintiffs named in the anti-Obamacare suit, started his opening statement, Ginsburg interrupted him with a slew of questions about whether his plaintiffs had a recognizable injury that would allow the case to proceed. A plaintiff, she declared, “has to have a concrete stake in the question…you would have to prove the standing if this gets beyond the opening door.”

With these queries, Ginsburg was picking up on a critical issue highlighted last month when Mother Jones broke the news that the four plaintiffs may have dubious claims of standing in this case. According to legal filings in the case, two of the plaintiffs were likely not adversely affected by Obamacare because they could claim an exemption from the law’s requirement to purchase health insurance due to their low income levels and high health care costs. The other two plaintiffs, Doug Hurst and Brenda Levy, would have benefited substantially from the Affordable Care Act had they obtained insurance through an Obamacare health exchange. (Levy said she was paying $1,500 a month for non-Obamacare insurance, which she could have bought on the federal health care exchange for $148 a month. Hurst, according to bankruptcy filings, had been paying more than $600 a month for his insurance in 2010. The ACA would have provided him insurance for $62 a month.)

Continue Reading »

Read article here:

In Anti-Obamacare Case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Questions the Foundation of the Lawsuit

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In Anti-Obamacare Case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Questions the Foundation of the Lawsuit