Liberals are freaking out about the Halbig v. Burwell case. At issue is whether Obamacare, as written, allows for the provision of subsidies to participants in healthcare exchanges not established by the states. The Obama administration and its liberal allies argue that it does, or should, because that’s what the people who wrote the law really mean, even if the actual statute suggests otherwise. But federal courts are split, meaning the case may ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
In recent days, the liberal argument has been dealt an embarrassing blow, after videos surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber explicating arguing that non-state run healthcare exchanges not eligible for subsidies. Gruber now claims he committed a “speak-o—you know, like a type-o.”
If the case does end up being decided by the Supreme Court, we already know how liberals will behave. Like this:
The recently decided Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, is the left’s Benghazi. More accurately, the liberal response to Monday’s ruling resembles the caricatured version of the right’s reaction to Benghazi.
And it couldn’t have come at a better time—that is, less than 24 hours before the FEC’s quarterly filing deadline. Democrats proceeded to fundraise the hell out of it.
Hey! But that’s different than fundraising off a tragedy like Benghazi! Maybe, but after reading some of these fundraising emails, it is pretty clear that Democrats want you to believe that the Court’s ruling is, quite literally, a national tragedy of Benghazian proportions.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday the Obama administration’s implementation of Obamacare violated the religious liberty of several closely held businesses, most notably Hobby Lobby, and was consequently illegal.
The Supreme Court ruling that struck down coercive union membership among Illinois home health workers could cost unions tens of millions of dollars, according to labor observers.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires closely held companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that President Obama violated the constitution when he made recess appointments while the Senate was still in session.
The case centered on the tactics Obama used to fill three vacancies in the National Labor Relations Board, a federal labor arbiter.
A prominent pro-life group won a decisive victory against an Ohio state law that blocked a series of campaign ads during the 2010 election.
The Supreme Court upheld on Monday the right of government entities to allow sectarian prayers before public meetings, Reuters reports.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is scheduled to testify (and plug his new book) on Wednesday before the Senate Rules Committee. The topic is a favorite of Democrats: How “dark money” in politics is destroying America, and will only get worse after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to strike down some limits on individual campaign contributions.
Stevens is expected to criticize anonymous political donations; he’s already described the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC as “grossly incorrect.” He’s also criticized the expansion of First Amendment rights in his latest book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, which calls for stricter regulations on political donations. (In the book, Stevens also criticizes the widespread availability of “automatic weapons” in the United States, even though such weapons have been banned for decades. Oops.)
Democrats don’t like the fact that people are allowed to contribute to political causes anonymously, and thus avoid the public shaming that recently led to the ousting of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich. Meanwhile, a shadowy network of left-wing donors is currently meeting at the Ritz Carlton in Chicago to discuss how to effectively use “dark money” to influence the political process.