In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act — its expansion of Medicaid to low-income people around the country — must be optional for states. But what if it had ruled differently?
More than three million people, many of them across the South, would now have health insurance through Medicaid, according to an Upshot analysis of data from Enroll America and Civis Analytics. The uninsured rate would be two percentage points lower.
Today, the odds of having health insurance are much lower for people living in Tennessee than in neighboring Kentucky, for example, and lower in Texas than in Arkansas. Sharp differences are seen outside the South, too. Maine, which didn’t expand Medicaid, has many more residents without insurance than neighboring New Hampshire. In a hypothetical world with a different Supreme Court ruling, those differences would be smoothed out.
And that was the idea behind the Affordable Care Act. Before the law passed in 2010, the country had a highly regional approach to health policy and widely disparate results in both health insurance status and measures of public health. One of the main goals of the law was to provide some national standards and reduce those inequities by using federal dollars to buy coverage for low-income people in every state.
That’s the Republicans as bitter as they were a few days ago. The conservative fops on SCOTUS, the guardians of all that reactionary politics can provide to screw working people — are taking another shot at the ACA:
As one might expect, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had no difficulty putting her finger on the point of Texas’ voter ID law: it’s openly racist.
Ginsburg’s colleagues voted 6-3 to allow the Texas law to remain in effect for the upcoming election. But as she observed in a scathing dissent issued Saturday, the measure may prevent more than 600,000 registered voters, or 4.5% of the total, from voting in person for lack of accepted identification. “A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic,” she wrote.
The law’s intent is “purposely discriminatory,” Ginsburg concluded. Citing the U.S. District Court ruling that declared the Texas law unconstitutional, she observed that since 2000, Texas has become a majority-minority state. That gave its Legislature and governor “an evident motive to ‘gain partisan advantage by suppressing’” the votes of blacks and Latinos.
Is there any better testament to the bankruptcy of Republican political ideas than the party’s consistent effort to win elections by limiting the vote?…
Like all the Republican-governed states using this ploy to stop folks from voting, Texas turned up two cases that it to court. Time and again these states waste taxpayer dollar$ trying to prove their patent-leather lies.
Here in New Mexico, our Republican Secretary of state wasted hundreds of thousands of dollar$ trying to prove “widespread fraud” as preamble to forcing a law as criminal as the Texas variety. At the end she found a dozen people improperly registered and a couple who thought they were supposed to vote. And tried. And were turned away.
End of story. Meanwhile, crooks masquerading as constitutional experts run this crap through the Supreme Court as progress because right-wing bigots say we are a post-racial society. I would gladly start believing in some sillyass deity if these turds were struck by lightning for their lies.
The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for an immediate expansion of same-sex marriage by unexpectedly and tersely turning away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. The court’s order effectively makes gay marriage legal now in 30 states.
Without comment, the justices brought to an end delays in same-sex marriages in five states- Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin…
Couples in six other states – Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming – should be able to get married in short order. Those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s review.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, called on the high court to “finish the job.” Wolfson said the court’s “delay in affirming the freedom to marry nationwide prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places.”
Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said blah, blah, blah!
James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union said he believes the court will quickly take up a case if an appeals court upholds state bans.
It takes just four of the nine justices to vote to hear a case, but it takes a majority of at least five for an eventual ruling. Monday’s opaque order did not indicate how the justices voted on whether to hear the appeals.
Most important, the SCOTUS non-ruling lets all the Circuit rulings overturning homophobic state law stand – and extends it automatically to the other states within each circuit. Otherwise, the Supreme Court is as adept as Congress or the White House at avoiding the demonstration of leadership on any critical question.
We are an obedient nation led by cowards.
Calling a mass shooting an “unfortunate accident” — gets you NRA buck$ for sure
Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst may wish to brush up on her high school civics.
Ernst, a Republican, was caught espousing wishful thinking as policy in a September 2013 forum held by the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition, saying Congress should not pass laws “that the states would consider nullifying…”
Unfortunately for Ernst, Supreme Court case law has determined the Constitution actually forbids nullification, and interprets the Tenth Amendment as a basic statement, not a prohibition against the federal government from passing additional laws not already enumerated…
“Tentherism” was one of the primary justifications used by pro-slavery advocate John Calhoun in the years leading up to the Civil War, and a hundred years later, by segregationists opposing civil rights. More recently, conservatives have resurrected the theory to argue for nullification of federal gun laws, the Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations.
Take a look at the issues raised by these ignoranuses. Time after time they center on bigotry, a false libertarianism that turns its back on responsibility to your fellow citizens.
A Nigerian man detained in a hospital psychiatric ward because he did not believe in God has been freed.
Mubarak Bala was released because of a doctors’ strike which has seen many patients discharged, a charity said.
Mr Bala said he now wanted to reconcile with his family who committed him to the hospital in Kano where he says he was held against his will for 18 days.
But he said he wanted to leave the predominantly Muslim north of Nigeria after receiving death threats.
A humanist charity which took up his case said that Mr Bala, a chemical engineering graduate, was freed on Tuesday but news of his release was not made public until he was in a secure location.
“There are still deep concerns for Mubarak’s safety in a part of the country where accusations of ‘apostasy’ can be deadly,” the International Humanist and Ethical Union said…
In a statement released on Friday, Mr Bala said he was now staying with some of his family, had been assured of his safety and wanted to put things behind him “for the sake of reconciliation”…
He said he retracted “some derogatory remarks I have made online, out of anger”.
His lawyer, Muhammad Bello Shehu, told the BBC Hausa Service this did not refer to his faith but to remarks he had made about his father who he accused of being an Islamic leader who could not afford to have a non-Muslim in the family.
After the 29-year-old was admitted to a psychiatric ward at the Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, he sought help from friends via email and social media until his phone was confiscated, according to IHEU.
Mr Shehu said that no further legal action would be taken but that Mr Bala wanted another doctor to evaluate him to put it on the record that he was not suffering from a mental illness as the hospital has concluded.
Good thing we live in a modern country where there is separation of church and state.
In an emphatic defense of privacy in the digital age, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police generally may not search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants.
Cellphones are unlike anything else police may find on someone they arrest, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. They are “not just another technological convenience,” he said, but ubiquitous, increasingly powerful computers that contain vast quantities of personal, sensitive information.
“With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life,” Roberts declared. So the message to police about what they should do before rummaging through a cellphone’s contents following an arrest is simple: “Get a warrant…”
The Obama administration and the state of California, defending cellphone searches, said the phones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find. But the defendants in the current cases, backed by civil libertarians, librarians and news media groups, argued that cellphones, especially smartphones, can store troves of sensitive personal information.
“By recognizing that the digital revolution has transformed our expectations of privacy, today’s decision is itself revolutionary and will help to protect the privacy rights of all Americans,” said American Civil Liberties Union legal director Steven Shapiro…
In the cases decided Wednesday, one defendant carried a smartphone, while the other carried an older flip phone. The police looked through both without first getting search warrants…
A ride on horseback and a flight to the moon both “are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together,” Roberts said…
The decision will protect cellphones from warrantless searches going forward, but it may not be of much help to defendants in pending cases, or those whose convictions are final, said lawyer Gerry Morris…He said that courts could allow evidence to be used from police searches of cellphones that were done in “good faith” and relied on the law as it stood when the searches were conducted.
Still a two-fold victory. We’ve acquired the sort of protection many folks – from geeks to civil libertarians – agree we need in a digital age. Now, the task remains to take the modernized version of privacy and stick in the eye of paranoids ranging from the White House and Congress to the NSA.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a conservative group’s move to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon in a brief order Wednesday.
The Oregon attorney general has refused to challenge a judge’s ruling in May that found the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The National Organization for Marriage has been attempting to win standing to appeal.
In a filing Tuesday with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles emergency matters for Western states, NOM said that in Oregon a position decided by voters in a referendum was “invalidated at the behest and encouragement of its elected officials.” Oregon held the vote in 2004 after Multnomah County, which includes the city of Portland, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Kennedy referred the matter to the entire court, which issued a one-sentence decision denying the group’s request.
“The application for stay presented to Justice [Anthony] Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied…” In case you wondered what that sentence was.
Scalia thinks HBO is broadcast free-to-air like a local TV channel
One U.S. Supreme Court justice referred to Netflix as “Netflick.” Another seemed not to know that HBO is a cable channel. A third appeared to think most software coding could be tossed off in a mere weekend.
These and other apparent gaffes by the justices during oral arguments have became a source of bemused derision, as tech aficionados, legal experts and others have taken to social media, blogs, YouTube and other outlets to proclaim the justices black-robed techno-fogeys.
“Everyone who’s anyone inside that courtroom is most likely an incompetent Luddite,” Sarah Jeong, a 25-year-old Harvard Law School student, wrote on her personal blog following a recent Supreme Court argument dealing with a copyright dispute over TV online startup Aereo.
When it comes to cutting-edge technology, Jeong told Reuters: “Mom and Dad are the Supreme Court.”
Parker Higgins, a 26-year-old digital rights advocate who works at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, spliced together audio of the Aereo argument for comic effect and posted it on a sound cloud and at YouTube.
About a minute long, it’s a compilation of the justices’ references to “the cloud,” highlighting some misuse of terminology and uncertainty about how the technology works.
“Sometimes it’s just amusing and sometimes it’s really troubling,” Higgins said…
The court, via spokeswoman Kathy Arberg, declined comment on the recent criticism…
RTFA for the anachronistic examples, funny enough, scary enough on their own. Reuters rolls on into a tag predictably riddled with sophistry. Assuring everyone that final decisions will be tidy.
I wish I was confident that tidy equates to useful.
Analysts say the court’s ruling will have a very broad impact on US criminal justice, because as many as 12 million people are arrested every year and many of them carry mobile phones
The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether police may search a suspect’s mobile phone without a warrant during an arrest.
The high court is weighing appeals by two people convicted based on evidence found on their phones.
The defendants argue their constitutional protections against unreasonable searches were violated.
But the government argues phones are no more shielded from searches than other articles police find during an arrest.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that during an arrest, police do not need a warrant to empty a suspect’s pockets and examine whatever they find in order to ensure officers’ safety and prevent the destruction of evidence…
Under the fourth amendment to the US constitution, police and other government officials generally need to obtain a warrant from a judge before they can conduct a search. A warrant requires evidence that a crime has been committed by the suspect.
Lawyers for David Riley and Brima Wurie argue that allowing police to search mobile phones during the initial arrest would radically broaden police powers, because many arrests occur for minor violations and never end in conviction.
They say a phone’s contents cannot be used as a weapon and that police could seize the phone without searching it to avoid the destruction of evidence.
The defendants are also backed by privacy advocates who say mobile phones, especially smartphones, contain enormous quantities of sensitive personal information that have no bearing on the arrest.
The worst possible argument – IMHO – is the concept advanced by the state of California and the department of Justice. They say a person who is arrested has a lower expectation of privacy. Therefore, it’s OK to actively diminish any rights to privacy we’re supposed to expect under our Constitution.
Sophistry 101, folks.
A legal immigrant living in California was denied U.S. citizenship after she identified herself as a “conscientious objector” who will not bear arms for the United States because of her religious beliefs, or lack thereof, in her application.
The application was rejected by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on the grounds that Adriana Ramiez’s unwillingness to bear arms “is not based on religious training or belief…”
The American Humanist Association has taken up Ramirez’s cause and will represent her in the appeal…
The AHA is seeking that the decision immediately be reversed.
“There is no legal basis to deny a citizenship application because one’s ethical values are secular,” said AHA attorney Monica Miller. “The letter is meant to clarify the mistake being made by officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’s San Diego office so that the application process can move forward.”
The ignoranuses in Immigration are like a lot of bureaucrats who never thought of looking outside the cubicle of their tiny little minds to see if this has already been sorted out by another government agency.
Bill Morico sued United States Selective Service during the VietNam War and won status as a non-religious conscientious objector in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court – setting the operative precedent.
A helluva union organizer for Hospital Workers Local 1199 – I might add.