"The Department disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s adverse ruling and intends to seek further review from the Supreme Court of the United States."
With the latest swarm of mass shootings still in the headlines, and of course the ubiquitous call for gun control/prohibition, the Supreme Court's decision this week on whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons seems more critical than ever. As NBC News notes, if the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states; but declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere.
Despite the arguably undemocratic, obfuscating nature of our nation’s campaign finance laws and the blatant corporatist agenda mandated by the Supreme Court, let’s attempt to break down the major sources of political spending so far in the 2016 presidential election. You may be surprised to find out who is donating money to your candidate — and how that contribution may affect future policy positions.
Today, with just one day to go until Bharara deadline runs out to plead the SCOTUS to opine on redefining what "insider trading" means , we found out why Bharara had requested the extension: as Reuters reports, the U.S. Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to reverse a federal appellate court's ruling that authorities said limited their ability to pursue insider trading cases.
Last month, the United States Supreme Court declined to take up a case involving Arizona’s and Kansas’s attempts to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the case yet again sends a message to state and local governments that the federal government shall continue to centrally direct election and immigration law. The net effect is an imposition of a migrant subsidy scheme across all states regardless of the local economic and demographic realities, while ignoring the fact that residents of certain states bear a greater tax burden in subsidizing migrants.
As America celebrates Gay Pride weekend with more exuberance than normal just 2 days after SCOTUS momentous decision, NATO ally Turkey appears not so keen for the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders to walk the streets of Istanbul with rainbow flags... #LoveLosesInTurkey
Following yesterday's historic 6:3 Supreme Court decision enshrining the tax known as Obamacare, there was little surprise moments ago when in one of its last remaining decisions in re: Obergefell v. Hodges, the most liberal Supreme Court since 1960 just declared gay marriage legal nationwide. The decision, supported by all the women on the SCOTUS, came down in a 5:4 vote with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Kenedy voting for, while Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.
"Most Liberal Supreme Court Since 1960s" Gives Obama Huge Victory With 6-3 Vote In Favor Of ObamacareSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 06/25/2015 11:20 -0500
The Supreme Court has ruled that people who bought healthcare coverage through federal exchanges as part of Obamacare can keep subsidies that effectively limit the amount low- and middle-income Americans pay for health insurance to 9.5% of their income or less.
"There’s Going To Be Chaos" - What Is The Worst-Case Outcome Of Today's Supreme Court Obamacare HearingSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 03/04/2015 20:18 -0500
Today, for the second time since 2012, the fate of Obamacare lies in the hands of the Supreme Court, and like last time, it will likely be all about Justice John Roberts ' decision. Later today, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to Obamacare, and one that could potentially leave it gutted from an unexpected direction. As a result, nearly eight million Americans could lose their health insurance depending on how the Supreme Court interprets four words in the "Affordable" Care Act.
The US midterm elections taking place on November 4 may very well lead to a shift in Senate control to Republicans from Democrats, according to Goldman Sachs. They argue that a Republican-controlled Congress could renew legislative activity – at least on small issues – but also increase (unwanted) uncertainty on some larger ones creating risk around fiscal deadlines.
US Encourages Corporations To Engage In M&A "Inversion" Bubble, Then Shames Them By Demanding "Economic Patriotism"Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/16/2014 08:32 -0500
To summarize: the US government first allows corporations (or "people" per SCOTUS) to not only inflate their stock to record highs (via a debt funded, stock buyback scramble facilitated by the Fed's ZIRP bubble), the same companies then engage in the only logical activity that makes sense for the bottom line, one which leaves no tax payments for the US whatsoever, and then the US hopes corporations will show some "economic patriotism." In other words, shame them into adding even more capital misallocation on top what is already the worst case of central-planning since the fall of the USSR. Add this to the "less cynicism, more hope" recent appeal by Obama, and at this rate US GDP will explode courtesy of soaring healthcare fees as everyone ends up in psychotherapy from the resulting cognitive bias of doing the one thing the US government allows, permits and encourages, the very same thing that the same government subsequently shames everyone into having done in the first place!
Moments ago the US Supreme Court - the same Supreme Court which two years ago upheld Obamacare but as a tax, something the administration has since sternly denied - dealt Obamacare its biggest legal blow to date, and alternatively handing Obamacare opponents their largest court victory yet, when in a 5-4 vote SCOTUS ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires closely held private companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
Having had his omnipotence slightly reduced by SCOTUS and Verizon losing out over NSA spying concerns, we can only imagine President Obama's dismay while watching (aboard AF1) the Europeans trump the Americans once again...
"Today's SCOTUS decision is encouraging for all who believe in the checks and balances enshrined in our nation's constitution," is Darrell Issa's message following the Supreme Court's unanimous (9-0) decision cutting back the power of the White House to temporarily fill senior government posts when facing partisan opposition in Congress. The White House spokesman said President Obama was "deeply disappointed" and is 'reviewing' the decision. Simply put, President Obama used the recess appointment power to make an end run around a Senate that refused to confirm controversial nominees - thanks to this unanimous SCOTUS decision, that use of the power is all but dead.
Moments ago, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court gave the NSA monopoly rights to electronic data, communication and exchange after it decided that Police must obtain a warrant before searching mobile devices after arresting someone, stating "privacy interest outweigh police convenience". So... Americans still have privacy rights despite all the Snowden revelations - amusing. According to the WSJ, "the court, in a unanimous ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, said both the quantity and quality of information contained in modern handheld hand-held is constitutionally protected."