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 12:20 -0400
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 21:18 -0400
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 09:32 -0400
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."
Argentina's attempt to work around SCOTUS decision in favor of the 'holdouts' was rejected (under anti-evasion orders) last night leaving Argentina no alternative but to threaten to default on its debt. The government called it "impossible" to pay bond service due on June 30, because payment to holders of restructured bonds could not be made unless the 'holdouts' were paid $1.33 billion at the same time (and Argentina's economy minister argues could be up to $15 bn) which the distressed country clearly does not have. For the first time in 12 years, Argentina has agreed to negotiate with the 'holdouts' (has renegged on that negotiation) who refused to participate in two restructurings that followed Argentina's 2002 default but it seems increasingly likely that an even of default looms for Argentina. One good thing may come from the victory of the 'hold-outs': the government will find it difficult to rack up more debt.
After 2 days of weakness following the SCOTUS decision against them, Argentina unveiled a plan to restructure their debt - swapping existing foreign law debt to local law (more manipulatable and less legally enforceable) bonds, though Citi warns "implementing [the swap] may be technically challenging.". This 'voluntary swap' action is not a clear 'default event' but CDS spreads surging to over 3000bps and longer-dated bond prices tumbling once again suggest the market believes the path is clear as holdouts will once again hold out. As we explained here, there are five main scenarios and it appears, given these actions - that Argentina is playing hardball and will restart negotiations over the debt exchange. As Jefferies warns, "there's a high chance of default," but Argentina's economy minister Kicillof explained "everyone stay calm, the reconstruction of Argentina is not jeopardized." This plan was then ordered in violation of the anti-evasion policy SCOTUS set in place.
As reported yesterday, The SCOTUS dealt a major blow to Argentina hopes it would avoid making payments on its "holdout" bonds when it enforced a lower-court ruling that said Argentina can't make payments on its restructured debt unless it also pays holdout hedge funds headed by Elliott Management, best known for briefly seizing an Argentina ship in late 2012. The immediate result was a major rout in the country's sovereign bonds, which also sent Argentina CDS soaring. Sadly for Argentina, this would hardly be the end of it, and about an hour ago, Standard & Poor added insult to injury and lowered its long-term foreign currency rating on Argentina to CCC- from CCC+ citing a "higher risk of default on the country's foreign currency debt." As a result, yesterday's drop in bonds has continued, if at a more moderate pace, and the country's USD bond due 2024 hav continued to sink in intraday trading. So what is next for the cash-strapped Latin American country for which the road ahead is suddenly quite "challenging" and default appears increasing like the only way out? For the answer we go to Citi's Jeffrey Williams who has laid out the five most likely developments.
This is Washington, where nothing makes sense.