SCOTUS did what many people figured they would do; with Chief Justice Roberts, yet again, joining the bench legislatures in a veiled effort to avoid the impression of a 5-4 ideological court.

SCOTUS – Today, by a vote of six to three, the Court agreed with the Obama administration that the subsidies are available for everyone who bought health insurance through an exchange, no matter whether that exchange was created by a state or the federal government.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan all joined.

The Court acknowledged that, at first blush, the phrase “established by the State” does not appear to include the federal government. After all, the ACA specifically defines “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” But other parts of the law, the Court explained, suggest that the “meaning of the phrase ‘established by the State’ is not so clear.” (more…)

“Disparate Impact” is a social justice legal theorem which measures outcomes to standards and practices and determines racial legality.

Example – Under legal interpretation rules of “Disparate Impact” it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens. If a company uses eligible (legal) work authorization status as a requirement on employment applications (when making hiring decisions), and if the use of legal work eligibility is used as a qualifier, and the eligibility (qualification) standards disqualify a protected class (ethnicity) at a disparate rate, then it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens.

The civil rights act(s) guaranteed -through law- equality in opportunity. Disparate Impact guarantees -through legal interpretation- equality in outcome.

Today the Supreme Court upheld (5-4) the application of “Disparate Impact Rules” within housing: regulations, loans, credits, locations and subsidies.  Justice Kennedy was the determining factor.  Thomas Lifson at American Thinker accurately outlines: (more…)

Reminder: There are 7 decision announcements still anticipated including: King v. Burwell, in which the court must decide whether the 6.4 million people getting subsidies on the federal exchange to buy ObamaCare will be able to continue doing so; and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the court is being asked to decide whether bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.  The Texas Housing v Inclusive Communities “disparate impact” decision is also possible.

We can anticipate one or more decisions today and tomorrow. SCOTUS BLOG HERE They will live blog decisions beginning at 9:00am Eastern.

*Note – I’ll be off line until early afternoon, but use comment section if something breaks. The next 48 hours should be interesting to say the least.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has added two additional “decision days” to their calendar for the session ending next Monday June 29th.  They just added this upcoming Thursday and Friday.

There are 7 decision announcements still anticipated including:  King v. Burwell, in which the court must decide whether the 6.4 million people getting subsidies on the federal exchange to buy ObamaCare will be able to continue doing so; and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the court is being asked to decide whether bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

We can anticipate one or more decisions on both Thursday and Friday of this week.

UPDATE:  Given the announcement of Obama giving the eulogy for South Carolina victims on Friday we can expect the Obamacare ruling decision announcement has been aligned accordingly:

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/status/613085303335579648

The case was Horne v. U.S. Dept of Agriculture (full embed pdf below).  Essentially a raisin farmer was fined (and the price of his crop similarly assessed) for not forfeiting their harvest to the USDA in a program where the government regulates supply and demand through production controls.

SCOTUS ruled 8-1 (Sotomayor dissent) the U.S. government cannot “take”, or force destroyed, farming crops without compensation to the farmer under the fifth amendment “takings” clause.

The most consequential aspect of the ruling stems from 8 justices affirming that “personal property” is afforded the same constitutional protection as “real property.  Specifically, in this case,  if  crops “taken” (or rendered removed from the market) for the public good, there must be compensation for the owner/farmer.   (more…)

The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) will be delivering rulings, on previously argued cases, all week. Today, two rulings announced.

♦  8-1 EEOC wins suit filed against Abercrombie and Fitch on behalf of Muslim woman who sought discrimination protection -based on religion as the qualifying protected category- claiming disqualification from employment because she wore a headscarf.
Ridiculously Abercrombie argued their side of the case based on the applicant never “requesting a religious accommodation“. Justice Scalia informed the business the applicant did not need to be specifically denied a requested accommodation in order to be discriminated; the applicant merely needed to prove their employment disqualification was due to their religious belief.

…”An applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision”…  ~ Scalia

This was really a no-brainer win for religious freedom and employment eligibility. (more…)

The Congressional Black Caucus and the Decepticon Republican Establishment will collectively cry foul. A Supreme Court decision today essentially eliminates the twisted racial logic used to construct race-based (black) congressional districts.

As Christian Adams writes – “The Supreme Court has dealt a heavy blow to efforts — often by the Republican Party — to draw legislative districts that pack black voters into majority black legislative districts in order to elect black representatives”. (read more)

[scribd id=259945889 key=key-fgbxZXKetDKMW3tTqcDw mode=scroll]

…“Here, however, the District Court and the legislature both asked the wrong question with respect to narrow tailoring. They asked how to maintain the present minority percentages in majority-minority districts, instead of asking the extent to which they must preserve existing minority percentages in order to maintain the minority’s present ability to elect the candidate of its choice. Because asking the wrong question may well have led to the wrong answer, the Court cannot accept the District Court’s conclusion.”

Essentially by sending the HHS appeal back to the lower court SCOTUS is saying we’ve already ruled on this matter with Hobby Lobby and the religious exemption is already upheld. The HHS injunction against the Roman Catholic University is null.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objections to the Obamacare health law’s contraception requirement.

The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision. (more…)

Ultimately research shows the IRS Targeting Scandal is a series of magnitudes greater than all other Obama scandals. The Federal Department of Justice weaponizing the IRS to go after political enemies within the U.S. electorate is far more serious than any other controversy.
Cleta Mitchell updates on hopes and concerns moving forward:

This is a follow-up to a previous argument. Two district courts have split on the issue. The language of the legislation itself is specific that only exchanges set up by individual states are eligible for federal subsidy. The ObamaCare defenders claim differently.
Everyone with common sense should work to insure ObamaCare collapses – because it’s a total fraud and getting worse. 
To use the administrations’ own figures initially the goal was to create healthcare for 30 million “uninsured”.  According to the feds own figures they have registered 1.2 million people on the federal exchanges.   According to the same stats 70% of those registrations are qualifying for Medicaid (a state program).  That means only 300k are paying for some form of coverage, or actual health insurance.  
So a program sold to benefit 30 million is only benefiting 300k   And to benefit 3 million they are destroying the coverage of 300 million.  Think about it.
This was never about “Healthcare”, this was always about “CONTROL”.  

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a legal challenge to a key part of the Obamacare health law that, if successful, would limit the availability of federal health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. (more…)