When your own stick turns out to be a boomerang, or what happens when you step on your own rake !

The latest revelations in the ObamaCare debacle revolve around Obama architect Jonathan Gruber.
You might remember back in 2010 during the fight over ObamaCare mandates ‘we the people’ were told the mandate was a penalty and not a tax.   However, when ObamaCare challenges ultimately reached the courtroom the administration argument was exactly the opposite.  The government argued the mandate was a tax not a penalty; only as a tax could the construct survive legal scrutiny.   This latest Gruber development similarly pretzellian but infinite degrees worse.
The construct of ObamaCare execution relied upon a network of state exchanges to enroll people in the plans.   The problem for the administration was the volume of political opposition to the entire plan itself.   Consequently the Obama administration had to set up a “stick” or punitive punishment if any state failed to comply with setting up the exchange.
The stick they settled upon was a simple premise – financial blackmail.   Any state who did not construct an exchange for their state citizens to enroll in ObamaCare would face a punishment of not being allowed to receive a federal subsidy for their premium.     In essence the goal was to force states to set up exchanges.  To force compliance the carrot was the federal premium subsidy, the stick was financial punishment if they didn’t. (more…)

… and of course the media will just, well, cover for him.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama defiantly dared congressional Republicans on Tuesday to try to block his efforts to act on his own and bypass a divided Congress that has thwarted his policy initiatives.
“So sue me,” he taunted on a sweltering day, as he pushed lawmakers to pay for road and bridge repairs. “I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something.”
Obama struck an aggressive tone in the face of a lawsuit threat from House Speaker John Boehner and in the wake of two defeats before the Supreme Court, including a unanimous decision from the court that he overreached when he appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in recess. (more…)

Headline reflects the “Cliff Notes” Version:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices’ 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans. (more…)

Interesting to see a liberally leaning outlet allow this op-ed… 

(New York Observer) As Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has written, prosecutorial misconduct has become “an epidemic.” And evidence has come to light that our president, the nation’s chief law enforcement official, seeks his counsel from the worst.

If ever a picture was worth a thousand words, it is a recently released White House photo of President Obama and his muses—if one only knew the truth behind those muses whispering in the President’s ear as they strategized in the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy.

To understand the (politely-put) “lack of transparency” from the White House, the enormous politicization of the Department of Justice, the release of Taliban leaders from Guantanamo, refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations, the IRS’s harassment of political opponents, and the cover-up of Benghazi, read on.

President Obama’s right-hand woman Kathryn Ruemmler, conveniently seated to his right, was his longest serving White House Counsel and remains one of his closest and most trusted advisors. (more…)

Arguments today – Ruling anticipated by end of June.

WASHINGTON DC – The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments  Tuesday in a pair of cases dealing with warrantless searches of suspects’ cell phones.

Riley v. California  [report] is a state court case that involves a challenge to searching an arrested individual without a warrant. After being arrested, police examined Riley’s cell phone, which was described as more of a hand-held computer. In granting certiorari, the court amended the question presented to: “Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.” (more…)

The Supreme Court delivered ruling, 6-2,  to Affirmative Action this week by siding with Michigan. FNC’s Chris Wallace hosts this spirited debate between Jennifer Gratz (XIV Foundation CEO) and Shanta Driver (Civil Rights Attorney) as they weigh in with their take on the Supreme Court decision.
Good Segment

While the Obama administration did not file a brief in the case, Attorney General Eric Holder today praised Justice Sotomayor’s “courageous and personal dissent” in Schuette v. BAMN, yesterday’s decision upholding the right of Michigan voters to ban racial preferences in public university admissions. Holder’s remarks were, naturally, given at the Justice Department’s “Diversity and Inclusion Speaker Series.”   (read more)

The ruling was 6-2 with only a Sotomayor splodey’….

Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, a key decision in an unfolding legal and political battle nationally over affirmative action.

The justices found 6-2 that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters.

It bars publicly funded colleges from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision. (more…)

(Via Heritage)  President Obama’s health care law made its way back to the Supreme Court of the United States today. In addition to being unsound health care policy by limiting patient choice and increasing costs, it also requires businesses to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two challenges to the Obamacare mandate.

Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts chain owned by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians, with over 13,000 employees. Hobby Lobby would face potential fines of almost $475 million a year if they fail to comply with this mandate.

Conestoga Wood Specialties is a kitchen cabinet manufacturer run by the Hahns, a Mennonite family, with almost 1,000 employees. It would face financial penalties of about $35 million per year. Along with more than 300 plaintiffs in over 90 lawsuits, the Green and Hahn families believe that complying with the Obamacare mandate would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(more…)