Rep. Dave Brat stood just off the House floor Thursday, minutes after the Supreme Court had rejected the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, and gathered his thoughts.

“Just a shocker,” the Virginia Republican said, echoing the reaction of many fellow conservative lawmakers. “How the brightest legal minds could come to that conclusion is beyond me.”

But, after the initial reaction, the big question that raced through political and policy circles, especially Republican ones, was: What happens now?

At least in Congress and the courts, probably not much. Despite expressing renewed resolve to repeal the health law, congressional Republicans know any such effort would face a certain veto from President Obama. And they are far from united on any particular plan.

Meanwhile, legal challenges to the law remain, but none poses as serious a threat as King v. ­Burwell, which aimed at a pillar of the law — the insurance subsidies being provided to millions of people through the federal exchange.

Most of the near-term action on the law, in fact, will occur in insurance companies, hospitals and government offices where people are working furiously to implement a complicated statute in a fast-changing environment.

“All the challenges that existed yesterday are still there,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the biggest is making sure enough people enroll in the exchanges to make them work right.

read more here:

Views: 242

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This law and the other on marriage. I foresee many court cases.  Everything is wide open and the freedom of religion will be in the middle of both decisions.

It is time for the States to unify ... too, simply form their own medical insurance programs in cooperation with private Insurance companies... too, ignore Obama Care and work to nulify its provisions and penalties against its citizens and employers.  Stop trying to deal with a TOTALLY CORRUPT Judiciary, Congress and Administration... the State's must UNIFY and form policies and caucuses that work to isolate and cut off all ties with the federal government ... short of secession.

Two Gut Punches in two days...and we're talking about more talking?

Just a shocker,” the Virginia Republican said, echoing the reaction of many fellow conservative lawmakers. “How the brightest legal minds could come to that conclusion is beyond me.”

These are NOT the brightest legal minds,they are political appointees.

I also agree with Ronald Nelson. And thank you Ronald for your time and great comments.

"Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule.

Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia blasts the majority opinion as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” he writes in a footnote needling the majority for its bombastic language. 

It’s the second day in a row that Scalia has blasted the majority’s opinion. On Thursday, he accused the court of creating “SCOTUScare” with a ruling that said the federal government could provide ObamaCare subsidies to consumers on a federal exchange.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that decision and was at the end of Scalia’s criticism, but on Friday they were on the same side.

Scalia wrote his own dissent even though he wrote that he agrees with everything that Roberts wrote in his own dissenting opinion, in order to “call attention to this court’s threat to American democracy.”

Scalia admits that the societal outcome of the decision isn’t particularly important to him.

“The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can afford them favorable civil consequences,” he writes.

But he wrote that he views the opinion as an overreach by the court, and chides the justices as “hardly a cross-section of America.”

He notes that all the justices graduated from Harvard or Yale Law School, eight grew up on the coasts, and that not one is an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, religions that make up significant chunks of the American population. 

“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he writes. 

This story was updated at 11:15 a.m.  Extracted from:


We aren't doing too good about stopping the American slide, are we?




Political Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


SICK: New Jersey Awarded $3.8 Million In Financial Aid To Illegal Aliens

 A local news report revealed that the state of New Jersey awarded $3.8 million in financial aid to illegal immigrants during the 2018-2019 school year.

According to a report from, the state of New Jersey gave $3.8 million in financial aid to 749 illegal immigrant students in the last academic year. More than a quarter of the funding went to 328 illegal immigrants that attend Rutgers University.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law last year that allowed illegal immigrants to apply for financial aid. Prior to the signing, illegal immigrants were permitted to apply to pay in-state tuition at public universities but they were not eligible for financial aid.

Murphy, who supports the spending, hit back at Republican critics by arguing that giving financial aid to illegal immigrants is compatible with American values.

“I’d even invite any of those folks who have that attitude, beginning with our president, to come on into this room and allow me or any of us to say, ‘This is the United States of America,’” Murphy said at the time.

David J. Socolow, executive director of the state’s Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, defended the state’s decision to offer financial aid to illegal immigrants.

“This financial assistance offers these New Jersey students a life-changing opportunity,” Socolow said in a brief comment.“The successes of these first 513 students, who are now attending county colleges, state colleges and universities, and independent institutions around the state, will have a positive impact on countless additional lives.”

According to the report, there is currently no limit on the amount of illegal immigrant students that are permitted to receive financial aid from the state of New Jersey. State lawmakers forecast that they will spend approximately $5 million on financial aid for illegal immigrants each year.

Video: Flashback: NJ Governor signs bill allowing free tuition for illegal immigrants

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service