In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Budget & Tax News managing editor Jesse Hathaway speaks with Rebecca Friedrichs, a California teacher who’s going all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States to fight for her (and other teachers’) protection against compelled speech and involuntary association by labor unions.
Tagged: Supreme Court
Millions of Americans prefer to pay a federal tax penalty, rather than being forced to buy no-frills health insurance, a development that is surprising even the White House and progressive[…]
The Supreme Court determined that the EPA overstepped the boundaries of its authority when it tried to use the Clean Air Act to regulate certain hazardous chemicals without first considering the financial impact on industry.
The U.S. Supreme Court could well blow the Democrats’ cover in King v. Burwell if it rules that people in the 37 states that did not establish an Exchange cannot legally get taxpayer subsidies for health insurance.
The FCC’s latest legal brief opposing a stay of its Open Internet Order, hurt its legal case more than it helped. The FCC brief unwittingly: exposed a glaring internal inconsistency with the FCC’s Open Internet Order; spotlighted its arbitrary and capricious decision-making; and exposed a big mistake in its legal strategy.
In the coming weeks, expect the D.C. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to grant a partialstay, of only the FCC’s Title II reclassification of broadband and its new “Internet conduct standard” (not the FCC’s net neutrality prohibitions of blocking, throttling or paid prioritization), even though stay requests normally have a low probability of success, because petitioners must convince the court that they are likely to win on the merits and that the opposed action will cause irreparable harm.
There was a time when the Supreme Court of the United States defended and upheld the Constitutional protections for economic liberty in America. This year marks the 80th anniversary of one of the Supreme Court’s finest hours, when it overturned Franklin Roosevelt’s agenda for economic fascism in the U.S.
The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the Obama administration’s decision to award tax credits for health insurance sold through federally established exchanges, could turn on the question of whether a ruling that ends the tax credits on federal exchanges might cause something known as a “death spiral” in health insurance markets.
In fall 2014, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) refused to allow a vote on the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), a bill effectively forcing online businesses to collect and remit sales taxes to cities, counties, and states in which they are not located.
There are three paths Congress could take in the wake of a ruling from the Supreme Court that strikes down the Obamacare insurance exchange subsidy system. They amount to a path toward doing nothing, a path toward doing something, and a path toward doing everything.
In this edition of the Heartland Daily Podcast, Director of Communications Jim Lakely sits down with the Managing Editor of Health Care News Sean Parnell. Parnell and Lakely discuss the Supreme Court case King v. Burwell.
The Obama Administration was apparently shocked when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges insurance subsidies flowing through federal Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly states that subsidies flow only through Exchanges established by States.
On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court will hear the King v. Burwell case. It is likely to deliver a death blow to ObamaCare when the decision is announced in a few months. About the only good thing ObamaCare demonstrated is that the federal government should be kept from taking over sectors of the nation’s economy that are working just fine without it.
“No. I — I did not. Uhhh, I just heard about this… I — I get well briefed before I come out here. Uh, th-th-the fact that some advisor who never worked on our staff, uhh, expressed an opinion that, uhh, I completely disagree with wuh, uhh, in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.” — President Obama replying to a question about Jonathan Gruber at the conclusion of the G-20 Conference in Brisbane, Australia.
For as Blow then recounts, Obama’s 2013 response to Republicans was: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election.” Which Republicans, of course, promptly did, in both 2010 and 2014.
The ongoing struggle between parents and the Missouri government over the state’s school transfer law is another example of politics and bureaucracy winning out over parents, children, and their futures.
I am not a lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and I cannot find any indication that the Founding Fathers intended the guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” in the 14th Amendment to include same-sex marriage.