Source: https://ppjg.me/tag/scotus/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:45:58+00:00

Document:
President Trump’s SCOTUS nomination, the respected Judge Kavanaugh, being called “complicit in evil” by Democrat Senator Cory Booker.
On Monday, April 17th, many present and former federal employees lined up to witness the Supreme Court justices open their April session with the case of Anthony Perry, a former Department of Commerce Census Bureau employee and a member of the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C).
The question the Supreme Court with newly appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch on the bench must answer is — Whether a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decision dismissing a mixed case on “jurisdictional grounds” is subject to judicial review in district court or in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
If the Perry case is allowed to proceed in district court it has a far more likely chance of being heard by a jury. For the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is known to largely “RUBBER STAMP” federal agency decisions.
Christopher Landau, who represented Perry, urged the court to rule that mixed cases like his client’s should go to the district court. But, Brian Fletcher, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued on behalf of the federal government. Fletcher disagreed asserting Perry’s case should go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The upcoming Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision on the Perry case will most likely close the loop and provide clarity for many federal workers, like Perry, who are often coerced into signing settlement agreements that require them to drop valid discrimination claims against the federal government.
The difference between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ku Klux Klan is that the members of the Supreme Court dress in black robes and scare white people.
The Big Lie of ObamaCare is in the title: the Affordable Care Act. Administration officials invoke “affordable” over and over again.
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 subsidies hide the reality. People generally look only at what they themselves have to pay. They do not care what faceless taxpayers are paying to insurance companies for their policies.
Of the 11.7 million Americans who now have private health insurance through federal and state marketplaces, 86 percent of them are receiving financial assistance from federal taxpayers to help pay premiums—or, more accurately, their insurance company is.
“More than seven million people could lose subsidies, making insurance unaffordable,” said White House officials, according to the New York Times.
These subsidies (“tax credits”) averaged $263 a month and reduced the premium by 72 percent, on average. Taxpayers who manage to earn more than a certain threshold thus have to pay 100 percent of their own premiums plus their “fair share” of 72 percent of premiums for those who earn less.
Assuming that they will be blamed for the surge in the number of uninsured, although they did not write the law, congressional Republicans are scurrying for ways to “fix” the problem of a purported “mistake” in drafting the law.
The only problem they apparently see is that people would lose coverage—not that ObamaCare drove premiums to unaffordable levels. And the only remedy they can think of is to force others to pay the unaffordable cost, at least for a time. Not having learned from vast experience, they assume that an extension of subsidies will be temporary.
• Guaranteed issue/community rating always drives up premiums and leads to a “death spiral.” Unless premiums are based on risk, people have no incentive to buy insurance when they are well.
• Mandates to pay for expensive services people do not need or want help purveyors of such services but drive up premiums.
• Third-party payment itself always and everywhere drives costs far higher than people would pay if spending their own money.
• Administrative micromanagement drives up costs and limits access.
• Insurance is not the only way to buy medical care—just the most expensive way.
ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Tweaking one of the interlocking parts just makes the interconnected rest even more unworkable. If the Supreme Court exposes the true cost by removing the veil of subsidies, Republicans should not try to cover it up.
If people lose coverage, another shocking truth might be revealed, to the horror of the insurance cartel: they might be better off. The unsubsidized share of premiums—instead of being sucked into the insurer’s bank account—would be available to buy actual care, which people might now avoid because of high ObamaCare deductibles. A market might develop for true catastrophic-only insurance, with appropriately low premiums. Note that if ObamaCare insurance becomes unaffordable because of lack of subsidies, the individual mandate penalty/tax does not apply.
Of the money paid to insurers, at least 15 percent goes to administration and much more to activities like “quality assurance” that provide nothing recognizable to patients as a medical service or product. And if the insurer does pay for something, it decides exactly what, when, and how much a beneficiary might receive.
There are many alternatives to dependence on the government/insurer monolith, which the cartel would love to crush, such as health sharing ministries, direct-pay practices, and indemnity insurance. More resources are becoming available to patients (for example, medicalselfsufficiency.com and selfpaypatient.com).
Republicans should not help to suppress alternatives by propping up the ObamaCare monster and leaving the façade of subsidies intact.
In one swoop, on June 22, 2015, a divided U.S. Supreme Court handed down three consecutive rulings affirming the right of raisin farmers, hotel owners and prison inmates. However, this push back against government abuse, government snooping and government theft only came about because some determined citizens stood up and took a stand against tyranny.
The three cases respectively deal with the government’s confiscation of agricultural crops without any guarantee or promise of payment (Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture); the practice of police gaining unfettered access to motel and hotel guest registries (City of Los Angeles v. Patel); and the use of tasers and excessive force by prison officials (Kingsley v. Hendrickson).
Whether these three rulings will amount to much in the long run remains to be seen. In the meantime, they sound a cautiously optimistic note at a time when police state forces continue to use advancing technologies, surveillance and militarization to weaken, sidestep and flout the Constitution at almost every turn.
In the first case, Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a 5-4 Supreme Court declared that raisin farmer Marvin Horne deserves to be compensated for the official seizure of one-third of his personal property by the government.
The case arose after independent raisin farmers in California were fined almost $700,000 for refusing to surrender about 40% of the raisins they produced to the government as part of a program purportedly aimed at maintaining a stable market for commodities.
Here we go again. If we can just get the Democrats (Republicans) out of office and put the Republicans (Democrats) in, everything will be better. I have to wonder just how many times we will buy this same old song and dance before we admit that regardless of whom we vote for, regardless of which party they originate from, the flight plan doesn’t change.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Committed to ensuring the continued vitality of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a jury trial in criminal cases, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of Ball et al. v. United States. In asking the Court to hear the case in which a jury found three men not guilty of conspiracy drug charges, only to have the judge ignore their ruling and sentence them as harshly as if they had been found guilty, Institute attorneys argue for the need to restore the role of the jury from a minimal one to a central role. Moreover, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that the Sixth Amendment requires that all persons charged with criminal offenses should only be put at risk for increased punishment and imprisonment on the basis of facts found by a jury of their peers employing the venerable “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Ball, et al. v. United States, is available at www.rutherford.org.
In filing a brief in support of the petitioners in Ball et al. v. United States, Rutherford Institute attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to review the practice in federal courts that allows judges to consider “relevant conduct” that a defendant was found not guilty of by a jury of his peers, for the purpose of sentencing enhancements decided on by a judge. The case arises out of an incident involving three men, Ball, Jones and Thurston, who were charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, racketeering, firearms offenses and with selling a “street level” quantity of cocaine. After an eight-month trial involving 106 witnesses, the jury convicted the three of selling very small quantities of drugs but acquitted them of the conspiracy charge. At the urging of the government at sentencing, the judge set the defendants’ sentences as if they were involved in the criminal conspiracy as charged, resulting in a quadrupling of the defendants’ sentences, increasing one defendant’s sentence from less than 3 years to over 16 years. The defendants appealed their sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but the sentences were affirmed.
The Rutherford Institute was assisted in advancing its arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Ball v. United States by attorneys Justin M. Sadowsky and by Paul M. Heylman and Matthew J. Antonelli of Saul Ewing LLP.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.