Student loan forgiveness: you get to pay more

 

Rick McKee’s cartoon seen on PowerLine’s "Week In Pictures"

The Democrats really do want more of your money.  At American Spectator, David Catron reports on the case before the Supreme Court concerning the cancelation of student debt; he begins:

Last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness plan predictably focused on arcane legal theories such as the “major questions doctrine.” Relatively little time was devoted to the profoundly inequitable structure of the program. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch did note that it would provide benefits to certain favored persons while ignoring the very real costs it would impose on others, but no one mentioned a fact that will gall most taxpayers — it would cancel student loans for college dropouts.

Remarkably, the Biden administration and most Democrats see this as a selling point for the plan. The White House fact sheet puts it as follows: “Nearly one-third of borrowers have debt but no degree, according to an analysis by the Department of Education of a recent cohort of undergraduates.” The Democrats justify canceling these loans because tuition costs have risen, ignoring evidence that the loans have driven that increase. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) claims: “Up to 4 in 10 people with student loan debt weren’t able to graduate, many because of high costs.… Canceling student loan debt would change their lives.”

The problem is that the $400 billion program would also “change the lives” of millions of Americans for the worse. How? It will raise the stealth tax known as inflation. . . .

Read the rest here.

# # #

Babylon Bee on Justice Clarence Thomas’s vote

 

Yesterday, The Babylon Bee knocked another one out of the park:

Democrats Argue That Clarence Thomas
Should Only Have 3/5 Of A Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats in D.C. have lashed out at Justice Clarence Thomas following his vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, arguing that he should only get 3/5 of a vote in the Supreme Court.

"This is an illegitimate vote!" shouted AOC to protesters gathered in front of the Supreme Court Building. "Three Justices lied during their appointment hearings—so their votes don't count—and Clarence Thomas should only get 3/5 of a vote. That means Roe was overturned by a vote of 3 to 2 3/5! That's crazy!"

Democrats say they are proposing this historic compromise to restore public trust in the Supreme Court. They argue that since Clarence Thomas is bad, he should have 2/5ths of his vote removed.

"This is what must be done to restore confidence in our democracy," said Senator Chuck Schumer.

At publishing time, Sen Elizabeth Warren had fallen uncharacteristically quiet on the issue. According to sources, she's concerned someone will bring up her Native American heritage and she'll lose a vote in the senate.

A brief summary of the "3/5 compromise," as recited in the US Constitution, is here. 

# # #

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: fashion trend-setter

Their motto: "Fake News You Can Trust."  The Babylon Bee knocks it out of the park again:

Brett Kavanaugh Unveils Updated Supreme Court Robe

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a splash in the fashion world Wednesday as he unveiled a new Kevlar judicial robe made by Atomic Defense. A spokesman confirmed the new robe was totally unrelated to recent threats made upon the justice’s life in the wake of an upcoming ruling on abortion rights. 

. . .

In addition to a stylish, slimming look, Kavanaugh’s robe comes with three articulated blast plates, a shockproof helmet and visor, and a zoned armor system guaranteed to meet or exceed current zonal fragmentation protection standards. 

. . .

In unrelated news, Kavanaugh confirmed that his family would be moving from their current home in Chevy Chase, MD to an abandoned underground missile silo somewhere in the Midwest in order to pursue their family dream of not being murdered in their sleep.  

The rest of the text is here.  

# # #

Healthcare Workers Can't Make Decisions About Their Own Healthcare

 

The Babylon Bee nails it again:

SCOTUS Rules Healthcare Workers
Are The Only People Who Can't Make Decisions
 About Their Own Health

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that Biden's vaccine mandate for private businesses is unconstitutional. However, in a split decision, they also determined that healthcare workers are the only ones who should not be allowed to make decisions about their own health.

"Healthcare workers have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to important healthcare decisions. They aren't smart like us," said the group of judges that includes people like Sotomayor, in a ruling in favor of a Federal Government that includes people like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. "The personal health choices of healthcare workers should be left to people more qualified, like us." 

The decision was made based on the timeless legal principle that if the government pays for your healthcare, they own your body, mind, and soul for all eternity. 

Citing this new victory, the Biden administration is looking into other things it can mandate for healthcare workers, such as abortions, sex changes, and maybe some warmer stethoscopes. 

Source: click here. 

# # #

Precedents in SCOTUS nominations

 

Instapundit has the goods (click to embiggen if necessary):

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: But the important thing to Alyssa Milano is that someone is paying attention to Alyssa Milano.

# # #

193

Update: immigration, DACA amnesty

Neil Munro at Breitbart reports:

President Donald Trump and a group of GOP senators quickly rejected a DACA amnesty deal pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham on Thursday afternoon – but left the door open to future negotiations.

They will now wait until after the Supreme Court decides on the legality of Barack Obama’s work permit giveaway to 800,000 younger illegals, says multiple media reports.

NumbersUSA adds (via subscriber newsletter):

Other Senators reported at the White House meeting represented some mixed immigration positions: Ted Cruz of Texas, Kevin Cramer of South Dakota, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Martha McSally of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and David Perdue of Georgia.

Sens. Tillis and McSally would be open to joining Graham in supporting a mass amnesty, particularly if it came with the right tradeoffs. Sen. Tillis, along with Sen. Johnson, is looking for an expansion of guest worker programs. Sen. McSally would likely be willing to trade amnesty for increased border security in Arizona.

Thankfully, Sens. Cotton and Cruz were also in attendance. Both Senators have pushed back against the idea of granting a permanent amnesty to DACA recipients. Coincidently, Sen. Cotton slammed the Trump Administration's decision to increase the number of low-skilled H-2B visas for FY 2020 via Twitter while the meeting was taking place.

For now, the issue is still up in the air, and the NumbersUSA Action Alert to fax or call Senators is probably better implemented closer to the Supreme Court’s decision, expected in June.

# # #

Prager U. VS YouTube [Updated]

Last week, John Hinderaker at PowerLine had an update on Prager U’s legal battles against YouTube’s and Google’s censorship of its educational videos:

For several years, YouTube has suppressed Prager U’s videos by “restricting” them, which makes them invisible to viewers who are using the restricted mode, as is the case in many school environments, and by not allowing them to be monetized. After multiple appeals of YouTube’s discriminatory decisions, Prager U sued YouTube and Google in federal court, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Lanham Act (the federal law that governs advertising in interstate commerce), as well as several causes of action under California law. The district court judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal counts, and Prager U appealed. That appeal was argued on Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That YouTube has engaged in viewpoint discrimination to the detriment of Prager U is indisputable. That YouTube does this because its employees disapprove of conservatism is obvious. But YouTube and Google are private companies, and the First Amendment applies only to government. (“Congress shall make no law…”) The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated a narrow exception where the First Amendment can apply to private entities if they “exercise powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Prager U faces an obvious hurdle, in that hosting videos is not a traditional governmental function.

Mr. Hinderaker is not all that optimistic in a speedy remedy:

Prager U may yet win its case, which is in its early innings. Perhaps the 9th Circuit will hold that Prager’s First Amendment and Lanham Act claims state a claim, and give it a green light to pursue discovery. Perhaps Prager U will prevail on its state law causes of action, although I assume that California’s judiciary is securely in the hands of the Democratic Party, which generally is not in favor of free speech. But for the foreseeable future, the Left’s control over the principal means of public communication will remain a huge advantage.

The full article is here.

# # #

Kavanaugh sworn in

The Fox headline: 

Kavanaugh sworn in as 

114th Supreme Court justice, 

hours after Senate votes to confirm

# # #

President Trump on Kavanaugh

Everyone was riveted to the hearings today, especially prepared remarks from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and surprisingly (at least for me) Sen. Lindsay Graham.

Here's President Trump's tweet (h/t Sundance):

# # #

SCOTUS internet sales tax ruling

image credit: usatoday.com

This SCOTUS decision will affect all of us. Sparta Report just announced its decision to close down its little sales center at its blogsite:

effective today, the Sparta Report Shop will no longer be in operation due to the disastrous decision by the Supreme Court’s “republican wing” to allow states to charge out of state businesses with sales tax. We are not interested in complying with 2.5 thousand and more localities and states and keeping track of the various stupidities of the corrupt local political tax wrangling.

Investors Business Daily has more:

Taxes: Whatever you think about the issue of taxing internet sales, the simple fact is that the Supreme Court has just guaranteed that people across the country will now be paying more in state taxes. It's hard for us to see how this is good news.

In its 5-4 decision on South Dakota v. Wayfair, the court overturned two previous rulings that prevented states from taxing sales of out-of-state companies. That meant a catalog company based in Maine didn't have to navigate 45 state sales-tax laws to figure out how much each customer owed, and then remit that money to the right states.

Brick-and-mortar stores have been trying to lift this ban for decades, because, they say, it unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of catalog and online retailers. 

According to the Government Accountability Office, this break cost states up to $13.4 billion in lost revenue last year alone. And, retailers say it cost jobs and hurt local economies.

Not surprisingly, Amazon.com  (AMZN), Shopify (SHOP), Etsy (ETSY), Wayfair (W) and other e-commerce stocks dropped on Thursday.

The Supreme Court ruling was notable not just because it did something it rarely does — namely, overturn previous decisions. (The most recent, Quill v North Dakota, was in 1992.) The court also split in a highly unusual way.

On the majority side were rock-ribbed conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who sided with Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion. 

But so did stalwart liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Kennedy argued that the explosive growth of online retail rendered the court's previous rulings outdated.

Three of the other liberals on the court, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, sided with Chief Justice Roberts' dissent. Roberts argued that it should be up to Congress to make a change like this.

Whatever the merits of the decision, the Court's ruling means not only higher taxes for consumers, but higher prices.

.  .

More Taxes To Come?

Worse still, the court may have opened the door to letting states impose other taxes on out-of-state firms.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform argues that states could use this ruling to impose corporate taxes and even income taxes across state lines.

"If physical nexus is no longer required for sales taxes ,then it is no longer required for personal or corporate income taxes," he said. "Now, California (or any state or city that loses population through exit) can tax people and businesses who do their best to avoid that state or city."

If you think that's a fanciful prediction, you haven't been paying attention. State governments will take every opportunity they can to raise taxes — especially if their own residents aren't the ones paying them.

In the end, it makes Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts' dissent look all the wiser.

Read the rest of the IBD report here.

# # #

DACA / Dreamers: One step closer to the Supreme Court

photo credit:  koat.com

Yesterday, President Trump tweeted:

It’s March 5th and the Democrats are nowhere to be found on DACA. Gave them 6 months, they just don’t care. Where are they? We are ready to make a deal!

Update. Sundance reports on yesterday’s court ruling:

Federal Judge Rules Trump DACA Program Elimination Appropriate and Authorized – Full Judicial Ruling…

Federal judge Roger W Titus (Maryland) has ruled that President Trump acted appropriately and within his authority by announcing his intent to rescind the Obama-era executive order surrounding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). However, the Judge Titus order does not stop the previous blocks by activist judges currently working through the courts.

Eventually the state challenges to the recension of DACA will work through the appellate courts and arrive at the Supreme Court. It is likely SCOTUS will take the same position on DACA as they did on DAPA; overrule the state challenges and determine the program unconstitutional.

In the interim, President Trump had requested that congress take up the DACA issue as part of their responsibility to put forth an immigration reform bill. Democrats have abandoned legislative efforts to assist those impacted by DACA, and have instead chosen to make DACA a political issue for the 2018 mid-term election.

The full text of the ruling is at the Treehouse website here.  

# # #

New word of the day: SCOTUScare

Art credit: Tenthamendmentcenter.com

So the SCOTUS validates Obamacare in a 6-3 vote, leaving the Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) as the best available protection for Ohioans; see CTPP’s earlier blog here and scroll to the bottom for details on Columbus lawmakers.

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has posted much of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent. Here are some key passages:

"Scalia points out that the words have a plain meaning:

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” …. [at 2, italics in original]

"Scalia argued — persuasively — that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language:

“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. [at 2-3]

"Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law “with no semblance of shame”:

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [at 3]

"Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare:

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).

The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. 

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. [at 20-21, emphasis and hard paragraph breaks added.]

"The legacy of this Court, Scalia wrote, will live on just as Obamacare, but in infamy:

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

Call or email representatives in Columbus (scroll down here). 

# # #

OBAMACARE, THE SCOTUS DECISION, AND STATES' RIGHTS

It’s not over till it’s over. The 5-4 SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare is prompting a wide range of reactions. According to Dov Fischer at American Thinker:

There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. . . .

What is the point here? If the “federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want,” under this ruling, they may instead wield the authority of Congress to impose a tax to coerce Americans to buy things they don’t want.

It’s actually worse than that. Andy McCarthy makes the case that

the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the Court not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public — it became a willing participant. …

Chief Justice Roberts & Co. . . . said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly. . . .

Further, it shielded the political branches from accountability for raising taxes, knowing full well that, had Obama and the Democrats leveled with the public that ObamaCare entailed a huge tax hike, it would never have had the votes to pass. . . .

The ObamaCare mandate was enacted as a penalty flowing from Congress’s Commerce Clause power. It has been upheld as a tax flowing from Congress’s power to tax-and-spend under the General Welfare Clause. As the dissent sharply demonstrates, the contention that the mandate could have been enacted as a tax is frivolous.

State Governors, such as Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) are already stepping up to the plate by refusing to to “establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state.” So has Democrat Governor John Lynch (New Hampshire). Media Trackers reports that Gov. John Kasich has announced that Ohio will not “create a health insurance exchange” with the federal government. It's an opportunity to call Kasich's office with words of solid support. PH (614) 466-3555 or e-mail him here.

Fischer further commented on the potential political consequences of the SCOTUS ruling:

Congress has a massive new mess awaiting it, all as voters prepare to vote for a new Congress and for 33 Unite States Senate seats, 23 now held by Democrats and their two “independent” allies. House Republicans solidly will vote symbolically to overturn the legislative monstrosity, and they will find endangered House Democrats breaking ranks with their leadership to vote with them. Senate Democrats facing reelection will be caught in a vise. Harry Reid will be trying desperately to prevent a vote on ObamaCare repeal from reaching the Senate floor, even as national news coverage focuses on the two national parties’ conventions.

Politico reports that "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the Republican-led House will vote on repealing the health care law soon after the July 4 recess.” It’s not too early to call the representatives from Ohio. Republican contact info is here.

Tea Party Patriots: U.S. Supreme Court Obamacare Decision Tele-Town Hall

From the Tea Party Patriots National Support Team

The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision is subject to lots of rumor and speculations, but a look at what the cases the Court has yet to rule on and its past behavior might help give some indication of when we can expect the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

The Court is currently reviewing several other cases. Because The Court could decide to announce some decisions together, it will probably provide 12 separate rulings outside of the Obamacare case. As the Supreme Court Justices wind down this session, the Court may take their time and hand out their opinions separately over the course of days or weeks or choose to hand out several cases on a single day.

Many reliable sources speculate that the earliest the Court will announce its decision on Obamacare would be Monday, June 25th.

This could be one of the biggest rulings of this century and we want to bring you as much information as quickly as we can surrounding the ruling.

Within 2 days of the ruling we will be hosting a Tele Town Hall with some very special guests. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Congressman Steve King, Senator Rand Paul and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will all be joining us on the call to give you their take on what the Supreme Court decides. 

        

The date will be determined when the Supreme Court releases its decision and will either be the night of the ruling or the night following the ruling, but the call will be at 8pm EDT. We'd love to have you join the call!

Click Here to Sign Up Today

We will send an email as soon as we have set the date and the great thing is that once you sign up with your phone number, we will automatically call you to conference you into the call the night of the call.

We look forward to you joining us for this exciting event and yet another stop on the Road to Repeal!

Road To Repeal rally on C-Span

On Saturday, March 24, Tea Party Patriots gathered from across the country to rally on Saturday outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C. The "Road To Repeal" rally featured Herman Cain, Ken Cuccinelli (AG for Virginia), Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, TPP Jennie Beth Martin, Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX), and Cleveland Tea Party Patriot Ralph King, among many others. Ohio patriots drove to DC or rode on the Cleveland Tea Party Patriots bus. If you missed the event, you can watch it here on C-Span. (To watch our own Ralph King, go to the 2:40 mark).

C-Span will also be broadcasting the [same day] audio of the arguments for and against the Constitutionality of Obamacare, starting Monday, March 26. More here.

Keep Out Kagan Day

From Medina Tea Party Patriots --

Principles to consider when evaluating a Supreme Court nominee

1. As the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan is upon us, Tea Party Patriots has adopted the following set of principles to consider when evaluating any Supreme Court nominee. We invite you to encourage the Senate to use these principles as they are making decisions regarding the current and future Supreme Court nominees.

2. Judges must interpret the Constitution of the United States as written and not attempt to modify it, either by inventing new rights or by ignoring or diluting rights already there. The Constitution already provides an amendment process that gives that power to the people and their elected officials.

3. Judges must not use their positions to replace the text of the law and Constitution of the United States with their own personal feelings or agenda or "life experiences." Nor should they allow empathy, political favor, or political identification to affect their legal decisions. To do so is to engage in judicial activism.

4. Judges must understand that the Federal government has no power if the Constitution does not explicitly provide it. The Founders did this to maximize personal and economic liberty. The Constitution reserves all other rights to the states and to the people.

5. Judges must respect the delicate checks and balances and the separation of powers among the branches of government, refusing to become a tool of either the Legislative or Executive branches, and they must be prepared to invalidate efforts of either branch to overstep its constitutionally delegated powers.
   
   The Constitution is an American document, and declares that it shall be "the supreme Law of the Land." Foreign law has no place as precedent or authority in the interpretation of the Constitution.

“Keep out Kagan” day

Based on the principles created by the Tea Party Patriots listed above, we are joining various organizations including Eagle Forum and the Young Conservatives Coalition in asking concerned citizens to participate in the "Keep out Kagan" call campaign.

As the Senate decides whether to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, we want to send a clear message to Senators Voinovich and Brown that we deserve an experienced judge who believes in free speech and capitalism.

On Tuesday, June 8th, Please take the time to call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and tell our Senators to “Keep out Kagan.”