Quantcast
Connect with us

Supreme Court rejects new challenge to Obamacare

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court, which delivered major rulings in 2012 and 2015 preserving President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, on Tuesday declined to take up a new, long-shot challenge to Obamacare brought by an Iowa artist.

The court turned away an appeal by Matt Sissel, who had asserted that the 2010 Affordable Care Act violated the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that revenue-raising legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate, as the healthcare law did.

ADVERTISEMENT

The high court left in place a 2014 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, which was backed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group. The suit targeted the law’s “individual mandate” that Americans obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

In a 6-3 ruling last June, the Supreme Court rejected a conservative legal challenge and upheld nationwide tax subsidies crucial to the healthcare law. In 2012, the justices ruled 5-4 that the law’s requirement that Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by the power of Congress to levy taxes.

A three-judge appeals court panel was unanimous in finding that Sissel’s interpretation of the law was at odds with U.S. Supreme Court precedents, including the high court’s ruling in 2012. The court found that the penalty for not obtaining insurance was a form of taxation.

The law was passed by Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress in 2010 over the unified opposition of Republicans, and conservatives who call the measure a government overreach have fought it since its inception. The landmark law was designed to provide healthcare for millions of uninsured Americans.

Obama this month vetoed legislation passed by the Republican-led Congress that would have dismantled the law.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the spring, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case brought by religious groups seeking an exemption from a provision of the law that requires them to provide contraception coverage in their health insurance policies.

The case is Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 15-543.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘Angry’ Trump Michigan voters admit they want ‘this nightmare to end’ in November

Published

on

President Donald Trump's Michigan supporters are abandoning their 2016 pick for Vice President Joe Biden as the election comes closer.

In a series of interviews on MSNBC Sunday, revisited voters they'd met earlier in the election cycle in Kent County.

Katey Morse and her husband were both working full time, and their kids were in school back in March, but things quickly changed as the coronavirus spread throughout the country. Luckily, she and her husband didn't lose their jobs, but they, like many parents, are struggling to do virtual school for their kids.

"I'm turning into more of an angry person than I've ever been in my life," she said about how she feels politically, noting that it makes her sad. "I've just got a countdown to November now, and I'm hoping we'll wake up from this nightmare we're in."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump abusing the intelligence community in an attempt to keep them quiet about Russia election hacks: Conservative

Published

on

The New York Times Magazine piece outlining President Donald Trump's battles with the U.S. intelligence community revealed that Russia is continuing to wage its own cyberwar against the world. According to conservative Washington Post columnist Max Boot, the devastating report explained the extent to which the president is ignoring the threats to the 2020 election.

“The options faced by the intelligence community during Trump’s presidency have been stark: avoid infuriating the president but compromise the agencies’ ostensible independence, or assert that independence and find yourself replaced with a more sycophantic alternative," wrote Robert Draper in his lengthy investigation into Trump's efforts to politicize international intelligence. According to Boot, the most shocking part of the investigation was that the experts in the intelligence community have been banned from speaking honestly about the Russian attacks.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

‘Incompetent moron’ Chuck Todd ripped for letting Trump official claim Democrats want more COVID-19 deaths

Published

on

"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd is under fire -- once again -- after letting Donald Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro claim on NBC that Democrats want more Americans to die during the coronavirus pandemic to boost their chances at the polls in November.

Instead of pushing back the NBC host known for his lack of follow-up questions let the comment slide by responding, "I take your point."

Todd's failure to call out the Trump aide for what one Twitter commenter called a "disgusting" comment led to an avalanche of criticism for the MBC political director who recently saw his weekday show cut back to make room for more commentary by colleague Nicolle Wallace.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image