Motley Moose – Archive

Found on the Internets …

Judge blocks early voting cuts in Ohio

A federal judge has blocked Ohio’s cuts to early voting and its elimination of same-day voter registration-a major voting rights victory in the nation’s ultimate presidential battleground state.

Judge Peter Economus ruled Thursday that the cuts violated the Voting Rights Act’s ban on racial discrimination in voting, as well as the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. He issued an injunction barring them from going into effect before the November election, and directed Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to add a second Sunday of early voting.[…]

Voting rights advocates cheered.

“This ruling will safeguard the vote for thousands of Ohioans during the midterm election,” said Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, which brought the case. “If these cuts had been allowed to remain in place, many voters would have lost a critical opportunity to participate in our democratic process this November. This is a huge victory for Ohio voters and for all those who believe in protecting the integrity of our elections.”

“Today’s outcome represents a milestone in our effort to continue to protect voting rights even after the Supreme Court’s deeply misguided decision in Shelby County,” said Attorney General Eric Holder, during a speech about the Justice Department’s investigation into the Ferguson, Missouri police department. The Justice Department had filed a supporting brief in the Ohio challenge.

Of course, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State plans to appeal. We outnumber them and the only hope they have to remain in power is to disenfranchise us. Another reminder of why the presidency — and the Senate, where judicial nominations are confirmed — are so important.  

Judge Finds BP Was ‘Reckless’ And Grossly Negligent In 2010 Deepwater Horizon Spill

A federal judge ruled Thursday that BP was grossly negligent in helping cause the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, and that the oil company is liable for 67 percent of the blame.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said in his decision that BP’s conduct was “reckless,” while the conduct of Halliburton and Transocean – the other two companies involved in the spill – was “negligent.” While BP was 67 percent responsible for the spill, Transocean, an offshore drilling company that owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, was 30 percent responsible, and Halliburton, the contracting company that was responsible for cementing the Macondo well, was only 3 percent responsible. […]

The ruling opens BP up to a fine of $18 billion – the maxiumum penalty under the Clean Water Act – which the company could be charged if Judge Barbier later rules that, as U.S. prosecutors say, the disaster spilled more than 4 million gallons into the Gulf. BP told the Wall Street Journal that it plans to appeal the decision.

The wheels of justice spin slowly but with good government and strong laws, people can often prevail in the courts.

More …

Found on the Internets …

A funny thing happened on the way to the midterms …

Morning Plum: Obamacare disappearing as major issue

For many months after the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s website, it was widely stated as incontrovertible fact that Obamacare was the primary reason Democrats were likely to lose control of the Senate.

But new ad data compiled by Bloomberg News tells a very different story. In three of the top-tier Senate races – North Carolina, Arkansas, and Louisiana – spending on spots about the health law has fallen sharply:

   The party’s experience across the country shows that Republicans can’t count on the issue to motivate independent voters they need to oust Democrats in Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska…

Some GOP candidates, such as Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Scott Brown in New Hampshire, have even vaguely claimed the newly insured should somehow continue to enjoy the law’s benefits after it is repealed – again, without saying how. Others, such as Terri Lynn Land in Michigan and Tom Cotton in Arkansas, won’t say whether the Medicaid expansion moving forward in their states should be rolled back.

Why has this disappeared as a campaign issue? Because the horror stories about premiums skyrocketing were just stories, wishful thinking by Republicans who have no qualms about sacrificing the lives of their constituents on the altar of their anti-government ideology.

TPM:The Obamacare Headline That The GOP Doesn’t Want You To See

The headlines were all too predictable when Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced in June that it would request an average 12.5 percent premium increase for its Connecticut market. “Now EVEN MORE States Report Double-Digit Premium Hikes,” the conservative Daily Caller trumpeted.

But that wasn’t the whole story. It never is with Obamacare premium news, though that hasn’t stopped news outlets from blaring headlines like that one from the Daily Caller whenever an insurance company announces its proposed rates for next year. Skyrocketing premiums are one of the last anti-Obamacare talking points that conservatives have to hold onto.

But then on Monday, the conclusion of the Connecticut story came. State insurance regulators had rejected Anthem’s proposed 12.5 percent premium hike. So after some revisions, the company would instead lower its premiums ever so slightly on average — 0.1 percent — in 2015, the Connecticut Mirror reported.

There’s more …

Found on the Internets …

State Abortion Laws Face a New Round of Legal Challenges

States led by anti-abortion governors and legislatures have been passing a broad array of measures over the past few years aimed at making the procedure more difficult for women to obtain.[…]

[A] federal district court judge in Alabama this week struck down as unconstitutional a portion of state law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges. Last week, a federal appeals court panel struck down a similar law in Mississippi. And a third law of the same type is awaiting a ruling in Wisconsin.[…]

Admitting-privileges legislation would impose stricter requirements on facilities where abortions are performed than on facilities that perform much riskier procedures,” says Jeanne Conry, former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“As an example, the mortality rate associated with a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of abortion,” she says, yet gastroenterologists who perform such procedures outside of the hospital setting do not face similar requirements “in the context of safety.”

Federal Court in Alabama Strikes Down Alabama TRAP Law

Judge Myron Thompson explains in his opinion striking down the law, it “would have the striking result of closing three of Alabama’s five abortion clinics.” As Thompson interprets the Supreme Court’s precedents, his court “must determine whether, examining the regulation in its real-world context,” it imposes an obstacle to women’s right to choose an abortion that “is more significant than is warranted by the State’s justifications for the regulation.”

Thanks To Obamacare, More Young People Are Getting Mental Health Treatment

A provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that allows young people to remain on their parents’ insurance may have increased the use of mental health services among that demographic, a new study suggests. The findings make a case for an expansion of mental health services for the Millennial generation.

Researchers collected data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health and surveyed more than 20,000 people from 2008 – two years before the ACA provision went into effect – to 2012. They found that young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 who screened positive for mental disorders or substance abuse sought mental health services at a rate five percentage points greater than that of adults in the 26- to 35-year-old age bracket. Out-of-pocket payments for mental health visits among young people also decreased by more than 12 percentage points, according to the study.

More …

Found on the Internets …

The president held a news conference yesterday as part of the U.S. Africa Leaders Summit. One of the topics was executive actions on inversions.

Q: Along the lines of executive authority, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has previously said that the executive branch of government doesn’t have the authority to slow or stop corporate inversions, the practice that you have called distasteful, unpatriotic, et cetera.  But now he is reviewing options to do so.  And this is an issue that a lot of business, probably including some of the ones who were paying a lot of attention to this summit, are interested in.  So what I wanted to ask you was, what prompted this apparent reversal?  What actions are now under consideration?  Will you consider an executive order that would limit or ban such companies from getting federal contracts?  And how soon would you like to see Treasury act, given Congress’s schedule?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Just to review why we’re concerned here. You have accountants going to some big corporations — multinational corporations but that are clearly U.S.-based and have the bulk of their operations in the United States — and these accountants are saying, you know what, we found a great loophole — if you just flip your citizenship to another country, even though it’s just a paper transaction, we think we can get you out of paying a whole bunch of taxes.

Well, it’s not fair.  It’s not right.  The lost revenue to Treasury means it’s got to be made up somewhere, and that typically is going to be a bunch of hardworking Americans who either pay through higher taxes themselves or through reduced services. And in the meantime, the company is still using all the services and all the benefits of effectively being a U.S. corporation; they just decided that they’d go through this paper exercise.

Walgreens Drops Plan To Move Headquarters – And Profits – Overseas

Walgreens Co. will complete its merger with Alliance Boots, a British pharmacy, but it will not move its headquarters overseas to reduce its U.S. tax bill.Walgreens had flirted with the idea of moving its headquarters from Chicago to the United Kingdom to avoid paying corporate taxes in the U.S.

That drew the attention of those who are concerned about profits made in America being taxed overseas, if at all.

“The company concluded it was not in the best, long-term interest of our shareholders to attempt to re-domicile outside the U.S.,” Walgreens CEO Greg Wasson said in a statement.

Yeah. The shareholders who saw images like this, perhaps?



Maybe a pharmaceutical company like Abbott Laboratories can get away with this but companies that deal directly with consumers and which has competition probably should at least pretend to be a good corporate citizen.

More …

Found on the Internets …

Two Hours After A Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies, Another Appeals Court Upholds Them

A little after 10am Tuesday morning, two Republican judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered much of the Affordable Care Act defunded. Just two hours later, another federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit, issued a unanimous opinion upholding the same subsidies that were struck down in the DC Circuit’s order.

As we explained this morning, both cases hinge upon a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare gives states the option to run a health insurance exchange selling coverage to their residents, or they may elect to have the federal government run this exchange. If read in isolation, one line of the Affordable Care Act suggests that only “an Exchange established by the State” can offer subsidies to help people pay for health insurance in the exchange. The DC Circuit’s opinion relied on that line to conclude that federally-run exchange subsidies must be defunded.

The plaintiff in the DC case is a woman who worked in the Bush Administration in his Office of Faith and Community. Apparently, nothing says “love thy neighbor” like litigating to deny health care to people. The plaintiff in the 4th Circuit case is a man in West Virginia angry that his freedumbs were taken away when he was forced to get health insurance at a cost of $21 per year.  

The entire DC Circuit has been asked to rule on the case and the split on that court is 7-4 Democratic appointees to Republican appointees.

How The White House Could Still Save Obamacare Even If It Loses In Court

The D.C. federal appeals court initially appeared to throw a stunning legal blow to Obamacare with its decision to invalidate financial subsidies offered through HealthCare.gov. The loss of those subsidies could affect 4.7 million people and send premiums skyrocketing. But the ruling was quickly tempered by a separate appeals court ruling that upheld the subsidies in another case.

[Experts told TPM] that the mechanics of how the workaround could be done aren’t completely clear, but the crux would be this: States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange.

[Additionally, ] HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell “could make it much easier for a second generation of state exchanges to be established now that the federal government has a viable IT platform for both state and federal exchanges to use.”

Or we could win back Congress and pass a fix to the technical language of the law.

More …

Found on the Internets …

House of Representatives to Sue President Obama

[Speaker John Boehner] plans to secure House approval for a lawsuit alleging that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority by unilaterally delaying the Obamacare employer mandate by one year, to 2015. It’s unclear if the suit has a serious chance of success, legal experts say, but it’s plausible.

The first question is whether Boehner can achieve standing to bring the litigation in the first place. This is uncharted waters for House of Representatives. Never before have the courts granted standing to lawsuit emanating from Congress against a president’s executive actions. There have been previous lawsuits of the sort brought by individual members of Congress, but those have been thrown out for lack of standing.

Some legal experts believe Boehner is destined to lose on the same grounds.

“The House of Representatives as an institution hasn’t suffered the sort of concrete, particularized injury that the courts are constitutionally empowered to review. This is a political dispute, not a judicial dispute, and the courts will properly leave it to the political branches to sort it out,” wrote Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

Jonathon Capehart in WaPo: There’s no there there

[Constitutional scholar Laurence] Tribe told me yesterday that he is “now convinced that there’s no ‘THERE there.” And that was BEFORE the speaker released language of a bill seeking authorization to sue the president “over the way President Obama unilaterally changed the employer mandate” in the Affordable Care Act. Boehner’s announced action solidified Tribe’s view.

“The very fact that Boehner is willing to say the House of Representatives is injured by the President’s decision to delay the implementation of the employer mandate is bizarre in itself, given how often the House has voted not just to delay it but to scuttle it,” Tribe told me via e-mail last night. “And it’s hard to imagine what conceivable remedy a federal court could possibly issue: an order directing the President to reverse course and implement the employer mandate sooner? Hardly!”

Well, when the purpose of the lawsuit is to raise funds for the mid-term elections, it does not have to make sense.

More …

SCOTUS Watch …

The Supreme Court will be in session this morning for orders starting at 9:30 Eastern. The two remaining opinions will be released starting at 10:00am. SCOTUSblog will liveblog at this link today starting at 9:15 Eastern .

SCOTUSblog: October 2013 Term, cases pending

DECISION: Harris wins her suit but Abood not overturned. PDF decision from SCOTUS

Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681 [Arg: 1.21.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

~

DECISION: Hobby Lobby wins right to discriminate against its female employees. PDF decision from SCOTUS

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Commentary below …

SCOTUS Watch …

The Supreme Court will be releasing opinions  Thursday morning at 10am Eastern and then next week on Monday, June 30th to finish the term. SCOTUSblog will liveblog here today starting at 9:45 Eastern.

SCOTUSblog: October 2013 Term, major cases pending

DECISION: Buffer zones are unconstitutional. Unanimous. PDF Ruling

McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 [Arg: 1.15.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’ selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

~

DECISION: Recess appointments in Canning case were invalid. Unanimous. Recess appointments in general are valid but the recess must be at least 10 days. Unanimous but with Scalia dissent on reasoning. PDF Ruling

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 [Arg: 1.13.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.

~

Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681 [Arg: 1.21.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

~

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Analysis and Commentary on yesterday’s cases below …

SCOTUS Watch …

The Supreme Court will be releasing opinions on Wednesday and Thursday morning at 10am Eastern and then next week on Monday, June 30th to finish the term. SCOTUSblog will liveblog here today starting at 9:45 Eastern.

SCOTUSblog: October 2013 Term, major cases pending

McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 [Arg: 1.15.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’ selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

~

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 [Arg: 1.13.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.

~

Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681 [Arg: 1.21.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

~

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

~

DECISION: Cell phones cannot be searched without a specific warrant. Unanimous. Opinion PDF

Riley v. California, No. 13-132 [Arg: 4.29.2014]

Issue(s): Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

~

DECISION: Aereo may not retransmit broadcasts of copyrighted material. 6 to 3. Opinion PDF

American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, No. 13-461 [Arg: 4.22.2014]

Issue(s): Whether a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.

SCOTUSblog news below …

SCOTUS Watch …

This week, the Supreme Court will be releasing opinions on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday morning at 10am Eastern. SCOTUSblog will liveblog here today starting at 9:15 Eastern for Orders.  From SCOTUSblog: “The Court is scheduled to sit for a non-argument session on Monday, June 30.” That means 4 more days of opinions.

SCOTUSblog: October 2013 Term, major cases pending

McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 [Arg: 1.15.2014 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

~

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 [Arg: 1.13.2014 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.

~

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 [Arg: 3.25.2014 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 [Arg: 3.25.2014 Trans.]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

~

Riley v. California, No. 13-132 [Arg: 4.29.2014 Trans.]

Issue(s): Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

More news …