Political News Updates by James Catledge

The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul — a case that could shake the political landscape as voters are deciding if Obama deserves another term.

This decision to hear arguments in the spring sets up an election-year showdown over the White House’s main domestic policy achievement. And it allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

The justices announced they will hear an extraordinary five-and-a-half hours of arguments from lawyers on the constitutionality of a provision at the heart of the law and three other related questions about the act. The central provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.

In the modern era, the last time the court allotted anywhere near this much time for arguments was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. That case consumed four hours of argument. This argument may spread over two days, as the justices rarely hear more than two or three hours a day.

The 2010 health care overhaul law aims to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans, through an expansion of Medicaid, the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty and other measures.

A White House spokesman said, “We are pleased that the court has agreed to hear this case.”

“We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree,” communications direct Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the law an “unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American.”

“In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same,” McConnell said.

Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But only one of the four federal appeals courts that have considered the health care overhaul has struck down even a part of the law.

The federal appeals court in Atlanta said Congress exceeded its power under the Constitution when it adopted the mandate. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the entire law, as did appellate judges in Washington, DC, in recent days.

The case could become the high court’s most significant and political ruling since its 5-4 decision in the Bush v. Gore case nearly 11 years ago effectively sealed George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential election victory.

In addition to deciding whether the law’s central mandate is constitutional, the justices will also determine whether the rest of the law can take effect even if that central mandate is held unconstitutional. The law’s opponents say the whole thing should fall if the individual mandate falls.

The administration counters that most of the law still could function, but says that requirements that insurers cover anyone and not set higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions are inextricably linked with the mandate and shouldn’t remain in place without it.

The court also will look at the expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program that provides health care to poorer Americans, even though no lower court called that provision into question. Florida and the 25 other states say the law goes too far in coercing them into participating by threatening a cutoff of federal money. The states contend that the vast expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program and the requirement that employers offer health insurance violate the Constitution. No appeals court has agreed.

“The court recognized the seriousness of these vitally important constitutional challenges by allocating an extraordinary amount of time for oral argument,” Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

Lastly, the justices will consider whether arguments over the law’s validity are premature because a federal law generally prohibits challenges to taxes until the taxes are paid. The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled earlier this year reasoned that the penalty for not purchasing insurance will not be paid before federal income tax returns are due in April 2015, therefore it was too early for a court to make a ruling on the law.

The administration agreed to seek prompt Supreme Court review of the health care overhaul, though it had options for trying to delay the court’s consideration of the law until after the election. The Justice Department passed up the chance to ask the appeals court in Atlanta to reconsider its decision. It is common for the Justice Department to seek review by the full appeals court when a three-judge panel rules against the government.

Early on, at the district court level, rulings followed political affiliation. Judges appointed by Democratic presidents upheld the law, while Republican appointees struck it down.

But party lines blurred at three federal appeals courts. In Atlanta, Judge Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee, joined with a Republican colleague in striking down the mandate. In Cincinnati, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a Bush appointee, was the deciding vote in upholding the law. And in the District of Columbia, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, and Senior Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee, voted together to uphold the law.

Legal experts have offered a range of opinions about what the high court might do. Many prominent Supreme Court lawyers believe that the law will be upheld by a lopsided vote, with Republican and Democratic appointees ruling in its favor. Still others predict a close outcome, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican who sometimes joins his four Democratic colleagues, holding the deciding vote.

Six separate appeals have been filed with the high court. Three come from the Atlanta court, where the administration, the states and the National Federation of Independent Business appealed different aspects of the court ruling. From Richmond, Liberty University and Virginia appealed decisions turning back their challenges to the law. The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., appealed a ruling by the Cincinnati-based court upholding the law.

Ultimately, the court chose the Atlanta court’s ruling as the primary case to review. That decision means that the highly regarded former Bush administration solicitor general, Paul Clement, is likely to argue on behalf of the challengers. The current Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli Jr., is expected to defend the law before the justices.

Read more here

By Kasie Hunt

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Monday he was “falsely accused” of sexual harassment while he led the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

Cain was responding to a Politico report that said the trade group settled complaints from at least two women that Cain had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior.

Cain told Fox News he has never sexually harassed anyone and that he was “falsely accused.” He said investigations into any complaints found that they were “baseless.”

“I’ve never sexually harassed anyone,” he said. “And yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say falsely because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless.”

But he also said he had no idea whether the trade association provided financial settlements to the women who complained, as Politico reported. “I hope it wasn’t for much, because I was never aware of it,” Cain said.

Cain said he has not been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior in any other context. “Absolutely not,” he said when asked if more reports of harassment could surface.

In a written statement, the National Restaurant Association refused to comment on a personnel matter.

At an event in Washington Monday morning, the former businessman said he would further discuss the allegations later in the day while appearing at the National Press Club.

“I will take all your arrows,” Cain said.

Cain’s campaign was in full-scale damage control mode in the wake of a Politico report late Sunday that said Cain had been accused of sexual harassment toward at least two female employees. The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Neither woman was identified.

The report was based on anonymous sources and, in one case, what the publication said was a review of documentation that described the allegations and the resolution.

“We weren’t going to go and chase anonymous sources,” Cain said on Fox.

Cain – a self-styled outsider relatively new to the national stage – is facing a new level of scrutiny after a burst of momentum in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. He’s been steadily at or near the top of national surveys and polls in early presidential nominating states, competitive with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The former pizza company executive has been pointing to his long record in business to argue that he has the credentials needed to be president during a time of economic strife.

Cain has stumbled since his rise in the polls. He has made statements on abortion, the treatment of terrorism suspects and placing an electrified fence along the U.S.-Mexico border that he’s later had to clarify.

It’s unclear what the allegations will mean to Cain’s political prospects. The Georgia businessman regularly criticizes the mainstream media for writing off his candidacy. “Message is more powerful than media,” he says on the campaign trail.

And among conservative voters – who are distrustful of the media – the charges could galvanize support for him.

A message seeking comment from Peter Kilgore, listed on the National Restaurant Association website as its chief legal counsel, was not immediately returned.

Read more here

By Bobby Eberle

After two years of wearing an American flag pin on his jacket lapel, the front desk supervisor at a downtown hotel in St. Augustine, Florida was told to “remove it or go home.” He chose to go home, and now he has been fired for his actions. It’s one thing for a hotel or any company to have appearance guidelines, and it’s quite another to suppress a modest show of patriotism. We should be promoting patriotism… not punishing it.

His name is Sean May and he is at the heart of a brewing story between his supporters and the Casa Monica Hotel management and ownership. Here’s the story:

Follow the link here to watch the video

But now, the hotel has taken further action. From being sent home, May has now been fired. The hotel responded to questions asked by News 4 in Jacksonville by issuing the following statement:

“The Casa Monica Hotel located in St. Augustine, Florida, is an American-based, homegrown historic hotel,” the email reads. “The property reflects its pride in America and great patriotism by flying the Stars and Stripes high over the hotel. The American flag greets every guest and employee with its symbolism of our belief in this great country.”

“However, our employee handbook clearly states, ‘No other buttons, badges, pins or insignias of any kind are permitted to be worn.’ No matter an individual’s national preference, political views or religious affiliation, it is a standard regulation which ensures equality for all Grand Performers (employees).”

What do you think? Dress code violation or suppression of patriotism? St. Johns county Commissioner Mark Miner had this to say:

“The Casa Monica Hotel and Kessler Enterprise certainly have the legal right to forbid their employees from wearing an American flag pin. However, their inability to discern between the flag of our nation and other pins and buttons that their policies forbid is of great concern to me. St. Johns County is home to nearly 20,000 military veterans and is made up of an ideologically and culturally diverse population whose collective love for the United States is second to none. I want to make clear that the actions taken by the Casa Monica Hotel and Kessler Enterprise do not represent the patriotism shared by St. Johns County residents and businesses.”

“I hope Kessler Enterprise will act quickly to correct the disrespect they have shown the flag of our great nation and end the embarrassment they have brought upon St. Johns County.”

I understand the idea of uniformity for employees and thus the need for a standardized set of guidelines and appearance policies. But this is insane. The man has been wearing the pin for two years. It’s situations such as this that should remind all of us that common sense is in short supply these days. It’s ok to burn an American flag, but you better not wear an American flag pin on your lapel. Crazy.

Read more here http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2011/10/17/man-fired-for-wearing-american-flag-pin-to-work/

By GOPUSA Staff

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, facing stepped up criticism about his immigration record, has begun trying to counter a perceived weakness by portraying himself as the presidential candidate with the most credibility on the issue.

Perry’s Republican rivals for the 2012 nomination have made inroads by highlighting his steadfast support for a policy that gives illegal immigrants in-state tuition at Texas colleges.

The aggressive turn to offense on immigration, both by the candidate and campaign surrogates, stresses Perry’s decade of experience as a border-state governor to bolster his credentials on immigration and border security.

No one in the GOP field, Perry said at a town hall meeting Saturday in New Hampshire, “has been any stronger on securing our border.”

The criticism has resonated with many Republican voters such as Dave Connors, a 67-year-old small-business owner who told Perry that the tuition policy didn’t “make any sense.”

Perry said it was a state’s rights issue that the overwhelming majority of Texas officials thought would benefit the local economy.

The question, he said, was whether illegal immigrants would be on the “government dole” using state social welfare programs or a subsidized education program that would allow them to become productive members of society.

“In Texas, we made the decision that it was in our best interests as a state, economically and otherwise, to have those young people in our institutions of higher learning and becoming educated as part of our skilled workforce,” Perry said. “If you don’t want to do that in your state, I absolutely respect that right.”

The answer helped ease some of Connors’ concerns.

“I’m not anti-Perry, as I was when I came in,” said Connors, who had a Perry sticker on his shirt.

The push-back on immigration was evident also at a town hall meeting Friday night in Derry, where former GOP gubernatorial nominee John Stephen said that none of Perry’s rivals “has through action, not just words, but action, delivered more and stopped the influx of illegal immigration” than Perry. “We’re going to keep talking about that.”

In Hampton, Perry went over an immigration record that extends far beyond the tuition issue.

He said he vetoed a Texas bill that would have given illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, helped pass a bill requiring voter identification at the polls, spent $400 million on security measures to help secure the state’s border with Mexico, and strongly opposed granting amnesty to people who illegally entered the United States.

He also said he may favor sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat the drug trade.

“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off of our borders,” he said.

Perry likened the situation to Colombia, where the government accepted American military support in battling drug trafficking. Mexico’s government, however, has been opposed to foreign forces in its territory.

“I’m a governor. I don’t have the pleasure of standing on the stage and criticizing,” Perry said. “I have to deal with these issues.”

The criticism isn’t likely to subside as his opponents try to knock him from his front-runner perch.

A day earlier, Perry’s chief rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, kept jabbing Perry on an issue that’s among the most discussed among conservative voters.

“Governor Perry is desperate to shift attention away from his liberal policies that encourage illegal immigration,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said.

The host of the Hampton town hall, conservative activist Jennifer Horn, said afterward that Perry’s revamped immigration message was much stronger and comprehensive.

“It is extremely important for him to convince Republican primary voters that he’s not, so-called ‘soft,’ on illegal immigration,” she said.

When asked if he successfully convinced her of that, Horn didn’t answer directly.

“I want to hear more. I want to hear him be consistent in that message,” she said.

Read more here

Jobs

Public Pessimism About the Economy Grows: On September 20, 2011, the USA Today reported, “Americans’ pessimism about the economy and its future is deepening, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and they are increasingly willing to hold President Obama responsible for hard times.  Eight of 10 say the economy is in a recession, and nearly as many say it hasn’t improved over the past year.  Even more ominous: Six in 10 predict the economy a year from now will be the same or worse than today, a downturn from the public’s views last year and the year before.”

Spending

While Federal Budgets Explode, Family Budgets Shrink: This week, the U.S. Census Bureau released its report on income and poverty in America in 2010.   As the new Census data shows, the Obama Administration’s spending binge may be a boon for the federal government, but it has been a bust for struggling America.  Inflation adjusted median household income dropped to its lowest level since 1996.  Since 2007, inflation adjusted median household income fell by $3,400 or 6.4 percent.  Over the same period of time, federal spending grew by $727 billion or 26 percent.

Medicare

Medicare Missing Modern Economics: In a recent essay, Yuval Levin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and editor of National Affairs, suggests “If Medicare is going to shape the economics of health care, it should at least do so in a way that comports with modern economics​—​creating efficiency through consumer pressure, competition, and innovation, not through central planning and price controls.”

Click here to learn more.