A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama's health care law. But it's Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about damage control.
A likely reason: Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be most affected by the ruling have Republican governors, and 22 of the 24 GOP Senate seats up in 2016 are in those states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people without access to it on the job. In the court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows the federal government to subsidize coverage only in states that set up their own health insurance markets.
Most states have not done so, because of the intense partisanship over "Obamacare" and in some cases because of technical problems. Instead, they rely on the federal HealthCare.gov website.
If the court invalidates the subsidies in those states, an estimated 8 million people could lose coverage. The results would be "ugly," said Sandy Praeger, a former Kansas insurance commissioner.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Swiss Bank UBS Pleading Guilty To Wire Fraud
Swiss bank UBS says it is pleading guilty to wire fraud and is paying $545 million to settle U.S. cases of market manipulation.
The bank said Wednesday that under the deal with U.S. authorities it will be granted conditional immunity from prosecution in a Department of Justice probe on the manipulation of foreign exchange rates. UBS AG said it was the first to report to the DOJ potential misconduct by banks in forex markets.
It will however pay a $342 million fine to the Federal Reserve.
It will separately pay a $203 million fine to the DOJ for manipulating a key market interest rate called the London Interbank Offered Rate.
The bank said "the conduct of a small number of employees was unacceptable and we have taken appropriate disciplinary actions."
Monday, May 18, 2015
High court won't hear appeal over Walker campaign probe
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a conservative group seeking to end an investigation into possible illegal coordination between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign and independent groups.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O'Keefe, must resolve their claims in state courts.
No one has been charged as a result of the investigation which has sought documents and testimony about possible violation of state campaign finance laws.
The investigation is on hold while a separate legal challenge is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The club and O'Keefe argued that the investigation was a violation of their First Amendment rights and an attempt to criminalize political speech.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O'Keefe, must resolve their claims in state courts.
No one has been charged as a result of the investigation which has sought documents and testimony about possible violation of state campaign finance laws.
The investigation is on hold while a separate legal challenge is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The club and O'Keefe argued that the investigation was a violation of their First Amendment rights and an attempt to criminalize political speech.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Dallas Real Estate Lawyer - Unell Law
Dallas
Real Estate Lawyer John S. Unell is a board certified residential real
estate law and commercial real estate attorney who utilize his vast experience
and training in counseling his clients on all matters pertaining to real
estate. From leases and sales contract to litigation and negotiation, John has
over twenty five years of experience in real estate legal matters and can
provide the personal representation and counseling you need.
Whether you’re a buyer, seller, tenant, heir, contractor, bank,
or landlord, the law office of John S. Unell can represent you in all
transactional and litigation matters pertaining to Texas real estate and
property law. Unlike other law offices, when you contact the Law Office of John
S. Unell, you will work directly with the attorney. He will walk you through
each step of the procedure and provide much needed counsel and representation
on your behalf.
The Law Office of John S. Unell is based in Plano, Texas and
serves all of Dallas. Mr. Unell concentrates solely on real estate law matters
from purchases and sales to disputes and litigations. He has been named a Texas
Super Lawyer and is a member of The College of the State Bar of Texas. Contact
the Law Office of John S. Unell for help on your real estate case.
Friday, April 3, 2015
5 arrested in protest inside Supreme Court
Protesters disrupted Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday for the
second time this year with shouted criticism of the court's previous
rulings on campaign finance.
Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.
The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.
Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.
The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.
In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.
The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.
Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.
The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.
Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.
The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.
In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.
The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.
Ex-UBS banker pleads guilty in US tax evasion case
A former executive at Swiss bank UBS AG has pleaded guilty to a
conspiracy charge as part of a long-running U.S. investigation into tax
evasion using secret accounts.
Hansruedi Schumacher entered the plea Thursday before a Florida federal judge. Schumacher is cooperating in the investigation and in return, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of five years' probation and a $150,000 fine.
Schumacher admitted in court papers that while at UBS and a second Swiss bank from 1995 to 2009 he helped wealthy U.S. citizens escape the Internal Revenue Service using secret offshore accounts.
Several other bankers and dozens of customers have been prosecuted. UBS itself paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. in 2009 and agreed to disclose names of thousands of its American customers.
Hansruedi Schumacher entered the plea Thursday before a Florida federal judge. Schumacher is cooperating in the investigation and in return, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of five years' probation and a $150,000 fine.
Schumacher admitted in court papers that while at UBS and a second Swiss bank from 1995 to 2009 he helped wealthy U.S. citizens escape the Internal Revenue Service using secret offshore accounts.
Several other bankers and dozens of customers have been prosecuted. UBS itself paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. in 2009 and agreed to disclose names of thousands of its American customers.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
NC Supreme Court considers status of private school vouchers
The state Supreme Court is about to decide whether millions of dollars
in taxpayer money that started flowing this year to pay student tuition
at private and religious schools continues for a second year.
The state's highest court hears arguments Tuesday on a ruling last summer that the Opportunity Scholarships program violates the state constitution because religious schools can discriminate based on faith. Wake County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood also said privately run K-12 schools are not required to meet state curriculum standards.
Supreme Court justices showed they're in a hurry to decide whether private school vouchers will continue by latching on to the case early. Parents are already looking ahead and the deadline for them to submit scholarship applications for the next academic year is March 1.
So far, more than $4.2 million has paid for 1,200 students to attend 216 private schools around the state, according to the State Education Assistance Authority. That's a fraction of the 5,500 students whose families sought one of the scholarships, said Darrell Allison, who heads a group that advocates for expanding the program. Three out of four applicants for the vouchers, which pay private schools up to $4,200 per child per year to schools that admit them, were minority students.
"There are literally thousands of families who are looking forward to their day in court — desperately hopeful for a favorable ruling," Allison, president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, said in a statement.
The program opened this year to families whose income qualified their children for free or discounted school lunches, a ceiling of about $44,000 for a family of four. Eligibility increases for the year starting in August as the ceiling rises to nearly $59,000 per family.
Opponents of the voucher law complain that it violates the constitution because money from collected taxes goes to religious schools that have the option of ruling out students who don't follow their faith's beliefs, turning away the disabled or refusing the children of gay parents.
The state's highest court hears arguments Tuesday on a ruling last summer that the Opportunity Scholarships program violates the state constitution because religious schools can discriminate based on faith. Wake County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood also said privately run K-12 schools are not required to meet state curriculum standards.
Supreme Court justices showed they're in a hurry to decide whether private school vouchers will continue by latching on to the case early. Parents are already looking ahead and the deadline for them to submit scholarship applications for the next academic year is March 1.
So far, more than $4.2 million has paid for 1,200 students to attend 216 private schools around the state, according to the State Education Assistance Authority. That's a fraction of the 5,500 students whose families sought one of the scholarships, said Darrell Allison, who heads a group that advocates for expanding the program. Three out of four applicants for the vouchers, which pay private schools up to $4,200 per child per year to schools that admit them, were minority students.
"There are literally thousands of families who are looking forward to their day in court — desperately hopeful for a favorable ruling," Allison, president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, said in a statement.
The program opened this year to families whose income qualified their children for free or discounted school lunches, a ceiling of about $44,000 for a family of four. Eligibility increases for the year starting in August as the ceiling rises to nearly $59,000 per family.
Opponents of the voucher law complain that it violates the constitution because money from collected taxes goes to religious schools that have the option of ruling out students who don't follow their faith's beliefs, turning away the disabled or refusing the children of gay parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)