Lead Homicide Investigator Wanted George Zimmerman Arrested
Posted: March 27, 2012 Filed under: Crime, racism | Tags: "stand your ground" laws, FL DA Norman Wolfinger, George Zimmerman, racial profiling, Sanford FL Det. Chris Serino, Sanford FL police chief Bill Lee, Trayvon Martin 14 CommentsABC News is reporting that on the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed, Sanford detective Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter. Reportedly it was state District Attorney Norman Wolfinger who ordered Zimmerman released.
Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman’s attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.
Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman’s version of events.
It sounds like Serino wanted a record of his opinion on file for his own future protection. I wonder why we are just learning about this a month later?
What was Sanford police chief Bill Lee’s role in this? Who ordered Zimmerman released without evidence being collected from him? Was that Wolfinger’s decision?
Wolfinger and Lee have both removed themselves from the ongoing investigation, but how much evidence has been lost because of their flawed decisions?
Finally who in the Sanford Police Department is responsible for the recent leaks of information favorable to Zimmerman?
Bitter Knitters Unite!
Posted: March 27, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primaries, abortion rights, Civil Liberties, fetus fetishists, Health care reform, Human Rights, legislation, Planned Parenthood, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, War on Women, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights 37 CommentsOkay, for all you knitters out there—this one’s for you. And it’s a Doozie.
A new group has formed in response to the unapologetic Republican Crusade Against Women: The Snatchel Project with the goal of sending all howling male members of congress their very own hand-knitted uterus or vagina because:
If they have their own, they can leave ours alone!
I love the humor of these women!
And look at the variety!
Still, there are many deniers of the ongoing Holy Crusade. Yesterday, I mentioned a piece in The Hill by one conservative writer Sabrina Schaeffer, who scoffed at the very notion of a War on Women beyond a false narrative hatched in devious Democratic minds. Another woman writer joined the chorus in the Wall Street Journal, a Mary Eberstadt, who mused whether the Sexual Revolution Had Been Good for Women, answering with a firm ‘No.’ What a surprise. Ms. Eberstadt presumably explodes four myths in her own mind ala the Phyllis Schlafly tradition—women are restless, unhappy and dissatisfied ever since the Pill changed the world and sex was severed from procreation.
I’m sure this point of view makes Rick Santorum swoon with absolute pleasure. Or whatever the Rick Santorums of the world do when they experience joy. To think you could convince women, any woman to voluntarily march herself back to the Middle Ages is quite incredible. A monumental feat. No wonder Mr. Sanctimonious refuses to give up!
But I do sense a certain retreat by the zealots, who seem to squirm mightily under the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Here is the letter recently published in the Daily News Sun by Arizona Rep Debbie Lesko defending her bill [HB 2526], where an employer of conscience can insist a woman prove that she is using contraception for ‘nonsexual’ purposes because otherwise said employer would be religiously offended:
My legislation to protect our First Amendment rights does one thing and one thing alone: It allows an employer to opt out of the current government mandate that forces them to include the morning after pill and contraceptives in their employee’s insurance benefits, if and only if, the employer has a religious objection. The current mandate, which has been highlighted by the Obama administration’s actions, forces employers to include the morning after pill and contraceptives in their insurance benefits even if it violates the employer’s religious beliefs.
Employers should not be forced by the government to do something against their religious beliefs. That violates their First Amendment rights.
My legislation does not authorize employers to ask or know about their employee’s contraceptive use, and it does not authorize employers to fire anyone for that use.
The Catholic Church and other faith-based organizations support my legislation. Under it, employers like St. Vincent De Paul, a Catholic-based charity, would be able to opt out of the mandate. Since the legislation was written with the help of a national legal organization that fights for religious freedoms, I believe it will withstand legal tests.
Ironically, most of the controversy surrounding my legislation revolves around language already in Arizona law for 10 years — language that I did not even introduce. Current law allows a woman who works for a church that has opted out of the mandate to have the medicine paid for if the woman uses it for a purpose other than birth control. The insurance company, not the employer, knows that information. The key is that I didn’t introduce that language in my bill. It is already in law and it will still be in law whether my legislation passes or not.
I am not Catholic, and I do not have a moral objection to the use of contraceptives, but I do respect the right of those religious employers that do.
Since I am a woman, I would never create legislation that takes away women’s rights. Women who work for religious employers will still be able to obtain medication somewhere else. Since Walmart sells it for $9/month, the cost may even be cheaper than the insurance co-pay itself.
If the government wasn’t forcing religious employers to do something against their religious beliefs, I wouldn’t be talking about this issue. But protecting our First Amendment right to freedom of religion is one of the most important things we can do. If we lose that, America’s future is truly lost.
It is unfortunate that some in the media are repeating distortions and untruths brought about by the opposition. I wish they would have called me or the lawyers that wrote it so they could report the truth. I guess that wouldn’t make a juicy story. Thank you to the media that are publishing my side of the story.
House Majority Whip Debbie Lesko is the State Representative for LD 9.
Ooooo. A wee bit defensive aren’t we, Ms. Lesko? All about First Amendment Rights? Really? What about the rights of the employee? Why should any employer have the right to demand a doctor’s note, giving a woman permission to take any medication, contraceptive or otherwise? And just because you Ms. Lesko are against abortion [note the mention of the morning after pill] does not give you the right to impose your religious beliefs on your constituents, nor does an employer have the right to know anything about my medical history, which would be necessary in this twisted piece of legislation.
This is not a theocracy. At least not yet.
And why mention the Catholics since you’re not a Catholic yourself? Unless you know what we know: The Catholic Bishops and Religious Right have made an odd couple’s Holy Alliance to rid the world of witches [otherwise known as Fallen Women, wanton sluts and/or the Daughters of Eve].
Note one other thing. As with so many others in this Cult of Procreation, Ms. Lesko points a crooked finger, blames distortions on the press, untruths hatched by the opposition. Rather than taking a long, hard gaze in the mirror.
Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who’s the worst liar of them all?
I have a suggestion for the knitter’s group. I wouldn’t limit these handcrafted items to men only. It’s clear that a number of women need a back up set of anatomically-correct body parts with the scripted note suggested by Government Free VJJs:
Get You Pre-Historic Laws Out of My Uterus!
Better yet, here’s one of your own.
Check out the site. It will make you smile. And Lordy, we need all the smiles we can get right now. Btw, the site provides patterns for your work of art, be it knitted, crocheted or made of fabric. And though the site invites you to hand deliver the items to your representatives, they are quite happy to have a volunteer do the honors. Think of these items arriving in the office of your favorite Congressperson, the item unwrapped and then the expression of . . . well, I‘ll leave it to your imagination.
Let the knitting begin! And remember, these women weren’t polite either:
Mitt Romney’s San Diego Home Will Have Car Elevators
Posted: March 27, 2012 Filed under: just because | Tags: dream house, home renovations, Mitt Romney, San Diego, wealth 16 CommentsPolitico reports on the Romney’s planned home renovations:
At https://www.fencingdirect.com/products/category/vinyl-pvc-fence, they proposed California beach house, the cars will have their own separate elevator.
There’s also a planned outdoor shower and a 3,600-square foot basement — a room with more floor space than the existing home’s entire living quarters.
Those are just some of the amenities planned for the massive renovation of the Romneys’ home in the tony La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, according to plans on file with the city.
A project this ambitious comes with another feature you don’t always find with the typical fixer-upper: its own lobbyist, hired by Romney to push the plan through the approval process.
The Secret Service and the Romney campaign begged Politico not to publish the architectural drawings.
This is an open thread.
Tuesday Reads
Posted: March 27, 2012 Filed under: Crime, racism, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: "stand your ground" laws, 2012 apocalypse, Ben Bernanke, Craig Sonner, George Zimmerman, hippies, interest rates, Joe Oliver, Miami Dade School police, murder, Noah's Ark, Rick Santorum, Sanford FL, Sanford police leaks, smear campaigns, Trayvon Martin, Wall Street 27 CommentsGood Morning!!
I know some people are probably tired of hearing about the Trayvon Martin murder, but IMHO this case is every bit as important as the Supreme Court hearing arguments about the health care bill.
We live in a country in which suspicion still falls on African Americans even when they are just walking on the sidewalk or driving down the street. We live in a country in which the police can beat and kill and rape and and get away with it. We live in the land of “the new Jim Crow” in which “the mass incarceration of African American men” is the latest state weapon in our nation’s long and bloody history of vicious racial violence.
How far have we really come when a young boy can be shot in cold blood and the shooter isn’t arrested or even tested for drugs and alcohol?
Over the weekend, the second stage of the Trayvon Martin media circus kicked into gear. That’s the part where various interested parties use the media to defend George Zimmerman–the man who thought a skinny 140-pound 17-year old boy walking home from the store looked “up to no good” and “like he’s on drugs,” and so chose to stalk and then kill the boy in cold blood. The Zimmerman rehabilitation campaign has consisted mostly of smearing the unarmed teenager who can no longer defend himself because he’s dead.
For the past three days, there has been a deliberate campaign to paint Trayvon Martin as a terrifying aggressor who deserved to die and George Zimmerman as a victim who was in terror of Martin and was forced to shoot him at point-blank range. Minx summarized much of the smear campaign in her evening reads last night. But here are a couple of things she didn’t mention:
Mail Online: Anonymous witness claims Martin attacked Zimmerman before the fatal shooting
The witness told FOX 35 in Orlando that he saw evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman, which could lend credence to the gunman’s claim that he was acting in self-defence.
‘The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: “Help, help… and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,’ he said.Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater; Martin was in a grey hoodie.
He added: ‘When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the
Really? And did this witness call 911? If so, we haven’t heard the tape of it yet. Furthermore, this “new witness” isn’t even new. These same quotes were reported by Fox Orlando on February 27. But never mind, the quotes are helpful to Zimmerman, so they’re being reported as “new.”
An attorney, Craig Sonner, who says he is “advising” Zimmerman, but doesn’t yet “represent” him, has been making the rounds of the TV talk shows along with Joe Oliver, a former (maybe present?) TV news reporter, who says he is a close friend of Zimmerman’s and has known him for six years (actually Oliver’s wife is a friend of Zimmerman’s mother-in-law; it’s not clear how well Oliver knew Zimmerman before the shooting).
Sonner has been telling anyone who will listen that Trayvon broke George’s nose and cut open the back of his head, but yesterday we learned that Trayvon supposedly sucker-punched George in the nose, knocked him to the ground and then bashed his head against the sidewalk repeatedly. None of this was in the official police report.
Oliver says that George “couldn’t stop crying” for days after the shooting and he is now being treated for PTSD. Oliver says that George is very remorseful. He doesn’t say why George hasn’t contacted Trayvon’s parents to tell them he’s sorry about killing their son. In fact, Oliver even claims that if George hadn’t shot Trayvon, Trayvon would have killed George. Even though Trayvon was armed only with Skittles and iced tea.
Oh, and BTW, Oliver is an African American man. Therefore his close friend George Zimmerman could not possibly have been responding to racial stereotypes on the night of the shooting. AND, Oliver thinks calling someone a “fucking coon” is something to be proud of. And you don’t buy that, maybe Zimmerman was saying “fucking goons,” which is a “term of endearment” according to Oliver’s daughter.
All I can say is, I need to see pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries. I also need to have someone explain to me why Trayvon didn’t have a right to “stand his ground” and defend himself against an imposing 250-pound stranger who was stalking him with a gun.
Yesterday, the Zimmerman defense/smear campaign really doubled down, as the Sanford Police leaked information designed to smear the dead boy. Not to be outdone, the Miami/Dade School Police leaked selected portions of Trayvon’s private school records. Nothing about Trayvon acting violently, but hey–that will probably come out today, right? And all these leaks, along with the Sonner-Oliver media tour, are designed to make us forget that Trayvon Martin is DEAD at the hands of George Zimmerman.
I think this is a pretty good summary of the Zimmerman defense:
My client George Zimmerman is a very vulnerable individual weighing only 250 pounds. Fragile and delicate like a petite, gamine ballet dancer. His assailant Trayvon Martin was over 100 pounds lighter — making him much more agile and dangerous. Furthermore Trayvon Martin was armed with a bag of Skittles AND an iced tea. These are lethal weapons. It is no wonder that my client felt so threatened. And quite understandably felt that his life was in danger.
Read the rest of the “Monty Python twinkie defense” at Huffpo.
There were two witnesses who did some media appearances in support of Trayvon Martin–Mary Cutcher and Selma Lamilla, but their efforts were mostly drowned out by the Zimmerman defense/smear campaign.
Cutcher and her roommate, Selma Lamilla, say they went outside when they heard the gunshot and saw Zimmerman standing over Martin.
“We both saw him straddling the body, basically, a foot on both sides of Trayvon’s body and his hands pressed on his back,” Cutcher said.
Cutcher says Zimmerman told her and her roommate to call the police.
“Zimmerman never turned him over or tried to help him or CPR or anything,” Cutcher said.
Lamilla said that after the shot was fired Zimmerman appeared to be pacing.
“He started walking back and forth like three times with his hand on the head and kind of, he was walking like kind of confused,” she said.
Lamilla said he was touching his head like “he was in shock.”
Police who responded to the scene noted that Zimmerman had injuries to his face and head.
When Lamilla was able to see who had been shot, she was stunned.
“And for me was a shock to see, ‘Oh my God, that it’s a kid. So skinny, no more than 20- years- old. So skinny, like baby faced,” Lamilla said.
Cutcher also told various media outlets that she had a really hard time getting the Sanford Police to listen to her story or even return her phone calls.
I’ve got a few more headlines to share. The first one is somewhat related to the Martin case. Another black teenager has been shot and killed by civilian neighborhood security guards, this time in Georgia. The two men, Curtis Scott and Gary Jackson have been arrested, but only for impersonating police officers so far.
Scott and Jackson, security guards for the apartment complex, were checking out a suspicious vehicle and had detained four women. They told the women they were police officers….the investigation shows that’s when the guards heard gunshots from a nearby residence. Around the same time, Ervin Jefferson, 18, pulled up to the scene.
The guards told police Jefferson approached them “aggressively and possibly even threatened to kill them.” ….that’s when Scott fired his gun at Jefferson, striking him once. The guard called 911.
Jefferson’s mother says she then saw the security guards hit her son with their car and drive over him. Police claim that Jefferson crawled under the car. Jefferson was declared dead at the hospital.
Ben Bernanke signaled yesterday that interest rates will remain low, because of the need to stimulate more job growth. Of course he means interest rates for the banksters, not regular people’s credit card or student loan rates. On the strength of that news, Wall Street surged.
Wall Street’s addiction to free money is on full display today.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up more than 100 points at lunchtime on the East Coast, while the Nasdaq was up more than one percent and the S&P 500 was up nearly one percent.
The primary reason? Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made some notably downbeat comments about the economy today, seeming to put the kibosh on market expectations that the Fed could raise interest rates sooner rather than later.
Bernanke’s dedication to low rates also means the Fed is still capable of launching its third round of quantitative easing — buying up every bond that’s not nailed down in an effort to pump more cash into the economy. Pimco chief Bill Gross tweeted today that he thinks the Fed will hint at more QE, or “QE3,” in April. Of course, Gross stands to gain by cheerleading investors into thinking the Fed will buy more bonds, because Pimco has been buying bonds in a heavy bet on QE3, Reuters notes.
No word on when anyone in DC will do anything for us “small people.”
France has charged Dominique Strauss-Kahn in connection with a prostitution ring.
Former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was charged in France on Monday with “aggravated pimping” for his alleged participation in a prostitution ring, prosecutors said.
He is not allowed to have contact with other people involved in the investigation, nor is he permitted to talk to the media about the case. Strauss-Kahn was released under a 100,000-euro bail, according to prosecutors.
Rick Santorum kind of lost it yesterday: Rick Santorum’s nice-guy persona is turning a bit testy lately
For a while, it had seemed that Rick Santorum’s crabby days were behind him. Gone were the sarcastic potshots at reporters and peevish outbursts aimed at his political opponents. He had transformed into the Mr. Rogers of the presidential race: good-natured, self-deprecating and downright likable.
But that nice-guy image has gone down the drain lately, with a series of provocative remarks and testy exchanges that have coincided with his slipping presidential fortunes. He may have hit a low point Sunday, when he uttered an expletive in response to a question from a New York Times reporter.
Asked what he meant when he said in a speech that rival Mitt Romney was the “worst Republican in the country” to go up against President Obama, Santorum lashed back at reporter Jeff Zeleny in an exchange that was captured by CBS.
“Stop lying!” he responded. “I said he was the worst Republican to run on the issue of Obamacare. And that’s what I was talking about!” In case there was any doubt that he meant it, he suggested that if he saw such a statement in print, it would amount to “bull—-.”
Finally, I got a kick out of this story in The Independent: Hippies head for Noah’s Ark: Queue here for rescue aboard alien spaceship
A rapidly increasing stream of New Age believers – or esoterics, as locals call them – have descended in their camper van-loads on the usually picturesque and tranquil Pyrenean village of Bugarach. They believe that when apocalypse strikes on 21 December this year, the aliens waiting in their spacecraft inside Pic de Bugarach will save all the humans near by and beam them off to the next age.
As the cataclysmic date – which, according to eschatological beliefs and predicted astrological alignments, concludes a 5,125-year cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar – nears, the goings-on around the peak have become more bizarre and ritualistic.
For decades, there has been a belief that Pic de Bugarach, which, at 1,230 metres, is the highest in the Corbières mountain range, possesses an eery power. Often called the “upside-down mountain” – geologists think that it exploded after its formation and the top landed the wrong way up – it is thought to have inspired Jules Verne’s Journey to the Centre of the Earth and Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Since the 1960s, it has attracted New Agers, who insist that it emits special magnetic waves.
Further, rumours persist that the country’s late president François Mitterrand was transported by helicopter on to the peak, while the Nazis, and, later, Israel’s Mossad, performed mysterious digs there. Now the nearby village is awash with New Agers, who have boosted the local economy, though their naked group climbs up to the peak have raised concerns as well as eyebrows. Among other oddities, some hikers have been spotted scaling the mountain carrying a ball with a golden ring, strung together by a single thread.
Soooooo…. what are you reading and blogging about today?
Day One of HCRA Arguments
Posted: March 26, 2012 Filed under: Health care reform, SCOTUS 10 Comments
I thought I’d post some links on today’s arguments before SCOTUS in case you haven’t been able to keep up with the news. The big day for the arguments for and against the mandate come tomorrow. Protestors were all over the area in front of the nation’s courthouse and people were lined up for days to get inside. The go-to blog for this appears to be SCOTUSblog who posted this update of the day’s events.
The comments and questions of the Justices during the 89-minute exchange left the distinct impression that they are prepared to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, and not push the issue off into the future. The exact route they would take was a bit uncertain, but their skepticism about taking a pass now was clear.
That did not mean, of course, that the Court would ultimately uphold the mandate. That is tomorrow’s question, although the Justices asked many questions about the mandate, showing they are deeply curious about its scope and meaning. But an argument that at times seemed almost to bog down in the dense complexity of the tax code pointed toward a refusal to bar the lawsuits that had challenged the mandate and had put its survival before the Court this week. One of the telltale signs of that sentiment was that not one Justice, and no lawyer at the lectern, said that it would be premature and a contradiction of the Court’s tradition against deciding constitutional issues prematurely for the Court to rule promptly on the mandate’s validity.
The Court had selected a Washington attorney from outside the case, Robert A. Long, Jr., to make an argument that the Supreme Court and no lower court had any authority to rule on the challenges to the mandate, on the theory that the requirement is a part of the tax code and the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 had closed the courthouse doors to any lawsuit against a tax law before it took effect. But the most difficult questions from the bench Monday were aimed at Long’s argument. And most of the Court seemed to be leaning toward some version or variation of the argument made by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., speaking for a government that very much wants a final decision soon on the mandate.
Here are some other links to the story.
Politico: First glimpses of Supreme Court’s Thinking
Justices on both ends of the ideological spectrum appeared skeptical that an arcane law, known as the Anti-Injunction Act, should delay a Supreme Court ruling for more than two years. The law prevents people from challenging most taxes until they’ve been paid — and the penalty for people who avoid the individual mandate will be enforced through the tax code.
NYT: Health Act Arguments Open With Obstacle From 1867
The answer to that question is not obvious. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that it was powerless to decide the law’s constitutionality for now, and a prominent judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed.
Their opinions relied on an 1867 federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” In other words, people who object to taxes must pay first and litigate later.
But the first penalties do not kick in until 2014, and they must be paid on federal tax returns by April 2015. That means, the appeals court judges said, that federal courts are forbidden for now to hear challenges to the health care law.
The Atlantic On Line: How Obamacare will Be Settled
In the first century of our nation’s history, Congress hewed to a very literal, limited understanding of the relevant text of Article I: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Put simply, Commerce Clause legislation could regulate only business-related activities in interstate commerce.
The inception of contemporary Commerce Clause doctrine dates to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, regulating railroad monopolies, and the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, designed to curb monopolies and trusts. The Court upheld the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1905 — in Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375. However, the justices based that decision on the finding that the effect of price-fixing by Chicago meat-packers on interstate commerce was not “accidental, secondary, remote or merely probable” but immediate. The opinion reinforced the traditional literal view of Congress’s Commerce power.
The Supreme Court case that established the constitutionality of the expanded interpretation of Congress’s commerce power was National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, in 1937. The case originated in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, where Jones & Laughlin was penalizing and discriminating against workers attempting to unionize. NLRB ordered Jones & Laughlin to end its coercive union-busting tactics; the firm refused to obey. After the circuit court refused to enforce the NLRB’s order against Jones & Laughlin, the NLRB appealed to the Supreme Court.
Jones & Laughlin argued that Congress could not regulate its labor practices because manufacturing is an intrastate activity, not interstate commerce. The firm based its argument on then-standard reasoning stemming from a 1918 Supreme Court case, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 241 U.S. 251. In Hammer, the Court allowed a father to commit his son to child labor in a North Carolina textile mill despite the Keating Owen Child Labor Act of 1916, reasoning that mill work was part of intrastate manufacturing, not commerce between or among states.
WAPO: Absolutely everything you need to know about health reform’s Supreme Court debut
Anti-Injunction Act
What it is: The Court opens its oral arguments with a debate over whether it can even issue a ruling on the Affordable Care Act since its penalties for not carrying insurance have not come into effect yet. Under a law passed in 1867, the Anti-Injunction Act, a tax cannot be challenged until someone has actually had to pay it. Health reform’s penalties don’t start until 2015.
What they’ll argue: One weird quirk of this provision is that neither the defendants or plaintiffs think it applies: Both sides think the Court should be able to rule right now . So the court appointed an outside lawyer, Robert Long, to argue on their behalf. Long will likely look to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for precedent. It ruled, in September, that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented it from issuing a ruling on the health law.
When it happens: Monday, March 26, 10-11:30 a.m.
Why it matters: The Anti-Injunction Act gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to put off its decision for at least three years, potentially diffusing the law slightly as a 2012 election year issue. This could be a mixed-bag for health care supporters: On the one hand, it gives the law three more years to be implemented. On the other, it would still make the law’s fate seem uncertain, and likely extend the national debate around the Affordable Care Act.











Recent Comments