President Trump’s Executive Order on An America-First Healthcare Plan

In August, President Trump teased a future executive order concerning pre-existing conditions. (See here and here). At the time, I predicted that Trump was trying to aid the Supreme Court’s deliberations in Texas v. California. I wrote;

Ilya Shapiro and I filed the Cato Institute’s amicus brief in California v. Texas. We proposed that the Trump administration could require, by executive action, insurers on the ACA exchange to comply with guaranteed issue and community rating. But why would such an executive action be needed if the ACA is in place? Well, the ACA is currently being challenged. And perhaps one factor that could aid the Court’s deliberations would be an assurance that people with pre-existing protections could still obtain coverage on the exchanges, even if guaranteed issue and community rating (GICR) were found to be inseverable.

Here is an excerpt from our brief. Note the last emphasized sentence in Footnote 12.

The analysis for individual market, on-exchange policies is different. Hurley and Nantz are not eligible for subsidies. Declarations, supra. But they could still purchase an unsubsidized plan on the exchanges. Halting GICR with respect to policies sold on the exchanges would be an unnecessarily overbroad remedy. So long as the plaintiffs can purchase off-market non-compliant plans, or none at all, their injuries will be remedied. Plaintiffs cannot demand a greater remedy to alter all policies offered on government exchanges. Moreover, people who seek to buy a government-sponsored product on a government exchange cannot complain about cumbersome regulations. [FN 12] Courts need go no further than issue a declaration with respect to individual market, off-exchange policies. “[T]he judicial power is, fundamentally, the power to render judgments in individual cases.” Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1485 (Thomas, J., concurring). No more, and no less. Hurley and Nantz, meanwhile, and all those who object to being forced to purchase unwanted policies, will have other options.

[FN12]: This narrow remedy would address concerns raised by the Federal Respondents about creating a “potentially unstable insurance market.” See Brief for the Federal Respondents at 44–45. The executive branch could also require insurance providers on the exchanges to comply with the ACA’s GICR provisions, regardless of the outcome of this litigation.

Today President Trump signed the self-styled “Executive Order on An America-First Healthcare Plan.” There are several references to the ACA litigation that, I think, are leading towards my proposal.

First, Trump accurately characterizes what the TCJA did–well sort of. The penalty was reduced to $0. Usually Trump says that he repealed the mandate. I am sure the SG will quote this sentence if a Justice tries to cite press statements.

On December 22, 2017, I signed into law the repeal of the burdensome individual-mandate penalty, liberating millions of low-income Americans from a tax that penalized them for not purchasing health-insurance coverage they did not want or could not afford

Second, the order includes a history of the ACA’s failures. I’m not really sure what purpose this discussion serves:

In an attempt to justify the ACA, the previous Administration claimed that, absent action by the Congress, up to 129 million (later updated to 133 million) non-elderly people with what it described as pre-existing conditions were in danger of being denied health-insurance coverage.  According to the previous Administration, however, only 2.7 percent of such individuals actually gained access to health insurance through the ACA, given existing laws and programs already in place to cover them.  For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 has long protected individuals with pre-existing conditions, including individuals covered by group health plans and individuals who had such coverage but lost it.

The ACA produced multiple other failures.  The average insurance premium in the individual market more than doubled from 2013 to 2017, and those who have not received generous Federal subsidies have struggled to maintain coverage.  For those who have managed to maintain coverage, many have experienced a substantial rise in deductibles, limited choice of insurers, and limited provider networks that exclude their doctors and the facilities best suited to care for them.

Additionally, approximately 30 million Americans remain uninsured, notwithstanding the previous Administration’s promises that the ACA would address this intractable problem.  On top of these disappointing results, Federal taxpayers and, unfortunately, future generations of American workers, have been left with an enormous bill.  The ACA’s Medicaid expansion and subsidies for the individual market are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $1.8 trillion over the next decade.

Third, the President references the pending challenge:

The ACA is neither the best nor the only way to ensure that Americans who suffer from pre-existing conditions have access to health-insurance coverage.  I have agreed with the States challenging the ACA, who have won in the Federal district court and court of appeals, that the ACA, as amended, exceeds the power of the Congress.  The ACA was flawed from its inception and should be struck down.  However, access to health insurance despite underlying health conditions should be maintained, even if the Supreme Court invalidates the unconstitutional, and largely harmful, ACA.

Alas, the SG does not argue that the entire law should be struck down. The government’s position is far more nuanced. But the far more important sentence is the last one. Even if the law is “invalidated,” access to pre-existing protections should be maintained. But how? Not through legislation. He is hinting at a future executive action.

No action is taken here. Rather, there is a policy section:

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to give Americans seeking healthcare more choice, lower costs, and better care and to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.

I think here Trump is giving his administration guidance to prepare. a “safety net” if the Supreme Court takes some action against Guaranteed Issue and Community rating.

Sec. 3.  Giving Americans More Choice in Healthcare.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain and build upon existing actions to expand access to and options for affordable healthcare.

Stay tuned. We may even have 9 Justices when the ACA case is argued on November 10.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32XOOeZ
via IFTTT

President Trump’s Executive Order on An America-First Healthcare Plan

In August, President Trump teased a future executive order concerning pre-existing conditions. (See here and here). At the time, I predicted that Trump was trying to aid the Supreme Court’s deliberations in Texas v. California. I wrote;

Ilya Shapiro and I filed the Cato Institute’s amicus brief in California v. Texas. We proposed that the Trump administration could require, by executive action, insurers on the ACA exchange to comply with guaranteed issue and community rating. But why would such an executive action be needed if the ACA is in place? Well, the ACA is currently being challenged. And perhaps one factor that could aid the Court’s deliberations would be an assurance that people with pre-existing protections could still obtain coverage on the exchanges, even if guaranteed issue and community rating (GICR) were found to be inseverable.

Here is an excerpt from our brief. Note the last emphasized sentence in Footnote 12.

The analysis for individual market, on-exchange policies is different. Hurley and Nantz are not eligible for subsidies. Declarations, supra. But they could still purchase an unsubsidized plan on the exchanges. Halting GICR with respect to policies sold on the exchanges would be an unnecessarily overbroad remedy. So long as the plaintiffs can purchase off-market non-compliant plans, or none at all, their injuries will be remedied. Plaintiffs cannot demand a greater remedy to alter all policies offered on government exchanges. Moreover, people who seek to buy a government-sponsored product on a government exchange cannot complain about cumbersome regulations. [FN 12] Courts need go no further than issue a declaration with respect to individual market, off-exchange policies. “[T]he judicial power is, fundamentally, the power to render judgments in individual cases.” Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1485 (Thomas, J., concurring). No more, and no less. Hurley and Nantz, meanwhile, and all those who object to being forced to purchase unwanted policies, will have other options.

[FN12]: This narrow remedy would address concerns raised by the Federal Respondents about creating a “potentially unstable insurance market.” See Brief for the Federal Respondents at 44–45. The executive branch could also require insurance providers on the exchanges to comply with the ACA’s GICR provisions, regardless of the outcome of this litigation.

Today President Trump signed the self-styled “Executive Order on An America-First Healthcare Plan.” There are several references to the ACA litigation that, I think, are leading towards my proposal.

First, Trump accurately characterizes what the TCJA did–well sort of. The penalty was reduced to $0. Usually Trump says that he repealed the mandate. I am sure the SG will quote this sentence if a Justice tries to cite press statements.

On December 22, 2017, I signed into law the repeal of the burdensome individual-mandate penalty, liberating millions of low-income Americans from a tax that penalized them for not purchasing health-insurance coverage they did not want or could not afford

Second, the order includes a history of the ACA’s failures. I’m not really sure what purpose this discussion serves:

In an attempt to justify the ACA, the previous Administration claimed that, absent action by the Congress, up to 129 million (later updated to 133 million) non-elderly people with what it described as pre-existing conditions were in danger of being denied health-insurance coverage.  According to the previous Administration, however, only 2.7 percent of such individuals actually gained access to health insurance through the ACA, given existing laws and programs already in place to cover them.  For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 has long protected individuals with pre-existing conditions, including individuals covered by group health plans and individuals who had such coverage but lost it.

The ACA produced multiple other failures.  The average insurance premium in the individual market more than doubled from 2013 to 2017, and those who have not received generous Federal subsidies have struggled to maintain coverage.  For those who have managed to maintain coverage, many have experienced a substantial rise in deductibles, limited choice of insurers, and limited provider networks that exclude their doctors and the facilities best suited to care for them.

Additionally, approximately 30 million Americans remain uninsured, notwithstanding the previous Administration’s promises that the ACA would address this intractable problem.  On top of these disappointing results, Federal taxpayers and, unfortunately, future generations of American workers, have been left with an enormous bill.  The ACA’s Medicaid expansion and subsidies for the individual market are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost more than $1.8 trillion over the next decade.

Third, the President references the pending challenge:

The ACA is neither the best nor the only way to ensure that Americans who suffer from pre-existing conditions have access to health-insurance coverage.  I have agreed with the States challenging the ACA, who have won in the Federal district court and court of appeals, that the ACA, as amended, exceeds the power of the Congress.  The ACA was flawed from its inception and should be struck down.  However, access to health insurance despite underlying health conditions should be maintained, even if the Supreme Court invalidates the unconstitutional, and largely harmful, ACA.

Alas, the SG does not argue that the entire law should be struck down. The government’s position is far more nuanced. But the far more important sentence is the last one. Even if the law is “invalidated,” access to pre-existing protections should be maintained. But how? Not through legislation. He is hinting at a future executive action.

No action is taken here. Rather, there is a policy section:

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to give Americans seeking healthcare more choice, lower costs, and better care and to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.

I think here Trump is giving his administration guidance to prepare. a “safety net” if the Supreme Court takes some action against Guaranteed Issue and Community rating.

Sec. 3.  Giving Americans More Choice in Healthcare.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain and build upon existing actions to expand access to and options for affordable healthcare.

Stay tuned. We may even have 9 Justices when the ACA case is argued on November 10.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32XOOeZ
via IFTTT

“Confirmed” Has Become A Meaningless Word In Mainstream News Reporting

“Confirmed” Has Become A Meaningless Word In Mainstream News Reporting

Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/24/2020 – 19:20

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Last week Politico published a major exclusive report that the “Iranian government is weighing an assassination attempt against the American ambassador to South Africa” in retaliation for the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani earlier this year, citing (you guessed it) anonymous government officials.

The claim was nonsensical on its face; the idea that Iran would see the assassination of some random ambassador to an irrelevant country as a proportionate response to the killing of its wildly beloved top military commander would only make sense to someone with a very US-centric worldview who knows nothing about Iran. On top of that, the South African government published a statement that “the information provided is not sufficient to sustain the allegation that there is a credible threat against the United States Ambassador to South Africa”.

The flimsy nature of this allegation was of course not enough to prevent bombastic Twitter threats from America’s manchild-in-chief that this nonexistent assassination plot “will be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!” if carried out.

It also wasn’t enough to prevent the Politico article’s co-author, Natasha Bertrand, from falsely claiming that The New York Times had “confirmed” her reporting.

“The NYT has confirmed Nahal Toosi and my reporting about Iran,” Bertrand tweeted today with a link to a new Times article, quoting the excerpt “Lana Marks, the American ambassador to South Africa and a political supporter of Trump, was a potential target of an Iranian attack…Politico earlier reported that Ms. Marks was a target.”

The New York Times has in fact not confirmed Bertrand and Toosi’s reporting, and Bertrand omits a very significant portion of text from her excerpt. Here is the quote in full, bold mine:

Lana Marks, the American ambassador to South Africa and a political supporter of Mr. Trump, was a potential target of an Iranian attack, according to national security officials. But some briefed on the intelligence said Iran has not decided to directly target any American official, and other current and former officials accused the Trump administration of overstating the threat. Politico earlier reported that Ms. Marks was a target.

Awful lot of important information hiding in that ellipsis of yours, Ms Bertrand.

So NYT had in fact merely spoken to unnamed officials (probably some of the same ones) and found there to be misgivings about the claim Bertrand had promoted, and then Bertrand deceptively omitted text which contradicted the claim she was making that her report had been “confirmed”.

It should surprise no one that Bertrand would abuse the trust of her followers in such a phenomenally sleazy way. As Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp explained after the Politico report was discredited by the South African government, Bertrand “built her career on hyping the Steele Dossier, a now-discredited document that made unverified claims about the Russian government and the Trump campaign in 2016.”

But Bertrand’s slimy manipulation is also to be expected because she knows she can get away with it. The word “confirmed” has been misused and abused to such a spectacular extent in mainstream news reporting of late that it doesn’t actually mean anything anymore when they say it.

When a news reporter announces that they have independently confirmed another outlet’s reporting, the reader imagines that they have done actual investigative journalism, traveled to the places about which the claims are being made, done deep digging and looked at the evidence with their own two eyes and found that the claim is true. In practice, all it often means is that they spoke to the same sources the other reporter spoke to and are in fact just confirming that the source did indeed make a given assertion. The reader assumes they’re confirming the source’s claim is true, but all they’re actually confirming is that the first reporter didn’t just make up the claim they’re uncritically parroting.

Take when the anonymously sourced story about Russia paying bounties to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan for killing occupying coalition forces was first reported by The New York Times. We now know this story was completely baseless, but when it first broke there were a bunch of mass media reporters buzzing around claiming to have “confirmed” one another’s stories on the matter.

“The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have confirmed our reporting,” the NYT story’s co-author Charlie Savage tweeted after the story broke.

“We have confirmed the New York Times’ scoop: A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan,” tweeted The Washington Post‘s John Hudson.

“We matched The New York Times’ great reporting on how US intel has assessed that Russians paid Taliban to target US, coalition forces in Afg which is a pretty stunning development,” tweeted Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Lubold.

All three of these men were lying.

John Hudson’s claim that the Washington Post article he co-authored “confirmed the New York Times’ scoop” twice used the words “if confirmed” with regard to his central claim, saying “Russian involvement in operations targeting Americans, if confirmed,” and “The attempt to stoke violence against Americans, if confirmed“. This is of course an acknowledgement that these things had not, in fact, been confirmed.

The Wall Street Journal article co-authored by Gordon Lubold cited only anonymous “people”, who we have no reason to believe are different people than NYT’s sources, repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions about an intelligence report. The article cited no evidence that Lubold’s “stunning development” actually occurred beyond “people familiar with the report said” and “a person familiar with it said“.

The fact that both Hudson and Lubold were lying about having confirmed the New York Times‘ reporting means that Savage was also lying when he said they did. When they said the report has been “confirmed”, what they really meant was that it had been agreed upon. All the three of them actually did was use their profoundly influential outlets to uncritically parrot something nameless spooks wanted the public to believe, which is the same as just publishing a CIA press release free of charge. It is unprincipled stenography for opaque and unaccountable intelligence agencies, and it is odious.

Earlier this month The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald published an article titled “Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using ‘Confirmed’ to Mean Its Opposite”, about an anonymously sourced claim by The Atlantic that Trump had said disparaging things about US troops. An excerpt:

Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”

Greenwald also documents how in 2017 CNN falsely reported that Donald Trump Jr had received an encryption key to WikiLeaks which let him preview the 2016 DNC leaks ten days before they were published, which we shortly thereafter learned was actually due to nobody involved in the story bothering to read the date on the email correctly. The whole entire story, in reality, was that Trump had merely received an email about an already published WikiLeaks drop.

Greenwald writes the following:

Very shortly after CNN unveiled its false story, MSNBC’s intelligence community spokesman Ken Dilanian went on air and breathlessly announced that he had obtained independent confirmation that the CNN story was true. In a video segment I cannot recommend highly enough, Dilanian was introduced by an incredibly excited Hallie Jackson — who urged Dilanian to “tell us what we’ve just now learned,” adding, “I know you and some of our colleagues have confirmed some of this information: What’s up?” Dilanian then proceeded to explain what he had learned:

“That’s right, Hallie. Two sources with direct knowledge of this are telling us that congressional investigators have obtained an email from a man named ‘Mike Erickson’ — obviously they don’t know if that’s his real name — offering Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. access to WikiLeaks documents. … It goes to the heart of the collusion question. … One of the big questions is: Did [Trump Jr.] call the FBI?”

How could that happen? How could MSNBC purport to confirm a false story from CNN? Shortly after, CBS News also purported to have “confirmed” the same false story: that Trump Jr. received advanced access to the WikiLeaks documents. It’s one thing for a news outlet to make a mistake in reporting by, for instance, misreporting the date of an email and thus getting the story completely wrong. But how is it possible that multiple other outlets could “confirm” the same false report?

That’s three mainstream outlets — CNN, MSNBC, and CBS, all claiming to have independently “confirmed” a story that would have been recognized as false if even one person in any of those outlets had done the tiniest bare minimum of independent investigation into the claim that its source was making, namely looking with their eyeballs at the actual information they were being presented with.

They didn’t, because that’s the state of the mass media today. That is its culture. That, in answer to Greenwald’s question above, is how this could happen: the western mass media are nothing but a bunch of lackeys mindlessly regurgitating incendiary narratives by those in power in their rapacious search for ratings.

Natasha Bertrand is acutely aware of this, which is why she feels comfortable falsely telling the world that her absurd reporting has been “confirmed”.

So now you know. Whenever you see the mass media saying an important claim has been “confirmed”, just ignore them. They have no respect for that word, and it has lost all meaning among their ranks. The western media class does not exist to tell you the truth about the world, it exists to distort your understanding of the world for the advantage of the powerful.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HkWzDl Tyler Durden

“I Was Never An ‘Evil Monster’ Until You Decided That I Was…”

“I Was Never An ‘Evil Monster’ Until You Decided That I Was…”

Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/24/2020 – 19:00

“I was never an evil monster until you decided that I was…

I never cared if you were ‘gay‘ until you started shoving it in my face, and the faces of my children.

I never cared what color you were, until you started blaming my race for your problems.

I never cared about your political affiliation until you started to condemn me for mine.

I never cared where you were born until you wanted to erase my history and blame my ancestors for your current problems.

I never cared if you were well-off or poor, until you said you were discriminated against, when I was promoted because I worked harder.

I never cared if your beliefs were different from mine, until you said my beliefs were wrong.

NOW I CARE!

My patience and tolerance are gone.

I’m not alone in feeling this way, there are millions of us who do and we have had enough!”

*  *  *

Source

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3kMvveJ Tyler Durden

Third Arab Nation Will Reach Peace Deal With Israel In Next 2 Days: US Envoy 

Third Arab Nation Will Reach Peace Deal With Israel In Next 2 Days: US Envoy 

Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/24/2020 – 18:40

Via AlMasdarNews.com, 

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Kraft, said on Wednesday that another Arab country would join the process of normalization with Israel within the next two days.

In statements to Al-Arabiya, Kraft said that another Arab nation will conduct a peace deal with Israel and more will quickly follow suit, likely “within the next day or two”.

An Arab League session held in 2018, file image.

She said of Arab states’ normalization with Israel that “our plan is to bring more countries…which we will have more being announced very soon…” and further that:

“It could be today…there will be one in the next day or two… yes so we are very excited and know that others are going to be following, and what we don’t want to do is to not isolate anyone but to bring everyone on board in hopes that this will allow the Iranian citizens to see that people really want peace in the Middle East and they are part of this peace.:

Kraft said that Washington hopes Saudi Arabia will sign a normalization agreement with Israel.

She added, “We will certainly welcome the fact that Saudi Arabia will be next (on the path of normalization), but what is important is that we focus on the agreements and do not allow the Iranian regime to exploit the good intentions of Bahrain, the Emirates or Israel.”

Some Israeli news outlets have speculated that either Oman, Morocco, or Sudan will be the next Arab League nation to sign a normalization agreement with Israel.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/307WHg1 Tyler Durden

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Jo Jorgensen Releases “Liberty-Minded” SCOTUS Short List

Dr. Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency, has released a SCOTUS list of “liberty-minded jurists.” You will see many familiar names on the list:

Richard Epstein is a law professor and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University. A study published in The Journal of Legal Studies identified him as the 12th most often-cited legal scholar of the 20th century.  He is known for his prolific writings on subjects pertaining to law, economics, classical liberalism, and libertarianism.

Judge Andrew Napolitano was a New Jersey Superior Court judge and hosted the daily TV talk show Freedom Watch on Fox Business News. He is a syndicated columnist published in Reason, The Washington Times and elsewhere and is a frequent commentator and news analyst on Fox.

Randy Barnett is on the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center and a senior fellow at Cato Institute. His eleven published books include Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. He was involved in the legal challenge to Obamacare — National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius.

Clint Bolick is an associate justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. In 1991 Bolick co-founded the Institute for Justice. In 2007, he became VP of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute where he was a frequent critic of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Eugene Volokh has been a UCLA law professor since 1994 and is the originator of the prominent legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. He clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Janice Rogers Brown served as Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and was an associate justice of the California Supreme Court. In a speech to the University of Chicago Law School Federalist Society she said, “Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies.”

Dana Berliner is the senior vice president and litigation director at the Institute for Justice. She was co-counsel representing the homeowner in Kelo v. New London, the notorious case where SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain could be used by a city for the sole reason of increasing its property tax base.

Anastasia Boden is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation specializing in litigating against anti-competitive licensing laws and laws that restrict freedom of speech. She graduated from law school at Georgetown where she was Research Assistant to Professor Randy Barnett.

Timothy Sandefur is the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He’s the author of numerous books including Frederick Douglas: Self Made Man and The Right to Earn a Living. He argued against Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Scott Bullock is President and General Counsel of the Institute for Justice. He was co-counsel in Kelo v. New London.

James Ostrowski has practiced trial and appellate work for more than 35 years. He was an attorney for Ron Paul and is the chief organizer of libertymovement.org. He writes extensively on a variety of topics for the Mises Institute and has published four books, including Progressivism: a Primer on the Idea Destroying America.

Alan Gura was co-counsel for the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to own a firearm. It was one of two landmark constitutional cases that he argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court. The National Law Journal named him one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.”

Jonathan Turley teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law at George Washington University Law School. He is ranked the 38th most cited public intellectual in a study by Judge Richard Posner. He received the columnist of the year award from the Aspen Institute and The Week for his columns on civil liberties.

Damien Schiff is a senior attorney at Pacific Law Foundation where he successfully argued the precedent-setting property rights case, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency when he was 33 years old. He was nominated to the Court of Federal Claims but not confirmed.

Clark Neily was co-counsel for the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to bear arms. He was a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice before joining the Cato Institute in 2017, where he is Vice President for Criminal Justice overseeing civil asset forfeiture, police accountability, gun rights, overcriminalization and constitutional law.

Alan Dershowitz became the youngest full professor in the history of Harvard Law School at the age of 28. He successfully defended Harry Reems, the actor in Deep Throat, arguing that consumption of pornography was not harmful. He served as defense counsel in numerous high-profile cases, including one against Julian Assange.

Nadine Strossen was the youngest person ever to head the ACLU. She is a staunch First Amendment advocate and a founder of Feminists for Free Expression. Among her books is “Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship”.

Jacob Hornberger was Director of Programs for the Foundation for Economic Education and founded the Future of Freedom Foundation where he serves as president  He placed second in the delegate count for the 2020 LP nomination for president.

Don Willett serves on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and was previously a member of the Supreme Court of Texas. According to the outlet SCOTUSblog, “Willett views the role of judges as protecting individual liberty by striking down laws that infringe on it.” Willett has also been named by President Donald Trump as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Judge Willett may be the only person on the short list of two presidential candidates. Your move Biden.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hXyjnD
via IFTTT

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Jo Jorgensen Releases “Liberty-Minded” SCOTUS Short List

Dr. Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency, has released a SCOTUS list of “liberty-minded jurists.” You will see many familiar names on the list:

Richard Epstein is a law professor and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University. A study published in The Journal of Legal Studies identified him as the 12th most often-cited legal scholar of the 20th century.  He is known for his prolific writings on subjects pertaining to law, economics, classical liberalism, and libertarianism.

Judge Andrew Napolitano was a New Jersey Superior Court judge and hosted the daily TV talk show Freedom Watch on Fox Business News. He is a syndicated columnist published in Reason, The Washington Times and elsewhere and is a frequent commentator and news analyst on Fox.

Randy Barnett is on the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center and a senior fellow at Cato Institute. His eleven published books include Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. He was involved in the legal challenge to Obamacare — National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius.

Clint Bolick is an associate justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. In 1991 Bolick co-founded the Institute for Justice. In 2007, he became VP of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute where he was a frequent critic of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Eugene Volokh has been a UCLA law professor since 1994 and is the originator of the prominent legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. He clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Janice Rogers Brown served as Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and was an associate justice of the California Supreme Court. In a speech to the University of Chicago Law School Federalist Society she said, “Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies.”

Dana Berliner is the senior vice president and litigation director at the Institute for Justice. She was co-counsel representing the homeowner in Kelo v. New London, the notorious case where SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain could be used by a city for the sole reason of increasing its property tax base.

Anastasia Boden is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation specializing in litigating against anti-competitive licensing laws and laws that restrict freedom of speech. She graduated from law school at Georgetown where she was Research Assistant to Professor Randy Barnett.

Timothy Sandefur is the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He’s the author of numerous books including Frederick Douglas: Self Made Man and The Right to Earn a Living. He argued against Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Scott Bullock is President and General Counsel of the Institute for Justice. He was co-counsel in Kelo v. New London.

James Ostrowski has practiced trial and appellate work for more than 35 years. He was an attorney for Ron Paul and is the chief organizer of libertymovement.org. He writes extensively on a variety of topics for the Mises Institute and has published four books, including Progressivism: a Primer on the Idea Destroying America.

Alan Gura was co-counsel for the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to own a firearm. It was one of two landmark constitutional cases that he argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court. The National Law Journal named him one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.”

Jonathan Turley teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law at George Washington University Law School. He is ranked the 38th most cited public intellectual in a study by Judge Richard Posner. He received the columnist of the year award from the Aspen Institute and The Week for his columns on civil liberties.

Damien Schiff is a senior attorney at Pacific Law Foundation where he successfully argued the precedent-setting property rights case, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency when he was 33 years old. He was nominated to the Court of Federal Claims but not confirmed.

Clark Neily was co-counsel for the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to bear arms. He was a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice before joining the Cato Institute in 2017, where he is Vice President for Criminal Justice overseeing civil asset forfeiture, police accountability, gun rights, overcriminalization and constitutional law.

Alan Dershowitz became the youngest full professor in the history of Harvard Law School at the age of 28. He successfully defended Harry Reems, the actor in Deep Throat, arguing that consumption of pornography was not harmful. He served as defense counsel in numerous high-profile cases, including one against Julian Assange.

Nadine Strossen was the youngest person ever to head the ACLU. She is a staunch First Amendment advocate and a founder of Feminists for Free Expression. Among her books is “Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship”.

Jacob Hornberger was Director of Programs for the Foundation for Economic Education and founded the Future of Freedom Foundation where he serves as president  He placed second in the delegate count for the 2020 LP nomination for president.

Don Willett serves on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and was previously a member of the Supreme Court of Texas. According to the outlet SCOTUSblog, “Willett views the role of judges as protecting individual liberty by striking down laws that infringe on it.” Willett has also been named by President Donald Trump as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Judge Willett may be the only person on the short list of two presidential candidates. Your move Biden.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hXyjnD
via IFTTT

Lawsuit Accuses Ray Dalio Of “Devaluing Women”, “Abuses Of Wealth And Power”

Lawsuit Accuses Ray Dalio Of “Devaluing Women”, “Abuses Of Wealth And Power”

Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/24/2020 – 18:20

Judging from the scathing allegations made in a recent lawsuit reported by Fox Business, Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio applies the same domineering attitude to his charitable endeavors for which he has become known as the world’s largest hedge fund, which he still controls after several attempts at “letting go” didn’t quite work out.

Last year, Dalio made headlines (and history, he alleged) by pledging to donate $100 million to the state of Connecticut – a conditional gift intended to help improve schools in some of Connecticut’s most desolate cities. Dalio’s money was part of a deal whereby the state of Connecticut would kick in $100 million of public money, while Dalio helps raise another $100 million in private funding. So far, the initiaive appears to have stalled. Dalio’s family foundation and the state established a public-private partnership known as the Partnership for Connecticut.

Unfortunately, the organization was disbanded back in May amid acrimonious accusations of mismanagement. Now, the organizations’ former CEO, Mary Anne Schmitt-Carey, is suing the Dalios for $2.5 million. She’s alleging wrongful termination and reputational damage. The foundation disbanded after it was exposed for spending only a tiny amount of its dedicated funds on children. Though the Dalios say they’re still willing to hand over the full $100 million, it looks like the initiative is dead in the water, and Dalio’s “historic” gift will never actually come to pass.

We could go on about the hypocrisy at work here, but we digress. The allegations details in Schmitt-Carey’s lawsuit are damning enough. In the lawsuit, the former CEO accuses the Dalio’s of trying to push her out just 2 months after she arrived in the position, and that they tried to “scapegoat” her for failings that were entirely engineered by the Dalio family and others at the organization.

Schmitt-Carey says in her lawsuit that she was made a scapegoat for the partnership’s troubles that eventually led to its demise. She began her role as CEO on March 23, but on May 4, she received a call from several board members, including Mr. Dalio’s wife, Barbara, who is also the director of Dalio Philanthropies, ordering her to resign, according to the lawsuit.

Schmitt-Carey has three decades of experience in nonprofit work and she attempted to utilize her experience when she was appointed to run the partnership, the lawsuit says.

But “Mr. Dalio went on to instruct Ms. Schmitt-Carey that her job was not to draw on the experience and knowledge she had accumulated during her long career but to take direction from Ms. Dalio regarding which programs should be implemented. As stated above, Mr. Dalio informed Ms. Schmitt-Carey, ‘If my wife wants to distribute 10,000 coats, your job is to figure out how to do that.”

The lawsuit adds that “Mr. Dalio’s dismissive directives to an accomplished executive woman fit a longstanding pattern of devaluing women: Mr. Dalio’s hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates LP, has been publicly accused twice in the past two months of paying women executives less than men with equal or lesser responsibilities.”

In May, Schmitt-Carey says she was informed by Dalio Philanthropies that she was ineffective at her job and was asked to resign, the lawsuit states. She denied the allegations that she was responsible for the mismanagement and refused to step down, the suit says.

She also alleged that Dalio set up the partnership to deliberately bypass state ethics requirements, allowing him to try and exercise unilateral control.

She accuses the defendants of “wrongful acts involve abuses of wealth and power, misuse of a not-for-profit public-private partnership for private purposes, a chronic lack of transparency, a disregard for the reputations of others, and clear breaches of contractual duties.”

The lawsuit also states that Dalio conditioned his $100 million donation on the basis that it be exempt from state ethics and disclosure rules.

“This exemption risked allowing an entity created by state legislation, with one-third of its budget coming from public funds, and with a board of directors including five elected officials, to operate in large part behind closed doors,” the lawsuit states.

Instead of providing a framework for a new society where the rich pitch in to repair our schools and social safety net while restoring good governance, Dalio’s “donation” will contribute to the impression of hopelessness that many of these young students feel, as promised help never seems to arrive.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3i1tVnF Tyler Durden

Daily Briefing – September 24, 2020

Daily Briefing – September 24, 2020


Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/24/2020 – 18:10

Managing editor, Ed Harrison, hosts managing editor, Roger Hirst, to break down wild market swings that have characterized the last week of price action. Roger explores key retracement levels in the IBEX and FTSE 100 as well as the recent weakness in bank stocks, using his analysis from his latest episode of “The Big Conversation.” Ed then discusses the momentum shift over the past two weeks from growth to value through the lens of his interview with Ben Inker, heir apparent to Jeremy Grantham at GMO. The pair then look at the head-and-shoulders pattern in the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) and explore whether currencies could be a release valve for volatility adjustment. In the intro, Ed speaks to Real Vision reporter, Haley Draznin, about the steady rise in jobless claims released today, which signal continuing layoffs as the economy recovers slowly from the coronavirus pandemic.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HpgmS5 Tyler Durden

With Ginsburg’s Death, Cue The Last Stand Of American Marxists

With Ginsburg’s Death, Cue The Last Stand Of American Marxists

Tyler Durden

Thu, 09/24/2020 – 18:00

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

For all of the bad things that have happened in 2020, don’t for a second believe that 2021 won’t be infinitely worse. It has been clear to me for months that the fight for the White House is one for the ages.

While every election is ‘the most important one ever’ in the minds of the politicos who see the other side for what it is, an existential threat to their power, this election is, I feel, finally one worth that moniker. But, that said, nearly every election truly is one where voters are presented a Hobson’s Choice where there is no real difference between the standard bearers of both major parties.

And the animating principle of these people is the accumulation of raw power, nothing more. Power, as a concept in modern political theory, is purely an outgrowth of Marxian thinking, defining everything that happens in our lives in terms of it. There are no win/wins in this worldview, only those who benefit and those who are exploited.

Basic concepts of comparative advantage and individual talents as expressed in free trade between sovereign actors are not only nullified by this doctrine but actively disparaged and denigrated through the language of envy and the rhetoric of victimization.

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the day has come for the existent power structure where they have to reveal the final truth of their naked need to maintain their power.

Because replacing Ginsburg has been the most pressing concern for Democrats, Regime Republicans and their globalist backers in The Davos Crowd since the day Donald Trump was elected.

Now that she is dead a knock-down, drag-out, war-without-end commences in Washington D.C.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already talking about impeaching Trump if he dares to try and push through a replacement for Ginsburg. She’s already famously termed Congressional Republicans, “enemies of the state.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has all but threatened the American people with open-ended violence if they re-elect Trump.

Scott Adams is not wrong here for calling Blumenthal to the carpet on this. Blumenthal is just saying what the Democrats have actually been doing for four years, trying to hang Trump for just being President. Blumenthal, like so many in Washington, are suffused with a Marxian lust for power and an abject and debilitating fear of losing it.

Fear of the loss of power, of all kinds, is the most powerful motivator of terrible, if not outright, tyrannical behavior. We’re all capable of it. You, me, a Senator, the cable guy or, yes, a Supreme Court justice.

Blumenthal knows that Ginsburg’s replacement will be the end of their power, the apotheosis of a four-generation long march through the institutions in the U.S. that has undermined basic societal structures. He knows re-electing Trump will ensure the Supreme Court will be made up of judges that tilt towards a constructionist view of the Constitution as a limited set of powers rather than an expansive one.

Every election, the Democrats have, quite cynically, pushed women farther and farther into insanity over an issue which the Supreme Court should have never ruled on in the first place, abortion. And fear over this right to murder your unborn child has corrupted women to the point that now it’s an irrational fear of a loss of control over something that would just devolve to the states or local communities, as it should.

All of this said and I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead when I say this but Ginsburg was a tyrant.

So is John Roberts. So was Antonin Scalia, Oliver Wendell Holmes and every other Supreme Court just that followed him. These are people, regardless of how they see themselves, their motivations or records as jurists, who wield the kind of power over the lives of billions that no person should possibly have.

By definition, that makes them tyrants. Some better than others on certain issues, but never forget they are tyrants, but who are, magically, supposed to be above politics.

And yet, the political calculus of who controls the Supreme Court of the world’s most powerful nation is always on the table. The elevation of the Supreme Court to the final arbiter of law in the U.S. is itself a power it was never intended to have with state Supreme Courts having as much, if not more, power than the SCOTUS.

But, again, in the long march through all the institutions by those in thrall to the siren’s song of power and its ruthless application, that issued has de facto been settled since Lee surrendered his army at Appomattox.

In their minds, the wrong person cannot control the access to the court, in this case Trump. They know he’s in line to make more appointments to the court should he win a second term.

The fear that a little bit of liberty or respect for the dignity of human sovereignty would make its way into the Supreme Court leaves the leadership of both parties saturated with fear.

Because, ultimately, these philosopher tyrants who occupy the Supreme Court are there to give the illusion of impartiality and justice, not to actually defend those high-minded concepts which have no real place in practical politics and the struggle sessions for power.

What is clear now that Ginsburg is gone is that if these power mad elites lose their fight over this seat and the direction of the court for the next two generations then they will dilute the court’s power just like they are actively diluting the legitimacy of local law enforcement through the subversion of local governments.

The openly Marxist rhetoric to justify the looting and burning by BLM/antifa activists while harassing their victims in and around their homes was done to lay the groundwork for a larger protest in the event of Trump winning.

And now the stage has been set for their last stand. Trump will be blocked from restoring order to the court by arm-twisting the three fake Republicans in the Senate – Mitt Romney (RINO-UT), Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) and Susan Collins (RINO-ME) – into voting down any appointment.

If there was ever a time to call in the markers on these three folks it is now. A presumably divided court will uphold ballot harvesting decisions by state Supreme Courts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, presumably to grant even more power to those who count the votes there to make sure the final tally comports with their desired reality.

They were supremely successful with this in 2018, flipping a number of seats after election night, to ensure not only a strong Democratic majority but that the most important allies of President Trump were removed.

Washington always collapses to protect itself from threats of the people having a real say over their future. And, like it or not and for all his faults (which are legion), Donald Trump is the people’s standard bearer against them.

They have gone all-in on this strategy. Men like George Soros have spent billions in support of this push for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. They aren’t going to allow such a little thing like the passing of a supreme court justice at the wrong time deter them from their goal.

You don’t need to have a dog’s keen nose to smell the fear and desperation that clings to these people, however. It is palpable in their behavior, their rhetoric and their over-reaction to everything Trump does or might do.

And their act is tiresome. The American people have fear porn fatigue. It’s showing up in the polls and its showing up in their hysterics.

Regardless of how the election turns out, there will be no rest from the violence unleashed and the violence yet to come when millions of Americans come to the uncomfortable conclusion that they will never hold power again in their lifetimes

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you are skeptical of power. Install the Brave Browser to limit Big Tech’s power.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3i2vBNo Tyler Durden