Supreme Court Rules that Cops DO NOT Need a Warrant to Search Your Home – The Free Thought Project

In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don’t need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the man’s refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorities from entering. (Source: Read more)

Advertisements

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case – Huffington Post

image

Click on photo to read what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say reported on the Huffington Post.

A depressing but unsurprising decision by the majority, and a rational dissent by Justice Ginsburg. I think that Justice Ginsburg is correct that the Court has stepped into a minefield. I also think that it’s going to explode at some point and inflict a lot of damage. The religious beliefs of corporations, closely held or not, should play no role in the coverage offered in health plans for employees. What if the business is a closely-held corporation in which the employers’ faith prohibits blood transfusions, does this decision mean that the corporation can refuse to cover blood transfusions in their health plans for religious reasons? Far-fetched? Not in the least. There are religions that oppose blood transfusions and this decision certainly could be used to argue the closely-held corporation’s right to act according to its owners religious beliefs.

"The Supreme Court delivered a blow to universal birth control coverage on Monday, ruling that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the five conservatives on the court, delivering a scathing, 35-page dissent and defense of mandatory contraception coverage."

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," Ginsburg wrote. She said she feared that with its decision, the court had "ventured into a minefield." by Sheria Reid 

Note: I am not only friends with Attorney Sheria Reid on Facebook but I know her on a personal note. She is originally from Wilson NC. I met her when she worked for the NC Justice & Policy Center whereby I went through training with her and I received Certificates from the Education & Law Project in the late 90’s. Sheria is a strong intelligent black female.

 

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches – Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. (Source: Read more)

NC Supreme Court: Newby can participate in redistricting case

RALEIGH — Democrats, the state NAACP and other groups suing over the legislature’s redistricting plans learned Monday that the state Supreme Court has rejected their request that Justice Paul Newby recuse himself from participating in the case.

The Rev. William Barber, president of the state NAACP, said the groups were disappointed by the decision, but believe they will win the larger case. (More)

Read more:

Redistricting

Supreme Court To Examine ‘Ministerial Exception’ Case – Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON (RNS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Oct. 5.) will hear one of most important religion cases in decades, centered on the degree to which religious institutions should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. (Read more)

THE HILL’S OVERNIGHTS – Healthcare: Supreme Court asked to rule on healthcare law

There’s hardly anything standing in the way of the Supreme Court taking up the 26-state challenge to the law’s individual mandate. Every party in the case asked the high court Wednesday to decide the issue — and quickly.
The Justice Department filed its petition late Wednesday, saying the 26-state suit is the right vehicle for the high court to weight the mandate and that a decision should come sooner rather than later. That most likely means the court will rule in the summer of 2012. But a DOJ official said the push for a quick hearing had nothing to do with the possibility that a Republican president would quit defending the healthcare law in the courts.
Healthwatch has
more on the Justice Department’s brief. Be sure to also read our story on the Supreme Court appeal posted earlier in the day by the 26 attorneys general and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Food for children: The food industry sighed in relief Wednesday after the Obama administration appeared ready to scale back voluntary guidelines for marketing food to children. Advocates said they’re still confident regulators will adopt strict guidelines to fight childhood obesity.

The group working on the issue "anticipates making significant changes to both the marketing and nutrition principles" that have raised industry’s ire, administration officials wrote to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.). The letter also praised a new industry self-regulation effort as complementing the group’s work. Healthwatch’s Julian Pecquet has the letter — and the story.

Cutting Medicare: Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) are pressing the deficit-reduction supercommittee to consider their proposal to cut more than $500 billion in Medicare spending over 10 years. Read The Hill’s story.

Ryan’s plan: Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is touting his proposal to replace Medicare and federally subsidized employer-sponsored coverage with tax credits for everyone to buy insurance on their own. The Hill’s Justin Sink has more here.

Failing patients: Hospitals across the country are doing a dismal job making sure their patients stay healthy after their discharge, according to a new report released Wednesday. Healthwatch’s Julian Pecquet has more.

Abortion coverage: Proposed regulations for state health insurance exchanges would allow taxpayer support for abortion coverage, Americans United for Life argues in a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

"No matter how foolproof the segregation requirements, you can’t change the fact that the law goes against the status quo and subsidizes abortion coverage with tax dollars," argues AUL attorney Mary Harned. "In spite of repeated attempts by the Administration to persuade us otherwise, pro-life Americans know that the Affordable Care Act is not ‘fully consistent’ with other federal laws pertaining to abortion funding. Further, the new regulations proposed by HHS do not resolve one of the Act’s fundamental flaws — insurance plans eligible to receive federal funds are still permitted to cover abortions, in stark contrast to existing federal law, including the Hyde Amendment."

Mr. Medicare rights: The Medicare Rights Center has named its client services and program counsel, Doug Goggin-Callahan, as its new director of Education.


State by state

Arkansas Republicans don’t want the state to apply for federal funds to set up an insurance exchange.

Iowa just got a $3 million wellness grant under the healthcare reform law, but still wants it repealed.

New Hampshire is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 10 New Hampshire hospitals contesting steep cuts in Medicaid reimbursements.

A federal judge has dropped Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback from a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law that stripped federal funds from a Planned Parenthood chapter in the state.


Fraud fight

Hill-Rom Co., one of the nation’s largest suppliers of durable medical equipment, will pay $41.8 million to settle charges it submitted false claims to Medicare.

A former pharmacy director at an Indian Health Service facility was sentenced for stealing pills that weren’t picked up by patients.

A Kentucky doctor agreed to pay $349,860 to settle allegations he double-billed Medicare for a drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis.


Reading list

The libertarian Cato Institute slams HHS’s new "Soviet-style power grab" of a media policy.

The conservative NewsBusters rips all three TV networks for reporting on the rise in insurance premiums without any mention of the role played by the healthcare reform law.


What you might have missed on Healthwatch

Spotlight back on healthcare law

Rep. Schwartz urges supercommittee to tackle "doc fix"

Comments / complaints / suggestions?

Please let us know:

Julian Pecquet: jpecquet@thehill.com / 202-628-8527

Sam Baker: sbaker@thehill.com / 202-628-8351

Follow us on Twitter @hillhealthwatch

Forward email