The PDF of the opinion on the Liberty University suit was just released.

As usual, the Court finds for Obama and Empowered Government generally down the line, finding that ObamaCare is okay because sometimes it's a tax and sometimes it's not (per the Supreme Court ruling) and furthermore that the power to tax is "extensive." Indeed, it turns out it's overwhelming.

After finding against the plaintiffs on every earlier point, they turn to the question of whether or not the government may compel private citizens to violate their religious teachings through taxes and mandates, and finds that that's just what the Founders had in mind.

Citations omitted -- it's tricky to cut and paste this pdf (a bunch of page breaks are inserted after each word and sometimes after each letter) and it's just too difficult to include the citations.

Plaintiffs maintain that both the employer mandate and the individual mandate violate their free exercise rights under the First Amendment and RFRA. Specifically, they allege that the mandates unlawfully force them to violate their religious belief that “they should play . . . no part in facilitating, subsidizing, easing, funding, or supporting . . . abortions.”

The Free Exercise Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. U.S. Const. amend. I. However, the Clause does not compel Congress to exempt religious practices from a “valid and neutral law of general applicability.” This is so even if such a law “has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.”

A neutral law of general applicability thus does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The Act is just such a law. It has no object that “infringe[s] upon or restrict[s] practices because of their religious motivation, [omitted] and imposes no “burden[] only on conduct motivated by religious belief." Relying on Lukumi, Plaintiffs conten that the Act somehow effects a “religious gerrymander [].”
But it does no such thing. Unlike the ordinances struck down in Lukumi, the Act does not set apart any particular religious group.

The Act therefore does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Plaintiffs’ RFRA [Religious Freedom Act] claim fares no better. RFRA provides that, “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” the “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that
application of the burden to the person --

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.”

Thus, by its own terms, RFRA directs application of strict scrutiny only if the Government “substantially burden[s]” religious practice (“[I]f the [plaintiffs] cannot show that their exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the [government’s] policy, the [government] is not required to come forth with proof of its interest.”). A substantial burden, in turn, requires “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”

Plaintiffs present no plausible claim that the Act substantially burdens their free exercise of religion, by forcing them to facilitate or support abortion or otherwise. The Act specifically provides individuals the option to purchase a plan that covers no abortion services except those for cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered.

This is a cutesy bit of reasoning. What the court is saying is that ObamaCare directs employers to purchase insurance on behalf of their employees-- but that employees get to pick the particular plan. And employees could choose a plan that only pays for abortions in some circumstances.

Of course, they could also choose the Abortions Aplenty plan, which the Court ignores. The government does make employees the buyers of abortion services, even if it's done in two-step process (you must pay for any plan Sandra Fluke chooses, and then of course Sandra Fluke chooses the late-term abortion one).

It also ignores the fact that many people think abortion is murder in all cases, included cases of rape and incest. So that "merely" requiring people to pay for some murders (per their belief) is hardly satisfactory.

In addition, the court ignores the fact that there are indeed "less restrictive" ways of providing such care, such as simply mandating that insurers offer limited policies covering such treatments and permitting people to buy them as they will.

Bear in mind, the RFRA was designed to offer, by law, more regard for religious freedom and expression than the Constitution did by itself. The Court just sort of ignores that and finds, essentially, it adds nothing to the protection afforded by the Constitution itself, which, by the way, it finds to be very little at all.

It's just incredible. I don't recognize this country anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (621)
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.

The only people I can think of who have a wider gap between Asserted Expertise and Actual Expertise than the media are nutritionists.

I don't think this applies to people specifically diagnosed with hypertension or other salt-sensitive conditions, but for most of us:

A recent report commissioned by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed the health benefits of reducing salt intake and the take-home message is that salt, in the quantities consumed by most Americans, is no longer considered a substantial health hazard. What the CDC study reported explicitly is that there is no benefit, and may be a danger, from reducing our salt intake below 1 tsp per day. What was absent about the report was is the difference between healthy mineral salts and iodized table salt.

It may be that weÂ’re better off with more salt than less, up to 2 or even 3 tsp per day. How did it happen that such standard medical advice drifted astray, then went un-corrected for so long?

Because arrogant, controlling people, who really should just be kindergarten teachers, have a certain way they live their lives, or a way they think you should live your life, and they gloss over things like actual science in order to reach the conclusion that you should Do What They Want You To Do.

Via Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (520)
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

Right now the prosecutor is asking the jury to "hold Zimmerman accountable for his actions," not really specifying any particular crime. Just a general "we don't like what happened ergo you should convict him of something."

The judge, who is a monster, has at least rejected the 11th hour claim that Zimmerman should be charged with third-degree murder, predicated on the aggravated abuse of a child.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 AM | Comments (577)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

It's only seven and a half hours away. Tonight at 9 (Eastern) on SyFy. We'll be liveblogging this event.

At Breitbart, I address some of the unfortunate controversy that Sharknado is causing in the Shark Cinematic Community.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (400)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

What fresh charge is this?

A third degree murder charge can only be had if a homicide occurs in the course of committing another felony.

So what felony was George Zimmerman guilty of committing at the time of the shooting? Is it illegal to have one's head repeatedly battered against the cement?

Nope. He is guilty, per the State's theory, of aggravated child abuse, the child in question being 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

And the "abuse" part of it? Who knows, who knows. The state is dropping an aggravated assault charge so apparently aggravated assault does not constitute the aggravated abuse of a child in this case. So what could it be? Following the kid for five minutes?

Zimmerman's lawyers object forcefully, noting that the state has a "fully formed argument" on this charge but has not given notice to the defense to argue against it. That is, it is unfair surprise to spring a charge on a defendant after the trial has concluded which the defense was never able to argue against because they didn't even know it was being charged.

[D]efense attorney Don West called the proposed instruction "a trick," and he accused the prosecutor of springing it on the defense at the last minute.

"Just when I didn't think this case could get any more bizarre, the state is alleging child abuse?" West said. "This is outrageous. It's outrageous the state would seek to do this at this time."

Judge Debra Nelson says she will rule on the proposal later.

Is this America?

Posted by: Ace at 07:17 AM | Comments (486)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Patterico found an important Lerner quote from 2011:

1 March, 2010 – IRS officials start targeting organizations with “tea party”, “patriot”, and “9-12;" in their names.

27 June, 2011 – Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Operations, learns of the inappropriate targeting. She initiates an audit of the office involved, but the targeting continues.

17 November, 2011 – Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Operations, tells Businessweek that receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS is a “behavior changer.”

Incredible. Patterico is taken with the fact that she admits this to a magazine; if this is the sort of thinking she brags about to a national news magazine, one can only tremble at what she's holding back.

In America -- in any free country -- you are supposed to be free from punishment and compulsion unless you are found guilty of some misbehavior through Due Process.

But Lois Lerner doesn't like that idea. Instead, she embraces the notion that people can and should be punished and compelled into acting the way she prefers, not after Due Process has found them blameworthy, but before anyone even thinks to file charges.

She's decided that the process itself can and should be a tool of state coercion. She doesn't need a finding from a legal tribunal to impose burdens on freedoms and to compel what she considers "correct" behavior -- she'll serve as judge and jury herself, and impose the punishment of a "thick questionnaire" as a tool of "behavior change."

Prisons -- "reformatories," they were once called -- exist, in theory, to change the behavior of the inmates therein. And even a free people admits that some people must have their behavior changed by state coercive power... but only after such persons have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers of a felony.

But that limits the pool of persons subject to "behavior change" to an unacceptably small number. Lois Lerner wants to make that pool as large as possible, and impose her regime of behavior change on anyone she comes across she thinks is in need of her moral instruction.

And I'm sure she thinks she's doing substantive good. As CS Lewis warned:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Posted by: Ace at 08:18 AM | Comments (375)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

While some alleged conservatives think amnesty solves the "problem" of "artificially high wages" back here on planet Earth an actual conservative has a different take.

Behold Senator Jeff Sessions.

After over four years of the Obama presidency, wages have continued their painful decline. But the same Democrat senators who attacked President Bush for declining wages have suddenly fallen silent.

And so, with unanimous Democrat support, the Senate adopted a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 plan at a time when 4.3 million more Americans are out of work and 20 million more Americans are on food stamps. The proposal also grants immediate work authorization to those here illegally while dramatically boosting permanent levels of annual legal immigration in the future. Based on Congressional Budget Office data, the bill would grant permanent residency to 46 million mostly lower-skill immigrants by 2033.

The result? CBO says wages would fall for the next dozen years, unemployment would rise, and per-capita GNP would be lower for the next quarter century.

Strikingly, wages are lower today than in 1999. Median household income has declined 8 percent. One in seven recent college graduates is unemployed. One in three Americans without a high-school diploma can’t find work. The Senate immigration bill — written by the White House, Democrat leadership and supported by the entire Democrat conference — sacrifices the economic interests of these Americans in deference to the politicians and business interest who want lower-cost labor.

Read the whole thing and remember that Sessions is a long time fighter for the rule of law.

Standing up for Americans (including Hispanics) is so crazy it just might work!

Oh, the House GOP held their caucus on immigration yesterday and it seems everyone heard what they wanted to hear.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:26 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 316 words, total size 3 kb.

The parade of lawlessness continues across the country.

Pennsylvania attorney general Kathleen Kane will not defend the state in a federal lawsuit filed this week challenging the constitutionality of the stateÂ’s ban on same-sex marriage, lawyers involved in the case said.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Tuesday on behalf of 23 Pennsylvania residents, including 10 couples, a widow and two children. The Philadelphia Daily News first reported KaneÂ’s decision, which she is expected to announce Thursday.

Republican Governor Tom Corbett is also a named defendant so presumably he will be able to have counsel to defend against the suit. This won't be a Prop 8 style case where no one has standing to defend the law (it's a law passed by the legislature, not through referendum or constitutional amendment).

We can debate the danger of the underlying suit at another point but this notion that public officials get to pick and chose which laws they will enforce or defend is getting out of control and must stop.

According to Pennsylvania law, the Attorney General does not have any discretion in which laws he or she has to defend (pdf).

(3) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to
uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction.

She should be impeached. But of course she won't be because pandering to liberal sensibilities is far more important these days than defending such quaint notions as the rule of law.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:16 AM | Comments (386)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

It's Beginning: Please Rise for the playing of the Sharknational Anthem.

You can still check in with the Pre-Game coverage for weather updates and such.

Below some highlights of the Shark Bowls from 1975-2012.
more...

Posted by: andy at 04:42 PM | Comments (1095)
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Thursday.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is 7-11, which means it's 7-Eleven Day, which means free slurpees at 7-Eleven. Prize to the moron who gets the most free slurpees.

The fifth one here made a particularly cogent point about "flyover country."

Like the folks at Twitchy, I'm also finding this quite amusing.

Real news? No, I don't have any of that. Oh, and don't miss the AOSHQ liveblog this evening of Sharknado. No, we aren't kidding. The cobs have been working on their material since yesterday. Dave in Texas killed a guy with a trident.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:09 AM | Comments (380)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.