From Forbes, our image of the day captures nicely the mainstream media's credibility problem, as their…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Mainstream Media's Evaporating Credibility

From Forbes, our image of the day captures nicely the mainstream media's credibility problem, as their cries of "Wolf!" accumulate.  Simultaneously, it captures how three institutions most intertwined with conservative values - the military, small business and police - remain atop the list of public esteem.

.  

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="960"] Media's Evaporating Credibility[/caption]

 

.  …[more]

October 04, 2019 • 10:29 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Florida Will Sue to Stop ObamaCare Coercion to Expand Medicaid Print
By Ashton Ellis
Wednesday, April 22 2015
Under a different presidential regime – one that respects the separation-of-powers and the rule of law – holding Florida’s Medicaid matching funds hostage would not be an issue after the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that ObamaCare cannot compel states unwilling to expand their Medicaid program.

Was the U.S. Supreme Court serious when it upheld ObamaCare, but said the federal government couldn’t “hold a gun to the head” of states that choose not to expand Medicaid?

A new lawsuit initiated by Florida and supported by Texas may provide an answer.

Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, is embroiled in a bitter fight with the Obama White House over whether federal Medicaid funds can be conditioned on a state’s expansion of the program under ObamaCare.

At issue is a threat by the Obama administration to withhold more than $1 billion in federal payments to Florida hospitals if Scott refuses to expand the population eligible for Medicaid.

“It is appalling that President Barack Obama would cut off federal health care dollars to Florida in an effort to force our state further into ObamaCare,” Scott said last week. He has since directed the state’s Attorney General to file a lawsuit challenging the linkage of federal funding to Medicaid expansion.

Scott’s announcement drew a swift rebuke from White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “It’s difficult to explain why somebody would think that their political situation and their political interest is somehow more important than the livelihoods of 800,000 people,” he said.

But Florida isn’t alone in pushing back against constitutional overreach.

“When the federal government exceeds its constitutional authority, the States must take action,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott, also a Republican, said in a statement. “[I] commend Governor Rick Scott’s decision to take legal action to protect these important constitutional principles.”

The principles at stake are whether the federal government can force states to participate in spending programs against their will, and whether the executive branch can ignore a clear command by the U.S. Supreme Court that it cannot.

Under a different presidential regime – one that respects the separation-of-powers and the rule of law – holding Florida’s Medicaid matching funds hostage would not be an issue after the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that ObamaCare cannot compel states unwilling to expand their Medicaid program. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that states have full discretion to accept or reject ObamaCare’s expansion offer, at no risk financially if they decline.

Unlike previous alterations, ObamaCare’s “Medicaid expansion… accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree,” wrote Roberts. “The original program was designed to cover medical services for four particular categories of the needy: the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children. Previous amendments to Medicaid eligibility merely altered and expanded the boundaries of these categories. Under [ObamaCare], Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. It is no longer a program to care for the neediest among us, but rather an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage.”

Moreover, ObamaCare originally gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to strip states of all federal matching dollars if states refused to expand Medicaid eligibility.

With this in mind, the Court held that the law’s take-it-or-lose-it rules on Medicaid expansion unconstitutionally coerce states into spending money they otherwise would not. “The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget… is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion,” wrote Roberts. 

Less than three years later, the Obama administration is attempting to engage in exactly the same kind of “economic dragooning” the Supreme Court forbade. Federal Medicaid funding for Florida’s hospitals runs out on June 30, and Obama administration officials are insisting that the state expand its Medicaid population or lose more than $1 billion.

It’s a shame that Florida must once again go through a lengthy court battle to get the equivalent of a restraining order against an out-of-control executive branch, but such is the case. In the meantime, expect the Obama administration to continue its run as one of the most lawless in our nation’s history.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following is still remembered as the most infamous incident in American industrial history?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Everyone who already thought the case for President Trump's impeachment was a slam-dunk went berserk Thursday, claiming that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had just admitted to a quid pro quo with Ukraine.Except that what Mulvaney 'admitted' is that the administration was doing what it should -- pushing a foreign government to cooperate in getting to the bottom of foreign interference…[more]
 
 
—The Editorial Board, New York Post
— The Editorial Board, New York Post
 
Liberty Poll   

Why do you think House Speaker Pelosi will not call a vote on formal impeachment proceedings?