The Middle Class needs a doctor stat! Obamacare lives!

I am totally disgusted with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Obamacare and its burdensome fines as an acceptable tax on the American people.  This is from our lawmakers and judicial branch of government who pay minimal amounts for health insurance.  We foot their bills too since our taxes allow them coverage at greatly reduced rates.  Do you smell something funny there?


Image courtesy:

What part of this health care plan is supposed to be affordable?  Is it the part that has seen my coverage as a sole proprietor leap from $350 a month for excellent coverage to $600 for mediocre coverage?  Or is it the part that now costs $300 for emergency hospitalization only?  Maybe it’s the part that has seen many good doctors give up practicing medicine rather than work for the little money they receive as co-pays from insurance companies.  Oh no, I know, it’s the part that is likely to force these rates even higher in the next 18 months as the insurance companies dance on the graves of American small business owners.

Geeze, when did I start sounding like a Republican?  The Middle Class was barely breathing before today’s decision……….now its life support is barely functioning.

Westchester attorney looks forward to a Supreme season on the high court

The first Monday of October is always a memorable day for fans of the Supremes – as in the nation’s high court and not the 1960s trio featuring Diana Ross.  This season for the U.S. Supreme Court promises to be quite interesting since we now have Sonia from the Bronx on the bench and she may likely butt heads with the conservative majority.  However, more important, are the arguments the justices will take up, including:  dog-fighting videos (no, not videos of Congress at work);  a cross in the desert; and whether juveniles should be sentenced to life without parole for serious crimes like rape and robbery.

1.  Animal Cruelty in U.S. v. Stevens is first up and will look at whether the government can ban photos of animal cruelty.  The government banned such photos in 1999 but the only man ever prosecuted challenged to protect his right to sell dog-fighting videos.  An appeals court ruled the ban violates First Amendment rights but the government argues that much like child pornography, such images contain no redeeming value and might fuel further harm to animals.

2.  A cross in the middle of a desert takes center stage in Washington on Wednesday in Salazar v. Buono.  Park officials erected a cross in the Mojave National Preserve and Congress supported them doing so,  but an appeals court ruled that maintaining a Christian symbol on public property violates the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state.  First the high court must decide if an individual can bring a suit like this before it even gets to the argument about the cross itself.

3.  In November, juvenile sentencing comes before the panel when they must decide if kids can go to prison for life without the possibility of parole for serious crimes when no one dies – crimes like rape and murder.    In 2005 the Supremes ruled it unconstitutional to execute juveniles and now they will look at strict sentencing in Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida and whether such sentencing mandates would violate the Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.”

So, should we lock up kids forever for something they did when they were 16?  What do you think?  Click on the poll below to cast your ballot.

All of this makes me wish I lived closer to Washington  just so I could visit the Supremes more often.

Westchester attorney sees abortion issue driving toward U.S. Supreme Court

There are license plates for alumni and sport team support, animal rights, veterans rights, everyone has rights and in New York, many even have vanity plates for their cars to display those rights…….consider it “road bling” with an edge. Well, finally, life rights have stepped to the forefront of vanity plates in New York and are likely headed down the road to Washington and the nation’s high court.



Can you imagine it – the pillars of this country’s jurisprudence deciding what you can and cannot place on a license plate, as if they had nothing else more important to decide?

Strangely, however, this federal lawsuit is not about license plates but focuses on that decades old argument over abortion rights. A so-called adoption organization in Eastchester, New York called the Children First Foundation, is suing the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles because the DMV refused to issue license plates bearing the slogan “choose life.” The group’s president told the Journal News that a portion of the fee for these plates would go toward her non-profit organization, which funds pregnancy and adoption centers that do not receive government funding………….oh, and by the way, her group is pro-life and does not perform or refer for abortions. Hmmmm, sounds an awful lot like an anti-abortion organization more than an adoption organization.

Well, it turns out that the so-called “choose life” plates are available in 23 states, including Connecticut.

I can almost guarantee that if this was a pro-choice group calling for a special license plate, these “choose life” people would still be filing lawsuits. It’s not about choosing life or using your auto as a soap-box for a very personal decision. It’s about protecting a woman’s right to choose what happens with her future. The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided the abortion issue in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and may soon get the chance to address it once again, through a back-door, in a suit framed as one of First Amendment “free speech” rights.

President Obama has just appointed a moderate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and with another 15 vacancies to fill on the federal bench, he could reshape the future of SCOTUS. Just recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is suffering from cancer, told a group of law students that there may soon be an opening on the nation’s high court.

Hints of a Supreme retirement

Hints of a Supreme retirement

She didn’t hint at who would be leaving but it’s pretty obvious that the new Democrat in the White House is going to be reshaping the federal bench very soon.

In the meantime, in this down economy, they’re suing over license plates. Really? Well, here’s a revolutionary idea – maybe we should just use license plates to tag vehicles and put the brakes on vanity plates with political bite……and dare I say it, frivolous lawsuits as well.