Ruth Bader Ginsburg says Trump ‘not a lawyer’ after he suggests Supreme Court could halt impeachment

closeFox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 18Video

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 18

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 18 are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a brief answer earlier this week to a President Trump tweet earlier this month suggesting he could appeal to the Supreme Court to stop impeachment proceedings.

"The president is not a lawyer," Ginsburg said Monday.

On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted, “I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?”

NAPOLITANO: JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS TO PLAY 'UNUSUAL' ROLE IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

“He’s not law-trained," Ginsburg continued at a New York City event where she was being honored, according to the BBC.

"The truth is, the judiciary is a reactive institution," she said. "We don’t have a program, we don’t have an agenda. We react to what’s out there.”

Ginsburg also suggested that senators who show bias on impeachment should not be allowed to serve as jurors in the impeachment trial.

“If a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case,” she added.

Numerous members of the Senate have already stated how they'll vote regarding impeachment even though the trial isn't expected to be held until January, if the House follows through with impeachment this week.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over a Senate trial.

Original Article

Supreme Court to review congressional, state subpoenas for Trump financial records

closeSupreme Court to take up case on President Trump's financial recordsVideo

Supreme Court to take up case on President Trump's financial records

Supreme Court to hear subpoena fights over financial records; John Roberts has the details.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether President Trump can be shielded from congressional and state subpoenas for his personal banking and accounting records, in what could be a major test of separation powers between the executive branch, Congress, and the states.

At issue is the extent a sitting president can be subject to congressional oversight– under "valid legislative purposes"– of his private business dealings before he took office. The high court will also look at the extent a sitting president can be subject to state and local grand jury investigations and prosecutions.

The justices held a private conference Friday, where they considered a New York state subpoena, and two other related appeals involving separate congressional subpoenas. A lower federal court had separately ruled Trump must comply with the subpoenas, but his personal lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the President’s three pending cases," Counsel to the President Jay Sekulow said in a statement. "These cases raise significant constitutional issues. We look forward to presenting our written and oral arguments."

One case involves requests for documents sought by the House Oversight and Reform Committee after the president's former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified that Trump underreported or overstated the extent of his financial holdings to the government. Cohen is serving a three-year federal prison sentence for lying to Congress and financial-related offenses.

A second subpoena involves House Financial Services Committee and House Intelligence Committee requests for 10 years of records from various banks that did business with Trump, his adult children, and his businesses. The committee is probing lending practices by major financial institutions, and allegations of Russian money laundering.

Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has empaneled a state grand jury seeking eight years of tax records relating to allegations of hush money payments to two women claiming prior sexual affairs with Trump, allegations he has denied.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lawyers for the House committees had urged the high court to intervene now, saying the Democrat-led panels are actively pursuing the extent of any foreign interference in U.S. politics, which may be key to legislative safeguards ahead of next year's elections.

The subpoenas are separate from the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Trump, headed for a vote in the full House next week

Oral arguments will likely be scheduled for March, with a ruling on the merits by early July, just four months before the presidential election.

Fox News' John Roberts and the Associated Press contributed to this report. This is a developing story, check back for more updates.

Original Article

Supreme Court offers sympathetic ear to insurers over $12B in ObamaCare claims

closeSupreme Court to hear arguments in private insurers’ suit against US governmentVideo

Supreme Court to hear arguments in private insurers’ suit against US government

USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy fellow Christen Young weighs in.

Private health insurers are poised to prevail Tuesday at the Supreme Court over claims the federal government owes them billions of dollars from a now-defunct financial incentive program in the Affordable Care Act.

It is the fifth time the justices have heard legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care, but the current issue has little of the partisan rancor of previous disputes, such as individual mandates and contraception coverage.

SUPREME COURT LEAVES KENTUCKY ULTRASOUND LAW IN PLACE

At issue now is whether Congress appropriately limited funding to private companies after earlier promising them a financial stopgap against losses.

Health providers in six states say they are the victims of a federal "bait-and-switch," by agreeing to participate in an Obamacare program designed to expand coverage plans to uninsured and underinsured customers.

Those companies say they are owed $12 billion in subsidies from the pooled funds, to compensate for losses. But the Trump administration argues Congress properly made the choice to stop funding, and that the companies were never in a contractual relationship with the government.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the insurers went into the so-called "risk corridor" program with its eyes wide open.

"You make a case at some length about the reliance of the insurance companies, they were basically seduced into this program, but they have good lawyers," he said. "I would have thought at some point they would have sat down and said: well, why don't we insist upon an appropriations provision before we put ourselves on the hook for $12 billion?"

RUTH BADER GINSBURG TEMPORARILY BLOCKS RELEASE OF TRUMP'S FINANCIAL RECORDS

But Justice Elena Kagan was skeptical.

"Are you saying the insurers would have done the same thing without the promise to pay?" she asked, turning aside the government's argument. Insurance firms "pay in, that's obligatory. We [the government] commit ourselves to paying out. It turns out, if we feel like it. What kind of a statute is that?"

The original funding program was designed as a safeguard to lure private insurers into the health market exchanges, amid initial uncertainty over how many people would participate and how much it would cost. Those companies with customers with more expensive medical needs would be reimbursed, while companies with lower costs would pay into the pool.

But Congress in 2016 let the program expire amid concern over the program's rising deficits, and stopped further government payments.

At issue in the high court's subdued oral arguments was what further financial obligation the government had, and the limits of "must pay" reimbursement in the initial language of the law.

Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether courts should offer "special solicitude for insurance companies" to bring these kinds of cases.

Justice Stephen Breyer countered, "Why does the government not have to pay its contracts, just like anybody else?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried about the broader implications.

"If we were to rule for you, everyone will be on notice going forward, private parties and Congress itself, that "shall pay" doesn't obligate actual payments," he said. "If we rule against you, Congress also will be on notice going forward that it needs to include 'subject to appropriations' kind of language in any mandatory statute. My question is, if we rule against you, are there other existing statutory problems lurking out there in the interim?"

The consolidated cases argued Monday are: Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. (18-1023); Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. U.S. (18-1028); Land of Lincoln Mutual Health v. U.S. (18-1038). A ruling is expected by spring 2020.

There are currently a range of legal challenges to other provisions of the ACA, including executive orders by the Trump administration seeking to eliminate or reduce sections of the law.

And the Supreme Court is likely to be confronted in coming months with another Obamacare case, one with far greater implications.

A federal judge in Texas late last year struck down the law’s individual mandate, and with it the entire ACA. A federal appeals court is now expected to issue a ruling shortly, and the justices could then put it on the docket and rule on the merits next year.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Texas and 19 other states had brought suit, saying when Congress eliminated the tax penalty for Americans who fail to purchase health insurance, the main funding mechanism of the law made the entire law invalid.

The Trump administration is no longer defending the law in court, leaving it to about 21 other states and the Democratic-led House of Representatives to serve as main plaintiffs.

Original Article

Supreme Court leaves Kentucky ultrasound law in place

closeFox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 9Video

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 9

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 9 are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com

The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions.

The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law.

SUPREME COURT TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REQUEST TO RESUME FEDERAL EXECUTIONS

The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentucky’s lone remaining abortion clinic. The ACLU argued that “display and describe” ultrasound laws violate physicians’ speech rights under the First Amendment.

The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the Kentucky law, but its sister court in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a similar measure in North Carolina.

Doctors’ speech also has been an issue in non-abortion cases. The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients.

In Kentucky, doctors must describe the ultrasound in detail while the pregnant woman listens to the fetal heartbeat. Women can avert their eyes and cover their ears to avoid hearing the description or the fetal heartbeat. Doctors failing to comply face fines and can be referred to the state’s medical licensing board.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The law was passed in 2017 and was signed by the state’s anti-abortion governor, Republican Matt Bevin. He narrowly lost his reelection bid last month. But Republicans remain in control of the state legislature.

Original Article

Supreme Court temporarily blocks Trump administration request to resume federal executions

closeFox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 6Video

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 6

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 6 are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked the Trump administration from resuming federal executions in an attempt to put to death four convicted murderers. The executions were slated to begin next week.

The justices upheld a lower court ruling imposed last month after inmates claimed executions by lethal injection would violate federal law.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., had imposed a temporary injunction on executions, saying they would conflict with federal law. That ruling was upheld Monday by a three-judge federal appeals court.

SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS FIRSR GUN CASE IN NEARLY A DECADE

In this Jan. 24, 2019, file photo, the Supreme Court is seen at sunset in Washington. The Supreme Court is preventing the Trump administration from re-starting federal executions next week after a 16-year break. The court on Friday denied the administration's plea to undo a lower court ruling in favor of inmates who have been given execution dates. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

In this Jan. 24, 2019, file photo, the Supreme Court is seen at sunset in Washington. The Supreme Court is preventing the Trump administration from re-starting federal executions next week after a 16-year break. The court on Friday denied the administration's plea to undo a lower court ruling in favor of inmates who have been given execution dates. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Attorney General William Barr announced in July that the federal government would resume executions after a 16-year break, using a single drug — pentobarbital — to put inmates to death. A legal battle has drawn out over that time over the drugs used for lethal injections.

Federal executions were all but halted after the government found it difficult to obtain the three-drug cocktail needed for such injections.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the legal battle would continue.

"While we are disappointed with the ruling, we will argue the case on its merits in the D.C. Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court,” she said in a statement.

In a two-page statement, three justices — Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — wrote they expected the Trump administration to prevail in court.

"The Court has expressed the hope that the Court of Appeals will proceed with 'appropriate dispatch,' and I see no reason why the Court of Appeals should not be able to decide this case, one way or the other, within the next 60 days," Alito said.

Federal government to resume capital punishment for first time since 2003Video

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The government had scheduled the execution of Danny Lee, who was convicted of killing a family of three — including an 8-year-old — on Monday. Wesley Ira Purkey had been scheduled to be put to death Dec. 13 for the murder and dismemberment of a 16-year-old girl and the slaying of an 80-year-old woman who suffered from polio.

Executions for Alfred Bourgeois, who beat, tortured and molested his 2-year-old daughter, and Dustin Lee Honken, who killed five people — including two children, were scheduled for January.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Original Article