Angry China shadows U.S. warship near man-made islands

Fiery Cross reef, located in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, is shown in this handout Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative satellite image taken September 3, 2015 and released to Reuters October 27, 2015. REUTERS/CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative/DigitalGlobe/Handout via Reuters

A U.S. guided-missile destroyer sailed close to one of China's man-made islands in the South China Sea on Tuesday, drawing an angry rebuke from Beijing, which said it had tracked and warned the ship and called in the U.S. ambassador to protest.

The USS Lassen's patrol was the most significant U.S. challenge yet to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limits China claims around artificial islands it has built up in the Spratly archipelago as Beijing exercises its growing maritime power.

Washington's move followed months of deliberation by the administration of President Barack Obama and could ratchet up tension in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and increase strains in U.S.-China relations.

A U.S. defense official said the Lassen also went within 12-mile limits of features in the disputed sea claimed by Vietnam and U.S. treaty ally, the Philippines. They said such "freedom-of-navigation" patrols were expected to become more frequent.

The U.S. destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, an artificial island built up by China in the past year.

A Chinese guided-missile destroyer and a naval patrol ship shadowed and gave warnings to the U.S. warship "according to law", China's Defense Ministry said.

The U.S. patrol was a "coercive action that seeks to militarize the South China Sea region" and an "abuse" of freedom of navigation under international law, it added.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, testifying on Tuesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee, initially would only say the U.S. Navy had conducted operations in the South China Sea. But under questioning from lawmakers, he said the USS Lassen had passed within 12 miles of a Chinese artificial island.

China's Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui summoned U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus, telling him that the patrol was "extremely irresponsible," the Foreign Ministry said. It earlier said the USS Lassen "illegally" entered waters near islands and reefs in the Spratlys without the Chinese government's permission.

"China will resolutely respond to any country's deliberate provocations," the ministry said in a statement that gave no details on precisely where the U.S. ship sailed.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a daily briefing that if the United States continued to "create tensions in the region," China might conclude it had to "increase and strengthen the building up of our relevant abilities".

Lu did not elaborate, except to say he hoped it did not come to that, but his comments suggested China could further boost its military presence in the South China Sea.

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby told a regular briefing that "Setting this aside, the U.S.-China relationship is vitally important and one we want to see continue to improve and to grow for the benefit of both our countries, not to mention the region."

SAFE DISTANCE

The U.S. defense official said the Lassen was followed at a safe distance by a Chinese ship and no incidents were reported during the 72-mile passage.

"I would expect that this becomes a regular operation in the South China Sea," the official said. "This type of operation shouldn't be seen as provocative."

The official said the Lassen had been followed for weeks by Chinese vessels before the patrol.

Subi and nearby Mischief Reef were submerged at high tide before China began a dredging project to turn them into islands in 2014.

Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 12-nautical mile limits cannot be set around man-made islands built on previously submerged reefs.

Pentagon officials say the United States regularly conducts freedom-of-navigation operations around the world to challenge excessive maritime claims. The U.S. Navy last went within 12 miles of Chinese-claimed territory in the Spratlys in 2012.

China traveled within 12 nautical miles of the U.S.

controlled Aleutian Island about six weeks ago, the defense official said.

The White House says Washington has made clear to Beijing, even during last month's visit by President Xi Jinping, that the United States would fly or sail anywhere that international law allows and stressed the importance of the South China Sea for commerce.

Asked on Tuesday about the patrol, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said he could not discuss details about military operations, but added: "Our freedom of navigation operations do not assert any specific U.S. rights."

The patrol was carried out just weeks before a series of Asia-Pacific summits that Presidents Obama and Xi were expected to attend.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion of world trade passes every year. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have rival claims.

The Philippines, a vocal critic of China's activities in the South China Sea, welcomed the U.S. action.

CHINA'S AMBITIONS

A range of security experts have said Washington's freedom-of-navigation patrols would have to be regular to be effective, given Chinese ambitions to project power deep into maritime Southeast Asia and beyond.

"By using a guided-missile destroyer, rather than smaller vessels ... they are sending a strong message," said Ian Storey, of Singapore's Institute of South East Asian Studies. "They have also said, significantly, that there will be more patrols – so it really now is up to China how it will respond."

Some experts have said China would likely resist attempts to make such U.S. actions routine. China's navy could for example try to block or attempt to surround U.S. vessels, risking an escalation.

Zhu Feng, executive director of the China Centre for Collaborative Studies of the South China Sea at Nanjing University, said he expected Beijing to limit its response as it ultimately did not want confrontation. "Both sides will be quite verbal but real actions, I hope, will show signs of exercising restraint," Zhu said.

Washington worries that China has built up its outposts with the aim of extending its military reach in the South China Sea. China says they will have mainly civilian uses and undefined defense purposes.

Xi surprised U.S. officials after a meeting with Obama in Washington last month by saying that China had "no intention to militarize" the islands.

Even before that, however, satellite photographs had shown the construction of three military-length airstrips by China in the Spratlys, including one each on Subi and Mischief reefs.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal, Yeganeh Torbati and David Brunnstrom in Washington and Ben Blanchard and Michael Martina in Beijing; Additional reporting by Tim Kelly in Tokyo, Grego Torode in Hong Kong and Lincoln Feast in Sydney; Writing by Dean Yates and Alex Richardson; Editing by Robert Birsel, Ian Geoghegan and Grant McCool)

See more at Reuters

Hillary Clinton Serves Up Her Policy Pitch To Hill Democrats

Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited with congressional Democrats on Tuesday.Š (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) | Mark Wilson via Getty Images

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton trekked to Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Democrats in both chambers and pitch her policy stances four months into her 2016 campaign.

Clinton met with Senate Democrats during their weekly party lunches, and was warmly welcomed by the party's leaders.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) praised the presentation Clinton gave to the conference.

“She got several rounds of standing applause,” Reid told reporters after the meeting. “She talked about climate change, about what families need in America today. She talked about how important it was that we make sure that we understand America is more than the urban centers of our country.”

He added, that he was “extremely impressed” by her answers to questions senators asked, and noted that she also talked about the nuclear deal President Barack Obama worked out with Iran and five other negotiating partners on Tuesday.

Clinton told Democrats that she worked on the deal "a lot" herself, and advised them to wait and find out exactly what is in the agreement before passing judgment.

Reid wouldn’t say if he supports the former secretary of state's presidential bid. Clinton is considered the frontrunner but faces four Democratic challengers in the primary, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“I’ve chosen not to endorse her right now -- that’s the way it is,” Reid said. “Everyone knows what a fan I am of her and her husband, and I’m sure at the right time I’ll make the right decision.”

Clinton may have been met warmly by the majority of Democrats in the caucus, but Sanders tried to steal the show when he exited the meeting ahead of other senators and held a presser of his own in the hallway outside the Senate chamber, which is typically reserved for Senate leadership.

Sanders spent about six minutes laying out where he disagrees with Clinton on a variety of issues.

“I very much look forward in this campaign to a very serious debate about the serious crises facing our country,” Sanders told reporters. “Secretary Clinton and I disagree on a number of issues; there are issues where we come from the same place.”

Reid said he has invited Sanders to speak before the caucus as well and expects Sanders to make a presentation in the next few weeks.

Clinton met with House Democrats earlier Tuesday and also separately with the Congressional Black Caucus, during which time she discussed issues affecting the African-American community in the U.S.

"Today's policy meeting with former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a constructive meeting where members of the Congressional Black Caucus discussed a myriad of issues that include persistent poverty, the need for criminal justice reform, transportation and infrastructure, economic growth and opportunity, and access to a quality education,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), who chairs the CBC.

Clinton also met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Members said the former first lady requested to hear about issues facing the Hispanic community.

In the meeting, Clinton talked about the economy, immigration reform, health care, the wage gap and the need for an inclusive workforce, according to a readout of the meeting from the caucus.

Source: The Huffington Post

Hackers Stole Social Security Numbers From 21.5 Million People In Recent Data Breach, U.S. Says

Alabama State Capitol (Montgomery, Ala.)

Pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP Photo/DaveMartin) 

WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuters) - Data breaches at the U.S. government's personnel management agency by hackers, with suspicions centering on China, involves millions more people than previously estimated, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) said data stolen from its computer networks included Social Security numbers and other sensitive information on 21.5 million people who have undergone background checks for security clearances.

That is in addition to data on about 4.2 million current and former federal workers that was stolen in what the OPM called a "separate but related" hacking incident. Because many people were affected by both hacks, a total of 22.1 million people were affected, or almost 7 percent of the U.S. population.

The breach had already been considered one of the most damaging on record because of its scale and, more importantly, the sensitivity of the material taken.

Those exposed included 19.7 million who applied for the clearances - current, former, and prospective federal employees and contractors - plus 1.8 million non-applicants, mostly spouses or co-habitants of applicants, the agency said.

Lawmakers from both parties demanded OPM Director Katherine Archuleta's removal. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, said President Barack Obama "must take a strong stand against incompetence in his administration and instill new leadership at OPM."

"The technological and security failures at the Office of Personnel Management predate this director's term, but Director Archuleta's slow and uneven response has not inspired confidence that she is the right person to manage OPM through this crisis," added Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner.

Archuleta said neither she nor OPM chief information officer Donna Seymour would be resigning. "I am committed to the work that I am doing at OPM," Archuleta told reporters during a conference call. "I have trust in the staff that is there."

The White House said Obama retains confidence in Archuleta.

CHINESE ROLE

The United States has identified China as the leading suspect in the massive hacking of the U.S. government agency, an assertion China's Foreign Ministry dismissed as "absurd logic."

Asked during a conference call with reporters on Thursday whether China was responsible, a White House National Security Council official, Michael Daniel, said "we're not really prepared to comment at this time on the attribution behind this event."

Daniel, special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator at the National Security Council, said that "at this point the investigation into the attribution of this event is still ongoing and we are exploring all of the different options that we have."

OPM said the stolen personal identification data included: Social Security numbers; residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; and health, criminal and financial history. Also stolen were about 1.1 million fingerprints, the agency said.

Since they were revealed last month, the hacking incidents have alarmed the millions of Americans affected. OPM said in a statement that its investigation had found no information "at this time" to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information stolen from its systems.

OPM said it is highly likely that anyone who went through a background investigation after 2000 was affected by the cyber breach. Those who underwent background checks before 2000 might be impacted but it is less likely, the personnel agency said.

"Rather than simply place blame on the hackers, we need to acknowledge our own culpability in failing to adequately protect so obvious a target," said the top Democrat on the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Adam Schiff.

The Social Security numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. The critical information, which was not encrypted, involves a complete rundown of the personal lives of some 90 percent of applicants for security clearances, mainly excepting most undercover CIA agents.

That includes drug use, romantic histories and close friends abroad of those in the military, National Security Agency (NSA) and sensitive State Department posts, among many others, essentially a road map for what weaknesses might be used for blackmail by a foreign power.

Though not attributing the attack in public to China, investigators have told Reuters that their prime suspect is a team tied to that nation's Ministry of State Security. The evidence includes a specific piece of malicious software and the use of a stolen digital certificate, both of which had been seen in only a small number of attacks that had been tied to the same group.

Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer at security firm CrowdStrike, said his company's analysis of data about the breach provided by the government made it clear that one or another part of the Chinese government directed the hacking.

"It's a tremendous coup for China," Alperovitch said. (Additional reporting by Joseph Menn and Will Dunham; Editing by Sandra Maler, Bill Trott and Bernard Orr)

Source: The Huffington Post

Congress Stays On Course For Another Shutdown Showdown

WASHINGTON -- Coming back from its Independence Day vacation, Congress appeared no closer Tuesday to finding a way to avoid yet another government shutdown showdown in the fall.

Democrats who are angry that Republicans have proposed spending bills that hike defense while continuing to cut other domestic programs have begun to filibusterall of those appropriations measures in the Senate, saying it's the only way to make Republicans negotiate and compromise on some items sought by Democrats and President Barack Obama. Obama has also threatened to veto those bills.

Asked if Congress was indeed headed for another shutdown battle -- and whether that was wise -- the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, answered that the unwise choice was for Congress to maintain the so-called sequestration spending levels it passed in 2011 when it was also unable to agree on debt and spending cuts.

"In world of alternatives, it is not wise to pursue sequester numbers. That’s bad for our country," Hoyer said, referring to the automatic, across-the-board cuts set in the 2011 Budget Control Act, which also raised the nation's debt limit.

The Republican budget calls for spending that eases sequestration on defense, but not on other areas, and the defense spending bill uses some $38 billion in "overseas contingency operation" funds -- essentially war funding that doesn't count against sequestration -- to boost the rest of the military.

"I would hope that Republicans do the right thing."- Steny Hoyer

Democrats see that as a gimmick that both ducks reality and avoids dealing with other pressing domestic needs such as education and infrastructure needs. The Senate filibustered the bill last month.

"Like Harold Rogers [the House Appropriations Committee chairman], who pulled a bill last year and said that this was ill-advised and unrealistic to pursue sequester... I think it is the only rational policy to follow in saying, 'This is not going to work, you know it’s not going to work,'" Hoyer said.

Republicans showed no sign of agreeing with Hoyer and other Democrats, however.

“Democrats must decide whether they support our troops or not," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), focusing on the defense bill. "In a time of grave threats to our nation, Democrats are denying funding for our troops, their families, and the nation’s veterans in order to extract more government spending on Washington bureaucracies like the IRS and the EPA. They are putting their political interests ahead of the most important priority we have –- protecting our nation –- and that is unconscionable.”

Hoyer mocked the GOP position, since it agrees with Obama on the level of spending for the military, although Obama's budget doesn't use the contingency fund to pay for the boosts.

"It’s ironic," Hoyer said, "that the Republicans used a gimmick to get to his numbers."

Hoyer was not convinced that the GOP would even be able to pass all of the 12 required appropriations bills in time, since so far they've gotten to six.

He insisted Democrats were correct in trying to force them to negotiate a more two-sided spending plan.

"I think we’re doing the right thing. I think the Senate is doing the right thing, and I would hope that Republicans do the right thing and sit down and discuss what are not unrealistic but realistic numbers, not an ill-conceived plan, but a well-conceived plan, to move ahead on the appropriations process," Hoyer said.

Not incidentally, if Congress is still fighting over spending bills in September, when the fiscal year ends, not only will it be facing a government shutdown, but also a looming exhaustion of the nation's current $18.1 trillion debt limit. The country hitthe limit in March, and the Treasury Department has been employing what are known as "extraordinary measures" to keep the bills paid. That ability should run out around November, at which point the nation would be facing a default if Congress does not act to raise the debt cap.

Source: The Huffington Post

Police Respond To Report Of Active Shooter At D.C. Navy Yard

Police are responding to a report of an active shooter at the Washington Navy Yard in southeast Washington, D.C., WUSA9 says.

D.C. Fire officials say everyone has been accounted for and there are no injuries, according to WUSA 9.

The U.S. Navy tweeted just before 8 a.m. Eastern time that Navy Yard was on lockdown, but no incident had been confirmed. At 8:59 a.m., it noted that thelockdown was continuing. Local media report the surrounding streets have been closed.

Scene outside Navy Yard right now. pic.twitter.com/R5tgIsTCgo

— @davidjones2898 (@DavidJones2898) July 2, 2015

The U.S. Navy tweeted just before 8 a.m. Eastern time that Navy Yard was on lockdown, but no incident had been confirmed. At 8:59 a.m., it noted that thelockdown was continuing. Local media report the surrounding streets have been closed.

Navy Yard was the scene of a mass shooting in September 2013, when Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old civilian contractor, fatally shot 12 people at the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Alexis was killed during a firefight with police.

"It was... like the 1st time -- a lot of people running for the exits," a Navy Yard employee told ABC7 News Thursday.

Police with large weapons gearing up and running toward the scene at Navy Yard. pic.twitter.com/0WiiOYliSI

— Nathan Bomey (@NathanBomey) July 2, 2015

 Neal Augenstein of WTOP radio posted this video from the scene:

Police helicopter over #navyyard pic.twitter.com/7aVM5RAdpn

— Neal Augenstein (@AugensteinWTOP) July 2, 2015

Source: The Huffington Post 

Liberals Just Had An Amazing Week At The Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- The conservative Roberts Supreme Court just gave American liberals the most joyous judicial week they could have asked for.

In a span of just two days, the rightward-leaning court all but settled Obamacare as the law of the land; reaffirmed key components of housing discrimination law meant to protect minorities; and granted gay Americans the right to get married in any state they wish.

People gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on June 26, 2015 after its historic decision on gay marriage. The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay marriage is a nationwide right, a landmark decision in one of the most keenly awaited announcements in decades and sparking scenes of jubilation. The nation's highest court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, said the US Constitution requires all states to carry out and recognize marriage between people of the same sex. AFP PHOTO/ MLADEN ANTONO | MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images

The string of progressive victories left officials hugging and high-fiving at the White House, gay couples crying tears of joy on the courthouse steps, and hardline conservatives wondering on Twitter whether their erstwhile judicial heroes were now traitors.

To recap:

In King v. Burwell, decided Thursday, the court ruled 6-3 to reject a lawsuitbrought by conservatives that would have stripped Obamacare subsidies from people who purchased their health coverage on the federal exchanges. A ruling in the plaintiffs' favor threatened to unravel the system created by the Affordable Care Act, potentially causing millions to lose their health care coverage and wreaking havoc on state insurance markets.

The ruling marked the second time in three years the court had rejected an existential threat to Obamacare. As in the previous case, 2012's NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court, this time along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, to keep the president's signature law intact. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in a typically scathing dissent, lambasted the majority's reasoning as "interpretive jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce."

In Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities, also decided Thursday, the court handed a victory to civil rights groups with a 5-4 decision that upheld so-called disparate impact claims. Joined by Kennedy, who often plays the swing vote, the liberal justices ruled that someone suing under fair housing law doesn't need to prove that a developer or the government knowingly discriminated -- only that the policy had a disparate impact, something that can often be demonstrated with statistics.

Had the conservative wing prevailed, plaintiffs bringing claims would have had the far more difficult task of proving intentional discrimination, which typically isn't documented by those who practice it. Civil rights groups so feared an unfavorable ruling in such a case that the Obama administration sought to keep the question of disparate impact away from the Roberts court.

Finally, in Obergefell v. Hodges, issued Friday, the justices ruled 5-4 to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, marking a triumph for the gay rights movement decades in the making. The liberal justices, who were joined again by Kennedy, determined that the Constitution grants anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, the right to marry, effectively invalidating the bans against same-sex unions that still exist in 13 states. "No longer may this liberty be denied," Kennedy wrote in his highly quotable decision for the majority.

Scalia penned another memorably incredulous dissent, opening by saying he chose to write separately from Roberts in order to "call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy." Insisting his concern was not the merit or lack thereof of gay marriage, he wrote that the majority's "pretentious" and "egotistic" opinion lacked "even a thin veneer of law" and was chock full of "mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages." "[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch," he seethed.

The good news for liberals wasn't confined to just the high-profile cases. In Friday's Johnson v. United States decision, which was overshadowed by the Obergefell case, the court ruled 8-1 that a section of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which is used to extend prison sentences, is "unconstitutionally vague." The ruling may compel Congress to address the language of the law as thousands of prisoners seek to have their sentences reduced.

The majority opinion in the Johnson case was written by Scalia, giving progressive court watchers another reason to celebrate. As ThinkProgress's Ian Millhiser explains, the Johnson opinion makes Scalia one of just two justices who've penned as many as eight majority opinions this term. If tradition is any indication, then Scalia probably won't be writing another majority opinion before the court breaks, likely leaving the duty to one of his less conservative colleagues.

Source: The Huffington Post

Justice Scalia is the Supreme Court’s real loser in Obamacare ruling

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before a House Judiciary Sucommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 20, 2010. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion upholding subsidies on the Affordable Care Act’s federal exchange is a big gift to Republicans. Though he was ruling against the expressed desire of every Republican presidential candidate — that the subsidies should be eliminated even if that meant the nation’s healthcare system would enter a death spiral — the chief justice greatly simplified the lives of Republican politicians.

In the process, he made a powerful argument for deference to the legislature and the critical need to consider the goals of Congress and real-world consequences when interpreting statutes. By mustering five votes in support of his position, Roberts made a bitter loser of Justice Antonin Scalia and his rigid textualist approach to statutory interpretation.

Chief Justice John Roberts listens to arguments from George Washington University law students during a moot court competition in Washington, Feb. 9, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young

In the weeks leading up to the decision, many Republicans had begun to realize that they did not really want the Supreme Court to deliver what they had asked. They scrambled to find a politically palatable solution to the loss of subsidies for millions that would avoid the collapse of the healthcare system without demonstrating politically toxic support for Obamacare.

The court’s decision put an end to that mad scramble and allowed Republican politicians to return to their unbridled, unthinking demands for repeal of the law. Republicans in Congress can continue to make those demands without fear they will be satisfied — though they control both houses of Congress and could theoretically use a parliamentary maneuver (the reconciliation process) that might allow repeal with a bare majority.

President Barack Obama, of course, will veto any repeal of the law and Congress would never muster the two-thirds vote required to override a veto.

The safety blanket that the court’s decision extended to Republicans will in fact outlast Obama’s term — even if he’s replaced by a Republican president. Here’s why: A lower court had ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s wording was ambiguous and, therefore, under longstanding precedent, courts should defer to the administrative agency charged with implementing the law. That meant the Internal Revenue Service — which had interpreted the law to allow subsidies for individuals buying health insurance through both state and federal insurance exchanges.

Had the Supreme Court just adopted the lower court’s reasoning, the next administration could have unilaterally changed the interpretation of the law. But under Roberts’s ruling, a future Republican president will no longer have that option — because giving such deference to an administrative agency was inappropriate.

He wrote that Congress surely would not have intended to commit a decision of this magnitude to the IRS, which lacks expertise in both healthcare law and policy. Instead the court gave itself responsibility for resolving any ambiguity. So, rest easy possible Republican presidents — an assertive court has made the decision for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, May 20, 2009. REUTERS/Molly Riley

Beyond its political implications, the decision was heartening for its constructive messages about cooperative governing and the interpretation of statutes. The chief justice explicitly set out to interpret the language of the healthcare act in a way that would make the law work. He assumed that Congress meant to write a statute that would improve health insurance markets — not destroy them.

Roberts emphasized “in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.” That meant that the court had to read all of the language in the context of the overall statute and the goals Congress sought to achieve. It requires a pragmatic consideration of the effects of its ruling.

As the chief justice wrote, “the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”

Too often, the Roberts Court has positioned itself as the adversary of the political branches, refusing to afford deference to legislative goals or to consider consequences when striking down, for example, campaign finance laws and the core of the Voting Rights Act. How refreshing to have a majority of the court pursuing cooperative governance by reading a statue to effectuate congressional goals.

With this ruling, the six justices who signed the majority decision delivered an emphatic rejection of Scalia’s rigid textualism, which elevates the literal words of a statute — no matter how inconsistent with the plain goals of Congress — above all else.

The debate in King v. Burwell centered on a single phrase, which authorized subsidies for qualified applicants who signed up for insurance through an “Exchange established by the State.”

Scalia barked that those words were clear and certainly did not mean an exchange established by the federal government. Yet, the law states that if the state does not establish an exchange, the federal government shall establish “such Exchange.” It is certainly a permissible — and indeed a preferable meaning of the phrase for anyone interested in actually bringing about what Congress proposed — to read “such Exchange” as meaning the federal government shall establish the state exchange.

As Roberts explained, failure to read the language this way would render several provisions of the Affordable Care Act meaningless and lead to dire consequences directly contrary to the purpose of Congress.

That did not matter to Scalia. He was unwilling to move beyond the argument that the words “federal government” did not appear.

It is reasonable to suspect that Scalia’s distaste for the Affordable Care Act, which likely inclined him to bring it down rather than save it, made his textual argument easier for him to make here. This battle over the correct way to interpret statutes has been a defining characteristic of Scalia’s jurisprudence. Thursday’s decision confirms that he has lost. - REUTERS

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love.

The decision is a historic victory for gay rights activists who have fought for years in the lower courts. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia already recognize marriage equality. The remaining 13 states ban these unions, even as public support has reached record levels nationwide.

The justices found that, under the 14th Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex unions that have been legally performed in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In a rare move, the four dissenting justices each wrote an opinion.

The lead plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges is Ohio resident Jim Obergefell, who wanted to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate. In 2013, Obergefell married his partner of two decades, John Arthur, who suffered from ALS. Arthur passed away in October of that year, three months after the couple filed their lawsuit.

Obergefell was joined by several dozen other gay plaintiffs from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee who were fighting to be able to marry and to have their marriage recognized in every state in the country.

In the majority opinion, the justices outlined several reasons same-sex marriage should be allowed. They wrote that the right to marriage is an inherent aspect of individual autonomy, since "decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." They also said gay Americans have a right to "intimate association" beyond merely freedom from laws that ban homosexuality.

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. These five justices were in the majority in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. (Photos: Getty)

Extending the right to marry protects families and "without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser," the justices wrote.

The majority concluded that the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected under the 14th Amendment, citing the clauses that guarantee equal protection and due process.

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argued that same-sex marriage is not endorsed by the Constitution. "Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits," they wrote. "But do not celebrate the Constitution."

Scalia, in his own scathing dissent, complained that the majority opinion lacked "even a thin veneer of law." He quipped, "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

The country's views of same-sex marriage have transformed since 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to wed. In 2013, the Supreme Court began chipping away at the country's legacy of discrimination against same-sex couples when it struck down part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized by their home state from receiving the hundreds of benefits available to other married couples under federal law.

In its opinion, the majority recognized the profound cultural shifts in marriage views, citing both the Chinese educator Confucius and the Roman philosopher Cicero. The justices noted how marriage has been transformed from a union arranged by a couple's parents for financial reasons to a voluntary contract, and from a male-dominated relationship to an agreement where women have "equal dignity." These changes, the majority wrote, have strengthened the institution of marriage.

"Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations," the majority wrote.

President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to support marriage equality when he came out in favor of it in 2012, the same year that the Democratic Party made it part of its platform for the first time. On Friday, Obama called the ruling "a victory for America."

The Republican Party and its slate of 2016 presidential aspirants, however, remainopposed to same-sex marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) support a constitutional amendment protecting states that want to ban marriage equality.

Some conservatives have advocated for a civil disobedience effort against a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage. However, officials in red states told The Huffington Post recently that they are prepared to implement the decision, going so far as to ready gender-neutral marriage licenses and set later office hours. Gerard Rickhoff, who oversees marriage licenses in Bexar County, Texas, said that if same-sex couples are discriminated against elsewhere in the state, "Just get in your car and come on down the highway. You'll be embraced here."

As the majority wrote in its opinion, the petitioners' "hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the

eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Read the court's opinion here:

Obergefell v. Hodges

Source: The Huffington Post