Came here to post this. There's always a silver lining for corporations though; Indian Health Service will be spending 3.5b+ on modernizing it's healthcare system over the next 5-10 years. It's nothing like the VA/Cerner implementation but it's still BIG business. GDIT got the lions share of the modernization contract with Oracle Health (aka Cerner) but there is still a huge amount of money out there for implementation software and services. So yes, it's great for IA/AN peoples but there is greed and money involved. They got there, though. Here's the story on AP: https://apnews.com/article/native-a...alth-service-2b13ca21d150ab3ee1d85c966f387d54 Supreme Court sides with Native American tribes in health care funding dispute with government FILE - The U.S. Supreme Court is seen, April 25, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File) BY LINDSAY WHITEHURST Updated 3:03 PM CDT, June 6, 2024 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with Native American tribes Thursday in a dispute with the federal government over the cost of health care when tribes run programs in their own communities. The 5-4 decision means the government will cover millions in overhead costs that two tribes faced when they took over running their health care programs under a law meant to give Native Americans more local control. Covering those costs is “necessary to prevent a funding gap,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, joined by the three liberal justices and fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. Not reimbursing them forces tribes to “pay a penalty for pursuing self-determination.” The Department of Health and Human Services had argued it isn’t responsible for the overhead costs associated with billing insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid. Paying those costs for all tribes that run their own health care programs could total between $800 million and $2 billion per year, the agency said. “The extra federal money that the Court today green-lights does not come free,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent, which was joined by other conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. “In my view, the court should leave those difficult appropriations decisions and tradeoffs to Congress.” New Mexico voters oust incumbents from Legislature with positive implications for paid family leave The federal Indian Health Service has provided tribal health care since the 1800s under treaty obligations, but the facilities are often inadequate and understaffed, the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona said in court documents. Health care spending per person by the IHS is just one-third of federal spending in the rest of the country, the Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming said in court documents. Native American tribal populations have an average life expectancy of about 65 years, nearly 11 years less than the U.S. as a whole. Attorney Adam Unikowsky, who represented the Northern Arapaho Tribe, said the decision puts tribes on equal footing with IHS on health care and will “promote tribal sovereignty and provide resources for health care in under-served communities.” The tribes contracted with IHS to run their own programs ranging from emergency services to substance-abuse treatment. The agency paid the tribes the money it would have spent to run those services, but the contract didn’t include the overhead costs for billing insurance companies or Medicare and Medicaid, since other agencies handle it when the government is running the program. The tribes, though, had to do the billing themselves. That cost the San Carlos Apache Tribe nearly $3 million in overhead over three years and the Northern Arapaho Tribe $1.5 million over a two-year period, they said. Two lower courts agreed with the tribes. The Department of Health and Human Services appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that that tribes do get some money for overhead costs but the government isn’t responsible for costs associated with third-party income. The majority of federally recognized tribes now contract with IHS to run at least part of their own health care programming.
One of the supreme court justices has turned his bench seat to be a million dollar money-making endeavor. The other has turned his seat into the tipping point to helping his political side "win."
He's so brazenly partisan, it's incredible. Very happy to have an unelected godking pushing the law toward theocracy.
A conservative Supreme Court shoving their religion down your throat in order to save America. They are on a mission.
The article goes into a much deeper analysis of alito's performance on the bench. But just focusing on his highly partisan decision making on the bench... The Republican Party's man inside the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito brings no vision and no unique insights to his job — other than unrelenting loyalty to the GOP. https://www.vox.com/scotus/350339/samuel-alito-republican-party-scotus
This is the problem with justice`s who know they can't be fired, eventually their narrative is uncovered, and I am sure he will come out with a "it was taken out of context" load of BS..............Will Roberts do a dam thing..........Nope. Thomas and Alito need to have some type of guardrails. I dont mind if you lean to the right or left but when it comes to applying the LAW to ALL Americans you better have an even hand..............this is a JOKE.
No, we want accurate investigative journalism, no one is more suited for the job than Tucker Carlson.
If Biden can pull off a win in November I believe it's past time to start investigations into Alito and Thomas. These wannabe kings that sit on the SC need to learn they are not above the law. No man or woman is untouchable from lady justice in this country.
Full transcript (for people who don't want to listen): LW: Hi. I wanted to say hello to you again. My name is Lauren. I met you last year. I think you already met my friend over here. So, anyway, I wanted to just tell you -- my husband wanted to be here, but he had a last-minute business thing. And he was just like, "Make sure that you tell Justice Alito that he is a fighter and we appreciate him and he has all the grit." And I know it's got to be terrible what your family, what you and your family are going through right now, so I'm just so sorry. SA: Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate you. LW: But, and I'm sure you don't remember this at all, but what I had asked you about was about the polarization in this country, about, like, how do we repair that rift. And considering everything that's been going on in the past year, you know, as a Catholic and as someone who, like, really cherishes my faith, I just don't, I don't know that we can negotiate with the Left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it's a matter of like, winning. SA: I think you're probably right. On one side or the other, one side or the other is going to win. I don't know. I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully. But, it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. They really can't be compromised. So it's not like you're going to split the difference. LW: And that's what I'm saying. It's just, I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument. Like people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness. SA: I agree with you. I agree with you. LW: Because if we look at like the decline of our society, the decline of the nuclear family, and liberals, I just feel like want to see that happen and proliferate. And I think we've been too permissive to say, oh, you know, okay. I understand the Constitution, I understand -- Woman: I didn't want to interrupt. - BACK IN 2023 - LW: So nice to meet you, Justice [Alito]. I just want to ask something. I want to be totally appropriate with um -- SA: Yeah. LW: the jurisprudence of it all. But you know, just to be totally candid, like, how do we get America back to a place of like really, like less polarization? 'Cause I feel like the court is undergoing this period of turmoil, like people don't trust in I think, just the, like, this is like the last bastion of, I think, public trust, and how do we get back to that? SA: I wish I knew, I don't know. It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing buy criticize us. And so they have really eroded trust in the court. I don't know, I really don't know. I mean, ordinary people, ordinary isn't the right word. American citizens in general need to work on this, to try to heal this polarization because it's very dangerous. I do believe it's very dangerous. LW: I think it's taking us to the brink of, you know, very serious, and perhaps non-repairable rifts in the country. And I for one am someone like I support your ruling on Dobbs, I support like, I am very pro-life. But like, you know, I don't know how we bridge that gap. You know like how do we get people -- SA: I wish I knew. I wish I knew. I don't know. It's not, I don't think it's something we can do. LW: But what can the... but the court can't do anything to -- SA: We have a very defined role, and we need to do what we're supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us, so I wish I knew the answer, I do. LW: But you guys haven't been able to dine the leaker? SA: Pardon me? LW: The leaker [of the Dobbs decision]. Are you guys being able to ferret that out? SA: Well, it's hard. You know you can't name somebody unless you know for sure, and we don't have the power to do the things that would be necessary to try to figure out, to nail down exactly who did it. That's the problem. And even then, we might not be able to do it. But we don't have the power to subpoena people to testify, to subpoena records, phone records or other things like that. We don't have that authority, so -- LW: It just seems crazy that you can't because it's so detrimental to the trust the public places in the Supreme Court. SA: Yeah, well, we're not a law enforcement agency you know, it's, people have certain rights to privacy. So law enforcement agencies can issue subpoenas, and get search warrants and all that sort of thing, but we can't do that. So, you know, our marshall did as much as she could do, that was limited. LW: So that was exhausted? SA: She did what she could do, but anyway. LW: Seriously, I just wanted to express my thanks -- SA: I appreciate it... I appreciate it. LW: my gratitude for everything that you're doing. It's a really important fight for um -- SA: Yeah, it is. LW: -- the rights of the unborn. SA: It is. LW: And I know a lot of people don't appreciate that, but it's important, so thank you.
More recordings... this one with alitos wife. Who apparently was distressed at looking at "pride" flags across the lagoon... For those with a Rolling Stones subscription... Martha-Ann Alito Condemns Pride Flags, the Left, and the Media In a new, secret recording, the Supreme Court justice’s wife bemoans having to “look across the lagoon at the Pride flag” https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-ann-alito-pride-flags-left-media-1235037338/
She seems like a misguided person with a good deal of animosity. But I'm not sure that says anything about her husband's ability to fairly judge or not.
Is breaking the oath justification for removal, or are the oaths just a bunch of BS meant to sound good, without really meaning anyone taking them has to do what they say? Legal experts, feel free to answer. Do oaths mean anything legally? The two quotes below from your post sound like he broke that oath, and God didn't help guide him to keep that promise. "Alito rules in favor of conservative litigants 100 percent of the time, and against liberal litigants in every single case." "In all six cases brought by a conservative, Alito voted for the suit to move forward. Meanwhile, in all 10 cases brought by a progressive, Alito voted to deny standing." The Second Oath Appointees to the Supreme Court Bench must take a second oath. This statement is called The Judicial Oath. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal judiciary. The Act set the number of Supreme Court Justices at six (five Associate Justices and one Chief Justice). It also mandated that for the Supreme Court Justices to begin serving, they must swear a second Oath of Office. The original text of this was: "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." This oath was used until 1990 when the Judicial Improvements Act replaced the phrase beginning with "according to the best of my abilities..." to "under the Constitution." This language proved reasonably more effective in tying the decisions of the judiciary to the authority of the United States Constitution.
