At this moment, I would like to add my disclaimer to all information posted by me from other resources re:TPP or any other information tracking Trade Policies negatively toward or against President Barack Obama.  We all should know there is no TPP deal yet, so, be aware that we are hearing what Pundits and Politicians want us to hear.  I do not support the negative behavior by progressives or those holding seats in either Chamber of Congress re:TPP who seem to believe they can talk down or disrespect the POTUS on any Trade Policy.   I believe the Democratic Party and members of Congress in both Chambers should be a part of Trade Policy Solutions for the 21st Century! STOP the fear mongering and shoving the horrors of NAFTA at us like it’s what POTUS wants! This President has spoken on 21st Century living, telling voters that being out in front instead of letting others lead us is best  ~~~  NAFTA was at least 30 years ago.

~ Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

Key Moments From Oral Arguments Bode Well For The Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell today, the latest partisan threat to the Affordable Care Act that threatens to strip subsidies away from millions of Americans in more than three dozen states. While the arguments presented by the lawyers and the questioning from the Justices certainly don’t give us the answer to how the case will turn out, they do provide an early indication of how the Justices may be leaning in their decision. With that in mind, we wanted to highlight three key points from the oral arguments today that could indicate that the subsidies for millions of Americans — and by extension Obamacare as a whole — will be safe when the ruling is handed down in June. For more in-depth analysis be sure to read Think Progress Justice editor Ian Millhiser’s complete analysis.

1. Justice Anthony Kennedy was concerned about what the consequences of a ruling for the challengers would mean. At one point during the arguments, Kennedy, always a potential swing Justice, acknowledged the reality that states would face if tax credits are cut off in states with federally run exchanges: premiums would spike, healthy people would drop out of the marketplace, and a so-called “death spiral” of higher premiums for fewer, sicker customers would ensue. An interpretation of the law that forces states to choose between setting up their own exchanges and eliminated tax credits raises “a serious constitutional problem,” Kennedy said.

2. The Justices got the challengers to admit that context matters. It may seem obvious that context matters — but this is actually somehow a critical debate in a legal argument where the challengers case rests on reading a single clause in place of the clear meaning of the entire law. After a nifty hypothetical from Justice Kagan, Michael Carvin, the attorney for the challengers, responded to “implore” the Justices to make their decision taking into account “the context of the Act as a whole.””

3. For any indication of momentum outside the courtroom, look no farther than right outside the Supreme Court steps. Hundreds of ACA supporters turned out to rally in support of the law and urging the court to protect health care for millions of Americans; meanwhile, just a handful of opponents thought it important enough to show up. The Washington Post writes, “If good organization could win a legal debate, supporters of the Affordable Care Act would triumph.”

Take a look at some of the best signs from the rally:

And if that’s not enough, check out the spate of editorials in support of the law from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Tampa Bay Times, Kansas City Star, Dallas Morning News, Knoxville New Sentinel … (shall we go on? Yes we shall) … Albany Times Union, Orlando Sentinel, Bangor Daily News, and the Toledo Blade.

BOTTOM LINE: We’ve known from the beginning that this challenge to the Affordable Care Act is a politically-motivated, legally weak attack from those trying to use the Court to do what they have been unable to do in Congress or at the ballot box: repeal the Affordable Care Act. After today’s oral arguments, we hope the Justices will see that as well and make a decision that upholds the law, and doesn’t savage the reputation of the court. Momentum is with us.

a message from #PeteGallego for Congress

Yet another classic example of Congressman Will Hurd talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Today a column by Rep. Hurd appeared in a D.C. media outlet on the beauty of the Big Bend Region — which is great — we 100% agree.

What we disagree on is Rep. Hurd’s proposed legislation that would devastate Big Bend National Park.

Our local paper in Alpine had this to say about Rep. Hurd’s bill:

“The result is that the Department of Homeland Security can come into Big Bend National Park and bulldoze archaeological sites, endangered wildlife zones and destroy view shed and the dark skies for which this park is internationally famous”

So, if Rep. Hurd remains in office, then you should probably go visit the Big Bend area ASAP — before he militarizes it and destroys the natural beauty.

Or you could help us get Pete back in office and rest assured that we’ll have a congressman who will never stop fighting to preserve and protect the area he grew up in.