Supreme Court: Constitution gives same-sex couples right to marry

Fred Imbert | @foimbert

16 Mins AgoCNBC.comThe Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

The Court ruled 5-to-4, with Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. All four dissenting Justices wrote their own separate dissents.

Roberts, the Court's Chief Justice, wrote the principal dissent,

"If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it," Roberts said.

In his dissent, Scalia said the ruling is a "threat to American democracy," adding that "Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall ... With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer of our impotence."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, thought to be the swing vote on the ruling, authored the opinion.

Obergefell vs Hodges

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies Liz Goodwin and Meredith Shiner June 25, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (Photo: Gary Cameron/Reuters)

The Supreme Court spared a key part of President Barack Obama’s signature law in a 6-3 decision Thursday, ruling that the federal government may continue to subsidize health insurance in the dozens of states that did not set up their own exchanges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who expressed deep reservations when the case was argued about whether striking down the subsidies would coerce states into establishing their own exchanges, joined the court’s four liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the subsidies. Roberts, who was the object of immense conservative blowback after he joined the court’s liberals three years ago to uphold the law’s individual mandate, again wrote the majority opinion in support of the Obama administration position.

The law’s challengers argued that four words in the statute — “established by the state” — meant that only people who bought insurance from exchanges in the handful of states that set up their own marketplaces would be eligible for tax credits and other government assistance. The government countered that the clear intent of the law was to provide the subsidies for all lower-income Americans who sought coverage.

More than 6 million people would have lost those subsidies if the court had ruled against the government, which experts said would lead to skyrocketing premiums and even a potential “death spiral” that could have dealt a mortal blow to Obamacare. The White House insisted in the days leading up to the decision that Obama felt he had nothing to fear because the government’s case was strong. But they are no doubt breathing a sigh of relief.

Around 17 million people have gained coverage from the law, according to a Rand Corp. study, and a recent poll shows that for the first time since it passed, more Americans approve of the law than disapprove.

The case had put Republicans in an awkward spot. Publicly, over the last few weeks, Republican lawmakers expressed their hope in news conferences and speeches that the Supreme Court would rule against the government. But privately, aides conceded that the politics of victory would be more complicated than defeat.

The Republican-led Congress would have been under pressure to come up with at least a temporary fix for the more than 6 million people who would most likely lose their insurance, contorting itself into the odd position of extending subsidies while still opposing the law. (At least one Senate Republican wrote a bill that would temporarily extend the subsidies while phasing out the individual mandate, which would eventually kill the law.) If the Republican majority had just let the subsidies lapse, they’d be faced with angry constituents who just lost coverage and a Democratic PR assault highlighting the most heart-wrenching cases of people who lost their insurance.

Now, things will most likely return to the status quo — in which Republicans threaten to dismantle the president’s signature legislative achievement but do not actually take concrete steps to take health care coverage away from people.

World is on the brink of the longest-lasting oil glut...so why is gas so expensive=GREED The Fleecing Of America and Canada

The world is on the brink of the longest-lasting oil glut in at least three decades and OPEC’s quest for market share makes it almost unavoidable.

Oil supply has exceeded demand globally for the past five quarters, already the most enduring glut since the 1997 Asian economic crisis, International Energy Agency data show. If the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were to keep pumping at current rates it would become the longest surplus since at least 1985 by the third quarter, the data show.

High Gas taxes to Governments make them complicit with Oil Companies in fleecing citizens. The Fleecing Of America and Canada...

Global Oversupply

Producing at that level would imply a global oversupply of 1 million barrels a day in the third quarter and 600,000 barrels in the following three months, according to IEA projections for global demand and non-OPEC supply compiled by Bloomberg. That would be the eighth consecutive quarterly surplus, exceeding the current record of six quarters from 1997 to 1998.

The glut could swell further if Iran and world powers reach an accord on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by their June 30 deadline, Commerzbank predicts. The country could boost exports by 1 million barrels a day within seven months of sanctions being removed, Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said in Vienna on June 3.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/world-is-on-the-brink-of-the-longest-oil-glut-in-at-least-30-years-with-no-end-in-sight?__lsa=fc46-bd70

Quickbooks Stops Downloading From Your Canadian Bank? Here's Why!

After spending hours searching and reading every blog where people claimed to have a work-around for the message of death 

"Quickbooks unable to verify financial institution, Please try again later "

Nothing works and here is the reason...

I determined that effective June 1 2015 Quickbooks is NOT supporting 3 year old software i.e. 2012 for easy downloading into your desktop software. Go figure. 

The bottom line is that Quickbooks wants you to buy the online subscription and its going to cost at a minimum $14.50/month

And if you have multi companies (4 )  then you will be forced to pay a subscription for each company (with a limited multi company discount).

So the work around is to get away from quickbooks altogether OR buy the desktop software which will be unsupported in 3 years and require upgrade again.

The cost for me the last time I purchased the QB2012 was 149.00+tax this time its $299.00+tx OUCH

Staples  $299.00

Costco   $289.00

Lowest Price Quickbooks  2015 $279.99


Sources and Alternatives

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/01/06/why-your-company-may-dump-quickbooks-this-year/

Touch your telephone while driving in Ontario Drivers Be Warned Fines Increase to 300-1000.00 and you lose 3 demerits

Today, Ontario has passed legislation increasing fines for distracted drivers from a range of $60 - $500 up to $300 - $1,000, plus three demerit points upon conviction.

Also, novice drivers convicted of distracted driving will now face the following licence suspensions:

First conviction: 30 day suspension
Second conviction: 90 day suspension
Third conviction: licence cancellation. Driver must return to the start of Ontario's graduated licensing program