Trump Allowed on Colorado Ballot

Washington, D.C. - March 6, 2024 - (The Ponder News) -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday, in Trump v. Anderson, that Congress, rather than states, is responsible for enforcing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it comes to federal offices.

The ruling means Donald Trump is still eligible to appear on the Colorado ballot. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Senator Ted Cruz (R - TX) said, “I was proud to lead 179 Members of Congress in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting President Trump and arguing that states do not have the power to remove the leading presidential candidate from the ballot. I am glad that the Supreme Court agreed with our argument and unanimously overturned Colorado’s disastrous decision. I predicted that the decision would be unanimous, and the fact that the Court came together 9-0 was good for the Court and good for America. This decision is a major win for democracy and for the rule of law.”

Introducing True The Vote

As the nation’s largest nonpartisan, voters’ rights and election integrity organization, True the Vote exists to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of America’s electoral process. We provide training, technology, and support to fellow citizens so that they can ensure election integrity in their own communities.

You can learn more by Clicking HERE

Check out this post about them

True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal
Source: California Political Review
June 7, 2019
This decision marks the end of a nearly decade long battle that first began in 2010, when federal government agencies including the IRS, DOJ, FBI, ATF, OSHA weaponized against True the Vote and its founder, Catherine Engelbrecht. Under Obama Administration leadership, the agencies leveled a barrage of attacks, including twenty-three audits, investigations, and inquiries, against the group in an attempt to stop their work in election integrity. At one point the IRS got Child Services to try to take Ms. Engelbrechts’ children from her—this is how vicious Lerner and the crowd became, to stop honest elections. To stop those exposing the corruption of elections.

Read more...

Kavanaugh

Announcements

I can't get them all, but here are a few items from our elected officials about Kavanaugh.

News from the Lawmakers

Bennet Statement on Testimony By Dr. Ford And Judge Kavanaugh
Senator Michael F. Bennet (D - CO)
September 27, 2018
“A hearing is neither a trial nor an investigation. Dr. Ford has made clear in compelling testimony that she is 100% certain Judge Kavanaugh assaulted her. Judge Kavanaugh denies this. Before we vote on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, the FBI should investigate the underlying facts of the dispute. If Leader McConnell can hold open a Supreme Court vacancy for more than 400 days, the FBI can surely spend the time required for a formal investigation.”

Read more...

Cantwell Statement on Today’s Judiciary Committee Hearing
Senator Maria Cantwell - (D - WA)
September 27, 2018
"The Senate should not move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination. Dr. Ford's strong testimony should be enough to stop any further votes before a complete nonpartisan investigation takes place. Dr. Ford showed great strength and courage in painting for the nation the long-lasting impacts of sexual assault."

Read more...

Sen. Cruz: Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford’s Treatment by Democrats and the Media is One of the Most Shameful Chapters in the History of the Senate
Senator Ted Cruz (R - TX)
September 27, 2018
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, participated in a hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. There, he expressed his concerns over Senate Judiciary Democrats’ inaction and delay in handling the allegations presented before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and especially how this delay harmed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, their families, their reputations, and their personal lives.

Read more...

Daines: I Stand with Judge Kavanaugh
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT)
September 27, 2018
“I watched the entire hearing from gavel to gavel. I made it very clear from the beginning that I wanted to hear from both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh because of the seriousness of these allegations. And I thank both of them for coming before the Committee to be heard. But as I watched it today, I concluded that there is no corroborating evidence to support this serious allegation. Rather, this seems to be an orchestrated smear campaign intended to destroy Judge Kavanaugh at the eleventh hour. The Democrats turned this process into an embarrassing, political circus that will have lasting effects for generations to come. They should be ashamed. I look forward to casting my vote for Judge Kavanaugh.”

Read more...

Durbin Presses Judge Kavanaugh To Call For FBI Investigation Into Allegations Of Sexual Assault; Judge Kavanaugh Refuses
Senator Richard J. Durbin - (D - IL)
September 27, 2018
Following the release of a sworn declaration from Julie Swetnick detailing new allegations of sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh, Durbin called for Senate Republicans and the White House to either immediately call for the FBI to conduct an investigation into the multiple allegations of sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh or withdraw his nomination.

Read more...

===

===


Feinstein Speaks on Brett Kavanaugh’s Credibility and Character
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA)
September 27, 2018
“I hope the majority changes their tactics, opens their minds and seriously reflects on why we are here. We are here for one reason: to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh should be elevated to one of the most powerful positions in our country. This is not a trial of Dr. Ford. It’s a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh. Is Brett Kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court in our country? Is he the best we can do?”

Read more...

Transcript of Graham's Remarks on Kavanaugh Nomination
Senator Lindsey Graham (R - SC)
September 27, 2018
“I hope you're on the Supreme Court, that's exactly where you should be. And I hope that the American people will see through this charade. And I wish you well. And I intend to vote for you and I hope everybody who's fair-minded will.”

Read more...

===

===

Senator Lamar Alexander Statement on Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Senator Lamar Alexander (R - TN)
September 28, 2018
“I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh because of his 26 years of distinguished public service and his reputation as a superior jurist, lawyer and teacher.

“Judge Kavanaugh denies under oath Dr. Ford’s account of an alleged incident 36 years ago. The FBI has conducted six background investigations of Judge Kavanaugh since that alleged incident and found no such conduct. Every person Dr. Ford alleges was present at the incident says under penalty of a felony it didn’t happen.

“Senate Democrats have treated Judge Kavanaugh as innocent until nominated. They have victimized Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford and their families. They have diminished the United States Senate by their embarrassing irresponsibility.”

Read more...

Cardin Statement on Judiciary Committee Testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Sendator Benjamin L.Cardin (D - MD)
September 28, 2018
“Republicans’ righteous indignation over Democrats’ handling of the process fails to address the key question relevant to today’s proceedings: whether Dr. Ford was telling the truth. For my part, I believe Dr. Ford, and I believe she showed remarkable courage in sharing her experience with the American people. I call on my Republican colleagues to now meet her courage with their own. Chairman Grassley should specifically ask President Trump to direct the FBI to fully investigate the incidents brought forward to the Judiciary Committee. The committee vote should be postponed until that investigation is completed. Failing a complete accounting of what happened and when, Judge Kavanaugh’s name should be withdrawn from consideration for the Supreme Court.”

Read more...

CORKER ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEE JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) - (R - TN)
September 28, 2018
“While both individuals provided compelling testimony, nothing that has been presented corroborates the allegation.

“There is no question that Judge Kavanaugh is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and in a different political environment, he would be confirmed overwhelmingly.

“I believe Judge Kavanaugh has conducted himself as well as anyone could expect throughout this process and plan to vote to confirm him.”

Read more...

On Fox, Cornyn Discusses Ford, Kavanaugh Hearing
Senator John Cornyn- (R - TX)
September 28, 2018
U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) appeared on Fox News’ Fox & Friends to discuss yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Read more...

Flake Statement on SCOTUS Nomination
Senator Jeff Flake - (R - AZ)
September 28, 2018
"...What I do know is that our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused, absent corroborating evidence. That is what binds us to the rule of law. While some may argue that a different standard should apply regarding the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities, I believe that the constitution’s provisions of fairness and due process apply here as well.

I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”

Read more...

Federal Judge Usurps Role of Commander-In-Chief in Blocking Transgender Military Policy says Family Research Council

Source: Family Research Council

Washington, D.C. - November 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Family Research Council criticized the injunction by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that blocks enforcement of parts of President Trump’s transgender military policy.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran, released the following statement:

“This is where judicial activism is leading us. The courts have moved beyond legislating on the invented rights of abortion and same-sex marriage to clearly usurping the constitutional authority of the executive branch. The president has the primary task of protecting Americans but we see the courts weakening his immigration policies designed to protect America from threats and now telling the commander-in-chief how to run the military,” concluded Perkins.



Read more at The Ponder News Home Page

Court Blocks Trans Military Ban in Yet Another Setback for the Discrimination Administration

Source: National Center for Transgender Equality

=====
Don't forget to visit The Ponder News HOME web site for more great news! Just click HERE!
=====

Washington, D.C. - October 31, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- In yet another blow to the Trump administration’s campaign of discrimination against transgender Americans, a federal court today temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s dangerous and disrespectful Twitter-based ban on transgender military service members.

The ruling in Doe v. Trump concluded that the ban appeared to be based on little more than prejudice, saying that “there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all,” and that “there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.” The ruling also followed other recent court decisions in recognizing that government discrimination against transgender people is subject to heightened scrutiny by courts.

NCTE recently led a coalition of transgender organizations from around the country in filing an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the military ban is part of a wider pattern of discrimination against transgender people by the Trump administration.

NCTE Executive Director Mara Keisling issued the following statement:

Again and again, our courts have been forced to step in and halt this administration’s unconstitutional and dangerous bigotry. As today’s ruling makes clear, this ban was never about military readiness—just like President Trump’s Muslim bans have never been about national security. This ban is about discrimination, plain and simple. We are grateful that the plaintiffs and thousands of other troops will be able to continue serving without the threat of discharge while this case proceeds. Unfortunately, this ruling is not the end of the story, and these troops and their units will still face uncertainty unless Congress acts to end this ban for good.
Lawmakers in both major parties have denounced the ban, and bipartisan bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to end it. Though backed by both the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate leaders blocked a vote to add a measure that would have ended the ban to the pending national defense authorization bill.

In related News:

In defeat for Trump, judge blocks transgender military ban

American Bar Association Responds to AG Sessions comments criticizing judges

Source: American Bar Association



Washington, D.C. - October 28, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The American Bar Association is alarmed by the remarks made Thursday by Attorney General Jeff Sessions about federal judges, accusing those he disagrees with of ruling on policy preference and not the law.

Ironically, Sessions complains that judges are not respecting the separation of powers and the concept of co-equal branches of government while at the same time himself disregarding the constitutional independence of the judicial branch.

Sessions said that “some judges have failed to respect our representatives in Congress and failed to appropriately respect the prerogatives and perspectives of the executive branch.” The judiciary rules on matters based on the laws and the Constitution. Their oath is “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and not to protect “the prerogatives and perspectives” of the executive branch.

The courts are an important part of the justice system. While criticism of judicial decisions is a constitutionally protected right of every American and embedded in our tradition of free and open discussion about government, judges should not be attacked or diminished by another branch of government just because they do not rule in its favor. Judicial independence is critical to maintaining the rule of law in our nation.

Go to www.abalegalfactcheck.com for the ABA’s new feature that cites case and statutory law and other legal precedents to distinguish legal fact from fiction.

With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.

Related News:

AG Sessions on Hawaii District Judge Remarks: ‘I Wasn’t Criticizing the Judge or the Island’

FBI Recovered 72,000 Pages of Clinton Records

Source: Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch announced that the State Department revealed in a federal court hearing that it has yet to process 40,000 of 72,000 pages of Hillary Clinton records that the FBI recovered last year. The revelation came during a federal court hearing in Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The case is before Judge James E. Boasberg.

The hearing focused on the State Department’s progress on processing the tens of thousands of emails Clinton failed to disclose when she served as Secretary of State, some of which were emails sent by Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. The State Department has processed 32,000 pages of emails so far, a small number of which have been released, but 40,000 pages remain to be processed.

Judicial Watch asked the court to require the State Department to identify any records from the seven FBI discs that it intends to withhold, and why, in a timely manner. The State Department disclosed to the Court that it was adding extra resources to its FOIA operation but would not commit to a faster production of the Clinton emails. On October 19, Judge Boasberg ordered the State Department to “explain how its anticipated increase in resources will affect processing of records in this case and when the processing of each disk is likely to be completed.” Surprisingly, the Tillerson State Department and Sessions Justice Department previously argued to the court that there was diminished public interest in the Clinton emails.

In November 2016, the State Department was ordered to produce no less than 500 pages of records a month to Judicial Watch, emails of which the FBI found in its investigation into Clinton’s non-government email system. The State Department has produced 23 batches of documents so far. At the current pace, the Clinton emails and other records won’t be fully available for possible release until at least 2020.

Clinton attempted to delete 33,000 emails from her non-government server. The FBI investigation recovered or found a number of these missing emails, many of which were government documents.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2015.

“Secretary Tillerson should be asked why his State Department is still sitting on a motherlode of Clinton emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disheartening that an administration elected to ‘drain the swamp’ is stalling the release of documents to protect Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.”

In a related lawsuit Judicial Watch recently revealed that the State Department admitted it received 2,800 Huma Abedin work-related documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that were found on her estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s personal laptop. The State Department expects to complete its review and production of the FBI records by December 31, 2017.

SOUTH DAKOTA ASKS SUPREME COURT TO ACCEPT SALES TAX CASE

Source: National Conference of State Legislature
By Lisa Soronen

South Dakota has filed a petition in South Dakota v. Wayfair asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to its law requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax.

Mouse in shopping cartIn Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), the Supreme Court held that states cannot require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales tax.

In March 2015 Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion stating that the “legal system should find an appropriate case for this court to re-examine Quill.” Kennedy criticized Quill in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl for many of the same reasons the State and Local Legal Center stated in its amicus brief. Specifically, internet sales have risen astronomically since 1992 and states and local governments are unable to collect most taxes due on sales from out-of-state vendors.

Following the Kennedy opinion, a number of state legislatures passed legislation requiring remote vendors to collect sales tax. South Dakota’s law is the first to be ready for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In September the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the South Dakota law is unconstitutional because it clearly violates Quill and it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule it.
Ruling in South Dakota’s favor will require the U.S. Supreme Court to take the unusual step of overruling precedent. In its petition South Dakota explains why the court should agree to hear this case and rule in its favor:

"Quill clearly needs to go. When this court considers overruling its precedent, it looks to whether the existing rule:

(1) is constitutional or statutory;
(2) has engendered reliance interests;
(3) has been undermined by changed circumstances;
(4) has been consistently criticized as inconsistent with broader doctrine; and (5) has proven “unworkable” or “outdated” with experience.

Quill fares poorly on every measure. It is a severely criticized, constitutional holding that itself warned when decided that it might later be reconsidered. It is also, in Justice Gorsuch’s words, a 'precedential island[] … surrounded by a sea of contrary law.' And after 25 years of technological progress and economic changes, it has proven entirely out of date."

At this point all South Dakota is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to do is agree to hear its case. The Supreme Court review is discretionary. Four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to hear any case. If the court refuses to do so, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruling that South Dakota’s law is unconstitutional will stay in place.

It is possible the court could hear this case this term meaning it would issue an opinion by the end of June 2018.

Lisa Soronen is executive director of the State and Local Legal Center and a frequent contributor to the NCSL Blog on judicial issues.

Unanimous Mississippi Supreme Court Decides Columbus Mayor And Council Violated Open Meetings Act

Source: Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Washington, D.C. - October 10, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the Mayor and City Council of Columbus violated the Open Meetings Act when they previously met in prearranged, non-quorum size gatherings to discuss public business, intending to circumvent the Act. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the issue of whether meetings of public officials in less than quorum numbers violate the Open Meetings Act. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.

“This is a huge win for the citizens of Mississippi and for open and accountable government,” said Mike Hurst, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. “People are tired of backroom deals and secret agreements by government officials that affect their lives. The Supreme Court’s opinion puts public officials and bureaucrats on notice – you cannot circumvent the law and do the people’s business behind closed doors anymore. Today’s decision is a monumental victory for transparency in government.”

In 2014, the Columbus mayor scheduled multiple meetings with council members to discuss policy issues and determine matters involving economic development projects and renovation of city property. The meetings were not announced or open to the public. At the time, the mayor excluded a Commercial Dispatch reporter from some of these meetings. In December 2014, the Mississippi Ethics Commission held that the mayor and council violated the Open Meetings Act. The mayor and city council appealed the decision to the Lowndes County Chancery Court, which upheld the Ethics Commission’s decision. The mayor and city council then appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The original complaint against the Mayor and City Council was filed by Nathan Gregory, who at the time was a reporter for The Commercial Dispatch, a Columbus newspaper. The Commercial Dispatch eventually replaced Gregory as a party in the case. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.

The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled, “The four pairs of subquorum gatherings, along with the fact that they were prearranged, nonsocial, and on the topic of public business, illustrated the City’s intent to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. The philosophy and spirit of the Act prohibit the City from intending and attempting to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. Additionally, the plain language of Section 25-41-1 requires the subject gatherings to be open to the public. Thus, the City’s failure to hold open gatherings violated the Act.”

[The Ruling]

In concluding, the Supreme Court noted that, “Prearranged, nonsocial gatherings on public business that are held in subquorum groups with the intent to circumvent the Act are required to be open to the public under Section 25-41-1 of the Open Meetings Act. Thus, the trial court correctly found that the City violated the Open Meetings Act.”

Peter Imes, General Manager of The Commercial Dispatch said, “The public should have access to its government’s decision-making process, and this ruling upholds that idea. It’s a win for open government.”

Hurst concluded, “Whether raising taxes, spending taxpayer money or issuing regulations that affect people’s lives and property, people want to know what their government is doing. This decision clearly tells government officials to follow the law and do public business in the open.”

The Mississippi Justice Institute is also representing a local Meridian man against the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors who have committed the same violations of the Open Meetings Act as found illegal in the present case by the Supreme Court. See http://www.msjustice.org/case/lauderdale-open-meetings-act/

The Mississippi Justice Institute was assisted in this appeal by Clay B. Baldwin, Esq. of the Baldwin Law Firm PLLC in Madison, Miss.

The Mississippi Justice Institute is the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Mississippi Justice Institute is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations.

Sen. Coons urges Supreme Court to end partisan gerrymandering

Washington, D.C. - October 4, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement on Gill v. Whitford.

“Partisan gerrymandering is dividing our communities, eroding the responsiveness of our democracy, and violating our most treasured civic values,” said Senator Coons. “Time and time again, the Supreme Court has declined to curtail partisan gerrymandering. Today, as the Supreme Court considers whether or not partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution in Gill v. Whitford, the Court has been given another opportunity to protect each citizen’s right to freely choose their representatives. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will finally take this opportunity to address partisan gerrymandering.”

In Pursuit of Justice: Do Away with Planned Parenthood Gag Order!

Washington, D.C. - August 11, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- David Daleiden and The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to appeal the unconstitutional gag order issued by Judge William Orrick III – an Obama-appointed judge with numerous explicit ties to Planned Parenthood – against the publication of undercover footage of top-level Planned Parenthood leaders. Daleiden explained his appeal by claiming there is information being suppressed that is of significant public interest and concern.

David Daleiden and his team contend the gag order restricts their First Amendment rights and was ordered at “the behest” of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. The appeal was made weeks after Daleiden and his team was ordered to pay a $137,000 fine and held him in contempt in court. Rep. Trent Franks reacted with the following statement:

“I pray the Supreme Court can bring transparency to this extremely dark and troubling affair in California. The attempt by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation to bury the truth contained in now infamous videos is offensive to every American sensibility. I am thankful David Daleiden has the opportunity to gain a national profile and plead for an end to his persecution before the highest court in the land.

“We should commend people like David Daleiden for his heroism in telling the truth, and we should throw those who murder helpless children and sell their body parts in jail. Not the other way around.”

Immigration ban, Stream Buffer Zones, Medicare, Supreme Court, Obamacare

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees has introduced H.R. 735, the Universal Security of American Values Act of 2017 (USA Values Act), which will "invalidate the discriminatory Executive Order issued by the President banning visitors and refugees from certain countries from entering the United States simply because they exercise their right to religious liberty by adherence to the Muslim faith."

######

The House voted 228-194 to pass H.J. Res 38, a joint resolution of congressional disapproval to stop the stream buffer zone rule. The resolution now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration. If Congress votes to overturn the rule, it cannot be introduced again unless first authorized by Congress.

######

Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) and Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA) introduced legislation (H.R. 741) to prevent Medicare’s enforcement of unreasonable and inflexible direct supervision rules for outpatient therapy services at Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) and other small, rural hospitals. An annual extension bill has been passed into law since 2014.

######

I applaud President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch has an excellent constitutional background, and was confirmed without any opposition to a seat on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Few judges in the United States are as qualified as Judge Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court and occupy the seat once held by Justice Scalia. I hope the Senate quickly approves this nomination. Bill Johnson (R-OH, 6th)

######

Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) released the following statement calling on Republican leaders to bring H.R. 3762, which repealed the Affordable Care Act through budget reconciliation in 2016, to the floor for a vote:

“Health care will be better and more affordable once Obamacare is repealed. We committed to the American people to repeal every tax, every mandate, the regulations, and to defund Planned Parenthood. That’s what the American people expect us to do – and they expect us to do it quickly. Therefore we strongly encourage Republican leadership on Capitol Hill to take up the Affordable Care Act repeal bill that already passed the House, the Senate, and went to President Obama’s desk in early 2016. There’s no reason we should put anything less on President Trump’s desk than we put on President Obama’s now that we know it will be signed into law. We strongly encourage that this bill be brought to the floor for consideration as soon as possible so we can begin undoing this law that is hurting American families.”

######