The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1462367
The Press-Dispatch Wednesday, March 23, 2022 C-5 principled trust ea- He alone. lim- markets about 2007. broadcast it. ev- that longer times, and sec- prima- were fi- libertari- Maga- 'Libertar- get 2012. ask peo- suc- somewhat. active in Nix- gold ev- Paul. "If we're in wouldn't mon- just first "nobody Reserve." campaigns the from came in in al- Sanders is I re- say capitalism." so- an- con- send wanted respon- out. (America) try Paul. politicians presiden- Paul was bomb- would " ap- really an don't And expla- that attention. complained the defeat plac- oth- a se- Chi- street. applause, delegates. politicians The 80 military in- deadly Biden Eu- (Putin's) going to NA- that responds. there? had national se- brought helping might 5 POLITICIAN Continued from page 4 SWAMP Continued from page 4 JUSTICE Continued from page 4 Court Report FELONY Pike County Circuit Court Jaziman A. Griffen charged with count I main- taining a common nuisance (controlled substance), a lev- el 6 felony; count II neglect of a dependent, places de- fendant in situation that en- danger the dependent, a lev- el 6 felony; count III posses- sion of marijuana, a class B misdemeanor; and count IV reckless driving, unreason- able speed, a class C misde- meanor. TRAFFIC AND MISDEMEANORS Pike County Circuit Court Hannah M. Gray charged with possession of marijua- na, a class B misdemeanor, and possession of parapher- nalia, a class C misdemeanor. Magan M. Hargraves charged with possession of marijuana, a class B misde- meanor. Aaron G. Shover charged with public intoxication, en- dangers own life, a class B misdemeanor. Shane Snider charged with possession of marijuana, a class B misdemeanor. CIVIL Pike County Circuit Court Mariner Finance LLC sues Cheyenna Stepro for collec- tion. Mariner Finance LLC sues Jason Smith for collection. Midland Credit Manage- ment Inc. sues Taylor Clark for collection. Portfolio Recovery Asso- ciates sues Cody Cannon for collection. Midland Credit Manage- ment Inc. sues Darlene Can- non for collection. Community Loan Servic- ing LLC sues Lawrence C. Dent Sr., Alice D. Dent and Ronald Ice et al on complaint. Brieanna Head sues Zack- ery A. Head for dissolution of marriage. Vince E. Fiscus sues Mol- ly June Fiscus for dissolution of marriage. SMALL CLAIMS Pike County Circuit Court Indiana Farm Bureau In- surance also known as Anna Williams sues Indiana Dept. of Transportation on com- plaint. INFRACTIONS Pike County Circuit Court Megan L. Hatfield charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Kealy J. Turpin charged with speeding. Natalie M. Mills charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Margaret K. Navarro charged with seatbelt viola- tion. Lydia M. Adams charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Steven D. Wilson charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Athena R. Smith charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Jacqueline R. Carlton charged with speeding. Dawn M. Hay charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Briana M. Whitehead charged with seatbelt viola- tion. Ashton T. Stafford charged with registration and display of registration violation. John A. Seger charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Elizabeth M. Robinson charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Kiersten P. Baxter charged with seatbelt violation. Zane A. Collins charged with operating a motor vehi- cle without financial respon- sibility and failure to yield right-of-way at intersection. Jacob A. Smith charged with operating a vehicle with fictitious plate. Judd Linette charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Ryan F. Smith charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Abigayle Ellen Krulik charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Ayla R. Walls charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Jayden B. Matheis charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Alicia Y. Hudson charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Andrew J. Fair charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Weiye Dou charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Joshua D. Luedke charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Sangewon Beom charged with speeding in a 70 mph zone. Janet L. Huffman charged with seatbelt violation. Trevor D. Anders charged with seatbelt violation. Joseph Luke Hagner charged with failure to change lanes for authorized emergency vehicle. Joshua Aaron Debord charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. Bryer A. Earley charged with speeding in a 55 mph zone. William M. Farris charged with speeding in a 30 mph zone. Jason W. Smith charged with seatbelt violation. Adam D. Myers charged with seatbelt violation. Joshua Abe Dinner charged with expired plates. Dear Rusty: There is confusion be- tween my husband and me on when he should file for Medicare. My husband will be 64 in July. While he plans on continu- ing to work to age 67 and continue with his employer's insurance plan, I believe there's a requirement that he file for a certain part of the Medicare retirement plan at age 65, otherwise there's some penalty at some point in the future after retirement. There's confusion with this, and I'm hoping you can explain exact- ly what the process is in filing for Medi- care at age 65 and after reaching full re- tirement age. Also, comment on wheth- er continuing with employers' insurance is an option or if you should file for Medi- care at age 65. Signed: Confused About Medicare. Dear Confused: There are two main parts of Medicare to be aware of for this discussion - Part A which is coverage for inpatient hospitalization services, and Part B which is coverage for outpatient services (doctors, medical tests, etc.). Medicare Part A: Assuming your hus- band is eligible to collect Social Secu- rity when he turns 65 (he'd needn't be collecting it, only eligible to), there will be no premium associated with Medi- care Part A (thus no penalty if he delays claiming it). If his employer coverage is "creditable" (which is a group plan with at least 20 participants), then he can de- fer enrolling in Part A until, (1) his em- ployer hospitalization coverage ends, or (2) he starts collecting his Social Secu- rity benefits (enrolling in Part A is man- datory for those who are collecting So- cial Security after age 65). He may also wish to check with his employer's HR de- partment to see if his em- ployer plan requires him to enroll in Part A when he turns 65. However, if your husband enrolls in Part A and has a Health Savings Account (HSA) through his employer, any contributions made to his HSA account af- ter the month before he is 65 will be subject to an IRS penalty and become taxable income. Medicare Part B: There is a month- ly premium associated with Part B, but if your husband has "creditable" health- care coverage from his employer when he turns 65, he can simply defer enroll- ing in Part B until his employer cover- age ends and there will be no Late En- rollment Penalty for waiting. When his employer coverage ends, he will enter an eight month Medicare Special En- rollment Period (SEP) during which he can enroll in Part B without penalty. But if he doesn't enroll during (or before) his SEP and enrolls in Part B later, he'll be subject to a Late Enrollment Penal- ty which would increase his Part B pre- mium by 10 percent for each full year he goes without "creditable" coverage after age 65. FYI, your husband can also enroll in Part B shortly before his employer cov- erage ends and specify that he wishes his Medicare coverage to start on the first of the month following the end of his employer coverage (to avoid any gap in coverage). When your husband enrolls in Part B, he must also en- roll in Part A (at no addition- al cost). FYI, Part B premi- ums can increase yearly— the standard 2022 Part B premium is $170.10/month. There is another Medi- care element called "Part D" which is coverage for pre- scription drugs. Prescription drug costs are not covered by Medicare Parts A/B and such coverage must be acquired sep- arately if desired. When your husband's prescription drug coverage from his em- ployer plan ends, he'll need to separately acquire (through a private insurer) drug coverage during his SEP, or there will be a separate Part D late enrollment penalty for acquiring drug coverage thereafter. The bottom line is this: If your hus- band's healthcare coverage from his em- ployer is "creditable" he can simply defer enrolling in Medicare until his employer coverage ends, and there will be no late enrollment penalty for doing so (unless he waits beyond his SEP to enroll). To submit a question, visit website (amacfoundation.org/programs/so- cial-security-advisory) or email ssadvi- sor@amacfoundation.org. Enrolling in Medicare at age 65 while employed Social Security Matters By Rusty Gloor D.C. Circuit sitting en banc (all active judges of the circuit, not just the panel, presided) reversed the original panel on the first issue, and the case settled be- fore the en banc court resolved the sec- ond issue. As an appellate judge, Jackson recent- ly joined an opinion written by Judge Pa- tricia Millett in Trump v. Thompson up- holding a lower court decision rejecting Trump's effort to block the release of doc- uments being held by the National Ar- chives to the Jan. 6 committee after the Biden administration declined to assert executive privilege to block their release. The Supreme Court refused to intervene, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dis- senting. LABOR LAW CASES Jackson has issued several significant opinions in labor law cases that likely go a long way in explaining why liberal groups like Demand Justice designated her as their preferred nominee. She is clearly partial to labor unions and is highly skep- tical, if not downright hostile, to any at- tempt to limit their ability to unionize or engage in collective bargaining. In Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL -CIO v. Trump, Jackson ruled in favor of fed- eral labor unions challenging three of Trump's executive orders related to col- lective bargaining rights. The executive orders limited the issues unions could bargain over, the amount of time labor union officials could spend with union members, and the rights of members to appeal disciplinary actions. Jackson concluded that those orders conflicted with the Federal Service La- bor-Management Relations Statute. A unanimous D.C. Circuit panel reversed her decision, holding that Jackson did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and that such claims had to be pursued through the administrative process established under the Federal Labor Relations Act. In a pair of written opinions in AFL - CIO v. NLRB, Jackson vacated (invali- dated) a National Labor Relations Board rule that amended union election proce- dures to slow down the union election process. She concluded that the rule con- tained more than procedural rule chang- es and should have been subject to no- tice-and-comments rulemaking require- ments in the Administrative Procedure Act. In AFL -CIO v. Federal Labor Rela- tions Authority, a group of public sec- tor unions challenged a 2020 rule by the Federal Labor Relations Authority that raised the threshold for management-ini- tiated changes to employment conditions that would trigger collective bargaining rights. In her first written majority opinion as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Jackson inval- idated the rule, which raised the thresh- old from changes that had de minimis effect on a condition of employment to changes that had a substantial impact on a condition of employment, concluding the authority's decision was insufficient- ly reasoned and, therefore, arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administra- tive Procedure Act. Professor Jonathan Adler of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law described this opinion as "an erro- neous and unduly strict application" of ap- plicable Supreme Court precedent. IMMIGRATION CASES There is at least one high-profile case in which Jackson appeared to stretch the law—and was overturned—to frus- trate the Trump administration's efforts to rigorously enforce our nation's immi- gration laws. In Make the Road N.Y. v. McAleenan, immigration advocacy groups brought a pre-enforcement challenge to the Depart- ment of Homeland Security secretary's decision to expand the categories of non- citizens that would be subject to expedit- ed removal from the United States. Jackson entered a nationwide prelim- inary injunction to prevent the revised rule from taking effect, concluding that she had jurisdiction to consider the case and that the plaintiffs were likely to suc- ceed on their claim that the agency's ac- tion was arbitrary and capricious and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In doing so, she wrote that the gov- ernment's argument was "peculiar" and "reeks of bad faith, demonstrates con- tempt for the authority that the Consti- tution's Framers have vested in the ju- dicial branch, and, ultimately, deprives successful plaintiffs of the full measure of the remedy to which they are entitled." The D.C. Circuit reversed her injunc- tion. The majority opinion, written by fel- low Obama appointee Millett, held that while the district court had jurisdiction to consider the matter, Congress had grant- ed the secretary "sole and unreviewable discretion" on expedited removal deter- minations. Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Immigration and National- ity Act bars judicial review of the secre- tary's discretionary decisions about ex- pedited removal. In Kiakombua v. Wolf, Jackson ruled in favor of five noncitizens who were sub- ject to expedited removal and against the Trump administration and held that changes made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a subagency of the Department of Homeland Security, to its Credible Fear Lesson Plan utilized crite- ria that had not been prescribed by Con- gress in the Immigration and Nationali- ty Act. Jackson vacated the revised rule and ordered that the plaintiffs be provid- ed with a new asylum hearing using law- ful standards. In Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan, environmental groups chal- lenged the homeland security secretary's invocation of the Illegal Immigration Re- form and Immigrant Responsibility Act to waive certain environmental laws in order to expedite construction of a bor- der wall in New Mexico. In contrast to her decision in Make the Road, Jackson granted the government's motion to dismiss the case, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction under the relevant statute to consider noncon- stitutional challenges to such a decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Wolf was another case in which Jackson sided with the government. In that case, several advocacy groups chal- lenged the government's policy of hold- ing noncitizens in Customs and Border Protection facilities, which they claimed were inhumane, while awaiting asylum interviews. Jackson held that while the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case, the de- tention policy was a reasonable interpre- tation of the Immigration and Nationali- ty Act and its implementing regulations. OTHER IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE CASES In Policy and Research v. HHS and a companion case, Jackson ruled that De- partment of Health and Human Services' announcement that it was going to short- en the time period for grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs from five years to three years was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Admin- istrative Procedure Act because it was is- sued without notice or an adequate ex- planation. But some of Jackson's decisions—even those ruling against an agency—cannot be characterized as reflexively liberal. For example, in Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. Dep't of Interior, while agreeing that the Endangered Species Act would allow the Interior Department to protect fairy shrimp in vernal pools that were "oc- cupied" by them, Jackson agreed with the plaintiff that the agency's designation of the land and water between the pools— a total of 56 acres—as critical habitat for the species was "manifestly unreason- able." RACIAL PREFERENCES In Rothe Dev., Inc. v. Dep't of Def., Jackson rejected the plaintiff's consti- tutional challenge to Section 8(a) of the Small Business Administration Act, which establishes a program of prefer- ential treatment in government contract- ing for businesses owned by "socially dis- advantaged individuals," concluding that the program satisfied strict scrutiny. The D.C. Circuit (over a partial dis- sent) affirmed her judgment, albeit on different grounds, and the Supreme Court declined to consider the case. Another important line of questions in this area will not involve a case in which she issued an opinion, but two import- ant consolidated cases that the Supreme Court will hear next term. In Students for Fair Admission v. Pres- ident & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina, the justices will recon- sider whether racial preferences in col- lege admissions are constitutional. In both cases, the admissions policies make it significantly more likely that black applicants will be admitted—and significantly less likely that Asian Amer- ican applicants will be admitted—than other similarly qualified applicants. Jackson will be asked whether she will commit to recuse herself from tak- ing part in the consideration of those cas- es. This is a legitimate question. While Jackson was not involved in the disposi- tion of either of these cases as they wend- ed their way through the lower courts, she has been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers since 2016. As Ed Whelan, a senior fellow and for- mer president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has noted, this is not a min- isterial position. The board, which meets multiple times a year, "provides counsel to the University's leadership on priori- ties, plans, and strategic initiatives." It is hard to imagine that the ongoing lawsuit challenging Harvard's admis- sion's policy was not the subject of in- tense discussion among the board and the university's leadership. And interestingly, in her submitted questionnaire on pages 121 and 122, Jack- son states that she recused herself in a couple of cases that bear a striking re- semblance to this situation. She recused herself in Doe v. Lhamon "because the complaint challenged the Department of Education's sexual assault guidelines for colleges and universities, and at the time that the matter was as- signed to me, I was serving on the board of a university that was evaluating its own potential response to those guidelines." Is there any doubt that she was refer- ring to Harvard? And she recused herself in Chenari v. George Washington University "because the plaintiff alleged that George Wash- ington University improperly terminat- ed his enrollment at the school for hon- or code violations, and at the time this matter came before me, I was affiliated with George Washington University Law School as an adjunct professor." Suffice it to say that being on the board of overseers of a university is a much more serious "affiliation" than being an adjunct professor. CONCLUSION These are just a few of the opinions that are likely to be scrutinized by senators during the coming hearing that should yield insights as to how Jackson decides cases and whether she does so in an im- partial manner, focusing exclusively on the law and not her personal or political predilections. Senators should ask tough and prob- ing questions of Jackson in order to learn more about her judicial philosophy and approach to resolving legal disputes, both of which are vital considerations as they decide whether to confirm her to the high court. John Malcolm is Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government and Director of the Meese Center for Le- gal & Judicial Studies. get a better paycheck." I push back. "President Biden would say, 'We have to go there just to deter Rus- sia. If we don't, we're inviting them to invade other coun- tries.'" We shouldn't let govern- ment scare us into going to war, says Paul. "Fear is the tool of totalitarians." Paul's anti-war arguments have shifted public opinion. To- day we might be fighting in Ukraine if it were not for Ron Paul and his warnings about the risk of America policing the world. John Stossel is creator of Stossel TV and author of "Give Me a Break: How I Ex- posed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." al spending, which undoubt- edly makes this bill the most expensive going-away pres- ent in world history. The bill is stuffed with pork, and no one seems em- barrassed. Congress gave it- self a 21 percent increase in office staff budgets. There is $ 600,000 for lobster pots for Maine fishermen, $2 mil- lion for a solar power "equi- ty" program, $ 600,000 for a New York greenhouse, $4.2 million for a program related to sheep and $1.6 million for a program for Rhode Island shellfish. At the end of the day, Pelo- si and Senate Majority Lead- er Chuck Schumer were all smiles because the budget deal funds Biden's "key do- mestic priorities." The White House gushed: "The bipartisan funding bill is proof that both parties can come together to deliver for the American people and ad- vance critical national prior- ities." A small step for Washing- ton and a giant leap toward national bankruptcy. Con- gratulations, Congress. Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at Freedom Works. He is also author of the new book: "Govzilla: How The Relentless Growth of Government Is De- vouring Our Economy." Karan Thacker Owner THACKER TAX SERVICE 906 Blackfoot Drive Fort Branch, IN 47648 812-615-0071 (office) 812-789-3852 (cell) kthacker01@gmail.com