FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/28/2014 8:46:36 PM PDT by Beave Meister
The Supreme Court won't strike down Obamacare's contraception mandate, but a ruling for the law's challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.
The justices are set to rule any day now in a challenge to the birth-control mandate, and any decision against the policy would have ripple effects far beyond the two companies that filed this lawsuit. Just how far, however, depends on how broadly the Court rules—and it has plenty of options.
No matter what happens, the Court won't strike down the entire mandate. The two companies that brought their challenge to the Supreme Court—Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties—haven't asked the justices to ax the entire policy.
The most sweeping option is a broad First Amendment proclamation that all corporations have a fundamental right to exercise religion, in this case by refusing to cover birth control in their employees' health care plans. This outcome would be almost a sequel to the Citizens United case on campaign finance laws and free speech. It would probably open the door for any company to challenge a slew of state or federal regulations, and would allow any corporation to avoid the contraception mandate—potentially affecting millions of women.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
He claims to have tracked this for several years now and can ALWAYS identify one of the Majority opinion writer's on the LAST DAY of the Supreme Court session - stay tuned ...
“The most sweeping option is a broad First Amendment proclamation that all corporations have a fundamental right to exercise religion”
Would pave the way for a striking down of ‘anti-discrimination’ (read: homosexual privilege) laws.
Alas, I expect Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will rule this way, but it will only be in concurrence with a more liberal accomodating majority, if we win at all.
And after Scalia called out the pro-babykiller bias on the court, I will not be holding my breath. This could be the definitive end to religious freedom in America when it should be the absolute affirmation. Sad day when only 3 of the justices are qualified for the bench.
I mean, Elena Kagan? Few people would be less qualified. Might as well appoint a zoo animal to the court.
the onlky reason this is before the courts is b/c liberals would not allow any health plans to exist that didn’t cover birth control and abortions. libs make zero exceptions for enemies - aka rules are rules - and as many exceptions as needed for themselves and their friends - aka we make the rules and we can break the rules.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I’m preparing myself for the usual last day disappointment with the SCOTUS.
Roberts has to prove me wrong when I say he will screw us.
If Alito wrote Hobby Lobby then I’m ecstatic and we win.
If Roberts wrote it then I’m going to need some pepto very quickly.
“.....but a ruling for the law’s challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.”
Buy your own damn birth control pills ding bat!
Hobby Lobby loses. While the court has affirmed the freedom of speech for companies, it will use the example of the establishment clause to state that companies can't impose their views on employees as well, and uphold the contraceptive mandate.
I think there will be a tiny win, that religious affiliated corporations must have an out, as employees are quite aware that they are working for Catholic Charities or whatever, and their viewpoints. They MIGHT go as far as tossing out the mandate until an exemption is in place.
The second opinion will be yet another blow for unions, as Alito tears them to pieces once again.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As mentioned in related threads, as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, activist justices have successfully misled low-information citizens about the constitutionality of Obamacare in the following way. Activist justices undoubtedly don't want people to know that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
And for those liberals who argue that the Constitution doesn’t say “no” to healthcare, please note the following. The Supreme Court has also officially clarified that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution are prohibited.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
If activist justices really want Obamacare to be constitutional, then they need to do the following. They need to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution by doing the following. They need to cheerlead Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. And if the states choose to ratify the proposed healthcare amendment then Congress will have the specific power that it needs to actually get into the healthcare business and activist justices will be heroes.
If the CJ is in the majority, usually he will write the opinion, but can designate to another justice. Don’t know what happens when he’s in the minority. But I don’t think there’s any even-steven equitable division of opinion writing.
OTOH - can employees impose their views [ie: contraception coverage] on their employers?
Employees aren't imposing ObamaCare (PelosiCare) coverage requirements, the federal government is. The religious views of the employees (and ultimately, the consumers of those plans) aren't in question here. Question is: Do YOU as a consumer of health care plans, have to accept any plan that includes contraceptive coverage? That's a battle the SCOTUS doesn't want to fight, and hence why I think the religious exemption will be encouraged by SCOTUS to handle such future questions.
Nothing is at stake. Any ruling against democrat care will be ignored.
How can the Amish and Muslims be exempt from the entire program and other faith/individuals be held to the complete?
If the court has already ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights to free speech then how can they say they also don't have First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
Is that a rhetorical question since the POTUS is Barack Obama and his reasons are pretty clear or were you asking my opinion about the legal aspects?
Here’s an example of where Roberts might be able to convince the liberals to join him in a “narrowly conservative” decision wherein we get the religious liberty exemption.
“A decision limited to closely held corporations could be a way to skirt the outcome liberals fear most—a broad and explicit expansion of corporate personhood. But it would still allow a significant number of employers to exclude birth control from their health plans, affecting an untold number of female workers and their dependents.”
From scotusblog June 26 2014 9:30 AM
This almost certainly means that Justice Alito, who has not yet written a decision from January, will be writing in Harris.
Harris is the public union case. So I’m guessing Roberts is writing Hobby Lobby. IDK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.