Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rejects Liberty U 'Obamacare' Employer Mandate Challenge
Christian Post ^ | 12/02/2013 | Napp Nazworth

Posted on 12/02/2013 2:47:19 PM PST by SeekAndFind

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Monday a lawsuit by Liberty University challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's, or "Obamacare's," mandate that employers with more than 50 employees provide health insurance for its employees.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver, who is representing Liberty University, said he wished the court would have taken the case, but future challenges to the employer mandate are still possible.

Liberty's challenge was based upon the argument that Congress does not have the authority to require that employers provide health insurance. The government defended its authority under the Commerce Clause (Congress has the power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states").

In a challenge to the ACA's individual mandate to purchase insurance, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to require individuals to carry health insurance under the Commerce Clause, but it does have the authority under Congress' taxing power. If the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance, then it should not give Congress the power to require employers to provide health insurance, Liberty reasoned in its arguments.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit rejected that argument, ruling that the Commerce Clause has been recognized by the courts as providing Congress with the authority to regulate employee compensation.

"We find that the employer mandate is no monster," Judges Diana Gribbon Motz, Andre M. Davis and James A. Wynn Jr. wrote. "Rather, it is simply another example of Congress's longstanding authority to regulate employee compensation offered and paid for by employers in interstate commerce."

It was a challenge to that Appeals Court ruling that the Supreme Court declined to hear, so the Appeals Court ruling stands.

President Barack Obama delayed the employer mandate until 2014. If the mandate does go into effect as planned, Staver said that Liberty can bring another suit after paying a penalty for not abiding by the mandate.

There are other lower court cases that challenge the employer mandate, but, due to the delay, those challenges will also be slower making their way to the Supreme Court, according to ScotusBlog's Lyle Denniston.

Liberty also has a case pending for a suit against the ACA's birth control mandate. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving the birth control mandate as it applies to for-profit companies. Staver said Liberty is looking forward to hearing what the court has to say in those cases, around June 2014. The court could strike down the birth control mandate for both non-profits and for-profits.

Liberty is a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the late Pastor Jerry Falwell.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: libertyu; mandate; obamacare; scotus

1 posted on 12/02/2013 2:47:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver, who is representing Liberty University, said he wished the court would have taken the case, but future challenges to the employer mandate are still possible.

How? When? We have to keep pummeling the courts with appeals. Forever. Or until it is repealed.

2 posted on 12/02/2013 2:54:29 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
President Barack Obama delayed the employer mandate until 2014. If the mandate does go into effect as planned, Staver said that Liberty can bring another suit after paying a penalty for not abiding by the mandate.

Absurd. This ought to be a no-brainer.

3 posted on 12/02/2013 2:55:14 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The “SC” has long since annulled the Constitution.

The US has been overrun.


4 posted on 12/02/2013 3:00:45 PM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/nicolae-hussein-obama/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

It looks as if the Court rejected this appeal, because it was the strongest of those submitted, and would be the most important. They probably wish to establish one of their “precedents” before they consider the more serious and challenging case.
But they say nothing. One would think that in rejecting a case, they could at least give a hint at a reason. It makes it appear that they feel that they do not have to justify anything.
Sometimes I wish that I could do that: just act as I wish, and not even explain what I was doing, or why. Nice! I could be dictator of everything. Pop! End of that daydream, and realization that the courts must actually think like that.


5 posted on 12/02/2013 3:02:51 PM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Liberty’s challenge was based upon the argument that Congress does not have the authority to require that employers provide health insurance.
...........................................................
Liberty U. is right.

The Supreme Court is no longer a Court. It is an Obama stamp of approval.


6 posted on 12/02/2013 3:13:40 PM PST by Venturer (Keep Obama and you aint seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Judge Motz: prosecuted Spiro Agnew, noted Leftist, famously said of her husband, a Republican Judge: "it's his only flaw". Objective? Not.

Judge Davis: He's Black. Prior experience: "Prior to law school, Davis served as an assistant housing manager and equal opportunity specialist with the Housing Authority of Baltimore City". Do we have to say more? He might as well be Obama's campaign manager.

Judge Wynn: He's Black. Nominated by...drum roll please...Barack HUSSEIN Obama. This vote was never in contention. He be down for da Boss, no questions axed.

A set from the get.

7 posted on 12/02/2013 3:36:58 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Blindfold, wall - some assembly required.


8 posted on 12/02/2013 3:45:13 PM PST by OSHA (One despises and wants to destroy the United States, the other is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OSHA

Never fear—Roberts will stay “Bought”


9 posted on 12/02/2013 3:50:57 PM PST by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Roberts court is a bunch of corrupt lawyers with robes.


10 posted on 12/02/2013 3:56:50 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind


11 posted on 12/02/2013 4:44:33 PM PST by Iron Munro (Orwell: There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson