Posted on 05/16/2016 9:53:07 AM PDT by ColdOne
The Supreme Court punted Monday on a challenge by religious-affiliated employers to ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, sending the election-year dispute back to the lower courts.
ADVERTISEMENT
The justices had been considering whether religious-affiliated institutions like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity of nuns, can be exempt from having to pay for -- or indirectly allow -- birth control and other reproductive coverage in their health plans.
But the court did not rule on the merits. Instead, the justices sent the cases back to the appeals courts to make new decisions based on recent statements.
“The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases,” the court said in an unsigned, unanimous opinion. “In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners' religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
SCOTUS punted the cases back to the Courts of Appeals, hoping that when the cases return to SCOTUS there will be 9 Justices. This means the cases would have been 4-4 if not for the punt.
Everything is mute if Trump wins.
Moot.......................
That Too....;0)
What was the lower courts ruling? A 4-4 tie can be a good thing.
There was a circuit split, so 4-4 result would have left that split in place. That would have left the Contraception Mandate in place in part of the country, struck down in others.
How so?
Freegards
That is my take too. They punted for this round seeing a 4-4 tie looming, and will accept the case after the lower courts still don’t agree and it gets sent back up when there are 9 justices again.
Thank you. I see.
Freegards
>...substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest...
“Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Humm. I’m not an English major, nor a multiple-year (over-educated) college graduate, but I read nothing in the 1st, nor the whole of the Constitution, that gives the govt authority to infringe upon the religious Rights of We the People, let alone based on any ‘govt compelling interest’ (where’s THAT spelled-out?...Not in A1S8).
Course, Leftists and govt lackeys, but I repeat myself, just can’t seem to comprehend “SHALL NOT”. Course, this is the same Court that thought ‘State exchanges’ didn’t MEAN ‘State’ exchanges.
Null and void for lack of authority, void for violation of a plethora of Amendments...and Congress sits on its hands, refusing to reign in the judicial oligarchy.
Moot, yes. Mute, definitely not. (I guarantee they won’t shut up and will only get louder if Trump wins.)
Patriots, please bear in mind that these court battles concerning Obamacare are beside the point.
The main problem with Obamacare imo, is that state sovereignty-ignoring, Ivy League law school-indoctrinated justices wrongly ignored that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had repeatedly clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. (This is evidenced by the excerpts below.)
In other words, the corrupt Washington cartel wrongly ignored that it had to first successfully petition the states to ratify a healthcare amendment to the Constitution before establishing Obamacare. Such an amendment would have given the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
Regardless what Obama’s activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"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.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress." - Linder v. United States, 1925.
"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.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, they need to support Trump by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to not only support Trump, but also put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes and federal government interference with state sovereignty.
Also, such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
;)...thank you for that spot on post!
Just what compels the government to insist that private businesses supply their employees with the means to interrupt the natural consequences of sexual intercourse?
The courts created these rules and now just ignore them.
Not ideal. Thanks.
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.