Posted on 06/28/2016 8:31:33 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal filed by pharmacists in Washington state who objected on religious grounds to providing emergency contraceptives to women.
The justices, with three conservatives dissenting, left in place a July ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed medicines in a timely manner.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion saying the court's decision not to hear the case is "an ominous sign."
In Washington, the state permits a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny medicine, as long as another pharmacist working at the location provides timely delivery. The rules require a pharmacy to deliver all medicine, even if the owner objects.
The case is one of several around the United States in which people and businesses have sought to opt out of providing services that conflict with their religious faith.
Alito said there is evidence the regulation was adopted because of "hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state."....
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.reuters.com ...
Kennedy on the rampage again.
I’m starting to think that Leftists really did kill Scalia. Then they pulled Kennedy into a dark alley and said “play it our way, or you’re next!”
8 Black robed “Gods” rule and millions suffer for it.
So, someone with a dime store education (as in a law degree) can tell someone with a REAL education (pharmacy) what their beliefs are?
How long do we take this before we say “ Try and do something about it *sshole.”?
We need to start seeing lawsuits against muslims who refuse to do their jobs because they involve “forbidden” things. Let’s see how well this ruling holds up when one of the Left’s morality pets is the target.
Is there a law that said Pharmacy has to carry the drug in question?
a very wise pharmacist that I know said that she would very apologetically tell the customer that she was all out of [whatever-it-is].
problem solved.
The Supreme Kort is lopsided and needs to be readjusted to place it in accord with the Constitution. The lesbians and the old crone need to be removed. Kennedy and Roberts aren’t trustworthy. Roberts, on the face of his Obozocare fiasco, might be a little crazy.
Soap box is now heavily restricted.
Ballot box is now heavily compromised and ignored.
I am very worried about what recourse is left.
How can they enforce this ruling on an independent pharmacy? Couldn’t the pharmacy simply claim that they do not carry such products?
Unfortunately this only applies to Congress and the federal government. In the Constitution the states have plenipotentiary power over all things not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to them. Under the present understanding of the First Amendment I would argue that the actions of Washington state are a violation of its Free Exercise clause, not a violation of the enumerated powers.
Apart from an Article V convention, we are running out of peaceful options.
Not if the pharmacist owned his/her own store. You could always be out and recommend they seek another pharmacy.
>>Let’s see how well this ruling holds up when one of the Left’s morality pets is the target.
You expect the left to challenge its own hierarchy of victims? No, they will take the opportunity to codify it.
It will take a while to get there.
Nothing in politics is by accident. The Leftists have controlled the SCOTUS since before FDR stacked the court with Marxists.
The SCOTUS can NOT play God or force people to kill other human beings-—take away the Natural God-Given Rights of human beings-——but they are and do——it is ALL unconstitutional—along with forcing “Pride” in sodomizing (vice) others. As Montesquieu sated (and Blackstone and Justice Marshall—Just Law can NEVER promote Vice). Unjust Laws (ones promoting vice. Unjust Law is “Null and Void” and we have the DUTY to not obey evil law (Nuremberg Trials/MLK,Jr./Justice Marshall).
As Judge Napolitano stated in his book on Wilson and T. Roosevelt-—the Progressives have completely destroyed the Constitution-—removed it from our so-called “Justice” System, which now makes itself “God” (unconstitutional). We need to return to “Laws of Nature and nature’s God” as written and embedded into our Justice System (Supreme Law of the Land IS the Constitution-—NOT the Court who take an OATH to uphold the Constitution ONLY—not UN irrational, evil “law”.
We have unalienable GOD-GIVEN Natural Rights and the SCOTUS is infringing on them since before 1900-—and it HAS to end.
We need Rule of Law-—not Rule of Oligarchy— which is what we have had since before the Marxist mandatory system of mass indoctrination to destroy the Minds of children-—make them dumb voting “bots”. Before we get our country back, we have to take control of the Worldview our children are getting from this toxic culture/system which is exactly like the vulgar, homo-erotic Weimar Republic (hyper-sexualizing (corrupting) its children so emotions (base urges) control Reason/Reality).
Actually, what happened in this case is that the State of Washington (one of the fifty states, not the federal government) is requiring all pharmacies in the State of Washington to sell these contraceptives. The pharmacy has been asking the Federal Government (the federal courts) to protect the pharmacy from the state government and its rules. The Federal Government (the U.S. Supreme Court) refused to interfere with the state government's rules.
In other words, this is not a case in which the U.S. Government is exceeding its powers. It is a case in which the U.S. Government is refusing to interfere.
FUSCOTUS!
(Oooh, that wasn't very Christian of me)
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.