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 ...
I had always thought that the blackmail was done through the questionable adoption of Roberts children. See below the link below:
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/16722-was-chief-justice-roberts-blackmailed-into-supporting-obamacare-maybe/
That was my first reaction, too. So, we’ll have to order it for you. Will take a week. That shipment didn’t get in, we’ll order again, so sorry, another week ...
Who hasn’t gotten that runaround from other businesses?
“The limitation to federal officeholders was mooted by the Supreme Court in the 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins. Relying upon the First Amendment religion clauses, the Court struck down religious tests for any public office in the United States. Not even a simple profession of belief in God—as was required of Roy Torcaso, an aspiring notary public—may now be required. Torcaso thus totally eclipses the Religious Test Clause of Article VI. The scope of an individual’s immunity from disqualification from office on religious bases now depends upon the meaning of the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses, not upon Article VI. Because the First Amendment’s breadth is as wide as all government activity, questions about the precise meaning of ‘office of public trust’ are also moot. Whether the Religious Test Clause by itself extends to Members of Congress or all the way down to postal workers no longer matters—save perhaps to historians.”
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test
We need a Constitutional judicial amendment:
1. the jurisdiction of federal courts shall be limited to cases where the federal government or a foreign government’s US accredited diplomat is either the plaintiff or a defendant.
2. The District of Columbia shall be part of Maryland [so DC residents will have a court system]
3. a state judge may be removed immediately by a 75% or more vote of a legislative branch of the state
4. any judicial action based on any activity in the state may be voided by a 60% or more vote of a legislative branch of the state
5. a. No judge or judicial body or judicial action may in any way usurp the spending power of an elected government
b. no judge serving any state shall cause the expenditure of money from a state or political subdivision except as exactly specified by detailed petition of the state legislature which includes a maximum total of money to be spent and any such judicial action shall be limited to the current fiscal year
6. all consent decrees or like involving a government or public entity created under law shall be forever void and none may be entered into
7. fines and court costs assessed in total at any time shall not exceed the average income of a punished person for two months over the past five years (based on tax returns filed) or 300 times the state’s hourly minimum wage, whichever is more
8. the appointment of counsel paid by government funds now required by Amendment VI shall be limited to capital cases and cases with charges with the total potential of imprisonment for more than a year
>
The US Constitution lists only enumerated powers. Its purpose is to restrain the government. Over the years, the ever-expanding “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses have allowed government to expand its powers to regulate medical care. Should government allow a licensed medical care provider to politely decline to provide an otherwise legal service, that would allow “discrimination” and “denial of service.” Of course government cannot allow that no matter how much that destroys religious liberty and freedom of association, the very things that the Founding Fathers constituted government to protect. A government founded on liberty has itself become hostile to liberty. It has enslaved pharmacists. It will soon enslave all of us. #BakeTheCake
>
IMO, the debate was lost once govt was allowed (wrong verbiage) to regulate medical care...ala ‘licensed’ XYZ. Look at the ever growing list of the same...BARBERS, interior decorators, DAY CARE (aka parenting/baby-sitting).
We need a return to Free Markets, word of mouth and tort reform.
How a CLAUSE can supersede the whole of the statement is beyond the pale. Govt, here’s your DEFINED list of ‘can do’...yet ‘general welfare’ and ‘commerce’ make them moot?? While ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are ignored to do the same expansion (while strictly laid out verbiage ala 1st/2nd/9th/10th) are completely ignored.
Only to lawyers and politicians (I repeat myself)
emergency contraceptives hahaha
Going back to at least 1660, English speaking peoples have held conventions to deal with inadequate or oppressive governments. Until the Article V process appeared in the US Constitution, these meetings were extra-governmental and regarded as less than legitimate. But, the fact remains that conventions of the sovereign people are well established in our history and should be resorted to when circumstances, such as now, compel us.
Why couldn’t it have been Kennedy instead of Scalia?
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.