Skip to comments.
High court ends Liberty University lawsuit over health law
Fox News Online ^
| 12/2
| AP
Posted on 12/02/2013 9:12:49 AM PST by TheBigB
Edited on 12/02/2013 9:14:42 AM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
1
posted on
12/02/2013 9:12:49 AM PST
by
TheBigB
To: TheBigB
2
posted on
12/02/2013 9:15:54 AM PST
by
no-to-illegals
(Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
To: TheBigB
I'm not surprised that would tyrants are trying to take over this nation from the inside.
What stuns me is how no one ANYWHERE at ANY LEVEL is trying to stop them.
3
posted on
12/02/2013 9:16:05 AM PST
by
Tzimisce
To: TheBigB
A. Kennedy must have struck again.
4
posted on
12/02/2013 9:16:33 AM PST
by
Theodore R.
(The grand pooh-bahs are flirting with Christie, but it's Jebbie's turn!" to LOSE!)
To: TheBigB
Maybe the American people truly believe in tyranny. Just so long as they have their football, pizza, and beer
5
posted on
12/02/2013 9:17:23 AM PST
by
Theodore R.
(The grand pooh-bahs are flirting with Christie, but it's Jebbie's turn!" to LOSE!)
To: TheBigB
From the article:
"The university had mounted a major challenge to the law, going after the contraception mandate but also the requirement on employers to provide coverage." Guess SCOTUS sees the challenge on contraception to be a duplicate of the Hobby Lobby case, but the forced employer coverage provision is now 'legal', it would seem.
6
posted on
12/02/2013 9:18:05 AM PST
by
alancarp
To: TheBigB
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge to ObamaCare brought by a Virginia-based Christian university, ending for now one of the biggest remaining legal fights against the health care law. Ping for later
7
posted on
12/02/2013 9:18:22 AM PST
by
Alex Murphy
("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
To: TheBigB
Can I assume Roberts was the deciding justice on this?
8
posted on
12/02/2013 9:19:13 AM PST
by
rawhide
To: TheBigB
The Supreme Court is playing with fire on this one. They well could cause a quiet revolution with the wrong decision here. What if people decide that they are simply not going to provide free birth control and abortion pills? What can the government do if a massive resistance arises?
To: Theodore R.
To: maxwellsmart_agent
There should be mass resistance to this crap
11
posted on
12/02/2013 9:21:34 AM PST
by
GeronL
(Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
To: Theodore R.
Empty Belly... full Mind
Full Belly... Empty Mind....
It is the cycle of History...
12
posted on
12/02/2013 9:22:25 AM PST
by
GraceG
To: alancarp
The Roberts’ case earlier was about individuals being forced to buy insurance,
so why would the employer requirement not be ruled in the same way as that abortion of a ruling?
13
posted on
12/02/2013 9:22:50 AM PST
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: TheBigB
This means they could not even get 4 Justices to agree to hear the case; assume they got three; 6 either said no or abstained. Not good...not good at all.
To: 5thGenTexan
The sodomites have taken over the country. Slipped in the back door when we weren't looking.
15
posted on
12/02/2013 9:24:26 AM PST
by
Fido969
To: maxwellsmart_agent
What can the government do if a massive resistance arises? Like your thinking and would support massive resistance while this government levies fines, sends out their IRS agents to harass and shutters businesses. For this would be the rulers response (imho). The divide has been crossed and nobody (including myself) relishes where our nation is headed.
16
posted on
12/02/2013 9:26:11 AM PST
by
no-to-illegals
(Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: MrB
Ignoring for just a minute the illogic of the Supreme Court, there's actually a bunch of reasons why employers shouldn't have to be forced into offering coverage (which I'm sure we're aware of, but there's still cause to repeat this):
1. Companies aren't the beneficiary of the purchase. They are effectively forced to buy something they don't use. What's more, they don't have much discretion on the converage options to purchase, which will raise rates way high in this one-size-fits-all new world order.
2. Even if you somehow create a linguistic monster to call THIS a tax, it truly isn't since it doesn't apply to every companies. It doesn't even apply to most companies.
3. This creates a forced employee benefit. It used to be simply a perk of some jobs. Now it's a mandate.
4. I don't recall this power being called out in the Constitution (oh snap - we threw that out years ago).
18
posted on
12/02/2013 9:42:28 AM PST
by
alancarp
To: TheBigB
Garbage. Garbage justice.
Freedom of religion? The federal government doesn’t give a damn.
To: Theodore R.
And welfare, foodstamps, Medicaid, government housing, etc.
20
posted on
12/02/2013 9:52:25 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(From time to time the.tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson