Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare Abortion Pill Rule as Violation of Religious Liberty

Breitbart ^ | 06/30/14 | Ken Klukowski

[Enlightened1]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a key regulation in President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation is illegal as applied to millions of Americans of faith, as well as their businesses or organizations.

[BuckeyeTexan]

SCOTUS also said in this ruling:

The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. (Emphasis mine.)

What does that mean? It means that if and when the government can demonstrate the least restrictive means of requiring these employers to provide cost-free access to those drugs that The Court may very well uphold the government's power to do so.

This decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not on the constitutionality of the ACA.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicabil- ity” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern- mental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

[caww]

...”I thought the sun was shining brighter today”....

A peek in the clouds....now they’ll be really pushing single payer.

[Kenny]

Severability?

A Guide to Severability and Obamacare

[Mr Rogers]

The SCOTUS said in the ruling:

“We need not decide whether the HHS mandate is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. Even if we assume it is, the mandate flunks the least-restrictive-means test. (Pp. 38-40.)”

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/381545/hobby-lobby-ruling-ed-whelan

From the ruling:

“We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-mental interest.” - Page 40

[BuckeyeTexan]

Does the law have to have a ‘severability’ clause to be struck down in part?

SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of any part of Obamacare. But to answer your question, no, that is not always the case. It depends on the specific legal questions that the court is addressing and what remedies are available to the court.

(The line item change is effectively legislation.)

No, it isn't legislating from the bench. (Although that does happen.) It is The Court's job to rule on the specific legal questions that are presented to it. Often those questions are about a very specific provision of law. In order to have standing to sue, plaintiffs must claim a unique injury. In doing so, they have to identify, specifically how they are or will be injured.

[PapaNew]

All of which is patently unconstitutional because the wresting of the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, the federal government has no constitutional authority or power to enforce the first Ten Amendments. Rather, the Constitution and the first Ten Amendments are pointed directly at the limitations of the federal government's power and authority.

Few seem to understand this. It's a legal and judicial loophole, not it the Constitution, but in the demagogues' cunning misinterpretation and application of it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, that’s correct, which is why I said “may uphold.” I don’t think it will be long before the gov’t attempts to demonstrate the least restrictive means. That was really my point. I intended to say so, but I accidentally hit post (from my cell phone) when I was emphasizing some text.

[Lurking Libertarian]

This alludes to a long line of Free Exercise Clause case law. To summarize briefly, everyone recognizes that "it's against my religion" can't be a universal excuse for violating the law; otherwise, Rastafarians could legally smoke marijuana, Quakers could refuse to pay taxes because their tax money funds the Army, and Moloch-worshipers could perform human sacrifices.

There have been two schools of thought in modern SCOTUS decisions as to where to draw the line: one doctrine, which originated with Justice Brennan during the Warren Court era, said that the Government can force someone to violate their religious beliefs only if it has a "compelling governmental interest" in doing so (e.g., preventing murder or funding the Army) and the law used the "least restrictive means" of serving that interest.

Later, a narrow majority of the Court (ironically, led by Justice Scalia) overruled the Brennan test and said the Government could force someone to violate their religion as long as the law was "generally applicable" and didn't single out any particular religion for discrimination. (Under that view, the Contraception Mandate would be constitutional.)

Congress was unhappy with Scalia's view, and reinstated the Brennan test by statute in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed unanimously by both houses of Congress-- no one liked Scalia's test).

Thus, the issue in this case was not whether the Contraception Mandate was Constitutional, but whether it violated the RFRA. The majority said that there may be a compelling interest in guaranteeing women birth control, but Congress can achieve that goal by a less restricitve means (e.g., having the Government pay for it directly.)

[BuckeyeTexan]

We disagree about whether or not the Bill of Rights is incorporated against The States, but that is a discussion for another thread. So I won’t hijack this one.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Thanks for that history!

[BuckeyeTexan]

See post 108.

[PapaNew]

I don't want to hijack anything either, but I don't think this is off point. What you pointed out in the excerpt of the Court's opinion and possible future rulings is directly on point to the issue of the federal government's allowance to enforce the first Ten Amendments - a slow-releasing time bomb with a big explosion waiting to happen.

I hope we can have those discussions.

[PapaNew]

The root problem IMO is the unexplained overruling of the long-held precedent of Slaughterhouse in Brown v. Board of Education, aiding the massive expansion and threat of federal government power - exactly what Justice Miller feared would happen as stated in his Slaughterhouse opinion.

[caww]

....”the issue in this case was not whether the Contraception Mandate was Constitutional, but whether it violated the RFRA. The majority said that there may be a compelling interest in guaranteeing women birth control, but Congress can achieve that goal by a less restricitve means (e.g., having the Government pay for it directly.)”....

Single payer will take care of it all....watch...we know it’s coming.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The root problem IMO is the unexplained overruling of the long-held precedent of Slaughterhouse in Brown v. Board of Education, aiding the massive expansion and threat of federal government power - exactly what Justice Miller feared would happen as stated in his Slaughterhouse opinion.

I don't agree with you about Slaughterhouse, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread: the Fourteenth Amendment has zero to do with today's case, which involves a federal, not a state, statute.

[Mouton]

Well, the crap bomb is out there now spouting BS at some press converence about immigration. See, the fact he did not close the borders is now the fault of the tea party and GOP et al. This guy is dangerous.

[Maryhere]

Amen and Amen

[BuckeyeTexan]

I hope we can have those discussions.

We already have, Darlin'.

Supreme Court justice agrees: First Amendment limits only Congress

[PapaNew]

I know we have. I was only responding to your comment. The discussion was not a very thorough one IMO, nor did I feel like we got the the bottom of the issue.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Well, if there’s something I didn’t address on that thread, please ping me to it and I will try to answer it over there. As for discussing it on this thread, I don’t think it is relevant. This case was about a federal law.