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.

[bboop]

EWTN’s comment on FB -

“EWTN is extremely pleased with today’s Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The fact that the Court believes that the government has less restrictive means of accomplishing its goals is very helpful. However, it remains unclear whether this decision addresses the serious objections that EWTN has raised with regard to the government’s “accommodation” scheme for nonprofit faith-based organizations. We are consulting with our legal team to determine how this significant decision applies to EWTN and our pending case before the courts.”

[DestroyLiberalism]

tflabo wrote:
<<
And to think that if just one tyrant judge vote flipped the other way would have resulted in a disaster and a corruption of constitutional protected freedoms.
>>

************************************************************

Yep. It frightens me immensely to think we are only ONE retirement of a conservative-leaning judge away from complete and total left-wing judicial tyranny.

[coloradan]

If the provision was found to be illegal, then someone committed a crime. Who was it, and what will the sentence be?

[NCC-1701]

I don’t know the answer to that. However, this would have been a non-issue had Roberts stuck to his guns and ruled with the majority against obamacare way back when. I am thrilled that the SCOTUS stuck it to the man and ruled for Hobby Lobby. Take that Ø.

[Starboard]

Expect some type of unilateral action by Obama to have the government (i.e., the taxpayers) pay for this. He has no respect whatsoever for the congress or the USSC.

[PieterCasparzen]

So, is just part of the law unconstitutional?

Is this the only part?

This is tossing a bone to conservative sheeple. It helps to keep the illusion that we have a legal system alive.

Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?

Yes, they've always had that. It's just hard to tell because they almost always simply do what their elite financial masters want them to do, i.e., inflict misery on the sheeple. If SCOTUS did their job, virtually every law passed by Congress would be struck down.

Occasionally the sheeple get tossed a bone so they can think they are "winning". This keeps the sheeple playing the game. If the sheeple were never tossed a bone, they'd stop working. Given how many sheeple have stopped working in the past few years, and how SCOTUS has inflicted such misery on them in the past few years, SCOTUS needed to toss the sheeple a bone.

[Lucas McCain]

I’m guessing that heads are exploding over at Democratic Underground today. I’d go check but I don’t want to get dirty.

[Biggirl]

Supremes have FOUND their SPINE.

[Las Vegas Dave]

The dummies at DU are really P.O'd!

Good!

[Enlightened1]

Well I strongly disagree.

All these S.C. rulings invalidate the law and open it up for thousands of law suits.

The law at this point has to be changed in order to be Constitutional or it’s goodbye.

[caww]

Thanks for the entertaining link....enjoyed seeing them get their pants in a knot and then some!

[Biggirl]

Ha.............Hah!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tflabo]

I guess Roberts didn’t lump this ruling in with his nuanced ‘valid tax’ justification for OBortemScare.

[inchworm]

It’s a flawed law. Pelosi said lets pass the law so we can see what is in in. Maybe they should have reviewed it’s constitutionality first. Others have said lets pass the law just to get something out there then we can work on fixing it.

To me that logic is crazy, and is akin to saying lets smear crap on the wall so we can figure out how to clean it up.

[youngidiot]

The libs on Facebook are losing their minds over this. Hahahaha

[cripplecreek]

Twitter

Senator Harry Reid @SenatorReid

If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will.

[G Larry]

Where does Drudge get this summary?

“ROBERTS REGRETS: CAN’T MAKE EMPLOYERS COVER CONTRACEPTION...”

The story they linked says no such thing!

[Triple]

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

(The line item change is effectively legislation.)

[tflabo]

The dummies at DU are really P.O'd!

Some prefer the evil, dark side. Tell the DUmpies that baby killing however is still legal at least here on the topside of the earth. Let the DNC start a fund for abortion payments instead of forcing the rest of us to subsidize EVIL.

[ArmstedFragg]

Here you go...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf