Posted on 06/30/2014 7:56:54 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director of the Becket Fund, tells LifeNews, “In fact, the Greens pay salaries that start at twice the minimum wage and offer excellent benefits, as well as a healthcare package which includes almost all of the contraceptives now mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Their only objection is to 4 drugs and devices which, the government itself concedes, can terminate an embryo.”
This is the big difference in the Hobby Lobby lawsuit and Catholic institutions. Catholics don’t believe in abortion or birth control pills, and that case will have to be eventually heard in the court. My feeling is with this ruling Catholics will win when their case is heard. A religious view is a religious view.
Socialists and commies are fairly patient. While our side gloats the left notes their victory on this point is simply deferred a year or so until Kennedy retires.
The Supremes have found the meaning of Freedom of Religion under the Constitution.
The Hobby Lobby ruling isn’t a “restriction” it merely states that HL won’t have to pay IRS fines for not providing coverage for 4 contraceptive formulations that are potentially abortive.
Liberalism: a mind is a terrible thing to waste...
For all these reasons, we hold that a federal regulation’s restriction on the activities of a for-profit closely held corporation must comply with RFRA.
IMHO, Stat wise...at least one should have been part of the majority opinion.
Sorry it does not just apply to HL and no one else.... LOL!
Don’t the Libs wish. LOL!
At this point the law has to be modified, by congress and signed by the President, in order to the meet constitutional standards or it’s considered NULL and VOID.
sigh… I will clarify. My meaning was that it applied to HL and all closely held for profits, but was distinct from the “accommodation” of non-profits. The discussion I am having in this thread was how this decision relates to non profits. Please I would ask you to read thoroughly through a thread before embarrassing yourself in your exuberance.
I am most definitely no a lib, and am very pleased with this decision.
I read a lot of Ginsburg’s dissent It is frightening what the left believes.
The majority opinion is also troubling as it accepts the premise that contraceptive coverage should be provided but objects to the means. It suggest the government could just assume the cost of contraceptives themselves for any individual that can’t get the coverage from her employer (page 41). Incredible! We are in BIG trouble.
The majority wrote: "The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Remember, he has a pen, paper and a telephone. He has broken the law now for 6 years. What is one more signature on an EO and tell the Supremes to kiss his commie butt.
Is this the only part?
Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?
No this was a "regulation", not part of the law.
Yes indeed! Great day!
I wish that were true. But this was a regulation, not part of the ACA.
“Look for Barry to do something to undermine the republic today as he needs to strike back as his ego has been tarnished. Yes, he is that type of vindictive person.”
I was thinking the exact same thing.
The guy acts like a petulant child, expect some horrible headlines on Drudge in the coming days...
Here’s some of the libtard reasoning from Darth Vader Ginsburg in her dissent:
“The requirement carries no command that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable. Instead, it calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans.”
She pits the “”compelling interests” under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment against the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), where religion loses out in her opinion. How sad she is.
The One has a pen and a phone. Don’t cheer too loudly yet.
No, SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of any part of the ACA. This case was about the HHS regulations on contraception. SCOTUS ruled that the HHS mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?
They did not "veto" any part of the ACA. But to answer your question, yes, SCOTUS has what amounts to a line-item veto because they typically rule on specific questions about specific actions.
I never implied you were a Lib. I wrote
“Don’t the Libs wish. LOL!”
Anyhow I’m seeing a few people (possible Trolls), on FR imply that are trying to say this S.C. ruling means nothing or very little for lack of a better words. It’s complete rubbish to say this.
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.