Skip to comments.ObamaCare could be back before the Supreme Court by next year
Posted on 11/02/2012 4:00:17 AM PDT by markomalley
The ObamaCare regulation that will require employers to provide insurance coverage with access to a wide variety of contraception has prompted numerous lawsuits across the country challenging that mandate, and opponents are scoring key victories.
The latest legal showdown came Thursday in a federal courtroom in Oklahoma, where the owners of the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts store tried to convince a federal judge to issue an injunction against the mandate, arguing that it would violate the owners' religious beliefs by requiring them to provide access to "abortion-causing drugs and devices."
Though it could take days, even weeks, for Judge Joe Heaton to rule on the injunction, attorneys for Hobby Lobby say they're feeling optimistic.
While Hobby Lobby would be the largest employer to win a reprieve, the company wouldn't be the first. Companies in Colorado and Michigan have won temporary injunctions in recent weeks, but there is a much bigger development that takes the fight several steps closer to the Supreme Court.
Liberty University was among the first to file suit against the president's health care law when it initially was passed. The school got as far as the Fourth Circuit, which determined that it could not get to the merits of Liberty's case because of the Anti-Injunction Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So we can be betrayed by Judas Roberts on this issue......again.
That will let businesses PLAN ahead.
Then it's creating jobs by getting rid of the EPA and the "walls" they've created.
WE NEED THE SENATE, TOO.
If the GOP had cojones, they’d impeach and remove both Roberts and Kagan for their judicial misconduct in the Obamacare case.
That is as important as winning the Presidency. Can't enphasize it enough.
Exactly. Roberts isn’t going to rule any different if the case is about religious freedom than he did when it was about the constitutionality of the mandate. I can safely say this, because he didn’t rule that case based on the merits, but based on his personal desire to preserve the piece of crap law. So, unless his personal desires, and his foolish notion that his personal desires are proper things to base judgements on, have changed, he will no doubt rule in favor of the law again.