Skip to comments.Supreme Court revives challenge to ObamaCare on religious-liberty grounds
Posted on 11/26/2012 7:48:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A decision by the Supreme Court this morning opens up a potential new avenue of attack against ObamaCare on the grounds of religious liberty — and not just the HHS contraception mandate. The court overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Liberty University over the health-system overhaul, in a move that was not opposed by the Obama administration in court:
The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms. …
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty’s claims before rendering a decision.
Why didn’t the White House oppose LU’s motion? The timing issue is now largely moot, thanks to that 5-4 decision that upheld the individual mandate as a tax. The lawsuit would have been refiled shortly in any case, which would have only provided a slight delay to the inevitable.
This lawsuit differs from the previous cases used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the law. None of the earlier plaintiffs brought up the religious-liberty issue, in large part because HHS hadn’t formulated its arrogant posture that the government can define religious expression. With the HHS contraception mandate now in place, the violation of the First Amendment has now become concrete, and the courts will soon have to decide just how to square the language that that clearly stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with the HHS regulation that attempts to restrict religious exercise to only within the walls of a church, synagogue, or temple.
Getting that addressed sooner is a victory in the short run for everyone. Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.
It seems like any reason at all is sufficient to opt out of Obamacare and, according to the law itself, nobody is really required to participate.
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendment), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.
Does this work? Its from the Obamacare law itself.
I’m sensing a couple of retirements from SCOTUS... perhaps just in time for them to review this? If Obama stacks the court, we’re done anyway.
I’ve been reading the news on the internet everywhere relating to this particular decision.
I can’t find one news that tells us how the decision went and which Justice voted for or against the new hearing.
If you or anyone knows how the justices decided, I’d be grateful if it can be posted on this thread.
Looks like OmamaCare will be used to limit freedom of religion also. I have no hope for a decision in our favor. The more suits brought against it, the more it will be used to limit freedoms. I see the day when it will be used to limit gun ownership. Drs. already asking about guns in the home. Mandatory insurance with a clause outlawing guns.
RE: Im sensing a couple of retirements from SCOTUS..
Let’s hope and pray Ruth Ginsberg says bye bye first.
Please, God, mercy.
I recall reading here that the moslem crowd in the US were exempt from barrycare. Wondering if that was for real.
As for Roberts on the ruling, I’m betting it was blackmail. They Petraeused him.
It’s just on that narrow issue only and I’m with whoever posted “why do I see Lucy, Charlie Brown and a football.”
You know it’s bad when the Obama admin also asked the Court to hear it.
They had the perfect opportunity to kill this monstrosity and not only didnt do it, the Chief Justice DID SOME FREAKING JUDICIAL BACKFLIPS NOT TO KILL IT. At most they might strip out the birth control requirement but I doubt they will even do that. In any case 99.999% of the law will survive.
Lets hope and pray Ruth Ginsberg says bye bye first.
I am not so sure that is a good idea. I would rather they all stay as is because all Obama will do is put a younger and even more radical replacement for her.
he did more than hope for the pubs to take control... he gave the pubs tools, with his ruling, to dismantle most of the libs more cherished programs...
he gave us ammo to fight with..
he also warned us that we get the government we elect...
we failed on the election, and if one of the conservative justices retires or goes away, so does the ammo roberts gave us..
his hands are not clean, he wrote an opinion that decimates the libs, and the only way to get it was the road he took..
those that call him a traitor are indeed misguided. He is not the traitor, those that stayed home on election day are the true traitors, and they as a group just disgust me..
they should be banned from this website.
What are LU’s complaints, specifically? What religious liberties is LU saying Obamacare infringes upon?
Thiss time, I believe, the High Courts will strike it down. How about a prayer thread to that effect?
I don’t see how this mandate survives in the end.
How can muslims be exempted from the act due to THEIR faith? Unequal application of the law.
What they are really saying here is that the Supreme Court got Obama’s permission to make this decision.
Obama is running the Supreme Court.
That's exactly the same thing that occurred to me immediately upon reading the headline, "Supreme Court revives challenge to ObamaCare on religious-liberty grounds"; it's just another opportunity for them to drive another nail into the coffin of liberty.
They want to do it soon before Obama has a chance to nominate any more liberal justices.
The Obama court aquiesced,(agreed to) that means they allowed to court to make this decision without a fight.
Which means to me the Court did what Obama told them to do.
Also those wishing for Ginsberg to retire are only wishing for someone Obama appoints to take her place. Probably Eric Holder, or maybe Hillary, since she took the rap for the Video story.
Yes, he’s a traitor.
- Signed, an actual Catholic.
“they should be banned from this website.”
LEAN Forward, Baby......here it comes....
Well Joe, I disagree that Roberts left us any tools to work with.
The only tool I see is the one he shoved up our backside.
Its for real. They are exempt.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Now that we know the Supreme Court is comprised of three distinct factions - - 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron - - these kinds of cases take on more of a surreal air. I trust a coin flip to make the right decision more than I trust that assclown Roberts.
Here is what he did...
In your anger (and may others) over this decision, you have overlooked the bars of gold, and the removal of many abuses of the constitution contained in this decision..
First, fubocare sucks and I both hate and detest it..
with that in mind, here are the bars of gold, and the brilliance in obtaining them...
the libs have used 3 main hammers in their attack on the constitution and our way of life for over 80 years now... they have not veered in their attacks.. roberts took all of these hammers away with this ruling...
The libs have used the commerce clause with impunity, creating commerce in order to regulate it, as they tried here..
Roberts ruled that the commerce clause can no longer be used this way, and ruled that to be unconstitutional..
Now, here is the brilliant part... the minority opinion... concurs..
This hammer has been taken away, and with the minority opinion concurring with his ruling, the backdoor is effectively closed....
There goes hammer #1.
The libs have used the Necessary and Proper clause to pass anydamn social program they see fit..They tried it here..
Roberts ruled (I am going to paraphrase here) that the Necessary and Proper clause cannot be used to create social programs out of thin air...
And the minority opinion.... concurs..
Hammer #2 take away, back door closed..
Now the third one ( and this one is already being used ) is unfunded mandates to the states..
The fed issues a mandate, does not fund it, and threatens to take away fed dollars for failure to comply. This is hammer #3..
Roberts ruled that the feds cannot issue unfunded mandates with the threat of loss of other funds..
and the minority opinion.... concurs...
Hammer #3 taken away and back door is closed.
These 3 items have effectively rendered the libs entire game plan useless, and have removed the 3 major abuses of the constitution used by the libs for over 80 years...
As for the tax thing, it was always a tax, it was written as a tax, and sworn testimony by fubos own lawyer said it was a tax...and in no fewer than 17 places in the monstrosity of a bill it is called a tax...
The only people that said it was not a tax was fubo and his henchmen... gee, fubo lied, who would have guessed..
Roberts took this opportunity to state 2 things that are 100% true:
1) That it is not the Supreme courts responsibility to save the people from themselves...this bill was written by duly elected representatives of the people..
2) That the voting public got the government they voted for, and need to take a greater responsibility for whom they cast their ballots..
I agree with both these statements.
Hey, if islam gets a waiver....
I wanted to answer the one with intelligent questions and wanted to exchange idea’s first..
now as for you..
try to engage your brain before putting your typing hand into gear...
I also take it from your response that you did NOT vote in the primary...
While I agree with you that those that did not vote for Romney are traitors, I also believe Roberts is a traitor. He’s job is not to leave it up to the voters, he’s one and only job is to uphold the constitution. He did not do that.
I also don’t believe people should be banned for not voting for Romney. They should be shunned instead. They disgust me.
Sure did. For Santorum.
How about you? Since you’re calling to ban people labelling Roberts for the traitor that he is, who did you vote for in the primary.
RE: Are Muslims exempted from Obamacare?
Actually RELIGIOUS GROUPS (not just Muslims) have exemption. But the bar for exemption has been set quite HIGH ( and there is no mention of Islam in the law ).
A paragraph on page 107 of the legislation provides for individual religious exemptions. The language is non-specific with regard to specific faiths, however. Read carefully:
(5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information [is required]:
(A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.
Similarly, page 128 of the legislation states:
“(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.Such term [i.e., “applicable individual”] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
The above passage amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, of which Section 1402(g)(1) defines “a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof” as follows:
Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by
(A) such evidence of such individuals membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individuals compliance with the preceding sentence, and
(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person,
and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that
(C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,
(D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and
(E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950.
The upshot of all this legalese is that the law sets the bar for eligibility for a religious exemption quite high.
According to a 2009 report on MSNBC.com, this language was originally meant to apply mainly to one religious group, the Old Order Amish, whose beliefs prohibit them from participating in public or commercial insurance. Members participate in a form of self-insurance per the language above requiring exempted sects “to make provision for their dependent members.”
Its been widely reported in the MSM from the beginning that Muslims are exempt.
Its been widely reported in the MSM from the beginning that Muslims are exempt.
Do you have the link for one such report?
I did not under any circumstances say if you did not vote for romney you should be banned..
I said if you did not VOTE, specifically in the PRIMARIES, that you should be banned...
less than 20% turnout in the primaries is what cost this election, period. It gave us socialist lite romney as a nominee...
I did not vote for romney in the primaries, but after 1979 redux, i had no choice but to vote for him in the election... up until benghazi i was going to vote third party for prez...
I have not missed an election since 1976, and that includes the local elections and all...
It is my civic duty to cast my ballot, it is not an option..
if you do not vote, then I consider YOU to be the traitor..
according to supreme court rulings going back 80 years, sorry, but is was constitutional.
the libs were sitting on this thing for decades. Do you really think the socialists are that dumb? They may lie to our faces and stab us in the back, but to think they are stupid is nonsense. Look at the past 80 years of slow creep, and tell me they are stupid.
But, with his ruling, it could no longer be constitutional from this point forward..
trying to right a ship that has been listing for over 80 years will not happen overnight.
we were given the tools to begin to upright the ship..
instead, too damn many people decided to stay home...
if you stayed home and refused to cast your ballot, you are a traitor, period..
I never said that... you are now just making things up for the sake of making things up...
are you a troll????
Get me up to speed on how this would strike down ObamaCare. I thought this case strictly deals with religious institutions. I'm not being sarcastic. I just would like to know how this affects ALL of ObamaCare.
This is a BS statement. It is indeed the Supreme's duty and responsibility to save us from unconstitutional laws written and passed by the legislature, especially, as in this case, when they are passed against the express wishes of the electorate. Most people were against Bozocare but the legislature passed it anyway.
If the Supreme court isn't supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws then what the hell good is it and what exactly is their job?
Finally if you agree with the above statement you aren't too bright in my opinion.
It's my understanding from reading the blogs on the issue that it would go back to the fact that congress didn't include a severability provision in the law, so if one part goes the entire law goes. (Of course this would be up to the court, the law specifically said the individual mandate was NOT a tax. The court ruled it was a tax anyway. So they could rule any part was severably regardless of the law stating it is severable.)
Who did you vote for in the primaries, joe?
This is how we must destroy ObamaCare now. With a thousand lawsuits, states refusing, the House refusing to fund, etc.
Too bad we couldn’t have just elected Romney. It would have been much cleaner and quicker. Oh well, off to the front.