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.
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????
just askin’
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.
Severability? Okay, now I see. Just hope the SC rules that there is NO severability in this case.
I voted for the pissed off white guy, the one who lead a conservative revolution, the one that held a liberal president in check...
gingrich..
I think Obama wants it heard and the court to rule that religious organizations can enjoy an exemption. The Obama administration just wants to get rid of what amounts to a minor irritation that has more of a political downside than anything else. Obamacare won’t be overturned regardless.
Let's just say I am from Missouri. At least in the theory he took the 3 hammers of constitutional destruction away. But all it will take is a Liberal majority in the court to find "penumbras" to the contrary. And it is likely that the big O will get it in the next 4 years. I hope you are right.
As GG2 pointed out, I've also seen it widely reported that Muslims are exempt. The reason I've read is because Islam forbids insurance. My experience working in health care is that most muslims are insured privately or through Medicaid/Medicare. I don't see how the law exempts them because of section B in the text of the law that you posted.
Because in a 5-4 decision the SCOTUS will find that there is no religious exemption. This is just making it worse faster.
Exactly. Forcing religious institutions to petition the govt for exemptions to practice faith significantly weakens the first amendment freedoms that individuals and groups have enjoyed previously.
my whole problem with this last election is that because of the top of the ticket (romney) a whole crapload of people chose to stay home.
even if we lost the presidency, if we had got the senate, we could have kept this guy in check, including the courts, for at least 2 years..
contrary to what talk radio was saying, if they would have preached this message about the ruling, and told people that we now have the means to begin to beat back socialism, and that all it would take is to get to the polls, I believe people would have done just that...
instead of looking long term, they decided to shout out the party line, and cut down the ruling.
The result was voter apathy, caused by those that a good many people champion as the carriers of the word...
we are in a battle for the soul of this country, and contrary to popular belief, the opposition is both intelligent and patient..
we gotta outhink them, and sometimes the unorthodox is the way to do it...
but alas, none of it means crap if the “I’m taking my toys and going home” crowd of voters just sits out every election..
Would you ping me whenever cases that use Robert’s Logic come up? I’d like to follow these developments as our liberties are restored. I am skeptical of your position, but sincere and earnest in wanting to see Robert’s Logic used in the way you describe.
already the states are refusing to set up the exchanges...
before this ruling, they would have lost all medicare/medicaid monies from the feds...
now the feds cannot “penalize” the states for opting out...
the ruling is already working....
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.