Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York Judge Slaps Down Obama Justice Department
National Review ^ | 12/5/12 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted on 12/05/2012 9:02:33 PM PST by Nachum

The Obama administration has been consistently arguing since announcing a year’s grace period for some religious organizations to figure out how to violate their consciences and obey the Department and Health and Human Services abortion-drug, contraception, sterilization mandate, that the controversy over religious freedom and the mandate is over and the Catholics are happy.

That, as has been pointed out here before, ignores all the lawsuits pending. And that they are not just from Catholics.

Today in New York, a judge dismissed Justice Department claims that the Archdiocese of New York’s lawsuit in response to the coercive mandate is unnecessary. Judge Brian Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York wrote:

Fundamentally … this Court cannot accept that the present costs incurred by plaintiffs are simply the result of their “desire to prepare for contingencies.” Quite frankly, ignoring the speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs in the hope that it will stop might well be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that plaintiffs’ directors or officers owe to their members. As explained above, the practical realities of administering health care coverage for large numbers of employees- which defendants’ recognize- require plaintiffs to incur these costs in advance of the impending effectiveness of the Coverage Mandate. That is a business reality that any responsible board of directors would have to appreciate.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: department; judge; justice; obamacare; obamacaremandate; obamacareproblems

1 posted on 12/05/2012 9:02:38 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Merlinator; GladesGuru; GailA; Squantos; Seizethecarp; The Klingon; thouworm; MilicaBee; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 12/05/2012 9:03:31 PM PST by Nachum (The List is off the Google blacklist- www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


3 posted on 12/05/2012 9:04:38 PM PST by Nachum (The List is off the Google blacklist- www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Good news in a dark, dark world.

Let’s not lose faith.


4 posted on 12/05/2012 9:08:57 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Yeah? Just wait until Judge Roberts gets ahold of this case.


5 posted on 12/05/2012 9:11:01 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This judge better find someone to start his car and taste his food for a while.


6 posted on 12/05/2012 9:23:55 PM PST by howlinhound (Live your life so that, when you get up in the morning, Satan says, "Oh Crap!..He's awake" - Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: howlinhound

Some of these folks weren’t so lucky

http://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm


7 posted on 12/05/2012 9:25:06 PM PST by Nachum (The List is off the Google blacklist- www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Traitor Roberts will just invent something to hand Obama another victory.


8 posted on 12/05/2012 9:57:46 PM PST by Bullish (The stench from this amateur regime stinks all the way to Kenya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bullish

‘Traitor Roberts’ as some call him, may just have set up the first ruling to complete the second. By stating that Obamacare is a tax in round #1, he set the stage to slap Obamacare down in round #2 as freedom of religion will.be stronger than a legislated tax. And to reinforce that directive, all taxes must originate in the House, not in the Senate as Obamacare was. By ruling in favor of Obamacare in round #1, Roberts will own thw high road and can call it unconstitutional in round 2. Round 2 could never occur if he had not declared Obamacare a tax. Once defined as a tax, the laws weaknesses cannot be defended and it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Roberts knows that Obamacare is bad law and I believe that he is one of the smartest guys in the room. Why else would the Supremes send the current suit back through the lower courts so it would again be heard by the Supreme?


9 posted on 12/05/2012 11:55:03 PM PST by 2010Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I wish we would be less upset about people’s religious freedom being violated, and more shocked that we now think it’s okay for the fedguv to tell a private business what services they must offer. Isn’t that worse?


10 posted on 12/05/2012 11:57:16 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper

Could be but we shouldn’t put too much faith in Justice Roberts being so clever.


11 posted on 12/06/2012 1:00:45 AM PST by newzjunkey (grr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

!


12 posted on 12/06/2012 1:10:22 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Who can take tomorrow, Spend it all today? Who can take your income And tax it all away? Obama Man :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper

I hope you are right!


13 posted on 12/06/2012 1:19:47 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

That is starting to resemble the Clinton deadpool. Of course Bill had hillary helping and the previous time as Gov.of Arkansas


14 posted on 12/06/2012 3:33:23 AM PST by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper; FatherofFive
Once defined as a tax, the laws weaknesses cannot be defended and it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Roberts knows that Obamacare is bad law and I believe that he is one of the smartest guys in the room. Why else would the Supremes send the current suit back through the lower courts so it would again be heard by the Supreme?

I think youare giving him way to much credit. In round one they could have struck it down and been done with it. No need for round two.

15 posted on 12/06/2012 3:36:09 AM PST by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: verga; 2010Freeper; FatherofFive

History tells us about Reagan’s vendetta with the Soviet Union, and Communism. John Roberts it has been reported here at FR in an article going back to the time of the ruling had a vendetta as well. The Commerce Clause, and the abuse by the Democrats of that clause. Justice Roberts allegedly used the opportunity of the moment to the chagrin of many pundits to set precedence against the abuse of that clause.

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I profess to be a geek on these matters, but just bringing up some points here that I have read at FR that make 2010Freepers argument plausible.


16 posted on 12/06/2012 4:03:53 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper
So you're saying that Roberts, in trying to slap down the law, decided to (1) set up this long, complicated, expensive, Machiavellian process to do it, rather than (2) simply vote "No" the first time?

Sorry, not buying it.

17 posted on 12/06/2012 4:44:20 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper

So you’re saying Roberts will have the high ground in round two because he’s declared the mandate a tax, and this will prevent everyone who would’ve burned him in effigy before unable to defend Obamacare? What?

Look, having struck it down the first time has given him credibility as nonpartisan, above the fray, solomonesque, or whatever his pride wanted him to be. But if ever he strikes it down, bye-bye. The MSM will crucify him, libs everywhere make his name mud, and law schools forevermore damnable his eternal soul. Round one will mean nothing then.

You may think the tax issue renders Obamacare defenseless. I certainly haven’t noticed anyone change their position because of it. There’s the origination in the House issue, but some, traditionally the House itself, interpret that to mean all spending as well as tax bills must start in the House. If Obamacare does anything it spends money.

Then there’s the whole song and dance about gutting a bill that passed the House thereby deeming Obamacare to have passed. Anyone who would uphold a law by saying something that clearly wasn’t a tax could be a tax without finding out if it’s a legal tax or anything else about it, really, can buy the reconciliation argument.

Do you really think Roberts, supposedly the smartest guy in the room, thinks anyone who matters will pat him on the back should he strike it down now rather than them? Conservatives don’t matter, by the way. Not in the legal world, obviously, and not according to the election. Libs would never forgive him. It’d be worse this way; having given them false hope. He’d be Thomas, Scalia, the Four Horsemen, and Pontius Pilate times a billion.


18 posted on 12/06/2012 4:54:07 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

Roberts waiting his whole life to limit the commerce clause—very amazingly extremely little in that all you can’t regulate under it according to the decision are unperformed actions—makes him a monomaniac. It would be like Reagan had teamed up with China, Cuba, and every other non-Russian Commissar country to fight the Soviets. What is the point of a limited commerce clause if the tax and spend power is limitless?


19 posted on 12/06/2012 5:00:03 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
So you're saying that Roberts, in trying to slap down the law, decided to (1) set up this long, complicated, expensive, Machiavellian process to do it, rather than (2) simply vote "No" the first time?

In this theory, the presumption is that option (1) allowed Roberts to gut the "commerce clause" over-reach that has been used to justify so many government over-reaches. From a tactical standpoint, that would be a good trade for a costly delay in overturning Obamacare itself down the road through a different avenue.

Mind you, I don't buy into the theory, but it's not as whacked-out as it might seem on the surface.

20 posted on 12/06/2012 5:00:07 AM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: howlinhound
This judge better find someone to start his car and taste his food for a while.

_____________________________________

Yep, because judges get killed all the time by our government. Here's just a short list....

1.

2.

3.

4...

And those are just the names that spring to mind.

21 posted on 12/06/2012 5:04:32 AM PST by wtc911 (Amigo - you've been had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Say what!?

Gibberish.

The only point I can make out of your response to address is “What is the point of a limited commerce clause if the tax and spend power is limitless?”

Roberts was addressing the misappropriation of the intent of the clause.


22 posted on 12/06/2012 5:08:17 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

That makes no sense. Why would he need seperate steps to “gut” the commerce clause and strike the bill down? He could’ve done it all at once.

By the way, are people actually saying he gutted the commerce e clause? Is that a thing? All he said was that it didn’t apply to forcing people to buy insurance, and that was only dicta. If that’s gutting I can gut a fish by whispering naughty things as it swims by. The commerce clause remains nearly limitless. The Obamacare decision didn’t even live up to Lopez, let alone “gut” it.


23 posted on 12/06/2012 5:08:29 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

You don’t know what a monomaniac is? It means a pathological obsession with one thing. A good example would be a president teaming up with other evil nations in a war against the one evil nation against which he had a vendetta. I’d have thought that’s simple enough.

“The only point I can make out of your response to address is...Roberts was addressing the misappropriation of the intent of the clause.”

That doesn’t address my point. I think you mean misinterpretation. If so, he’s a bad judge, for original meaning controls, not intent. Addressing the misinterpretation of the commerce clause is a good thing, because SCOTUS has had it wrong at least since Gibbons v Ogden. But I give Roberts little credit.

Firstly, it was only dicta. Secondly, it was all too obvious it didn’t apply. Thirdly, it didn’t push back on ground won, only refused expansion. Fourthly, it expanded another clause to the moon and back, so what’s the point?


24 posted on 12/06/2012 5:22:23 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

It is good that you are confident in that which you post. You make no sense to me.


25 posted on 12/06/2012 5:27:54 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

Your not being able to make sense of me makes no sense to me.


26 posted on 12/06/2012 5:52:41 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2010Freeper
‘Traitor Roberts’ as some call him, may just have set up the first ruling to complete the second.

Interesting theory, but it seems more probable that Roberts was blackmailed/turned: the dissent was written as though it were the actual judgment while the majority opinion was... well, irrational.

Why else would the Supremes send the current suit back through the lower courts so it would again be heard by the Supreme?

Simple: Obamacare is so unpopular, yet politically charged, that they want to give the general population hope that it will be found contraconstitutional; look at how the court has avoided giving standing to any of Obama's eligibility challengers: they can't simply deny standing like they can there, but they can do the "next best thing" by pretending that they're so apolitical as to find Obamacare bad law in one of the cases.

27 posted on 12/06/2012 6:27:46 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

Your humor muscle needs to workout a little.


28 posted on 12/06/2012 7:21:48 PM PST by howlinhound (Live your life so that, when you get up in the morning, Satan says, "Oh Crap!..He's awake" - Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: howlinhound

Oh, can you fill in the blanks with names of murdered judges?


29 posted on 12/07/2012 3:28:12 AM PST by wtc911 (Amigo - you've been had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

You missed my obvious - but admittedly weak - attempt at humor. It was inspired by the Clinton “Death List” that was circulating for a time and featured those who were associated in some way with the Clintons who met untimely ends in some cases. I shall refrain from further unclear humor attempts.


30 posted on 12/10/2012 10:38:07 AM PST by howlinhound (Live your life so that, when you get up in the morning, Satan says, "Oh Crap!..He's awake" - Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson