Skip to comments.New York Judge Slaps Down Obama Justice Department
Posted on 12/05/2012 9:02:33 PM PST by Nachum
The Obama administration has been consistently arguing since announcing a years 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 Yorks 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:
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 ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Good news in a dark, dark world.
Let’s not lose faith.
Yeah? Just wait until Judge Roberts gets ahold of this case.
This judge better find someone to start his car and taste his food for a while.
Some of these folks weren’t so lucky
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Traitor Roberts will just invent something to hand Obama another victory.
‘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?
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?
Could be but we shouldn’t put too much faith in Justice Roberts being so clever.
I hope you are right!
That is starting to resemble the Clinton deadpool. Of course Bill had hillary helping and the previous time as Gov.of Arkansas
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.
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.
Sorry, not buying it.
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.
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?
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.
Yep, because judges get killed all the time by our government. Here's just a short list....
And those are just the names that spring to mind.
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.
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.
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?
It is good that you are confident in that which you post. You make no sense to me.
Your not being able to make sense of me makes no sense to me.
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.
Your humor muscle needs to workout a little.
Oh, can you fill in the blanks with names of murdered judges?
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.