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 ...
_____________________________________
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.
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.
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.
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.