Skip to comments.There is no ‘Trust us’ clause in Constitution: NY Archdiocese wins ruling on HHS mandate
Posted on 12/07/2012 11:29:49 AM PST by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) In a strongly worded judgment a federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit from the Archdiocese of New York against the Obama administrations HHS mandate may proceed.
The Obama administration had argued that the archdioceses lawsuit was premature, since the administration may still make adjustments to the mandate that would stop it from having any effect on the archdiocese.
After announcing the mandate in February, the Obama administration had announced a safe harbor that would prevent the mandate from applying to certain religious employers until August 2013.
However, Judge Brian Cogan slapped down the safe harbor argument, saying, the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action.”
There is no, Trust us, changes are coming clause in the Constitution, said the judge. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.
The judge observed that the archdiocese is preparing for the possibility of millions of dollars in damages should the mandate take effect. He also pointed out that the rule was announced 10 months ago and that “the Departments have had ample opportunity to enact a meaningful change to the Coverage Mandate. The fact that they have not further suggests the likelihood of injuries to plaintiffs.”
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, he said.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League praised the ruling, saying that the Obama administration received a well deserved lecture from the bench.
The Obama team tried to have it both ways, and it failed, said Donohue.
Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who is representing the archdiocese, also welcomed the decision. We are pleased the court recognized the significant harm that the mandate is causing right now, he said.
Religious organizations that object to the mandate are subject to private lawsuits, as well as being faced with critical budgeting, and health insurance decisions in the face of millions of dollars in fines. Truly the safe harbor is neither a harbor nor safe.
There are now 40 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, according to The Becket Fund.
Two other lawsuits from the Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh and Nashville were dismissed recently after judges agreed with the Obama administration that the suits were premature. However, the courts did not preclude the possibility that the dioceses could bring forward lawsuits after the mandate takes effect.
No, there wouldn’t be a “trust us” clause, but that’s not how it works. That is a clumsy formulation by the judge. When did they stop learning his to write? I could sit and read what a John Jay had to say, for instance. Or a Marshall, though he makes me want to rip my hair out.
Nevermind, it’s a good decision.
No, there wouldn’t be a “trust us” clause, but that’s not how it works. That is a clumsy formulation by the judge. When did they stop learning how to write? I could sit and read what a John Jay had to say, for instance. Or a Marshall, though he makes me want to rip my hair out.
Nevermind, it’s a good decision.
a·mel·io·rate/əˈmil yəˌreɪt, əˈmi li ə-/ a·mel·io·rat·ed, a·mel·io·rat·ing.
to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate.
You have to remember that the judge is, in effect, speaking to the Obama Administration. To really reach them, he could have said, "You bad. You bad. No cookie."
Sometimes the left actually mean what they say. HHS issued a mandate, a diktat, a ukase in the tradition of tyrannical Russian Czars, as if Obama was a Sovereign lording over us. How appropriate.
No regulation composed and enforced without specific approval by the elected branches has any place in our republic. There is no constitutional reason to obey them and every moral reason to disobey.
Voluntary compliance with laws made by our neighbors has been replaced with raw force. No republic can long stand this outrage.
What if the federal government passed legislation that prospectively implemented segregated rest rooms? Would we be having this discussion?
**However, Judge Brian Cogan slapped down the safe harbor argument, saying, the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action.**
BTTT and Hoooray for our side.
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.