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

Skip to comments.

Federal Appeals Court Hands Victory to Religious Colleges, Commands HHS to Act Quickly
BreakingChristianNews.com ^ | 12/18/12 | unknown

Posted on 01/01/2013 5:34:02 AM PST by kindred

Washington, D.C. — Today, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. handed Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College a major victory in their challenges to the HHS mandate. Last summer, two lower courts had dismissed the Colleges’ cases as premature. Today, the appellate court reinstated those cases, and ordered the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects the Colleges’ religious freedom. The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013.

“The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued the case. “The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road.”

The court based its decision on two concessions that government lawyers made in open court. First, the government promised “it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form” against Wheaton, Belmont Abbey or other similarly situated religious groups. Second, the government promised it would publish a proposed new rule “in the first quarter of 2013” and would finalize it by next August. The administration made both concessions under intense questioning by the appellate judges. The court deemed the concessions a “binding commitment” and has retained jurisdiction over the case to ensure the government follows through.

“This is a win not just for Belmont Abbey and Wheaton, but for all religious non-profits challenging the mandate,” said Duncan. “The government has now been forced to promise that it will never enforce the current mandate against religious employers like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey and a federal appellate court will hold the government to its word.”

While the government had previously announced plans to create a new rule, it has not yet taken the steps necessary to make that promise legally binding. Lower courts dismissed the colleges’ cases while the government contemplated a new rule, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the cases should stay alive while it scrutinizes whether the government will meet its promised deadlines. The court acted quickly, issuing Tuesday’s order just days after hearing lengthy arguments.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. The Becket Fund recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Unfortunately, this case may wind up in the supreme court again now occupied by 5 liberal judges, the latest being john roberts the traitor, aka, Benedict Arnold.
1 posted on 01/01/2013 5:34:09 AM PST by kindred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer; Grampa Dave; Salvation; Sun; The Mayor; sickoflibs; justiceseeker93; AuntB; ...

ping


2 posted on 01/01/2013 5:47:40 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred
"The court based its decision on two concessions that government lawyers made in open court. First, the government promised “it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form” against Wheaton, Belmont Abbey or other similarly situated religious groups."

How stupid does this particular lawyer think we are?

Impeach the kenyan or secession.


3 posted on 01/01/2013 6:00:47 AM PST by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred; All
Never, ever forget..or forgive that traitorous; USSC Judge John (Bloody @$$) Roberts.
He the traitor, aka, Benedict Arnold, he personally delivered our nation into 0'Buttcrack's hands...
all b/c he wanted to be loved / accepted by the DC Media Establishment.

4 posted on 01/01/2013 6:15:32 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10
How stupid does this particular lawyer think we are?

Apparently the lawyer didn't get the memo that his highness, Ogumbo, is the final authority in the matter using executive fiat.

5 posted on 01/01/2013 6:54:43 AM PST by TADSLOS (I took extra credit at the School of Hard Knocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Still concerned about the Little Sisters of the Poor. Can anyone determine if this victory includes them as well?

ObamaCare Mandate May Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Leave U.S.

6 posted on 01/01/2013 7:37:49 AM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred

Cases in the D.C. Circuit are given special deference by the SCOTUS, because it is seen as the recruiting ground, far beyond its size, for the SCOTUS. Four current associate justice came from there.

Their holding the government’s feet to the fire on this is a very good sign that the judiciary is losing patience with their bureaucratic antics.


7 posted on 01/01/2013 8:03:20 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Cases in the D.C. Circuit are given special deference by the SCOTUS

You're kidding, right? Libtards give no deference to anything or anyone, unless it is aligned with their vile, perverted and purposely destructive world view.

8 posted on 01/01/2013 8:13:51 AM PST by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

No paradox here. There are libtards in the D.C. Circuit as well as real judges. That Circuit produced both justice Ginsburg and Thomas, Roberts and Scalia. So the libtards listen to what the libtard justices say, the conservatives to what the conservative justices say.


9 posted on 01/01/2013 8:19:32 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
So the libtards listen to what the libtard justices say, the conservatives to what the conservative justices say.

Uh huh... and which camp do you place John Roberts in?

10 posted on 01/01/2013 9:44:50 AM PST by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

On reflection of his decision, he is a strategist.

Justice Kennedy has a bad habit of voting with the conservatives only when it doesn’t matter. When it is liberal agenda stuff, like Obamacare, he votes with the left. But importantly, *only* when he is the deciding vote.

That is, had Roberts voted against Obamacare, Kennedy would have voted to approve it in its entirety, and that would have given the left a majority. And his snatching Kennedy’s deciding vote allegedly enraged Kennedy, who wanted to go into the books as the justice who approved socialized medicine.

However, one of the few unique powers the Chief Justice has that other justices do not, is when they vote with the majority, they can *choose* who will write the majority opinion.

In this case, he voted with the majority, but then assigned the majority opinion composition to *himself*. This meant that he, within some limits, could sabotage Obamacare from within. And he did so in two ways.

And he did so far beyond Obamacare, even creating an opportunity to sabotage both New Deal laws like Social Security, *and* LBJ’s Great Society laws that created the welfare state.

The unconstitutional New Deal laws were justified with the Interstate Commerce clause in the constitution; and the Great Society laws were justified with the General Welfare clause. And Roberts successfully undermined both of these.

In brief, he said that while the feds might mandate some law that the states must obey, they can only do so if *they* pay for it. They cannot compel states to grow such programs with state money.

The immediate result of this is a bunch of the states now refusing to enlarge Medicaid, as Obama had demanded. But it may eventually imperil many other overreaching federal programs as well.

Big conservative victory there.

The other thing the Roberts decision did was to kill the individual mandate. He did this by saying that the federal government cannot order citizens to buy insurance as such; but they *can* *tax* citizens to that effect.

And this was crafty, because constitutionally, taxation comes under some very strict rules, and congress has great flexibility to both *make* and *break* taxes. So now to kill a big chunk of Obamacare, instead of needing 2/3rds majorities in both houses of congress, only 51% of each house is needed.

Which almost guarantees that Obamacare will be destroyed sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately for Roberts, very few people grasp the finesse with which he did this. But he in effect played the left wing of the court, and created a whole lot of opportunity in the future to set back the progressive agenda by the better part of a century.


11 posted on 01/01/2013 12:01:02 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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