Skip to comments.Supreme Court Halts Contraception Mandate For Religious Groups (WOW!)
Posted on 12/31/2013 7:39:23 PM PST by Steelfish
Supreme Court Halts Contraception Mandate For Religious Groups By M. Alex Johnson and Winston Wilde, NBC News Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a last-ditch plea from Catholic groups Tuesday night to block a birth control mandate in the new health care law for religious organizations, just hours before it was to have gone into effect.
The archdioceses of Washington, D.C., and Nashville, Tenn., the Catholic Conference of Michigan and several affiliated groups requested the emergency stay of provisions of the Affordable Care Act that would require companies regardless of religious beliefs to provide contraceptives and other abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.
The groups want the mandate halted while the court considers a legal challenge, brought by the for-profit company Hobby Lobby, arguing that the requirement violates their religious liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
This really is big. Hugh, too.
Strike down the entire mandate.
Calling it a tax was unconscionable.
For once the chief housekeeper on the Supreme Court has a ruling in line with First Amendment rights.
“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted “
I sit here in awe.
2014 is starting out right.
Fluke insisted that the women of Georgetown, other religious schools, and employees of religious institutions such as hospitals have endured "financial, emotional and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage.
It is only til they hear the case....
I’m no expert of Supreme Court procedure - although I pretend to be on FR - but I think Justice Sotomayor granted the stay because the next step would be for the plaintiffs to ask the full court for a temporary stay, and she knew there were 5 votes ready to do so.
Unless I’m wrong.
Let’s pray that Hobby Lobby wins and all the Catholic people too.
That’s at least a start.
Well, someday I’d like to play a SC Judge in the movies. I look great in black robes. ;)
Seriously...I’m inclined to agree with you on the statgery.
Why the almost-stroke-of-midnight ruling? It’s not as if this sneaked up on anyone.
I bet there will be words for her in NYC when she drops the ball tonight.
She does know that for sure if she is one of the 5. I don’t know if she is a practicing Catholic; but Hispanics are heavily Catholic; this may be one area where she is willing to listen to the religious freedom argument.
Whoa! I can’t believe it!
In a sane, lawful America no one would need grovel before the USSC with such a plea.
The twisted tyrants no doubt get a kick out of granting random mercies to the poor, desperate peasants.
In future decisions, the court majority may decide to lop off a few heads or make human torches out of homophobes.
“It is only til they hear the case....”
And right before she hits the button in New York City to raise the ball for New Year’s Eve. Publicity much.... hmmm
As a latina, more likely she’s at least nominally a Catholic. It would look really bad on her to decline the request.
The Wise Latina is Catholic according to Wiki.
Perhaps, but liberalism usually trumps that. I am totally amazed that she 1: did it and 2: it is reported at all.
I mean, really. Is there a need?
Purely politically driven I’m sure.
If this mandate had been allowed to go through, it would create even more problems for the democrats going into election season.
I think you are right and also the democrats don’t need any more headaches right now than they have already.
We can hope. I want to know what her angle is as it seems quite out of character. You KNOW libs will be screaming and calling her Reagan when it becomes widely known. But you may well be right.
Here’s the entire order:
“UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the
applicants, IT IS ORDERED that respondents are temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U. S. C.
§ 300gg-13(a)(4), and related regulations pending the receipt of a response and further order of the undersigned or of the Court. The response to the application is due Friday, January 3, 2014, by 10 a.m.”
So this a temporary stay, which may or may not be lifted after Justice Sotomayor reads the response of the government in a few days. But I suspect that at that time, Justice Sotomayor will hand the decision to continue or lift the stay over to the full Supreme Court.
Maybe she just wants to receive Holy Communion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if more people sue now that this crap sandwich is actually being served.
Yea but when has that ever stopped either a lib or a priest when it comes to the ruling class?
Here’s another few factoids (source: Wikipedia)...which I did not know:
1) Sotomayor was nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; approved in June 1992 with the assistance of Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY).
2) In Dow Jones v. Department of Justice (1995), Sotomayor sided with the Wall Street Journal in its efforts to obtain and publish a photocopy of the last note left by former Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. Sotomayor ruled that the public had “a substantial interest” in viewing the note and enjoined the U.S. Justice Department from blocking its release.
3) In Pappas v. Giuliani (2002), Sotomayor *dissented* from her colleagues’ ruling that the New York Police Department could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time”, even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting”, and that therefore the employee’s First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
4) Her appointment gives the Court a record six Roman Catholic justices serving at the same time.
Well....FWIW; she may be slightly closer to center on Constitutional issues than her politics suggest....I guess we’ll find out...
I don’t disagree with you. I’m in fact highly skeptical.
I have never been good at figuring out the way these people “think.”
As an individual I deserve the same freedom of conscience that any religious group does. Either insurance policies without coverage for BC and abortions must be available to me on the individual market or I cannot consider participating by buying insurance.
Right: It is only temporary.
We will see how she votes when the rubber meets the road.
Oh thats easy.
They don’t. Once you accept that, it’s a piece of cake to unserstand them ;)
I would like to think her catholic background would lead her to the right choice. I was raised RC myself. But I’ll go with ‘trust but verify’ on this one.
Not just the Exercise Clause rights, but also the RFRA law rights. But I would bet dollars to donuts that Sotomayor will end up voting against the religious petitioners. She’s just keeping up appearances here by granting the stay — and remember, if she had refused to grant the stay, a majority of the Justices could have granted one anyway. No Justice wants to be humiliated that way, and I’m betting she only did this to avoid just such a humiliation.
Possible. But consider that Obama and co want no delays at all. Crualla just said so. Now here comes one of their hand picked SCJs countermanding their decree, even if only a moment.
For an admin that brooks no opposition, and a political cult that considers any racist treason, she’s gonna catch hell.
other Courts took action too
Good news...for now.
she’s a Catholic
So was Ted Kennedy.
The ‘Wise Latina’ actually did the right thing. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Here’s how it works. The Justice “on call” knows how many votes there are for the stay and enters it even if he/she does not plan to vote for it. She has low seniority, hence her having New Years Eve as her day and hence she being the one to grant the stay. It’s not that big a deal that she did it although I hope she has seen the light.
8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The last minute stay is all part of a coordinated scheme with the WH to temporarily deflect some of the most visible and onerous parts of this thing until they can regroup and find a way to force it through while deflecting the blame.
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.