FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/24/2014 4:22:16 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
President Obama’s signature healthcare law is headed back to the Supreme Court in a high-stakes case that could redefine the limits of religious freedom in the United States. The high court on Tuesday will hear challenges to ObamaCare’s contentious “birth control mandate,” which requires companies to offer contraceptive services to workers as part of their insurance coverage. If successful, the challenge could peel away a significant portion of the mandate, potentially affecting preventive health coverage for millions of women and striking a major blow to the law itself.
But the court’s ruling could also have far-reaching implications for religious liberty by allowing companies to claim First Amendment rights that the government says are reserved for individuals.
“It’s pretty huge,” said Laurie Sobel, a senior women’s policy analyst at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s hard to overstate the possible implications.”
The case pits the government against a pair of for-profit companies — the Hobby Lobby craft store chain and Conestoga Woods Specialties, a Pennsylvania-based cabinetmaker. The firms, who together employ thousands workers in nearly every state, say they should be exempted from the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage because the corporation’s owners object to it on religious grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The EXEMPT black-robed haters of the US Constitution
will “rule” against the US Constitution, as in the past.
After all, THEY are EXEMPT as are their families
and staff, and they are above the alleged “law”
for nonMoslems and for those outside of DC.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“...by allowing companies to claim First Amendment rights that the government says are reserved for individuals.”
Is THAT the opposing argument? Does the left not see private (or publicly-traded for that matter) companies as a set of individuals (owners, stockholders, employees)?
Or, will Kennedy find a loophole - such as: they give up rights when they open for business, like in the Civil Rights battles?
This is all about responsibility.
Both the 1st Amendment and the law which merely recognizes it religious freedom, the Congress’ 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act positively trump ANYTHING written by unaccountable bureaucrats.
Ever since Roberts’ decision, this entire court is a joke in my eyes.
Funny how Goad labels this case “high stakes” when the
tards have a majority in the SCOTUS. What a propagandist.
[Ever since Roberts’ decision, this entire court is a joke in my eyes.]
Amen to that, it seems we have 5&1/2 liberal unjust judges of the unjust less supreme court, Kennedy being the 1/2 and Roberts going the way of so many unjust judges who deny justice and do their own will by ignoring the laws and Constitution as written for their preferences. Roberts is a liberal. I believe that the left and right must depart one from another in order that the right may thrive under just laws and have freedoms and liberties to pursue after happiness through a God given Bill of Rights written by Christians.
The left are communists and will go the way of violence and hatred as all communist nations do. We need to separate and build a fence between us and the neo Nazi left.
So the Supreme Court that approves the killing of babies will now be deciding if the Bill of Rights really means “the free exercise” of one’s religion. Shame on our generation for allowing this blatant theft of our liberty after so many died to save it.
What They Should Be Doing:
High court to weigh limits of ObamaCare in religious liberty case
[Ever since Roberts’ decision, this entire court is a joke in my eyes.]
What did you expect.
Bust #1.. Tard lite.
Clinton.. 100% Full Tard communist
Bush #2.. Tard lite.
The worm. 100% Full Tard communist
We haven’t had a president in 26 years that actually read
much less knows what the Constitution says or means.
-Or-
They know and don’t like it to the point of subversion.
Funny how the march to socialism has never stopped or
slowed in the past 26 years.
One hopes for an American revival...
After all, THEY are EXEMPT as are their families
and staff, and they are above the alleged “law”
for nonMoslems and for those outside of DC."
Only for as long as 310 MILLION are willing to lie down and be beat.
“Shame on our generation”
You mean the “Inagodadavida draft dodging 60’s hippies”.
Look at the world today. Where are ALL the political
uprisings that lead to socialist uprising start? In
the universities. Where did the Inagodadavida draft dodging 60’s hippies come from? The Ivy League.
It’s always colleges. Could it be they are the only places
where they can find people stupid enough to buy their load of
communist crap?
Maybe we need to analyze the SAT tests because they seem to
attract the most gullible and ignorant among us.
“High court to weigh limits of ObamaCare in religious liberty case”
Good point. Since when do we put liberty on trial in the
face of a law? And just how “American” is a mandate that is
based on your very existence? I can legally get around
paying taxes by not working. Auto liability, not driving.
ObamaCare, not living. Mandate, no way around it but death.
We have a death tax, now we have a life tax and Roberts.
And we know how he feels about taxes.
Don't you just hate lawyers...they always find way to put themselves above the law.....I wonder how many lawyers have been arrested for serous crimes.....as compared to the general public...like murder....or narcotics...
You got'a know them slimy son-of-a-guns are into all kinds of graft....
The real issue is medical necessity. There is a medical necessity for contraceptives in very few cases...and I think those really have nothing to do with contraception.
Requiring everyone be covered for what is not a necessity is an imposition of the governing classes’ whims on people.
War is objected to by some but can be seen as a necessity. Therefore, it’s not whimsical. Imposing a requirement to travel to a foreign country would be whimsical.
So, I agree. This is about imposing something that isn’t necessary to impose, and then requiring the violation of religious conscience to accomodate someone’s whim.
The fish rots from the top.
Indeed.
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.