Posted on 03/26/2014 11:12:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
In one sentence, Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled he may vote to strike down Obamacare’s so-called “abortion mandate,” suggesting he may form the crucial swing vote in delivering a body blow to the president's signature legislative achievement.
“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?” Kennedy asked.
It's a question that cuts to the core of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two consolidated cases over whether the government can force a private business to provide “preventive care” that includes 24 forms of birth control, four of which can cause an abortion.
The Christian families who own the two companies in these cases believe that life begins at conception. Yet violating the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries an annual penalty of $36,500 per employee. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Alliance Defending Freedom have taken these two cases (out of roughly 100 lawsuits filed against this mandate) all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing the regulation violates both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the plaintiffs, began, “When a federal government agency compelled employers to provide something as religiously sensitive as contraception, it knew that free exercise and RFRA claims would soon follow.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“birth control” isn’t at issue in this case,
and most of them know it,
but are conflating abortion, abortifacients, and birth control together in order to set up a straw man
If Justice Anthony Kennedy strikes down the idea that some animals are more equal than others, I will be thrilled. It’s a shame we can no longer trust Roberts - ever - after the fiasco with ObamaCare Ruling #1.
How about a woman’s right to a decent cocktail? How about a woman’s right to a fine wine? How about a woman’s right to a lovely evening gown? How about a woman’s right to handsome husband? Would you deny a woman that?
There is speculation that they want us to pay for gender “reassignment” surgeries.
I truly believe they should pay for the hackings of their own nubbin’s.
If they want that type of surgery, I would suggest they be put in a mental institution. I guess insurance should cover the mental institution.
Quisling Roberts just had to remind us that he ruled that this abomination is a tax, didn’t he? Nothing like a stick in the eye to wake one up.
Hmmm. Paying a tax! as Sotomayor and Kagan suggested, in order to exercise ones’ religious beliefs seems a fairly high bar using the criteria for review that this case requires.
Would be nice to abort a few SCOTUS members from their seats of heresy.
It would seem that as long as Obama plays Calvinball and never collects the tax, America can ignore it... right? Trying to follow the “taxing” logic to the end?
I Kringe if it’s left up to Kennedy
More false positive hype...with the Roberts Court, it will come in favor of Obamacare. Hey Brietbart, this is what you said last time.
One must remember, the Supremes are all, by now, NSA’d.
We are in trouble whichever way it goes. If they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, they had better make some very careful decisions so we don’t end up with “religious” exemptions from a host of different things—all ending up in court, or driving the IRS crazy (not a totally bad thing).
“I Kringe if it’s left up to Kennedy”
As I recall Kennedy was furious with Chief Justice Roberts for changing his vote on Obamacare. I’m more worried about Roberts than Kennedy.
I have no doubt that Kennedy will get his revenge by siding with the pro religion forces. Roberts could regain some judicial integrity if he votes against the administration, but no telling what this guy will do.
I can’t believe that Rush today counted Roberts as one of the four reliable conservative votes on the Supreme Court. Rush is losing it.
How could I forget about Roberts voting for Obamacare.
I stand corrected, you can’t count on Roberts for squat.
SCOTUS needs to forget about precedent, case law and all other such junk “law” and simply examine the constitution and original intent. There is absolutely no way the founders, framers and ratifiers ever intended the central government to do anything even remotely close to ObamaCare. In fact, the constitution was intended to PREVENT this kind of tyranny. Toss the entire unconstitutional mess the hell OUT!!
I agree totally! That would solve this case and all the others, and an army of new ones that are sure to be brought before us. Too bad they can’t do that with this decision, but maybe they can made a decision that is most likely to lead to the end of this despicable law.
More to the point, if they do the right thing (rule in favor of Hobby Lobby), they need to qualify it so our First Amendment is not abused in the future by pseudo-religions. I know they will do that if that is indeed the way the decision goes. Fingers crossed. This is so important.
That or they'll rule against it but somehow find that there's a magical severability clause that everyone missed which will allow then to keep the ACA and only toss pieces of it out as see we're doing something
sound-bytes for the political caste when they need a boost for campaigns/reelection.
[/cynic]
At the end of the day I don’t think we will lose any of the four who voted to strike the whole thing down.
I can’t see Kennedy saying the whole law is unconstitutional then upholding a single egregious part of that law.
Roberts is they key. If they have him all the pictures in exchange for the first vote then perhaps he is now free to do what he wants.
Of course that is rank speculation on my part.
I read all the oral arguments, and based on the traditional way of predicting votes I think we win either 5-4 or 6-3.
Breyer’s vote is at least in play.
And Roberts, well his vote is always in play for either 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.