And then Scalia said I had shown particular contempt for the very framework of the Constitution....
Posted on 06/30/2014 7:36:22 AM PDT by xzins
Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
And then Scalia said I had shown particular contempt for the very framework of the Constitution....
I wish he would make an announcement that he was not going to comply with the ruling. I think that would push things over the edge. I really believe he is on shaky footing already. That’s why I believe a lawsuit against him is a good idea. I think the court is concerned with his runaway power grab. Reid will never let impeachment happen, but the court is ready to do their part. That’s just my guess.
hmmm. seems to be some confusion on this point. Judge napolitano just stated on Fox that this ruling does extend to non profits…which would be great news for us catholic school folks
See post #21
But then the big question is, who would actually make Obama adhere to the ruling if he chooses not to? Can we actually rely on Boehner, Issa, and the GOP to do this??
From the decision:
..........”Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any costsharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.”..................
So, it sounds to me like they will be in the same position as Catholic schools to me....what say you?
I dunno. I would guess if it plays out with the courts ruling to “re-balance” the powers in this country, and obammy completely disregarding it that we will see Bundy style standoffs all over this country. Well, certainly in the red states.
Obama doesn’t need to “comply” with this ruling…it requires no action on his part.. it merely states that HL does not have to pay for 4 specific forms of contraception for its employees…
HL was set to be required to pay fines on a per-employee basis for not providing contraceptive coverage, now they won’t face such fines, no action required on behalf of HHS.
Obammy has to comply in that his IRS can not pursue penalties from Hobby Lobby. (they have to go after tea party people or someone else he has an issue with )
Without reading the rest of the decision it is not clear that they are defining HL as a religious employer… it seems in the section of the decision you have provided defines religious employers as churches..I don’t think they are referring to HL as a “Religious employer”
Regarding churches and public schools however, this is an interesting clarification on the “accommodation” the administration has given catholic churches specifically the section that says insurance companies must make plan participants pay separately for contraception that can’t be “cost-shared”…i.e. people working for catholic non profits must pay for their own contraception..I think this section was written as a clarification of that issue not in regards to HL
right…and If the IRS pursues them ( i.e. the fines) then they don’t have to pay. Do you think obama will send SWAT teams to place locks on the doors of HL nationwide for not paying IRS fines?
I think he would like to do so…. but I don’t think he will go this far.
I agree... I think he’d like to... but I don’t think he will go that far either.
Can this ruling be applied to small businesses who operate based on their religious convictions?
I’m thinking of bakers who refuse to create wedding cakes for gay marriages.
Your post is correct. I included this section to show how the contraceptive mandate is being handled currently with religious non-profits. (I actually thought the company was forced to pay for the third party, maybe not?)
My question was, are Hobby Lobby and other for-profit companies who object on religious grounds, going to be forced to handle this the same way...I assume so.
You made the comment that you wish Catholic schools could be exempt....are they not? Or are they forced to provide it by a third party essentially?
...I'm losing count.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen more outright trolls, “concern trolls” and weepy defeatists as I have on these Hobby Lobby threads today. If the Viking Kitties are hungry (and I have a hunch they are), there’s a whole buffet waiting for them!
I think Alito went out of his way to indicate that it did not serve a compelling government interest. He said that the government has provided millions upon millions of exemptions, to include exemptions simply to health insurance plans that have been grandfathered in. All of these plans have zero requirement to provide this contraception coverage.
The brilliant constitutional scholar that is currently pres(id)ent has a staff to think for him, form opinions for him, etc. I have yet to see any evidence at all that indicates that he wishes to be a tyrant; he was elected to comply with liberal ideology, not lead.
Regarding your question… I am assuming otherwise... that HL is not required to to have contraception handled in the same way ( round about way through insurance plans) as the non-profits. In the concurring opinion, justice Kennedy noted that the government could pay for it.. I think that the section you referenced was referring to non -profits only NOT HL. The administration “accommodation” only applies to non profits in my understanding.
Catholic schools, it is my understanding were part of the “accommodation” granted where insurance companies must pay instead of catholic institutions. In this SCOTUS clarification it appears that in regard to non-profits employees must pay insurance companies out of pocket for contraception coverage and that increased costs of insurers can’t be turned back on the church through higher premium costs for the plans… Again my thoughts are this section was included to clarify the contraception mandate on non-profits…not HL.
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.