FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/09/2015 6:38:15 AM PDT by mn-bush-man
Maybe it’s just a feint to demonstrate the Court’s independence and impartiality before it releases its decision to permit the subsidies to Federally-created exchanges, in contravention of the laws actual words.
I think what you’re thinking of with schoolchildren and liberals/progressives are two different things. In the one case, children cannot be taught. In the other, you can rub their face in it, destroy them with all reason, logic and force you want and they will still stand back and defiantly and obliviously keep on doing what they’re doing.
In short, it’s water off a duck’s back to them. You don’t ‘teach’ them; you slap them upside the head until it actually hurts to the point they cannot react so.
cannot be taught should be “can be taught”.....typo
The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.
Maybe this is a good thing throwing the lower court decision out. Maybe, I think it looks like a good thing what the SCOTUS did.
nominated by Obama...and confirmed by Republicans.
FROM NPR ( The one or taxes pay for ):
The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated an appeals court ruling that went against the University of Notre Dame, in a case that revolves around the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers should pay for contraception as part of women’s health insurance.
Last February, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago backed a lower court’s ruling that dismissed Notre Dame’s request for an injunction against the rule.
But on Monday, the Supreme Court said it’s sending the case back to the 7th Circuit, “for further consideration in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.” — last summer’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.
The Roman Catholic school had sued the Obama administration over the requirement, saying a compromise that was meant to put insurance companies instead of religious institutions in charge of contraception coverage was not acceptable.
Last June’s Supreme Court decision established that some privately held companies “can opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions for no-cost prescription contraception in most health insurance if they have religious objections,” as we reported.
“The university has argued the Affordable Care Act’s compromise arrangement... is inadequate,” The Wall Street Journal reported last year, “because it still forces the university to be complicit in something it believes to be immoral.”
I think this ruling is good news:
U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out an appeals court decision on Obamacare’s contraception mandate that had favored the White House.
******
Is Obama's lawyer telling the Supreme Court the following: "If not a single one of the 50 states opened up a marketplace, the ObamaCare law states very clearly that anybody in those 50 states could still get a tax subsidy by enrolling in the federal government exchange.
1. If the law clearly states---according to Obama's lawyer---that the federal government exchange tax subsidy would be open to anyone who lives in a state without its own exchange, then why would any state go to the trouble of opening up its own exchange, when it could easily pass the cost and headaches to the federal government?
2. It makes no sense to me for any state to open up its own exchange, if the federal government, according to Obama's lawyer, would automatically give tax subsidies to ALL applications to its own federal exchange, if a state did NOT have its own exchange.
3. As I see it, the only way that the states would even consider opening its own exchange is if the federal government somehow put tremendous pressure on the states to do so.
4. And the key pressure would be this: Enrollees could ONLY receive tax subsidies if their state opened up their own exchanges.
5. The Supreme Court Justices should have asked Obama's lawyer this question: "Are you telling us that if not a single state opened up an exchange/marketplace, the ObamaCare law states that the federal government exchange would automatically give tax subsidies to all enrollees n the federal exchange from all 50 states?"
6. Protecting itself: I think that the authors of the ObamaCare law tried to protect the federal government from the possibility that not a single state would open up its own exchange, and, at the same time, the authors were protecting the federal government from the headache of trying to deal with the flood of enrollees from each state by emphasizing in the law that enrollees could get tax subsidies only if they joined their state's exchange.
This is very good news for Notre Dame and all of us.
The 7th District Court had ruled against them when Notre Dame were, in essence, arguing that they should also be able to avoid the Obama Care demand that they support abortion.
Now the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and sent it back. IMHO, the Supreme Court is saying that Notre Dame should have religious freedom protection similar to the ruling for Hobby Lobby.
It is a shame and travesty that such obvious religious freedom should have to go to the SCOTUS for a decision. Similarly, that the wanton killing of unborn children should have ever been legalized in the first place.
God in Heaven will not forever sit back and allow such depravity to consider amongst a people so blessed as this nation.
Oh I am confident the framers of this obscene law had some devious intention in its complicated makeup. But in the end, it rests with the Supreme Court to judge it (again).
The administration and Democrats are taking the basic tack of calling this oversight a “procedural error” - the equivalent of an obvious scrivener’s error.
Never have so many do-gooders, invested ideologues, PhDs (horseshit piled higher and deeper) and government hangers on tried so hard to give a left-leaning court a semblance of objectivity.
They were confirmed along party line votes. Pillard’s nomination was blocked which prompted Reid to go for the nuclear option.
There was a post on another thread showing a woman (Sandra Fluke I believe). In big letters, it said “My Body, My Choice”. Underneath, in small letters, it said “Your money”.
They want someone else to give the gold, but they want to make the rules.
Someone should tell them this is not the golden rule.
Again, the message from the left is “Shut up and pay!”
LOL
No, this was a reversal of a Seventh Circuit decision (written by Judge Posner, a Reagan appointee).
SCOTUS.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Thank you for this detailed explanation. Some questions: Does Notra Dame receive any government funding, or is it all private/Catholic? What percentage of the students are NOT catholic? Given the strong wish to avoid abortion, why not encourage contraception; do they really expect that students away from home for the first time are always going to exercise good judgement/restraint regarding sexual activity?
I guess you could say they do in a fashion. I’m sure lots of their students are on Pell Grants that could be held up for hostage.
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.