Skip to comments.Robertís Decision Endangers Religious Liberty
Posted on 07/12/2012 2:11:46 PM PDT by William Tell 2
he recent Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), which upheld the individual mandate as constitutional, portends grave danger for those religious organizations now suing the federal government for infringing on their religious liberty.
These groups rightly contend that the government has no right to decide who is religious enough to be exempt from government mandates. The department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement to provide free contraception and insurance coverage would force church-related organizations to violate church doctrine.
Although the recent Supreme Court decision National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. does not settle the religious liberty exemption demanded by the churches, it does however, open the door for the Supreme Court to redefine what constitutes a church organization.
Here is why.
When Chief Justice John A. Roberts wrote...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Actually, this statement is not accurate. Roberts' decision was logically incorrect and politically disastrous for America, but it does not support this big a legal jump. The Court did not rule that ObamaCare is constitutional, only that it was not unconstitutional on either of the two grounds addressed in the rulings under appeal.
ObamaCare challenges on religious liberty grounds have not reached the Court, yet, but that is an even stronger claim given the Sebelius regulations than the individual mandate issue Roberts should have recognized last month. As for restricting religious liberty in this serious a manner, whether for a church, a church-affiliated university or hospital, or a secular employer with strong personal religious beliefs, that's provocation for a second civil war. I hope and pray that the associated cases will reach the Court and be correctly decided before Americans with strong religious beliefs regarding abortion are left with no lesser option. Obama and Sebelius hold religion in contempt, and I'm afraid they don't understand what they are provoking with their commands to the little people whom they see as their subjects.
His name is not Robert.
Not that he cares.
I keep hearing how ‘brilliant Robert’s is” in making his decision because suppsoedly, he slammed the door shut on the left in terms of using obamacare on the baqsis of the ‘commerce clause’ and that Roberts ‘forced’ the ocoma administration to ‘admit obummercare is a tax’ but the REALITY is that Roberts opened a gaping hole for the left to drive straight through unimpeeded in the future- Sure, The right can ‘repeal obummercare’ however, when the left regains the office and senate, they will simply just reinstate obummercare because Roberts gave them free reign to simply reinstate an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO OUR FREEDOMS!!!
There was NOTHING ‘Brilliant’ About this assault on our constitutional rights- NOTHING! Roberts was nominated to make judgements and uphold the rule of law, and he refused to do so and isntead LEGISLATED from the BENCH- compeltely ignorign the FACT that forcing someoen to pay a penalty for NOT buying something is a compelte VIOLATION to our constitutional rights!!!
Never before in our history has our government forced it’s citizens to purchase a product or service simpyl becasue we are alive- NEVER!- Justice (and I use that term in this case VERY loosly)Roberts legislated fro mthe bench allowing our government to FORCE citizens to purchase somethign OR pay a penalty-
Takign this to the extreme to prove the poin t- There is supposed to be NOTHING that we absolutely have to do- We don’t even have to pay taxes IF we choose not to- We could kill ourselves in order to deny the government their ‘collection powers’, or we could comkpletely go off the grid- leave our homes, live off the land, and never simply keep on the move and never pay taxes again- We DO have thsi CHOICE if we so choose-
Now, admitedly, this is the extreme- but the point is that IF we so CHOOSE to pay taxes, then WE have made that choice- NOT the government- Now however, We no longer have the choice- EVEN IF we choose to go off grid and live in the wild- We will be concidered ‘fugitives from justice’ because we refuse to purchase obummercare because ‘by law’ the government will now be obligated to pursue said ‘offgrid’ individual for ‘non-payment’ of obummercare
And we now have ‘justice’ roberts to ‘thank’ for giving our goverment the very powers that socialist governments have, and the very powers that england had- the very government that we ESCAPED FROM way back when when they became too pwoerful and invasive and intrusive into our private lives- Now, we’re right back where we started- Heck- we’re even seeing states determining whether or not a business can conduct their business i nthe state according to their religious beleifs- IF the business doesn’t subscribbe to the state’s ‘religion’ of homosexuality- then by golly, that business can notr practice i n the state now apparently-
Obummercare ALSO violates the seperation of church and state inthat it will now FORCE emplyers, and organizatiosn to provide abortions and birth control etc via government sanctioned healthcare- Before roberts opened that door- employers were free to choose their own healthcare- and could choose healthcare that refused to cover such abominations- now however, they will no longer have that choice, and will infact have to pay into government mandadted HC which supports such assaults o nthe innocent-
No- Roberts decision was NOT Brilliant- it was judicial malpractice because roberts REFUSED to fully and objectively uphold our constitution, and he gave our governmetn unfettered ability to trample on our constitutional rights
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.