Skip to comments.Belmont Abbey Lawsuit [Against Government] Dismissed on Standing and Ripeness Grounds
Posted on 07/22/2012 11:52:23 AM PDT by marshmallow
Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit dismissed Belmont Abbey College's law suit alleging that the contraception mandate violates RFRA and the First Amendment. The grounds are lack of standing and ripeness. The court rejected the government's claims that Belmont Abbey lacked standing because it qualified for "grandfathered" status. It also rejected the government's claim that any injury to Belmont was insufficiently imminent; the court held that the January 2014 deadline was not "too remote."
But the court accepted the government's claim that Belmont's injury was too speculative because of the government's stated intention to engage in new rulemaking before the expiration of the safe harbor. It rejected Belmont's claim that "non-binding promises of future rulemaking" can defeat standing, ruling that the government has done more than promise: it has published its plan to amend and it has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. "The government," said the court, "has done nothing to suggest that it might abandon its efforts to modify the ruleindeed, it has steadily pursued that courseand it is entitled to a presumption that it acts in good faith." The court also dismissed the case for lack of ripeness.
There is an interesting feature of the case that appears in the ripeness discussion. Belmont claimed that the case was ripe because even if the proposed rulemaking goes through, it would not be able to comply without violating its religious beliefs about contraception. The court said this:
(Excerpt) Read more at mirrorofjustice.blogs.com ...
It’s starting to appear that Americans don’t have any “standing” in our “courts” anymore.
That isn't going to stop Obama. He will be more than happy to jail as many conservatives as it takes. Passive resistance will leads to fines and shutdown of noncomplying institutions. Passive resistance unless it is in the many millions will lead to individual penalties, persecution by the instrumentalities of government, and jail. Obama must be voted out and the Obamacare repealed.
Am I wrong in visualizing the courts reason that as long as government says it is ‘planning’ to respond to some questions or objections an ordinary citizen has no right of standing to seek preemptive protection. This would be government first and foremost which I do not think was the intention(s) of the Founders or many, many citizens. Of course in today’s USA one has to realize that judges take their positions as government very seriously.
Both you and marshmallow are correct. Marshmallow’s statement is exactly what all Catholics must do. The courts will assist the continuing saga of scrubbing the public of open practice of religion, and, as shown in the recent Supreme Court case, they will continue shoring up their self-image. I say this not to malign them, so much as to note events as they are currently. As trivial as it may sound to some, a Catholic who goes along with the HHS mandates, either by buying private insurance (as a private citizen), or supplying insurance to their own employees (as an employer), or pays taxes, will pay a specific fee that is exclusively earmarked for abortion. When a Catholic supports abortion, or contraceptive use, euthenasia, et cetera, they commit grave and mortal sin, which seperates them from their relationship with God. I don’t know your beliefs, but I can tell you, as a devout Catholic, that even as much as I love this country, for which my family has fought, literally from it’s inception, I cannot commit mortal sin this way. The mandate is made with this effect upon Catholics in mind, on purpose. Kathleen Sebelius was a Catholic, excommiunicated for her pro-abortion activities as governor of Kansas, after many warnings and cautions. She knows the effect this will have. Some, unfortunately, go along with this evil. I pray that most will not. I can honestly say that while I want the law and mandates repealed, I prepare and plan for the contrary. I will not pay those fees. I do suspect that at least some of the non-Catholics in this country won’t pay it. If the events unfold as we think they will, the part that matters most will be taking the stand, for Our Lord and for that which He granted us, formerly recognized in the Constitution. If the vast majority of the country does, also, that’s great. But the reason for taking it in the first place is our belief that all anti-life actions of this sort are gravely sinful, inherently evil, and we cannot be a part of them, period. I hope that this, in spite of my rambling, helps.
So don't comply, don't pay the fine, etc. When the government attempts to prosecute, the government will have to come up with something stronger than a procedural objection to the religious freedom defense.
In the meantime, try to get the whole piece of kaka repealed.
Eighty or so years of almost uninterrupted control of Congress is really paying off for the democrat fascists. And the democrat fascists will stay in control of the courts as long as long as people who believe in the Constitution get sucked into the, “they’re all the same” game or convince themselves that not voting and working for Republicans is going to teach the Vichy Republicans a lesson.
So they have no standing, because we say so.
Looks like the fix is in.
Can someone from this area tell us whether this judge is appointed or elected?
When we find that out, perhaps we can do something about him.
They can only pull the “standing” bit in a civil lawsuit for injunctive relief. Once the penalties come down, those penalized will certainly have standing, by definition.
But at that point, the costs will be high enough to make many, if not most, concede.