Skip to comments.USA Today to Obama admin: leave Little Sisters alone
Posted on 01/18/2014 2:58:58 PM PST by NYerEdited on 01/18/2014 3:37:59 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Little Sisters of the Poor. Courtesy of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Washington D.C., Jan 14, 2014 / 04:34 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The editors of USA Today have urged the Obama administration to stop trying to require the Little Sisters of the Poor to abide by the federal contraception mandate in violation of their religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
there is a good reason to go after someone who can’t fight back
If they win in court they can cite this legal precident against anyone else who tries to make the same argument
A big surprise! A very pleasant surprise!
I despise precedent; it is nothing less than the judiciary playing the children's game of telephone with the citizen's legal rights.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“Surprise” doesn’t begin to cover my reaction. “Stunned” or “shocked” perhaps. I’m sure the USA Today editors don’t care for, much less agree with, the Little Sisters. They just recognize the damaging impact of the image of the govt coming down on a group of ultimate do-gooders.
Even a member of the MSM has more respect for nuns than Obama.
Do not annoy the King.
This thing is turning into a cluster of a cluster. Doesn’t all of these exemptions just nullify the entire premise of the BS ACA? Sorry Moderators but WTF?
These editorials calling for restraint on the part of the Obama Administration know damn well that there is likely to be a terrible political backlash against Obamacare and its supporters in Congress as cases like this get public exposure.
Who the 'eff goes out and looks to impose millions of dollars in fines and penalties against the Little Sisters of the Poor?
Obama and his henchmen will ignore USA Today. Their view is that all opponents must be crushed if they refuse to become submissive slaves.
Disregard the king, so he can be put in his place.
Tell USA to shut up. The optics of Bam bullying the sisters is so bad I want to let him just keep it up. He looks so small and petty. Just the way he really is.
Courts of original jurisdiction cannot set precedent. Even the old "law of the case rule" has mostly been abolished.
Only appellate courts can set precedent, and then only within their jurisdiction (e.g. the 5th circuit, or the state of Alabama). Only the Supreme Court can set precedent for the whole country.
But precedent is the bedrock of the entire legal system - going back to the days of the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. And if you despise legal precedent, what on earth are you going to set up in its place?
I absolutely agree.
It is apparent from the tone of this article that USAT is trying to help Obama . . . "Shut up, you're making yourself look bad." The constitutional issue to them is just a throwaway, their major concern is the optics for Obama.
The problem with “precedent” as it is practiced is that it is so often nothing but a device by which the courts rewrite the Constitution.
I remember during the Lewinsky scandal how often the Screaming Faces would talk against doing something or other as specified in the Constitution on the grounds of “no precedent.” IOW, it hadn’t been done before. Which is irrelevant.
Watch for people to attack an Article V Convention of States on the grounds of “no precedent.”
When you are Caligula II, why should this make the tiniest difference?
Precedent, in itself is not so bad; the problem really is when it is elevated to the same level as Constitutionality.
That is what I despise about precedent: it is used as a tool to keep legitimate Constitutional arguments from taking place.
See Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the USSC declared that non-commerce can be regulated by congress;
which itself is built on the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, wherein the USSC declared that intrastate commerce could be regulated by congress "because it has an impact on interstate commerce".
His Arrogance’s war on Little Sisters of the Poor!!!
Obama has clearly stepped over the line!
Wait for it...Obama will pipe up and say he didn’t know anything about it.
Gannett owns the CNA?
Here’s what the webpage says at the bottom
Copyright © CNA All rights reserved
Email us at:
Nothing about Gannett
Even Clinton for his buffoonery respected nuns and left them alone to go about their business.
LEGAL PRECEDENT has turned Tennessee into a destination state for abortion (presently ranked #5 in the nation as a “go to” state for abortion) and blocked us from regulating abortion...but hopefully not for long as we are going to amend our state constitution to kill that particular legal precedent.
Please pray that we are successful.
How do you know?
Constitutional issues always trump precedent. Happens all the time. E.g. Heller v. D.C.
They're wrong, of course. And they probably know they're wrong, just lying for 'their guy'. Or else they're idiots. Pick 'em.
Then please explain Raich, wherein non-commerce was considered within the purview of Congress's "commerce clause" with the 'extension' of the "necessary and proper" clause.
Please explain Kelo, where imagining numbers from private redevelopment is considered filling the "public use".
Please explain how a "right to privacy" applies between patient and doctor to allow the striking down of state abortion laws — but doesn't apply in the case of the government domestically spying on its citizens (NSA), or even between patient and doctor in general (electronic medical record requirements of the ACA).
The fact of the legal matter is that the Supreme Court can pull whatever it wants out of its ass — see the ACA ruling, for example.
The rest of the Judiciary does the same: they build up their case to support what they've decided beforehand.