Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USA Today to Obama admin: leave Little Sisters alone
cna ^ | January 14, 2014

Posted on 01/18/2014 2:58:58 PM PST by NYer

Edited 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 ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: aca; catholic; contraceptionmandate; lawsuit; littlesisters; nuns; religiousliberty

1 posted on 01/18/2014 2:58:58 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Surprise, ping!


2 posted on 01/18/2014 2:59:20 PM PST by NYer ("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A “more meaningful” compromise would let employers either include or exclude anti-fertility drugs or surgery in their health insurance plans, as they choose.
3 posted on 01/18/2014 3:02:38 PM PST by Tax-chick (Tell the mad chameleon he's not welcome anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

there is a good reason to go after someone who can’t fight back

LEGAL PRECIDENT

If they win in court they can cite this legal precident against anyone else who tries to make the same argument


4 posted on 01/18/2014 3:03:28 PM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A big surprise! A very pleasant surprise!


5 posted on 01/18/2014 3:03:41 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
there is a good reason to go after someone who can’t fight back
LEGAL PRECEDENT
If they win in court they can cite this legal precident against anyone else who tries to make the same argument

I despise precedent; it is nothing less than the judiciary playing the children's game of telephone with the citizen's legal rights.

6 posted on 01/18/2014 3:05:49 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer; mlizzy; Arthur McGowan; mc5cents; RichInOC; Prince of Space; JoeFromSidney; TNMountainMan; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

7 posted on 01/18/2014 3:10:30 PM PST by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“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.


8 posted on 01/18/2014 3:13:28 PM PST by EDINVA ( m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Even a member of the MSM has more respect for nuns than Obama.


9 posted on 01/18/2014 3:13:42 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Welp. Looks like Obama will be revealing lots of horrible things about all the employees, and the IRS and EPA will be shutting them down.

Do not annoy the King.

10 posted on 01/18/2014 3:16:16 PM PST by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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?


11 posted on 01/18/2014 3:17:24 PM PST by poobear (Socialism in the minds of the elites, is a con-game for the serfs, nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
No surprise here.

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?

12 posted on 01/18/2014 3:18:34 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; NYer

Obama and his henchmen will ignore USA Today. Their view is that all opponents must be crushed if they refuse to become submissive slaves.


13 posted on 01/18/2014 3:30:59 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Disregard the king, so he can be put in his place.


14 posted on 01/18/2014 3:34:57 PM PST by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Really, nah.


15 posted on 01/18/2014 3:35:39 PM PST by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


16 posted on 01/18/2014 4:13:29 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Mr. K
Well, actually, that's not how it works.

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?

17 posted on 01/18/2014 4:22:04 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
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.

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.

18 posted on 01/18/2014 4:23:32 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Surprise, ping!

SHOCK, ping!

19 posted on 01/18/2014 4:40:56 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

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.”


20 posted on 01/18/2014 4:47:15 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Little Sisters of the Poor have worked for 175 years to care for the low-income elderly and dying in communities throughout the U.S.

When you are Caligula II, why should this make the tiniest difference?

21 posted on 01/18/2014 5:11:45 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
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?

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".

22 posted on 01/18/2014 5:17:46 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

His Arrogance’s war on Little Sisters of the Poor!!!


23 posted on 01/18/2014 6:48:56 PM PST by RetiredTexasVet (It's difficult to differentiate between a hog calling contest and a Senate rollcall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CorporateStepsister

Obama has clearly stepped over the line!


24 posted on 01/18/2014 7:21:51 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Wait for it...Obama will pipe up and say he didn’t know anything about it.


25 posted on 01/18/2014 7:53:04 PM PST by informavoracious (Open your eyes, people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Gannett owns the CNA?


26 posted on 01/18/2014 7:55:43 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Here’s what the webpage says at the bottom

Copyright © CNA All rights reserved
Email us at:
news@catholicna.com

Nothing about Gannett


27 posted on 01/18/2014 8:01:49 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Even Clinton for his buffoonery respected nuns and left them alone to go about their business.


28 posted on 01/18/2014 8:42:45 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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.


29 posted on 01/19/2014 4:26:28 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CorporateStepsister

How do you know?


30 posted on 01/19/2014 5:59:58 AM PST by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
That actually is not correct either.

Constitutional issues always trump precedent. Happens all the time. E.g. Heller v. D.C.

31 posted on 01/19/2014 9:29:49 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Your problem there is listening to the Usual Idiots on TV and expecting them to know anything about the law.

They're wrong, of course. And they probably know they're wrong, just lying for 'their guy'. Or else they're idiots. Pick 'em.

32 posted on 01/19/2014 9:31:21 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
That actually is not correct either.
Constitutional issues always trump precedent. Happens all the time. E.g. Heller v. D.C.

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.

33 posted on 01/19/2014 9:39:43 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson