Cruz, Cornyn Join Hobby Lobby in Obamacare Legal Fight

Breitbart ^ | Bob Price

[SoConPubbie]

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will begin hearing oral arguments in two high profile cases regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. The two cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. These two cases deal with the religious freedom aspects of the ACA and how it applies to individual businesses.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas offering his continuing support for the two companies who have taken the federal government to court.

"The Supreme Court has the opportunity to affirm our fundamental right to religious freedom," Sen. Cruz said. "Time and time again, President Obama has granted exemptions to the politically powerful, yet refuses to grant the same leniency to those for whom Obamacare's contraception mandate infringes on their beliefs.”

“I urge the court to unequivocally stand up for the First Amendment rights of all Americans,” Cruz continued, “and stop the government from forcing employers with valid religious objections to violate their faith."

In January, Sen. Cruz, along with Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and David Vitter (R-LA) teamed up to file an amicus brief supporting the legal positions of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties and their fight against Obamacare.

“The various delays and exceptions that the Administration has announced all have one effect: exempting even more health care plans from the requirements of the ACA,” the brief obtained by Breitbart Texas says. “In each instance, the beneficiaries of these exemptions are the politically powerful and well-connected. The Administration, however, refuses to grant the same leniency to those for whom the contraception mandate violates their sincere religious beliefs.”

[SoConPubbie]

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton "We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[SoConPubbie]

Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

[stanne]

Good deal.

[Viennacon]

This is a very important ruling, with perhaps as many implications as Citizens United.

[tet68]

Important yes.
I wonder if Obama can get this pushed through
how much longer it would be before we see
Citizens United revisited and over turned.

[Jane Long]

Good news!

(Now, where's that FReeper who disagreed with me that Cornball's last election closeness was a wake-up call, and that he'd go further right, towards Cruz?)

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SoConPubbie — Cruz, Cornyn, Vitter ping.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx

[alancarp]

I sure hope SOMEBODY argues that it was apparently Congress’ intent to uphold religious liberties by exempting Muslims and Amish from the law.

[fwdude]

This is a very important ruling, with perhaps as many implications as Citizens United.

You would hope so. But I wonder how narrow the scope of the opinion will be, if it favors religious freedom? I can guess that it will be construed to JUST apply to contraception, instead of religious freedom to sell or not sell ANY product that violates religious beliefs (fake "wedding" cakes, photography services, etc.) Of course, the Windsor decision was construed as a broad, blank check to effectively "legalize" illegal, counterfeit marriage nationwide. But Leftists seem to always get that privilege.

[VRWC For Truth]

Cornrow dingleberry is hanging by a thread.