Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare Abortion Pill Rule as Violation of Religious Liberty
Breitbart ^ | 06/30/14 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 06/30/2014 7:56:54 AM PDT by Enlightened1

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a key regulation in President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation is illegal as applied to millions of Americans of faith, as well as their businesses or organizations.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hobbylobby; hobbylobbydecision; prolife; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last
To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...
SCOTUS also said in this ruling:

The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. (Emphasis mine.)
What does that mean? It means that if and when the government can demonstrate the least restrictive means of requiring these employers to provide cost-free access to those drugs that The Court may very well uphold the government's power to do so.

This decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not on the constitutionality of the ACA.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicabil- ity” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern- mental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

101 posted on 06/30/2014 10:22:00 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

...”I thought the sun was shining brighter today”....

A peek in the clouds....now they’ll be really pushing single payer.


102 posted on 06/30/2014 10:27:23 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1
Severability?

A Guide to Severability and Obamacare

103 posted on 06/30/2014 10:32:44 AM PDT by Kenny (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The SCOTUS said in the ruling:

“We need not decide whether the HHS mandate is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. Even if we assume it is, the mandate flunks the least-restrictive-means test. (Pp. 38-40.)”

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/381545/hobby-lobby-ruling-ed-whelan

From the ruling:

“We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-mental interest.” - Page 40


104 posted on 06/30/2014 10:34:00 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Does the law have to have a ‘severability’ clause to be struck down in part?

SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of any part of Obamacare. But to answer your question, no, that is not always the case. It depends on the specific legal questions that the court is addressing and what remedies are available to the court.

(The line item change is effectively legislation.)

No, it isn't legislating from the bench. (Although that does happen.) It is The Court's job to rule on the specific legal questions that are presented to it. Often those questions are about a very specific provision of law. In order to have standing to sue, plaintiffs must claim a unique injury. In doing so, they have to identify, specifically how they are or will be injured.

105 posted on 06/30/2014 10:47:30 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
All of which is patently unconstitutional because the wresting of the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, the federal government has no constitutional authority or power to enforce the first Ten Amendments. Rather, the Constitution and the first Ten Amendments are pointed directly at the limitations of the federal government's power and authority.

Few seem to understand this. It's a legal and judicial loophole, not it the Constitution, but in the demagogues' cunning misinterpretation and application of it.

106 posted on 06/30/2014 10:53:28 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Yes, that’s correct, which is why I said “may uphold.” I don’t think it will be long before the gov’t attempts to demonstrate the least restrictive means. That was really my point. I intended to say so, but I accidentally hit post (from my cell phone) when I was emphasizing some text.


107 posted on 06/30/2014 10:55:24 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
This alludes to a long line of Free Exercise Clause case law. To summarize briefly, everyone recognizes that "it's against my religion" can't be a universal excuse for violating the law; otherwise, Rastafarians could legally smoke marijuana, Quakers could refuse to pay taxes because their tax money funds the Army, and Moloch-worshipers could perform human sacrifices.

There have been two schools of thought in modern SCOTUS decisions as to where to draw the line: one doctrine, which originated with Justice Brennan during the Warren Court era, said that the Government can force someone to violate their religious beliefs only if it has a "compelling governmental interest" in doing so (e.g., preventing murder or funding the Army) and the law used the "least restrictive means" of serving that interest.

Later, a narrow majority of the Court (ironically, led by Justice Scalia) overruled the Brennan test and said the Government could force someone to violate their religion as long as the law was "generally applicable" and didn't single out any particular religion for discrimination. (Under that view, the Contraception Mandate would be constitutional.)

Congress was unhappy with Scalia's view, and reinstated the Brennan test by statute in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed unanimously by both houses of Congress-- no one liked Scalia's test).

Thus, the issue in this case was not whether the Contraception Mandate was Constitutional, but whether it violated the RFRA. The majority said that there may be a compelling interest in guaranteeing women birth control, but Congress can achieve that goal by a less restricitve means (e.g., having the Government pay for it directly.)

108 posted on 06/30/2014 10:57:32 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

We disagree about whether or not the Bill of Rights is incorporated against The States, but that is a discussion for another thread. So I won’t hijack this one.


109 posted on 06/30/2014 10:59:03 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thanks for that history!


110 posted on 06/30/2014 11:01:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...
See post 108.
111 posted on 06/30/2014 11:05:07 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I don't want to hijack anything either, but I don't think this is off point. What you pointed out in the excerpt of the Court's opinion and possible future rulings is directly on point to the issue of the federal government's allowance to enforce the first Ten Amendments - a slow-releasing time bomb with a big explosion waiting to happen.

I hope we can have those discussions.

112 posted on 06/30/2014 11:10:40 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The root problem IMO is the unexplained overruling of the long-held precedent of Slaughterhouse in Brown v. Board of Education, aiding the massive expansion and threat of federal government power - exactly what Justice Miller feared would happen as stated in his Slaughterhouse opinion.
113 posted on 06/30/2014 11:24:03 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

....”the issue in this case was not whether the Contraception Mandate was Constitutional, but whether it violated the RFRA. The majority said that there may be a compelling interest in guaranteeing women birth control, but Congress can achieve that goal by a less restricitve means (e.g., having the Government pay for it directly.)”....

Single payer will take care of it all....watch...we know it’s coming.


114 posted on 06/30/2014 11:42:37 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The root problem IMO is the unexplained overruling of the long-held precedent of Slaughterhouse in Brown v. Board of Education, aiding the massive expansion and threat of federal government power - exactly what Justice Miller feared would happen as stated in his Slaughterhouse opinion.

I don't agree with you about Slaughterhouse, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread: the Fourteenth Amendment has zero to do with today's case, which involves a federal, not a state, statute.

115 posted on 06/30/2014 11:53:41 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: mowowie

Well, the crap bomb is out there now spouting BS at some press converence about immigration. See, the fact he did not close the borders is now the fault of the tea party and GOP et al. This guy is dangerous.


116 posted on 06/30/2014 12:08:26 PM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Amen and Amen


117 posted on 06/30/2014 12:15:27 PM PDT by Maryhere ("HE comes to rule the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
I hope we can have those discussions.

We already have, Darlin'.

Supreme Court justice agrees: First Amendment limits only Congress

118 posted on 06/30/2014 12:37:41 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I know we have. I was only responding to your comment. The discussion was not a very thorough one IMO, nor did I feel like we got the the bottom of the issue.


119 posted on 06/30/2014 12:57:50 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Well, if there’s something I didn’t address on that thread, please ping me to it and I will try to answer it over there. As for discussing it on this thread, I don’t think it is relevant. This case was about a federal law.


120 posted on 06/30/2014 1:09:00 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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