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 1-5051-100101-129 next last
Another MASSIVE VICTORY! That's a Hat Trick!
1 posted on 06/30/2014 7:56:54 AM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Praise God.


2 posted on 06/30/2014 7:57:21 AM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1; xzins; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

3 posted on 06/30/2014 7:58:00 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Today’s score:

Freedom 2

Tyranny 0


4 posted on 06/30/2014 7:58:35 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

This is good. But the best part it that it will give the administration indigestion.


5 posted on 06/30/2014 7:59:19 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Look for Barry to do something to undermine the republic today as he needs to strike back as his ego has been tarnished. Yes, he is that type of vindictive person.


6 posted on 06/30/2014 7:59:21 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

So, is just part of the law unconstitutional?

Is this the only part?

Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?

TIA,

3


7 posted on 06/30/2014 8:00:44 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1
How ON EARTH will one be able secure their $9.50 / month contraception if insurance doesn't 'pay for it'??? I'm without speech.
8 posted on 06/30/2014 8:01:03 AM PDT by headless_thompson_gunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Wonder how long it will be before Delirious Dingy, the Left Coast Harridan and Little Zero call for a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Supreme Court?


9 posted on 06/30/2014 8:03:07 AM PDT by dontBSme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

And to think that if just one tyrant judge vote flipped the other way would have resulted in a disaster and a corruption of constitutional protected freedoms.


10 posted on 06/30/2014 8:04:37 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Great news! Thanks for posting.


11 posted on 06/30/2014 8:04:48 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Wonder how long it will be before nasty family secrets will be “leaked” about the Roberts family.


12 posted on 06/30/2014 8:05:03 AM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1
damn....just damn
13 posted on 06/30/2014 8:05:40 AM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I just had to go see what Dem. Underground is saying over these decisions....LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Oh they are more than p*ssed....burning up says it well! Ha!


14 posted on 06/30/2014 8:06:06 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

One interpretation I’m hearing is that it will allow the administration to issue a regulation saying that the fedgov will pay for this.

IOW, the USSC ruling says “closely help corporations” don’t have to pay for it, but rather, millions of individual taxpayers WILL be forced to pay for it.

That’s just GREAT. /sarc


15 posted on 06/30/2014 8:06:38 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

For some schadenfreude you can visit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014836559


16 posted on 06/30/2014 8:06:50 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

WOW! Just WOW!


17 posted on 06/30/2014 8:07:09 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Very narrow decision. Applies only to closely held corporations. Government workaround is just to pay for BC directly.


18 posted on 06/30/2014 8:07:43 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

Yes, that is exactly what is pretty scary abut the vote...too close. Won’t be surprised if Obama tries to overturn this decision.


19 posted on 06/30/2014 8:07:48 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Does this apply to all cases — EWTN, other religious organizations that protested this provision???


20 posted on 06/30/2014 8:07:51 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

EWTN’s comment on FB -

“EWTN is extremely pleased with today’s Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The fact that the Court believes that the government has less restrictive means of accomplishing its goals is very helpful. However, it remains unclear whether this decision addresses the serious objections that EWTN has raised with regard to the government’s “accommodation” scheme for nonprofit faith-based organizations. We are consulting with our legal team to determine how this significant decision applies to EWTN and our pending case before the courts.”


21 posted on 06/30/2014 8:08:44 AM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

tflabo wrote:
<<
And to think that if just one tyrant judge vote flipped the other way would have resulted in a disaster and a corruption of constitutional protected freedoms.
>>

************************************************************

Yep. It frightens me immensely to think we are only ONE retirement of a conservative-leaning judge away from complete and total left-wing judicial tyranny.


22 posted on 06/30/2014 8:08:59 AM PDT by DestroyLiberalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

If the provision was found to be illegal, then someone committed a crime. Who was it, and what will the sentence be?


23 posted on 06/30/2014 8:09:01 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

I don’t know the answer to that. However, this would have been a non-issue had Roberts stuck to his guns and ruled with the majority against obamacare way back when. I am thrilled that the SCOTUS stuck it to the man and ruled for Hobby Lobby. Take that Ø.


24 posted on 06/30/2014 8:09:31 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (You have your fear, which might become reality; and you have Godzilla, which IS reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dontBSme

Expect some type of unilateral action by Obama to have the government (i.e., the taxpayers) pay for this. He has no respect whatsoever for the congress or the USSC.


25 posted on 06/30/2014 8:09:48 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Triple
So, is just part of the law unconstitutional?

Is this the only part?


This is tossing a bone to conservative sheeple. It helps to keep the illusion that we have a legal system alive.

Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?

Yes, they've always had that. It's just hard to tell because they almost always simply do what their elite financial masters want them to do, i.e., inflict misery on the sheeple. If SCOTUS did their job, virtually every law passed by Congress would be struck down.

Occasionally the sheeple get tossed a bone so they can think they are "winning". This keeps the sheeple playing the game. If the sheeple were never tossed a bone, they'd stop working. Given how many sheeple have stopped working in the past few years, and how SCOTUS has inflicted such misery on them in the past few years, SCOTUS needed to toss the sheeple a bone.
26 posted on 06/30/2014 8:10:27 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

I’m guessing that heads are exploding over at Democratic Underground today. I’d go check but I don’t want to get dirty.


27 posted on 06/30/2014 8:10:37 AM PDT by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Supremes have FOUND their SPINE.


28 posted on 06/30/2014 8:10:49 AM PDT by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonno
The dummies at DU are really P.O'd!

Good!

29 posted on 06/30/2014 8:10:53 AM PDT by Las Vegas Dave (The democRATic party preys on the ignorant..!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

Well I strongly disagree.

All these S.C. rulings invalidate the law and open it up for thousands of law suits.

The law at this point has to be changed in order to be Constitutional or it’s goodbye.


30 posted on 06/30/2014 8:10:59 AM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jonno

Thanks for the entertaining link....enjoyed seeing them get their pants in a knot and then some!


31 posted on 06/30/2014 8:11:26 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Ha.............Hah!!!!!!!!!!!!


32 posted on 06/30/2014 8:11:39 AM PDT by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701

I guess Roberts didn’t lump this ruling in with his nuanced ‘valid tax’ justification for OBortemScare.


33 posted on 06/30/2014 8:12:32 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

It’s a flawed law. Pelosi said lets pass the law so we can see what is in in. Maybe they should have reviewed it’s constitutionality first. Others have said lets pass the law just to get something out there then we can work on fixing it.

To me that logic is crazy, and is akin to saying lets smear crap on the wall so we can figure out how to clean it up.


34 posted on 06/30/2014 8:14:23 AM PDT by inchworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

The libs on Facebook are losing their minds over this. Hahahaha


35 posted on 06/30/2014 8:15:13 AM PDT by youngidiot (God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Twitter

Senator Harry Reid @SenatorReid

If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will.


36 posted on 06/30/2014 8:15:16 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Where does Drudge get this summary?

“ROBERTS REGRETS: CAN’T MAKE EMPLOYERS COVER CONTRACEPTION...”

The story they linked says no such thing!


37 posted on 06/30/2014 8:16:31 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

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

(The line item change is effectively legislation.)


38 posted on 06/30/2014 8:17:51 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave
The dummies at DU are really P.O'd!

Some prefer the evil, dark side. Tell the DUmpies that baby killing however is still legal at least here on the topside of the earth. Let the DNC start a fund for abortion payments instead of forcing the rest of us to subsidize EVIL.

39 posted on 06/30/2014 8:18:36 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

Here you go...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf


40 posted on 06/30/2014 8:18:52 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

This is not a victory as far as I am concerned because there were four Justices that actually voted against that. Each of those four is an enemy to our Constitution and our Republic.


41 posted on 06/30/2014 8:23:06 AM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caww

What I found interesting is that there was almost no discussion about the “union-busting” case; which, in pragmatic terms might have a broader long-term affect (win the battle that might lead to winning the war...).


42 posted on 06/30/2014 8:23:47 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: topher

“Does this apply to all cases — EWTN, other religious organizations that protested this provision”

Yes for those 4 particular abortion causing drugs, but not over the counter contraceptions. Little Sisters of the Poor and EWTN still have to provide birth control pills for their employees if they want them. And so does Hobby Lobby, but they were already giving employees birth control pills, so go figure.


43 posted on 06/30/2014 8:24:28 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

Yes, he would like to do that but it is difficult given the restrictions that the SCOTUS put on mandating medicaid expansion


44 posted on 06/30/2014 8:24:41 AM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
So EWTN and the Little Sisters of the Poor have to have their cases heard.

It is possible that a judge might use this case (in general, the issue of something objectionable being offered) as a reason to allow them NOT to offer contraceptives.

The fact it is a narrow ruling is bad. The SCOTUS should have upheld what HOBBY LOBBY on the Freedom of Religion of the Constitution...

45 posted on 06/30/2014 8:28:24 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Has Harry Reid’s morman church called him out on his pro-abortion, pro queer “marriage” views? I guarantee you he’s a big shot Joseph Smith’s cult. Last time I checked the morman church was against queer “marriage” and abortion on demand.


46 posted on 06/30/2014 8:28:43 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

Restrictions don’t mean much to this tyrant. As we’ve seen too many times he has a phone and a pen and just does what he wants.

Quite frankly, he doesn’t have anything to fear. The congress is impotent, nothing but vacuous talk with no action.


47 posted on 06/30/2014 8:30:21 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
I don't understand your point?

Are you saying the ACA is 100% in compliance with the Constitution? LOL! Again... I don't understand your point???

All it takes is just a crack to invalidate it. I don't understand how you think this will not create a Tidal Wave of new lawsuits.

The S.C. has considered a part of the law invalid. Well actually two parts with the other ruling. Size does not matter because it's all part of the same package/law.

At this point what has to be done is that it has to be modified in congress to meet the S.C. standards, voted and then signed by the President or it's no more.

Yes it's just that simple. A law has to meet constitional standards or it's NULL and VOID.

Many laws everyday are found invalid over a little tinny parts of it. It happens often.

48 posted on 06/30/2014 8:33:15 AM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1; All

So much of what the sheeple were told by the Media about Obama and Radical Dem Policies has turned out to be wrong and Unconstitutional.

And yet, the followers, especially the Low-Info’s, STILL won’t admit they might have been wrong.

The TV hasn’t told them it’s OK yet, and they don’t want to get kicked out of the “popular kids” club, after all....


49 posted on 06/30/2014 8:33:34 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

As I understand the legal “dance”, that’s how things are interpreted, er, well, used to be (there’s not even any semblance of logic any more so who knows).

If Congress says in its law that it’s “all or nothing”, and if SCOTUS strikes down any point, then, yes, in theory the whole thing is nullified in a practical sense. Cuz everyone used to know that then Federal judges would then rule according to that SCOTUS “strike down”, so anything in the law could be successfully challenged. Most times, therefore, Congress would choose to be sure to indicate that it was NOT all or nothing, so they would keep the parts not struck down.

Today, in an era where the executive branch publicly states that they will not enforce laws according to their whim, Congress is more useless (except to the financial elites) than it ever was and judges legislate at their whim - all bets are off from a courtroom perspective. We live in a legally arbitrary society at this point.

Many sheeple still are not quite catching on that the financial elites are the worst war-criminal, drug lord slavers in history and that they form the top of the hierarchy of the American establishment. In effect, the worst criminals of all, criminals on a global scale, rule over our government, which is just a show put on for us sheeple.

More sheeple are catching on every day.

The first thing is to admit there’s a problem, second is to correctly identify what the problem is. We’re slowly getting there.

Actually doing something about it is quite another story, of course.


50 posted on 06/30/2014 8:33:58 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 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