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 ...
Good point!
Retirement? Pray that the left doesn't figure out that a justices doesn't have to necessarily retire in order to create a vacancy...
I agree with you on that.
I am not one of them and think this is a big decision ( and the right one) that was frighteningly close (5-4) I know threads can be long on big news days, but it helps to read carefully a discussion before guessing who may be a troll
Well the gay-therapy ban of California didn’t get mowed down so it is mixed, still sometimes sensible things come out of the Supreme Court.
It does need to be taken as a very sobering warning. In our current situation the complexion of the Court continues to matter.
Which in turn means the complexion of the Presidency and the Senate continues to matter.
From liberal Democrat standpoint, if Republicans have to have something, the House is the least harm to their long term plans.
thanks -
So, the law gave regulatory discretion to the executive branch, and the ex branch policy went outside the constitution, but the ACA which gave the discretion is kosher (unchallenged in this suit).
Did I get that right?
The absolute hypocrisy and duplicity of the American statist left defies logical explanation!
Putting aside for the moment that “statist left” and “logical” should NEVER APPEAR in the same rant, the just announced Hobby Lobby decision by the Supremes displayed it for all to see. All, that is, except the looney 47% who are receiving all the “free” chit and other goodies dispensed by the left to keep them voting for Democrat hacks who promise more and more of the free chit.
At the time the left rammed through the (Un)Affordable Care Act, there were loud protests from the few million or so sane citizens still living here that it would interpose fedzilla into the formerly sacred relationship between patient and doctor. The equally looney “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” left quickly waved a collective imperious hand and uttered a royal “Tsk, tsk”, dismissed the objectors and returned to destroying the fabric of the country.
Comes now the favorable Hobby Lobby decision and comes now two pro-abortion radical feminazis to – where else – MSNBC to decry and lament over the decision. One was Rep. Nita Lowey from NYC (aka Gomorrah on the Hudson) and another woman representing one of the several Margaret Sanger eugenics inspired pro-abortion groups still murdering babies in the former safety of their mothers’ wombs.
Their first and only opposition argument? Though I suspect you have figured this out, better brace yourself: “It would interfere with the sanctity of the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”
And before you hit the reply button with “What about the hypocrisy of the pro-life right in celebrating Hobby Lobby?”
You may have overlooked the third and silent party in the discussion: The unborn baby!
The pro-aborts maintain that a fetus is NOT a human being either until birth or the third trimester. (I’ll believe that when a human female delivers a chicken or a cow.) And a number of courts here and in other nations regularly rule in support of that erroneous notion.
And while we’re discussing “hypocrisy”, can you explain this to me? How is it that those same courts correctly rule in cases involving intentional or accidental serious injury to or death of a pregnant woman that if her unborn baby is injured or dies, her baby constitutes a SECOND victim of the trauma or crime and the jury/judge nearly always factors that into the civil judgment or criminal sentence?
That concept comes down to us from the over 2,000 year old law found in the Bible.
And here’s one final piece of law from that Good Book: “A double-minded man (or woman) is UNSTABLE in ALL his (or her) ways”.
What does that say about 21st century America?
Just sayin’
Dick Bachert
6 30 2014
At most, an unborn child has occupied a kind of legal limbo in American law.
Abortion was never considered a capital offense, if illustration is desired.
That’s about how I get it.
I still hope for part of the actual law to be found unconstitutional. THAT would open the floodgates - in fact I think the law may be completely thrown out before that happened due to the Dems not inserting any severability clause.
But we shall see. Hopefully we can get it removed.
Passed with only dem votes... seems that detail may be the undoing. Has any uber-major legislation like this ever passed party-line?
Not that he's overly conservative, but that's the very reason Kennedy won't retire.
While it is disappointing with the Roberts waffle about it being a tax, yet once someone is compelled to pay a tax due to Obamacare then that opens the door to challenging whether it is a constitutional tax (a question which, Alice-In-Wonderlandishly, did not get considered by the USSC). From all I’ve seen the answer to that is no, it is not a constitutional tax. It might have to wait till 2015 when it will matter in people’s 2014 tax refunds. Unless our dear Calvinball Big Ears manages to waive that too.
LOL, I went too. Apparently everyone on DU spends thousands of dollars a month on needlework supplies, etc... so the imminent boycott should bring Hobby Lobby to their knees within a week.
If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will.
So this decision prevents women from having "access" to healthcare? Brilliant, Harry.
Free speech wins again.
“So, is just part of the law unconstitutional?
Is this the only part?
Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?”
The way our judicial system works, the court can only decide on what is before it. All that was before it was the issue of the birth control mandate. All that was before it last time was the issue of the individual mandate. While the found this part constitutional and the other unconstitutional, those decisions make no judgement on the remainder of the law.... someone has to bring up cases on those portions for that to happen.
I thought the sun was shining brighter today.
“...He has no respect whatsoever for the congress or the USSC....”ll
Or the sanctity of human life.
Boycotts seldom last longer then the next news item out.....I doubt it’ll affect Hobby Lobby one bit. And about DU liberals doing needlework?...LOLOLOLOL..and spending thousands a month?..LOLOLOL.
Probably sic the IRS on them now! Obam doesn’t take loss well by any means...he’ll come back with something to show everyone he’s still the boss.
Yep! Agree.
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.