Posted on 04/27/2015 8:46:08 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court on Monday gave new life to a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, striking down a previous ruling in favor of the federal government.
An appeals court in Cincinnati will now reconsider
the legal challenge from the Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee that had sought exemptions from an ObamaCare provision that requires employers to cover birth control for all workers.
The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case in light of last year's landmark ruling on the contraception mandate. That ruling, which was issued last June, decided that the arts-and-crafts retailer, Hobby Lobby, could seek an exemption from the contraception mandate for religious reasons. Since then, religious-affiliated companies and organizations have revived their legal challenges of the provision.
The ruling in Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell marks the third time in a year that the court has thrown out decisions in favor of the Obama administration, sending the cases back to the lower courts.
The court also gave hope to Catholic groups last month when it struck down a lower court’s ruling requiring the University of Notre Dame to follow the birth control mandate. That court will now revisit the case from the Roman Catholic university.
SCOTUS Ping.
>> The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case
...asked??!?
I guess that’s PC language for “you will” now. :)
In-frickin-excusable!
New Congress, get off your ass and kill this law or we'll fire your ass and elect someone who will pay attention and do their damn job!
Contraception mandate before the Supreme Court? Kill the law! End of discussion. No need for Supreme Court to hear arguments about a law that doesn't exist if you had done your Number 1 Job!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
In this case, this is more of a courtesy order.
The lower court will have to come up with a really good and different reason to keep their decision.
Elections have consequences and, for the most part, the SCOTUS reflects popular will.
It’s an abortion exemption. Contraception control is already a done deal in favor of the left.
The only way to have a new congress is to replace every one of them. As long as the old timers are in office there will be no change.
A modest first step is to start with dumping the leadership of both parties (including committees.) I that doesn't convey the message, clearly, go to step 2.
Pinging...(FYI)!
>> a ruling in favor of the federal government.
Such an ominous concept.
This subPreme ruling may in fact be destroying the right 6to appeal for religious reasons, since the lower court ruled that Hobby Lobby could appeal on religious grounds and scotus evacuated that ruling.
Thanks Las Vegas Dave.
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Why do the Supremes always “ send[ing] the cases back to the lower courts” to make a decision on the botched decision they rendered in the first place?
This is always the way with conservative cases. Liberals get a stamped-in-stone opinion.
Agreed. But to be fair, how is a repeal possible with the Chief Marxist unwilling to sign it?
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.