Skip to comments.
Supreme Court tosses ObamaCare contraception ruling
The Hill ^
| April 27, 2015
| Sarah Ferris
Posted on 04/27/2015 8:46:08 AM PDT by jazusamo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
More good news.
1
posted on
04/27/2015 8:46:08 AM PDT
by
jazusamo
To: jazusamo
The law has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and they still won't kill the monster!
2
posted on
04/27/2015 8:50:03 AM PDT
by
Know et al
(Keep on Freepin'!!!)
To: BuckeyeTexan
3
posted on
04/27/2015 8:51:04 AM PDT
by
jazusamo
(0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
To: jazusamo
>> The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case
...asked??!?
4
posted on
04/27/2015 9:10:11 AM PDT
by
Nervous Tick
(There is no "allah" but satan, and mohammed was his demon-possessed tool.)
To: Nervous Tick
I guess that’s PC language for “you will” now. :)
5
posted on
04/27/2015 9:14:27 AM PDT
by
jazusamo
(0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!
6
posted on
04/27/2015 9:25:14 AM PDT
by
jazusamo
(0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
To: jazusamo
A very clear message was sent last November that the American people do not want this crap sandwich health care law. It is now nearing the 5th month that all those new congress critters have been in office and this monstrosity is still the law of the land?
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!
7
posted on
04/27/2015 9:33:40 AM PDT
by
N. Theknow
(Kennedys-Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat-But they know what's best for you.)
To: jazusamo; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
8
posted on
04/27/2015 9:57:47 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: Nervous Tick
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.
9
posted on
04/27/2015 10:03:55 AM PDT
by
kidd
To: N. Theknow
Elections have consequences and, for the most part, the SCOTUS reflects popular will.
10
posted on
04/27/2015 10:07:10 AM PDT
by
1010RD
(First, Do No Harm)
To: jazusamo
It’s an abortion exemption. Contraception control is already a done deal in favor of the left.
To: N. Theknow
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.
12
posted on
04/27/2015 10:51:50 AM PDT
by
VerySadAmerican
(Obama voters are my enemy. And so are RINO voters.)
To: VerySadAmerican
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.
13
posted on
04/27/2015 11:35:57 AM PDT
by
publius911
(If you like Obamacare, You'll LOVE ObamaWeb.)
To: Blood of Tyrants; ADemocratNoMore; Akron Al; arbee4bush; agrace; ATOMIC_PUNK; Badeye; ...
14
posted on
04/27/2015 12:43:34 PM PDT
by
Las Vegas Dave
(The democ"RAT"ic party preys on the ignorant..!)
To: jazusamo
>> a ruling in favor of the federal government.
Such an ominous concept.
15
posted on
04/27/2015 1:01:38 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(Don't be a statist!)
To: jazusamo
"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."
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.
16
posted on
04/27/2015 1:42:59 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: Las Vegas Dave; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ...
17
posted on
04/27/2015 2:10:40 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
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]
18
posted on
04/27/2015 2:12:13 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
To: jazusamo
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.
19
posted on
04/27/2015 2:24:53 PM PDT
by
fwdude
(The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
To: N. Theknow
It is now nearing the 5th month that all those new congress critters have been in office and this monstrosity is still the law of the land? Agreed. But to be fair, how is a repeal possible with the Chief Marxist unwilling to sign it?
20
posted on
04/27/2015 2:26:07 PM PDT
by
fwdude
(The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson