Supreme Court revives challenge to ObamaCare on religious-liberty grounds

posted at 10:31 am on November 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

A decision by the Supreme Court this morning opens up a potential new avenue of attack against ObamaCare on the grounds of religious liberty — and not just the HHS contraception mandate.  The court overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Liberty University over the health-system overhaul, in a move that was not opposed by the Obama administration in court:

The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms. …

The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty’s claims before rendering a decision.

Why didn’t the White House oppose LU’s motion?  The timing issue is now largely moot, thanks to that 5-4 decision that upheld the individual mandate as a tax.  The lawsuit would have been refiled shortly in any case, which would have only provided a slight delay to the inevitable.

This lawsuit differs from the previous cases used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the law.  None of the earlier plaintiffs brought up the religious-liberty issue, in large part because HHS hadn’t formulated its arrogant posture that the government can define religious expression.  With the HHS contraception mandate now in place, the violation of the First Amendment has now become concrete, and the courts will soon have to decide just how to square the language that that clearly stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with the HHS regulation that attempts to restrict religious exercise to only within the walls of a church, synagogue, or temple.

Getting that addressed sooner is a victory in the short run for everyone.  Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I have no faith in the Supreme Court.

Oil Can on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I will not hold my breath this time. Everyone assumed the HHS mandate would be dropped immediately back when it was proposed.

Mord on November 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

If it’s not just the mandate, then how many other laws would be overturned on whatever basis this one would be overturned?

Buddahpundit on November 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I think we could just close the comments with Oil Can’s comment as I am pretty sure that is going to be the consensus among most of us. As a seldom contributor I don’t expect to be taken seriously, but that is my $0.02 (with inflation under Obama should we bump that up to $0.10)?

earlgrey133 on November 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Anything can happen, I guess. Maybe the wind will shift our way for once. Maybe not.

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

It’s a trap to eviscerate the religious objection exemption to PlaceboCare.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Oh, but then, if Obama is our lord and savior, and he invented ObamaCare, then is it really a conflict with religious liberty?

Jamie Foxx on Soul Train calls Obama Lord and Savior.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/26/jamie-foxx-calls-obama-our-lord-and-savior#ixzz2DKou43ep

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

After what Roberts did, I doubt any Conservatives have any faith in the Supreme Court, at all.

kingsjester on November 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM

the HHS regulation that attempts to restrict religious exercise to only within the walls of a church, synagogue, or temple.

Paraphrasing St Paul: “Do you not know your body is a temple…”

Easy peezy to get around the Preezy.

/Buck Farack/

Nutstuyu on November 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

This SCOTASS, under Benedickhead Roberts, is a joke. I don’t trust it as far as I can throw these idiots and I don’t much care what they say about anything, since that insane ObamaScare “tax” ruling made a mockery of anything even approximating logic and reason.

I want a divorce since I cannot trust any of these governing institutions for even the most basic fidelity to logic and plain law. We have an empathy representative on this SCOTASS along with a perjuror and an insane Chief Idiot, none of whom are qualified to be sitting on anything other than a park bench. It’s time to scrap all of this accumulated error and start over with a sane bunch of folks.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on November 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Religious liberty?

what’s that?

/modern America

ted c on November 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM

If it’s not just the mandate, then how many other laws would be overturned on whatever basis this one would be overturned? Buddahpundit on November 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Uh, thousands I hope.

Akzed on November 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Yeah not holding my breath.

gophergirl on November 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

That is so disturbing I can’t even come up with the words.

gophergirl on November 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I actually have some hope that the court will support the “religious liberty” argument. This has significant precedent in other cases heard in the past, and the Supremes generally defer significantly to religious freedom.

Not a slam dunk, of course, but I have some hope…

cs89 on November 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I wonder if they could see anything on “privacy,” and get health care all the protections from intervention that abortion seems to have. You cannot even tell someone to get an ultrasound or tell a clinic it is too much like a bus station and not enough like a hospital, if they sell abortions there…

Obama care violates freedom, privacy, religious freedom because it is a million pages long by now. Horrendous law, and still, nobody knows what is in it.

Fleuries on November 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

2nd that KJ

cmsinaz on November 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Roberts will find some way to keep Obamacare on track.

Herb on November 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The administration is not defending this because they don’t care. The HHS mandate was purely political. They created it just so that they could demagogue conservatives during the election. They know it won’t stand up in court, but they don’t care. It was a completely political move. And it was totally effective.

johnsl14 on November 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

a lawsuit brought by Liberty University

haha, conservatives fight back.

faraway on November 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Like anyone cares about religious liberty anymore. The Commerce Clause will trump this too, I’m sure.

changer1701 on November 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Wait! I know how this works now.

The Supreme court declares that the law is fully Constitutional because they say it is.

Then, the Chief Justice lectures the public about how if they really didn’t want the law they shouldn’t have elected/re-elected the people that passed the law.

We go to sleep a little less freer than we were before.

If they can find a way to label something that the creators specifically stated was not a tax as a tax, they can find a way to label something that specifically limits religious freedom as not limiting religious freedom.

JadeNYU on November 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

That is so disturbing I can’t even come up with the words.

gophergirl on November 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Yeah. And it’s the sort of crap the RINO’s and establishment ignore. They act like they don’t know who and what they are dealing with. They hide their head 20 feet deep into the sand as though their only difference with Democrats is tax policy and job creation.

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Religious liberty?

what’s that?

/modern America

ted c on November 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I believe it’s a waiver issued to Muslim groups.

antipc on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Maybe Romney could have brought a few more voters to the booth if he mentioned this subject.

faraway on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM

And, that is one of the reasons Romney lost.

kingsjester on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

So, the same 5-4 justices will uphold Obama’s HHS. This is not good news. Most likely the liberal justices see this as a chance to more firmly integrate Obamacare into the fabric of what is considered constitutional.

doufree on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I am cautiously optimistic.
As bad as this Supreme Court is, it’s generally ruled properly on cases involving religious freedom, including the 9-0 Hosanna Tabor decision.

22044 on November 26, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Yep – nothing to see here. Move along.

We have more to hope from the inability of the HHS to actually get anything done than the court to suggest master Obama and pals can’t make us do whatever they wish.

Zomcon JEM on November 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Jamie Foxx? He’s not getting many acting gigs anymore, is he? Maybe he’s starved for attention.

22044 on November 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I think that “religious liberty” now means that Muslims are free to kill as many Americans as they want to without fear of repercussions. Well, some repercussions, I mean Nidal Hassan is really only getting charged with “workplace violence” and all…..

/liberty

ted c on November 26, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Then, the Chief Justice lectures the public about how if they really didn’t want the law they shouldn’t have elected/re-elected the people that passed the law.

JadeNYU on November 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Well, that part is true.

J.S.K. on November 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Yeah. And it’s the sort of crap the RINO’s and establishment ignore. They act like they don’t know who and what they are dealing with. They hide their head 20 feet deep into the sand as though their only difference with Democrats is tax policy and job creation.

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM

They aren’t ignoring it or hiding from it. They want desperately to be a part of it and are drooling with envy.

Doomberg on November 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Religion?……..you mean the Progressive all tolerant FEDERAL RELIGION of DC worship?

All hail our great enlightened Gods in the Ruling class.

There is no god but Washington DC.

PappyD61 on November 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Who cares? The Supremes wouldn’t do anything about it before, they won’t do anything about it now, and it either case it won’t change anything. O-care is the law of the land.

The libs wantses their free health caressss. Let them have it. In the meantime, look for more fee-based, openly price transparent clinic and doctor pools opening up. Take your cash over to those places and spend it on health care.

Let all those young Obama voters ask themselves why they suddenly have to work 2 jobs (because their hours were cut down to 29 at their old jobs to avoid O-care). Let them stand in line at the government hospital while you get yours at the pay to play outfit. They wanted it, they voted for it, now let them eat cake.

swmontgo on November 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Jamie Foxx is a sad indiviual..:(

Dire Straits on November 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM

The administration is not defending this because they don’t care. The HHS mandate was purely political. They created it just so that they could demagogue conservatives during the election. They know it won’t stand up in court, but they don’t care. It was a completely political move. And it was totally effective.

johnsl14 on November 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Spot on. War on Women was just an arrow in their quiver that will be put away until the next election.

STL_Vet on November 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM

When is the next Mayflower leaving?

portlandon on November 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM

This is why I created the Ruthless and Violent Wing of Amish Society (we also get to use zippers). I’m exempt and if you want to be exempt too you can join.

Bishop on November 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I have no faith in the Supreme Court.

Oil Can on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I have no faith in any branch of government. I have no faith in our electoral system. Everything is corrupt.

The Rogue Tomato on November 26, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I guess the clause in the First Amendment, nor restrict the free practice [of religion] thereof should be ignored.

To liberals, the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law blah blah blah blah; or abridging the freedom of speech for liberals only, or of the liberal press; or the right of liberals peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances that contradict liberal ideals.

Kingfisher on November 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM

There’s nothing here. The Squishy, pandering supreme court will fold just like the Republicans. Face it, we’re doomed.

rplat on November 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.

Meh. Acceptable collateral damage to the leftists/collectivists.

iurockhead on November 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

So, the same 5-4 justices will uphold Obama’s HHS. This is not good news. Most likely the liberal justices see this as a chance to more firmly integrate Obamacare into the fabric of what is considered constitutional.

doufree on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Honestly I’m not so sure. Overruling all of ObamaCare as a violation of the Commerce Power had wide-ranging implications for Congressional power as a whole. Roberts lacked the courage to rock that boat and chickened out by calling the mandate a tax.

But a religious freedom challenge is much more narrow–particularly one to a specific HHS regulation (Catholic Church contraception mandate). The Court could hold that the First Amendment requires a freedom-of-conscience exception to certain parts of ObamaCare without dramatically upsetting the apple cart.

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I presume Justice Roberts is still interested in kudos from the very liberal academic press.

pat on November 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

It’s a trap to eviscerate the religious objection exemption to PlaceboCare.

Steve Eggleston on November 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I agree with that sentiment.
It’ll be another defeat to kill the spirit of any opposition. If you kill the spirit of your opponent you have won. You are no longer a citizen, you are a subject of a ruling power.

Mimzey on November 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Always look for the ulterior motive from this Administration.

They knew they were violating the First Amendment with the contraceptive mandate and the restrictive definition of a religious employer that is exempt. They did it anyway, explicitly to create a wedge issue with which to win female votes in the election. And it worked.

Now that the election is over, they have no need to worry about the Supreme Court granting a handful of employers an exemption from the mandate, as it will still apply to the vast majority of employers. This decision will probably be 9-0, just as the Hosanna-Tabor case was. That was actually a closer call than this one.

And then the Democrats can use this decision to further vilify Christians (and Republicans, as their preferred political [party) as anti-woman.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

When is the next Mayflower leaving?

portlandon on November 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM

question of the day!!

++

ted c on November 26, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I think the Supreme Court takes up these things only to finally quash any objections we might have to anything whatsoever the government (under our lord and savior, at least) wants to do to us.

They just want to cement our lack of stuffy old rights like religious freedom into concrete shoes and make sure the bloated carcass never rises from the river again.

Alana on November 26, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Let them stand in line at the government hospital while you get yours at the pay to play outfit. They wanted it, they voted for it, now let them eat cake.

swmontgo on November 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM

They will. And they will also continue to blame “the rich” and “corporations”..and “Capitalism”, etc.
You can’t fix willful ignorance.

Mimzey on November 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Judge Roberts will just redefine the HHS mandate as a “tax” and declare it constitutional….ya know, so he doesn’t have to drag the court into a messy political fight….because, ya’ know, whenever liberals control the Supreme Court, they always worry about such sensibilities ….. NOT!

powerpickle on November 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM

And then the Democrats can use this decision to further vilify Christians (and Republicans, as their preferred political [party) as anti-woman.

rockmom on November 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

This instead of our beloved professor of constitutional law gets another one wrong.

STL_Vet on November 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM

It would be foolish to place any faith in a Roberts Supreme Court which produced the last piece of contorted jurisprudence.

Ditto believing in general the Supreme Court is some type of protector of the Constitution. It has produced or blessed some of the worst, most democratically destructive actions in our history. This is no different.

Folks should have learned by now the preeminent metric for Mr. Roberts will be his curiously parochial philosophical meandering about the legislative and electoral process.

Cases will not be considered on Constitutional merits- that document is simply a foil, used as a source to create non-existent “rights” and support reasoning that is implausibly divined from its text.

Marcus Traianus on November 26, 2012 at 11:32 AM

The administration is not defending this because they don’t care. The HHS mandate was purely political. They created it just so that they could demagogue conservatives during the election. They know it won’t stand up in court, but they don’t care. It was a completely political move. And it was totally effective.
johnsl14 on November 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Completely true. It was a symbolic giveaway to single females that would never stand legal scrutiny. It helped Obama win the single female vote. It helped put the totally faux, non-issue of contraception front and center. Its purpose has been achieved…there is no further need of this strawman mandate. The regime could care less about what the court says now.

marybel on November 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.

Meh. Acceptable collateral damage to the leftists/collectivists.

iurockhead on November 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

That’s not collateral damage. It’s actually what they want.

Alana on November 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I have no faith in the Supreme Court.

Oil Can on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

might as well just close the thread right here

NY Conservative on November 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Chief Justice Roberts gets ANOTHER bite at the apple… hopefully he doesn’t “whiff”, but I have my doubts…

Khun Joe on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Did the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) get a waiver for OCare.

I’m pretty sure the only form of birth control they support involves 7.62×39, IEDs, and rockets…

CorporatePiggy on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I have no faith in the Supreme Court.

Oil Can on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

A wise view. A very wise view.

astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Religious liberty?

what’s that?

/modern America

ted c on November 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I believe it’s a waiver issued to Muslim groups.

antipc on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Pretty much.

TexasDan on November 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I also have absolutely no faith in any branch of the government acting to support the Constitution.

I agree with that sentiment.
It’ll be another defeat to kill the spirit of any opposition. If you kill the spirit of your opponent you have won. You are no longer a citizen, you are a subject of a ruling power.

Mimzey on November 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM

They are, in a sense, playing a more dangerous game than perhaps they know. If they fail to kill the spirit completely, they will probably succeed in finally killing any faith in the ability to change anything by normal political means.

Historically when the State places itself in direct opposition to the religious faith of a significant portion of its population, and yet does not go directly to overwhelming physical suppression with armed agents of the State; the results are untidy and hard to contain. And it may be noteworthy that the instances of such physical suppression are largely, but not completely, in European style states where the population has never yet had experience with having real political power against the State.

It is quite possible that like a number of collectivist dictators that they may have miscalculated the reactions of Americans. Or not, since it is also possible that like Brits are no longer Brits, Americans are no longer Americans.

Thin ice, skating thereon.

Subotai Bahadur on November 26, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The Supreme Court will most likely rule against Liberty University and this will nail the coffin shut for the U.S.

zoyclem on November 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Pfffft.

Philly on November 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM

How is Judicial Review – the political power that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution – working out? All nine justices were indoctrinated at the same two Ivy League Colleges, Harvard or Yale. Their decisions reflect the will of an Oligarchy more so than the result of a Republic.

Tripwhipper on November 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Maybe Romney could have brought a few more voters to the booth if he mentioned this subject.

faraway on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

He did. Here and Here.

Buy Danish on November 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Don’t get hopes up. Ordering the lower court to take this on is so Roberts can have more time (maybe 2014 at the earliest) to craft another sell out and screw Liberty University, et. al and keep Obamacare afloat.

Think I’m wrong?

kens on November 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Then, the Chief Justice lectures the public about how if they really didn’t want the law they shouldn’t have elected/re-elected the people that passed the law.

JadeNYU on November 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Yeah, just like the liberal judges did in the past on the court when Americans elected Reagan or other Republican Presidents. They voted against things like abortion and gun control and for things like school choice and all.. cuz they felt it wasn’t their jobs to save the electorate from their political choices. They had to give the people what they wanted.

Just kidding. It’s only our side that does that. Fall in line folks, ObamaCare is the law of the land and Obama is lord and savior. Bow and worship fools!

JellyToast on November 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM

He did. Here and Here.

Buy Danish on November 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

He should have mentioned it.
There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There, There.

But of course, it was hard for him. He pretty much agreed with EVERY LAST BIT OF IT IN HIS SOUL. Even the Medicare rapage he liked, he must have, because the whole reason for implementing Romneycare when it was implemented was to take advantage of extra medicaid/medicare dollars.

astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Isn’t there already a religious “opt out” in the Obamacare legislation?

For the Amish, etc.?

Everybody just needs to claim to be Beachy Amish, if that’s all it takes.

You can use the internet and have a personal car.

What more could you ask for?

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Just call it a “contraceptive tax” – that always works.

Marxism is for dummies on November 26, 2012 at 12:12 PM

The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.

Why didn’t they oppose it? I’ll tell you why.
They want the supremes to consider it and then throw out the lawsuit like they did the first time, to further demoralize the people who still had a shred of faith in freedom in this country.

Sterling Holobyte on November 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM

RFRA > PPACA

cptacek on November 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

This is why I created the Ruthless and Violent Wing of Amish Society (we also get to use zippers). I’m exempt and if you want to be exempt too you can join.

Bishop on November 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Sorry, I am proudly Catholic. I won’t call myself anything else to get out from under government persecution.

(yes, I know you are trolling…)

cptacek on November 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Lucy–> Charlie Brown–> Football

spinach.chin on November 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Can’t wait to see what crackpot reasoning Roberts will come up with to overrule or distort this one, allow religious beliefs to be stomped on, and let the ObamaScare/Roberts Tax prevail again.

stukinIL4now on November 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM

cptacek on November 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Bishop’s not a troll.

22044 on November 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The administration is not defending this because they don’t care. The HHS mandate was purely political. They created it just so that they could demagogue conservatives during the election. They know it won’t stand up in court, but they don’t care. It was a completely political move. And it was totally effective.

johnsl14 on November 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Yep. This was to get birth control into the discussion, which made women think Republicans were trying to take it away, then cut to Akin, then Murdock, and bingo.

gatsbysgirlontheside on November 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Can’t wait to see what crackpot reasoning Roberts will come up with to overrule or distort this one, allow religious beliefs to be stomped on, and let the ObamaScare/Roberts Tax prevail again.

stukinIL4now on November 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM

You know, I’m starting to understand the Roberts opinion. In a very convoluted and round about way, what he was trying to get accross is that SOTUS cannot, and should not, protect the American people from their own idiocy. And the American people have more than proven their idiocy. This country now seems to have a majority of very, very, very stupid people–enough to re elect an abject failure of a president and shoot themselves in the foot while doing it. To paraphrase, For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American.

NOMOBO on November 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Lucy–> Charlie Brown–> Football

spinach.chin on November 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yeah. What spinach said.

bigbeachbird on November 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Why worry about religious freedom in this country? Religion died quite a while ago, for the most part.

tngmv on November 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM

It is quite possible that like a number of collectivist dictators that they may have miscalculated the reactions of Americans. Or not, since it is also possible that like Brits are no longer Brits, Americans are no longer Americans.

Thin ice, skating thereon.

Subotai Bahadur on November 26, 2012 at 11:49 AM

This.
Whatever happened historically no longer applies. After 40 years of leftist indoctrination, a lot of people have forgotten how to think for themselves. The ice may be thinner than we think. The people who remember what America was all about are dying along with their voices and stories. When they are no longer here, the only story of what America was, will be put on a shelf and replaced with liberal dogma.

Mimzey on November 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

NOMOBO,

Even the Russians get it.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-o/

by
Xavier Lerma

As long as we allow the RINO’s to enable the commie Democrats , the stupid is U.S..

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

NOMOBO,,

19/11/2012

Title “Obama’s Soviet Mistake” by Xavier Lerma

in the Pravda Opnion section.

sorry…

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Getting that addressed sooner is a victory in the short run for everyone. Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.

All the presupposing of the recognizing of the violating. Isn’t it just as short a path to the assumption that they want to get all this “religious objection” “nonsense” off the table?

Axe on November 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I’m no legal scholar but I do tend to reason relatively well enough and to seize upon the salient, significant aspects to legal decisions…

Namely, that “Roberts decision” about Ocare, the one from the Supreme Court that determined ObamaCare WAS ONLY ACCEPTABLE AS A TAX.

That is, considered to be a tax (and determined to be one by Roberts in his machinated decision), when a tax and as a tax, OCare was acceptable. BUT NOT AS ANYTHING ELSE.

So, by continuing to insist upon the nation that OCare be law, Obama has indeed ALREADY RAISED TAXES as have every Democrat supporting his mess.

Being overlooked and shuffled away, however, by Obama and by those Democrats, is that he and they all announced quite determinedly that OCare “IS NOT A TAX, IT’S NOT A TAX…” so they could cram it into law.

SO….

Now we’re seeing the developments that follow (or, in the case of the “tax” issue, are being ignored by the Left):

in the context of religious liberty, TAXING THAT is cretinous as it is utterly, completely, non Constitutional.

Non Constitutional, as is OCare when it’s called anything BUT a tax.

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Thus, revealed the growing efforts by the Left as to their incentives in taxing religious orgs…

or, rather, “removing non-profit status of churches”:

because they are trying to leverage their deceit in TAXATION VIA OBAMACARE.

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Isn’t there already a religious “opt out” in the Obamacare legislation?

For the Amish, etc.?

Everybody just needs to claim to be Beachy Amish, if that’s all it takes.

You can use the internet and have a personal car.

What more could you ask for?

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

.
The Amish also pay their medical bills with cash, and get a discount for doing so.

If the bill is more than they can afford up front, they’ll make arrangements with the hospitals accounting staff. The bill will be eventually paid-off, sooner rather than later.

listens2glenn on November 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Bishop’s not a troll.

22044 on November 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Fine. He does type silly things trying to get reactions from people, then makes fun of them for taking the bait. I think people around here call it “Bishing” (like “fishing”).

I was just alerting him to the fact that he should not make fun of me, as I am aware of his ways, but he did bring up a point that I wanted to address.

cptacek on November 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Everyone should STOP CALLING “ObamaCare” that (“ObamaCare” or “OCare”).

IT IS “OBAMATAX” OR “OTAX” as decided in that Roberts decision earlier.

It’s not “care” and it when it’s regarded as that, it’s not Constituional.

Roberts’ determined that “it” is ONLY “Constitutional when it’s a tax.”

So it’s “ObamaTax.”

We see now why sly, sneaky, slippery Obama is fond of “it” being referred to as “ObamaCare.”

Because he wants everyone to stay asleep and not notice that he’s boasting about his NON CONSTITUTIONAL thing called “ObamaCare.”

If you refer to “it” as what it is said to be by the Supreme Court, it’s “ObamaTax” and that’s why Obama wants the public to keep looking at his other hand.

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

nothing will change until we remove the GOPe who think obamacare is a niffty little law. the GOPe want this law. That was made clear when they got nominated the father of obamacare as the gop nominee.

unseen on November 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Isn’t there already a religious “opt out” in the Obamacare legislation?

For the Amish, etc.?

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Also for Muslims (“Nation of Islam”) and for unions.

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

NOMOBO -

Nope – Roberts was a coward. And while I appreciate your attempts to explain away his cowardice, it will not stand. He was given an obligation to defend the constitution – and if you read his ruling, he agrees that it is an affront, but says it should be solved by the political process. In other words, he took his ball and went home. And in so doing determined that Congress can use a tax to compel you to do anything it chooses – Bill of Rights be damned.

No Roberts will live in infamy, as the final piece in the destruction of the republic – for it no longer stands. We have abdicated our responsibility.

Right now there are people suggesting Obama should get credit for lowering the deficit the last few years – as if lowering an annual budget deficit from 1.4T to 1.1T is some great feat. They are the 1st and 4th largest deficits of all time – and he has the other two as well.

Zomcon JEM on November 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I believe it’s a waiver issued to Muslim groups.

antipc on November 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Bingo!

American Dream 246 on November 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

nothing will change until we remove the GOPe who think obamacare is a niffty little law. the GOPe want this law. That was made clear when they got nominated the father of obamacare as the gop nominee.

unseen on November 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Romney was nominated in that regard because he is well equipped to NULLIFY AND REPLACE “OTax”.

OTax, meaning the wrongly id’d “obamacare” (which I just commented about, that naming of that thing).

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Why worry about religious freedom in this country? Religion died quite a while ago, for the most part.

tngmv on November 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Explain that to the 78% of Americans who are Christians, per Gallup.

kingsjester on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

To paraphrase, For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American.

NOMOBO on November 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Unfortunately, our nation is now populated by just enough (or, rather, too many) people who think and vote this way:

“I want my prescriptions.”

“I want my copays to be fie-dollah.”

“I want my tests every year and I don’t wan’pay for them. I shouldn’ have to pay for them. Labs and doc-tahs rich enough already.”

“I want my doctah to see me when I wanna see him/her and I dohn wan any office people tellin me I gotta wait or come back next year. I’m here, I wanna see em now. And I shouldn have to pay for it, doctors rich enough alraedy.”

And then they go vote like that.

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

NOMOBO -

Nope – Roberts was a coward. And while I appreciate your attempts to explain away his cowardice, it will not stand. He was given an obligation to defend the constitution – and if you read his ruling, he agrees that it is an affront, but says it should be solved by the political process. In other words, he took his ball and went home. And in so doing determined that Congress can use a tax to compel you to do anything it chooses – Bill of Rights be damned…

Zomcon JEM on November 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

In all consideration here, Zomcon, Roberts WAS asked to consider the legislation as a tax.

Though it was posed to him/Court at the last minute, I realize, it was at least squeezed into Obama’s argument about the legislation (“consider it as a tax” was part of the argument presented at the last minute to the Court, despite it not being a part of the argument until Roberts let it loose that it might be considered Constitutional as a tax, thus Obama’s guys raised that last-minute argument even in contradictioon to their earlier argument).

SO Roberts considered that, that it was a tax, and said it was Constitutional ONLY if it was a tax but not as anything else.

I do thin that this “change in argument” method should not have been allowed by the S.C. In that sense, I disagree with what was determined by them.

But since the argument (“if it’s a tax, is it Constitituionl”) was presented to them and about that, Roberts responded in the affirmative, that it was but only as a tax, not as anything else.

THUS, Obama has already raised taxes and done so massively. That’s the very big deal that the public is being encouraged not to notice.

Lourdes on November 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM

That the Supreme Court went to the trouble of overturning the dismissal of the case strikes me as significant.

Cautiously optimistic…

butterflies and puppies on November 26, 2012 at 2:44 PM

#100

I just heard the Jamie Foxx clip on Ed’s show. Yikes!

22044 on November 26, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2