Courts Rule For Freedom Of Religion Via Obamacare

[Kathianne]

Hope this gives them some pause: http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-obama-must-rewrite-contraception-mandate-to-accommodate-religious-liberty/article/2516377
Court: Obama must rewrite contraception mandate to accommodate religious liberty December 19, 2012 | 1:38 am Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius cannot enforce the Obamacare contraception mandate as it is written, but must follow through on a promise to rewrite the rule to accommodate religious liberty, a federal appeals court ordered.

...

“The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom,” The Becket Fund’s Kyle Duncan, who argued the case, said in a statement. “The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road.” Yesterday’s ruling marks the second time in two weeks that a judge has decided that Obama’s promise to change the rule eventually is an insufficient remedy to the religious liberty issues raised by opponents of the mandate. “There is no, ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution,” Judge Brian Cogan wrote in his ruling in favor of the Archdiocese of New York two weeks ago. “To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.”

[fj1200]

Courts ruled against the individual mandate at one point as well.

[Kathianne]

Courts ruled against the individual mandate at one point as well.

We'll see how this all plays out, but Obama hasn't begun his second term and no compromises seem to be the new rule.

[DragonStryk72]

Courts ruled against the individual mandate at one point as well.

Yes, and it only passed because they blatantly lied to the SCOTUS about the penalty fees for not being insured. Since it was not a power given to Congress , they story changed to "it's a tax", which it is not, not in any of the language used in the bill. Language, I might add, that has not been changed.


See, now he could likely have gotten farther with his promise of changing it later, if he had ever followed through on one of those promises before. Seeing as he hasn't, this is fair.

[fj1200]

^They may have lied but the SCOTUS rules based on what is.

[DragonStryk72]

^They may have lied but the SCOTUS rules based on what is.

Excpet that what is, is that it is a fee to force people to buy something, and not a tax. Seeing as their ruling clearly stipulated that they believed that it was a tax, it would stand that they bought the lie. A lie which had no founding in what is or what will be.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hope this gives them some pause: http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-obama-must-rewrite-contraception-mandate-to-accommodate-religious-liberty/article/2516377

Because they see and know what a lying bastard he is.. SCOTUS already messed up badly when ruling it was a tax to uphold it after previously ruling it not a tax in order to be able to hear the case! Roberts is a total fraud IMHO.-Tyr

[logroller]

Because they see and know what a lying bastard he is.. SCOTUS already messed up badly when ruling it was a tax to uphold it after previously ruling it not a tax in order to be able to hear the case! Roberts is a total fraud IMHO.-Tyr
Had they not heard the case, the law would still be intact. They have rejected parts of law; and its possible there will be more. If they'd ruled it couldn't be challenged due to it being a tax, none of these cases would be heard.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Had they not heard the case, the law would still be intact. They have rejected parts of law; and its possible there will be more. If they'd ruled it couldn't be challenged due to it being a tax, none of these cases would be heard.

You have it wrong. They should have ruled it unconstitutional instead of giving Congress unlimited taxing ability by declaring their right to call any fine or fee a tax! Roberts did a 180 and twisted himself into a pretzel trying to justify his complete reversal. He caved, he sold out. To what and why Im not sure . Likely we will never find out.
By ruling the way they did they put all the strain on those opposed to the new law instead of on the federal government to revamp or justify its contents and its massive power grab . -Tyr
A great many brilliant legal minds were stumped by Roberts's complete reversal !!!!

[Kathianne]

^They may have lied but the SCOTUS rules based on what is.

They may have lied, but now that SCOTUS has ruled, the lies will stand; unless SCOTUS finds a way to overturn the previous ruling.

[Robert A Whit]

they may have lied, but now that scotus has ruled, the lies will stand; unless scotus finds a way to overturn the previous ruling.

good god.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

They may have lied, but now that SCOTUS has ruled, the lies will stand; unless SCOTUS finds a way to overturn the previous ruling.

Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Powell v Alabama 1932
Brown v School Board 1958

The SCOTUS has often upset their own rulings. It's part and parcel and why elections do matter.

[fj1200]

Excpet that what is, is that it is a fee to force people to buy something, and not a tax. Seeing as their ruling clearly stipulated that they believed that it was a tax, it would stand that they bought the lie. A lie which had no founding in what is or what will be.

Unfortunately the Court disagrees.


You have it wrong. They should have ruled it unconstitutional instead of giving Congress unlimited taxing ability by declaring their right to call any fine or fee a tax! Roberts did a 180 and twisted himself into a pretzel trying to justify his complete reversal. He caved, he sold out. To what and why Im not sure . Likely we will never find out.
By ruling the way they did they put all the strain on those opposed to the new law instead of on the federal government to revamp or justify its contents and its massive power grab . -Tyr
A great many brilliant legal minds were stumped by Roberts's complete reversal !!!!

They've always had that ability, after the 16th at least, to tax unlimited. That's why...


... why elections do matter.

;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unfortunately the Court disagrees.



They've always had that ability, after the 16th at least, to tax unlimited. That's why...



;)

Perhaps you missed the fact that for the first time in our history as a nation we are "taxed" for not buying a product or service. Are you paying a tax or a fine when you get a speeding ticket or driving without purchasing a driver's license? Are you paying a "tax" or a fine when the judge fines you for breaking a law? Roberts ruled that a fine is a tax. A fine is a monetary punishment for breaking a law it is not a damn tax, at least not until Roberts decided it was!! Now Congress can call anything a tax and that makes their taxing ability unlimited. Which also gives them a way to enforce any law by fining, errr I mean "taxing" its compliance. How about next they "tax" /"fine" you for the air that you breathe? According to Roberts that is legal. The absurdity of his 180 degree flip is mind boggling and is explained by his caving to something and it damn sure wasn't an act of integrity. Lets not forget that obama issued threats against SCOTUS ruling what he called the wrong way in this case. Which by the way was an act of treason on his part..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Perhaps you missed...

Didn't miss anything. Perhaps you missed where I said "unfortunately."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unfortunately the Court disagrees.



They've always had that ability, after the 16th at least, to tax unlimited. That's why...



;)


Didn't miss anything. Perhaps you missed where I said "unfortunately."

No, I did not miss that reply you made to DS. I agreed with that reply you made.
I addressed the reply that you made to me .... -Tyr

[fj1200]

"Unfortunately" referred to the whole post.

[DragonStryk72]

Unfortunately the Court disagrees.

I don't think it does, actually. I think they knew it was not a tax by any definition, and went with it regardless.

[fj1200]

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may be reasonably characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the justices said in the ruling.

:shrug:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:shrug:

Exactly, a financial penalty= monetary punishment= a fine. Just as I stated previously , they ruled a tax and a fine to be one and the same!! Hey, lets just tax for every law broken regardless. No jail time unless unable to pay! Of course it must be steep for murder, rape and robbery. Think of the money the government could rake in , be like the mafia. Come to think of it the INSANE ruling was a bit like a mafia decree IMHO. ROBERTS'S FLIPPING GAVE THE WIN FOR OBAMA BUT LETS NOT FORGET THAT KAGAN 'S PARTICIPATION WAS THE SECOND KEY TO UPHOLDING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Obama put her there for just this case. Her refusal to remove herself from judging the case was more than just unethical it was ENGAGING IN A CONSPIRACY with obama IMHO.-TYR

[fj1200]

:rolleyes: And FWIW I think Kagan's failure to recuse isn't relevant as the tie would have gone to uphold IIRC.

[DragonStryk72]

:shrug:

And the quote from when they agreed to hear it, when it was a fee? Shrug all you want, it doesn't change the actual facts.

[fj1200]

And the quote from when they agreed to hear it, when it was a fee? Shrug all you want, it doesn't change the actual facts.

Right, it's been affirmed.