Is Justice Roberts Trying To Redeem Himself?

[unregistered]

 

[julybaby04]

Maybe so...


SCOTUS opens door to a new Obamacare challenge
By Sarah Kliff , Updated: November 26, 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-doors-to-a-new-obamacare-challenge/?print=1

I have a feeling this will prove to be another major failure in what would be considered true justice for American freedom and liberties. I doubt very seriously that the SCOTUS will reverse anything it has done. For whatever reason, Roberts decided "HE" needed this to pass.....whether it was good for the country or not.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Don't expect religion to trump law on this one. I fear your getting your hopes up for nothing.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Don't expect religion to trump law on this one. I fear your getting your hopes up for nothing.

The first amendment protection of the "free exercise" of religion IS law -- every bit as much as whether the Affordable Care Act did or did not violate the Commerce Clause elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the ACA's constitutionality under the first amendment at the same time it ruled on the Commerce Clause question because that is not how the Court does things. It prefers to rule on legal issues as narrowly as possible. First amendment law considerations are significantly different than federal commerce issues. The Court prefers to have a singularly clear path of legal precedents for each area of the Constitution.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's an interesting Constitutional question.

On one side you have employers who are saying that being forced to provide contraception to "slut" and "whore" employees violates their (the employer's) Constitutional right to practice their religion.

On the other side you have employees saying that allowing employers to pick and choose insurance procedures they wish to cover (fundies denying birth control, Jehovah Witness denying blood transfusions, Scientologists denying psychiatric evaluations) is essentially coerced religion.

I look at it this way: Quakers are not exempt from paying taxes even though they are pacifists and taxes are used to fund the military. Since virtually everyone must have insurance under Obamacare, I can't see the court carving out an exception or an exemption. Though I suspect Scalia, Thomas and Alito will find some sort of legal loophole and claim otherwise.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The first amendment protection of the "free exercise" of religion IS law -- every bit as much as whether the Affordable Care Act did or did not violate the Commerce Clause elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the ACA's constitutionality under the first amendment at the same time it ruled on the Commerce Clause question because that is not how the Court does things. It prefers to rule on legal issues as narrowly as possible. First amendment law considerations are significantly different than federal commerce issues. The Court prefers to have a singularly clear path of legal precedents for each area of the Constitution.

I'm fully aware. I still don't expect them to defend religion. Do you?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Supremes will uphold birth control for the same reason religions must comply with every other law religions dont like.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm fully aware. I still don't expect them to defend religion. Do you?

Probably not.

 

[julybaby04]

As far as the birth control issue, why not just pay for it without it being insured? I do not understand why this has to be an insurance issue anyway?

 

[Squibbs]

Bush holding a future vetteman...

 

[RobDownSouth]

As far as the birth control issue, why not just pay for it without it being insured? I do not understand why this has to be an insurance issue anyway?

I would agree with you if birth control pills were available over-the-counter. In fact, there's a movement to make them non-prescription. But the simple fact of the matter is that they require a prescription, and as-such fall under the penumbra of "medical care".

As such, it becomes an insurance issue until such time that single payer becomes the law of the land (single payer will take the decision makin' out of the hands of business owners).

 

[sigh]

This is a fascinating case. I heard a lawyer from the archdiocese of Chicago present on the details and it's not cut and dried at all.

I wish I could remember more of what he said. My notes are at work.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

As far as the birth control issue, why not just pay for it without it being insured? I do not understand why this has to be an insurance issue anyway?

You mean like Viagra is?

oh wait...penises are different from vaginas! "Different" meaning "more important." My bad!

 

[sigh]

You mean like Viagra is?

oh wait...penises are different from vaginas! "Different" meaning "more important." My bad!

That's a totally different issue. It really is.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

That's a totally different issue. It really is.

Except that men aren't getting slut-shamed for petitioning its validity and necessity.

 

[sigh]

Except that men aren't getting slut-shamed for petitioning its validity and necessity.

true

do you think Rush uses it?

 

[julybaby04]

I would agree with you if birth control pills were available over-the-counter. In fact, there's a movement to make them non-prescription. But the simple fact of the matter is that they require a prescription, and as-such fall under the penumbra of "medical care".

As such, it becomes an insurance issue until such time that single payer becomes the law of the land (single payer will take the decision makin' out of the hands of business owners).

When I was younger when my husband and I were not ready to begin a family, my birth control was medically prescribed, but was not covered by my health care. It was just an out-of-pocket expense.

I did not know that had ever changed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

When I was younger when my husband and I were not ready to begin a family, my birth control was medically prescribed, but was not covered by my health care. It was just an out-of-pocket expense.

I did not know that had ever changed.

Do you harbor much lingering resentment that women nowadays might be able to get birth control pills for free?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

My problem with this line of thinking is that religions actively violate their own "rules" all the time. Why should they get to pick & choose which of the rules they made up they get to follow & when?

 

[Bidin~Time]

Do you harbor much lingering resentment that women nowadays might be able to get birth control pills for free?

of course... we all do, Rob.

Even those of us who never used BC pills are resentful.



in your version of the world.

 

[Liar]

Would not having to pay for the benefit that is birth control insurance mean that the employer saves money?

If yes, isn't that effectively a gender-based pay cut?