9-0 SCOTUS Tells Lower Court Pound Sand and Protect Little Sisters

[Weatherman2020]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

 

[bendog]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

Count again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

You mis-characterize the ruling.

The court did not rule on the merits of the case:

"The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest."​

In briefs requested and received after oral arguments, there was an agreed to different approach where the Little Sisters didn't have to submit a form (their objection) and the their insurer would still cover contraceptives. Given that change in circumstances the cases were remained back to the appeals court level for re-hearing.

Instead of repeating a talking point from Life Site News, read the actual ruling here -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf



A per curiam order does not set precedence.

>>>>

 

[waltky]

Should be 8-0 or 7-0 if Roberts didn't vote...

... unless a new justice was confirmed.

 

[bendog]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

You mis-characterize the ruling.

The court did not rule on the merits of the case:

"The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest."​

In briefs requested and received after oral arguments, there was an agreed to different approach where the Little Sisters didn't have to submit a form (their objection) and the their insurer would still cover contraceptives. Given that change in circumstances the cases were remained back to the appeals court level for re-hearing.

Instead of repeating a talking point from Life Site News, read the actual ruling here -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf



A per curiam order does not set precedence.

>>>>

It would have precedential value as to any settled issues of law, in that all Judges agree on any legal issue. However, this opinion expressly declined to decide any legal action. It was 'a punt.'

But rather than citing some cite that has an agenda, the op should have aimed for some informed non-biased site.

the Court both achieved the practical results of letting the government go forward to provide the contraceptive benefits and freeing the non-profits of any risk of penalties, even though neither side has any idea — at present — what the ultimate legal outcome will be and, therefore, what their legal rights actually are under the mandate.

Opinion analysis: A compromise, with real impact, on birth control

But it seems clear that Obamacare may legally require insurers to pay for contraceptive care (and routine obgyn visits) without copay or deductible, but that employers who are arms of organized religion be afforded a way out of having any of its dollars go to that care. The WH wanted them to just sign an "opt out" form, but the employers objected to even that. It may be that Roberts didn't want to have a 4-4 vote

 

[JoeB131]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

Can you please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about Birth Control?

Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Weatherman has a reading and comprehension disorder.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What a cowardly ruling. Seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I suspect that the case had a 4 to 4 split.

They don't want any thing of it right now.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I suspect that the case had a 4 to 4 split.

They don't want any thing of it right now.

Which is pathetic in it's own right. Liberal vs Conservative shouldn't have a ******* thing to do with how the Court rules. Either something is Constitutional or it isn't, and unfortunately I have heard comments from several Justices lately that prove that they are politically motivated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

 

[there4eyeM]

Life is for the living. What the Constitution established and what the realities today are may not always correspond neatly.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

Doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.

But I'd disagree with you anyway. Segregation, for example. Brown vs the Board of Education. That was a unanimous decision in a time when frankly probably over half the country actually supported "separate but equal" meaning the Court ignored the politics and ruled on the law (correctly too I might add)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

Doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.

But I'd disagree with you anyway. Segregation, for example. Brown vs the Board of Education. That was a unanimous decision in a time when frankly probably over half the country actually supported "separate but equal" meaning the Court ignored the politics and ruled on the law (correctly too I might add)

I was thinking of Plessy, but I like your comment on Brown. On occasion, the Court can rise above its prejudices.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

Doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.

But I'd disagree with you anyway. Segregation, for example. Brown vs the Board of Education. That was a unanimous decision in a time when frankly probably over half the country actually supported "separate but equal" meaning the Court ignored the politics and ruled on the law (correctly too I might add)

I was thinking of Plessy, but I like your comment on Brown. On occasion, the Court can rise above its prejudices.

Plessy was 7-1 and I agree could have possibly been ruled on political reasons. Though I suspect it was more a function of the fact that I'm not entirely sure that "separate but equal" actually is unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

Doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.

But I'd disagree with you anyway. Segregation, for example. Brown vs the Board of Education. That was a unanimous decision in a time when frankly probably over half the country actually supported "separate but equal" meaning the Court ignored the politics and ruled on the law (correctly too I might add)

I was thinking of Plessy, but I like your comment on Brown. On occasion, the Court can rise above its prejudices.

Plessy was 7-1 and I agree could have possibly been ruled on political reasons. Though I suspect it was more a function of the fact that I'm not entirely sure that "separate but equal" actually is unconstitutional.

It was based on the death of Vinson, the appointment of Warren, who then crafted a coalition to overturn Plessy.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

Doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.

But I'd disagree with you anyway. Segregation, for example. Brown vs the Board of Education. That was a unanimous decision in a time when frankly probably over half the country actually supported "separate but equal" meaning the Court ignored the politics and ruled on the law (correctly too I might add)

I was thinking of Plessy, but I like your comment on Brown. On occasion, the Court can rise above its prejudices.

Plessy was 7-1 and I agree could have possibly been ruled on political reasons. Though I suspect it was more a function of the fact that I'm not entirely sure that "separate but equal" actually is unconstitutional.

It was based on the death of Vinson, the appointment of Warren, who then crafted a coalition to overturn Plessy.

I concede that the Court has always occasionally been political, but over the last say 20 years, they have been so in almost EVERY case.

Regardless, this ruling was cowardly, they should have to issue a final ruling on all cases that they hear.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

Can you please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about Birth Control?

Thanks.

He commanded everyone to procreate, thus by definition he was against abortion and birth control.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

Can you please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about Birth Control?

Thanks.

He commanded everyone to procreate, thus by definition he was against abortion and birth control.

Even your LDS bishop does not agree with you. Go ask him. Ask to see the Church handbook's guidance on the subjects.

 

[bendog]

Justice have always been politically motivated.

Marshall certainly was.

The segregationist court certainly was.

And so on.

Doesn't make it any better, or more acceptable.

But I'd disagree with you anyway. Segregation, for example. Brown vs the Board of Education. That was a unanimous decision in a time when frankly probably over half the country actually supported "separate but equal" meaning the Court ignored the politics and ruled on the law (correctly too I might add)

I was thinking of Plessy, but I like your comment on Brown. On occasion, the Court can rise above its prejudices.

Plessy was 7-1 and I agree could have possibly been ruled on political reasons. Though I suspect it was more a function of the fact that I'm not entirely sure that "separate but equal" actually is unconstitutional.

It was based on the death of Vinson, the appointment of Warren, who then crafted a coalition to overturn Plessy.

I concede that the Court has always occasionally been political, but over the last say 20 years, they have been so in almost EVERY case.

Regardless, this ruling was cowardly, they should have to issue a final ruling on all cases that they hear.

I suspect they could not find a 5th Justice for either outcome. I expected Obamacare to be a five or six Justice majority. Of course, I thought the dems were insane for having a hard mandate rather than a soft one like Medicare.

But it's not ALWAYS political. Those opposed to Obamacare, if they were honest, would concede the govt's power to tax is as good as it gets. But Obama said it wasn't a tax. And, I suspect a soft cap would have at least gotten Kennedy's vote. The other three may have/had doubts about medicare. LOL And that's political.

With gay marriage, I suspect even Alito knew prohibitions made no sense under equal protection. But the Court can move too fast, and imo it did. It should have allowed public opinion to change even more. As was the case in Loving. And, even in Griswold. In Roe, women were dying and being maimed, despite no doubt that a fetus is not a person under the 14th. But Blackmun's opinion is more social than legal. We are left with a near supermajority who feel abortion is ok it at least some circumstances. Yet, those who feel otherwise perceive themselves victims of an overreaching judiciary.