Sotomayor Grants Nuns A Reprieve

[Silhouette]

On her way to becoming the first Supreme Court justice to lead the Times Square New Year's Eve countdown, Sonia Sotomayor signed a last-minute stay on the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate for a Catholic organization.

Denver's Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged argued that the Act's compromise for religious nonprofits that did not want to pay for birth control coverage for their employees was not enough, and that signing the certification form authorizing a third party insurer to offer contraception would still violate their religious beliefs. Not signing the form would result in fines of an estimated $1.1 million. A federal district court denied the nuns' motion on December 27, so it was left to the Tenth Circuit Court's chief justice -- Sotomayor -- to either order a stay or leave the nuns to face the ACA as written when it became law today...

..Two for-profit companies' arguments against the contraceptive mandate on religious freedom grounds will be heard by the Supreme Court in March, but, as non-religious entities that happened to be run by religious people, they were not included in the ACA's exemption.

The government has until 10 am Friday to respond to Sotomayor's order. Justice Sotomayor Grants Last-Minute Contraception Mandate Stay, Rings in New Year - The Wire

The foregoing may or may not be related to this order from Rome in 2012:

Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

-- The Vatican orthodoxy watchdog announced Wednesday a full-scale overhaul of the largest umbrella group for nuns in the United States, accusing the group of taking positions that undermine Roman Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

An American archbishop was appointed to oversee reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which will include rewriting the group's statutes, reviewing all its plans and programs -- including approving speakers -- and ensuring the organization properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual. Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

Which poses an interesting question. If Sotomayor is a catholic, she will have to weigh burning in hell for eternity or excommunication. Not using hyperbole here actually. Those are the rules and I didn't make them.

So in the privacy of her thoughts on these pivotal social issues, Sotomayer, if catholic, will be thinking about her catechism vs current trends of the day.

Just something fun to discuss I guess.

Also, I think personally she should be reprimanded or impeached for showing up at Times Square as some sort of celebrity. US Supreme Court Justices must always maintain a public distance from any type of social events that might appear that they are biased. Kicking up her heels at a bacchanalic drunken celebration in public, featuring sex idols like Miley Cyrus and other Los Angeles fame-degenerates might send a message to the public that their Justices are biased.

If any of you have seen Mike Judge's classic "Idiocracy", Sotomayor appearing in public dancing like a Los Vegas stage girl is a very disturbing harbinger of what's to come.

I'm not being old fashioned or prudish. We have sound reasons for preserving the different branches of government in the ways they were intended to be preserved. Our founding fathers weren't a bunch of idiots who just slapped this stuff together. Bringing indignity and public displays of bias to the High Court is and should be an impeachable offense. Sotomayor was way out of line and at the very least I hope her colleagues are chilly to her at the cafeteria. When you are sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice, there are certain sacrafices you understand that you make in order to hold that Office. Apparently that memo never made it to Sotomayor's desk..

 

[Moonglow]

The Pope down to the smallest Catholic church has no authority to stop people from going to heaven. Christ never gave them that authority. It is a scare tactic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt if Rome consults with Sil on matters of eternal punishment.

If the objection is based on not filing a simple page of self-certification, then the petition should be overturned because such is neither onerous nor a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[paperview]

I posted a thread on this in the Health care froum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...g-the-religous-liberty-exception-too-far.html

I don't often post threads...but I guess I'm learning which forums get more activity than the others.

 

[Silhouette]

The Pope down to the smallest Catholic church has no authority to stop people from going to heaven. Christ never gave them that authority. It is a scare tactic.

That may very well be true. But a catholic doesn't think that way. Hence the topic and its discussion. I'm not a catholic myself and of course cannot speak for the Pope and company. However, I did grow up around scores and scores of devout catholic families, played with their children every day, who went to the school at the catholic church just down the street instead of public school. Being thusly exposed and being a child prone to saying anything that came to my mind, being raised protestant and weakly at that, I was constantly reprimanded by my peers and their parents when I said something or did something while playing at their homes that was out of line for the catholic faith. I got a little familiar with the "dos" and "don'ts" of catholicism. My impression then as is now is that the catholic faith is not one that lends itself well to personal interpretation and improvisation...

 

[Silhouette]

I posted a thread on this in the Health care froum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...g-the-religous-liberty-exception-too-far.html

I don't often post threads...but I guess I'm learning which forums get more activity than the others.

Didn't mean to upstage you. Yes, you should ask mods to put that in the politics forum and we can combine the two, as long as my points are included too. Keep your title and authorship since you were first to post it. A helpful hint on the topic getting views is "is it political"? The answer here is clearly yes. It's also current but those quickly get switched out to here. Look at the numbers of views/posts/threads in each forum to see which ones get more views.

 

[Silhouette]

Just to recap. The topic isn't "is Silhouette catholic and what does that mean". The topic is "is Sotomayor catholic and what does that mean".

When I said I didn't make up the rules on being damned to hell for eternity, I meant it. The Vatican interprets the word of God for catholics and then sends out the mandates. My point about catholics in general is that they aren't afforded the same leeway as all the breakoff faiths that came after in the christian realm. They are held to the fire, so to speak, on the principles of faith.

It's hard to tell with Sotomayor though. Call-girl dancing in public on national media is questionable as to her faith. In the secular world though, her duty as a US Supreme Court Justice has be severely compromised. When she took that Oath, she took the Oath to a life of seclusion and being a public wallflower, mute, unpredictable, unbiased. The US Supreme Court is the last bastion of appeal of unfairness. If the general public, already spooked, maligned and jaded, gets it in their head that courts don't even work anymore in a Big Way, then my friends, we are inviting anarchy. I've studied history. Anarchy is not a pretty place to be and no matter what your pot smoking hippy friends told you, it is not a desireable political system...

 

[whitehall]

Did the FF ever foresee the power of a single member of the Supreme Court to exempt certain citizens from complying with a law?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

On her way to becoming the first Supreme Court justice to lead the Times Square New Year's Eve countdown, Sonia Sotomayor signed a last-minute stay on the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate for a Catholic organization.

Denver's Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged argued that the Act's compromise for religious nonprofits that did not want to pay for birth control coverage for their employees was not enough, and that signing the certification form authorizing a third party insurer to offer contraception would still violate their religious beliefs. Not signing the form would result in fines of an estimated $1.1 million. A federal district court denied the nuns' motion on December 27, so it was left to the Tenth Circuit Court's chief justice -- Sotomayor -- to either order a stay or leave the nuns to face the ACA as written when it became law today...

..Two for-profit companies' arguments against the contraceptive mandate on religious freedom grounds will be heard by the Supreme Court in March, but, as non-religious entities that happened to be run by religious people, they were not included in the ACA's exemption.

The government has until 10 am Friday to respond to Sotomayor's order. Justice Sotomayor Grants Last-Minute Contraception Mandate Stay, Rings in New Year - The Wire

The foregoing may or may not be related to this order from Rome in 2012:

Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

-- The Vatican orthodoxy watchdog announced Wednesday a full-scale overhaul of the largest umbrella group for nuns in the United States, accusing the group of taking positions that undermine Roman Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

An American archbishop was appointed to oversee reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which will include rewriting the group's statutes, reviewing all its plans and programs -- including approving speakers -- and ensuring the organization properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual. Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

Which poses an interesting question. If Sotomayor is a catholic, she will have to weigh burning in hell for eternity or excommunication. Not using hyperbole here actually. Those are the rules and I didn't make them.

So in the privacy of her thoughts on these pivotal social issues, Sotomayer, if catholic, will be thinking about her catechism vs current trends of the day.

Just something fun to discuss I guess.

Also, I think personally she should be reprimanded or impeached for showing up at Times Square as some sort of celebrity. US Supreme Court Justices must always maintain a public distance from any type of social events that might appear that they are biased. Kicking up her heels at a bacchanalic drunken celebration in public, featuring sex idols like Miley Cyrus and other Los Angeles fame-degenerates might send a message to the public that their Justices are biased.

If any of you have seen Mike Judge's classic "Idiocracy", Sotomayor appearing in public dancing like a Los Vegas stage girl is a very disturbing harbinger of what's to come.

I'm not being old fashioned or prudish. We have sound reasons for preserving the different branches of government in the ways they were intended to be preserved. Our founding fathers weren't a bunch of idiots who just slapped this stuff together. Bringing indignity and public displays of bias to the High Court is and should be an impeachable offense. Sotomayor was way out of line and at the very least I hope her colleagues are chilly to her at the cafeteria. When you are sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice, there are certain sacrafices you understand that you make in order to hold that Office. Apparently that memo never made it to Sotomayor's desk..

are Catholic liberals really Catholics.....?

do liberal ideologues....even SC Justices.....believe in the Constitution....?

 

[Clementine]

On her way to becoming the first Supreme Court justice to lead the Times Square New Year's Eve countdown, Sonia Sotomayor signed a last-minute stay on the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate for a Catholic organization.

Denver's Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged argued that the Act's compromise for religious nonprofits that did not want to pay for birth control coverage for their employees was not enough, and that signing the certification form authorizing a third party insurer to offer contraception would still violate their religious beliefs. Not signing the form would result in fines of an estimated $1.1 million. A federal district court denied the nuns' motion on December 27, so it was left to the Tenth Circuit Court's chief justice -- Sotomayor -- to either order a stay or leave the nuns to face the ACA as written when it became law today...

..Two for-profit companies' arguments against the contraceptive mandate on religious freedom grounds will be heard by the Supreme Court in March, but, as non-religious entities that happened to be run by religious people, they were not included in the ACA's exemption.

The government has until 10 am Friday to respond to Sotomayor's order. Justice Sotomayor Grants Last-Minute Contraception Mandate Stay, Rings in New Year - The Wire

The foregoing may or may not be related to this order from Rome in 2012:

Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

-- The Vatican orthodoxy watchdog announced Wednesday a full-scale overhaul of the largest umbrella group for nuns in the United States, accusing the group of taking positions that undermine Roman Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

An American archbishop was appointed to oversee reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which will include rewriting the group's statutes, reviewing all its plans and programs -- including approving speakers -- and ensuring the organization properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual. Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

Which poses an interesting question. If Sotomayor is a catholic, she will have to weigh burning in hell for eternity or excommunication. Not using hyperbole here actually. Those are the rules and I didn't make them.

So in the privacy of her thoughts on these pivotal social issues, Sotomayer, if catholic, will be thinking about her catechism vs current trends of the day.

Just something fun to discuss I guess.

Also, I think personally she should be reprimanded or impeached for showing up at Times Square as some sort of celebrity. US Supreme Court Justices must always maintain a public distance from any type of social events that might appear that they are biased. Kicking up her heels at a bacchanalic drunken celebration in public, featuring sex idols like Miley Cyrus and other Los Angeles fame-degenerates might send a message to the public that their Justices are biased.

If any of you have seen Mike Judge's classic "Idiocracy", Sotomayor appearing in public dancing like a Los Vegas stage girl is a very disturbing harbinger of what's to come.

I'm not being old fashioned or prudish. We have sound reasons for preserving the different branches of government in the ways they were intended to be preserved. Our founding fathers weren't a bunch of idiots who just slapped this stuff together. Bringing indignity and public displays of bias to the High Court is and should be an impeachable offense. Sotomayor was way out of line and at the very least I hope her colleagues are chilly to her at the cafeteria. When you are sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice, there are certain sacrafices you understand that you make in order to hold that Office. Apparently that memo never made it to Sotomayor's desk..

I am no fan of Sotomayor, but she did the right thing. It's just wrong to force people to go against their religion. I would like to think she did it for the right reasons, meaning she was following the constitution, but I suspect she may have done this due to her own personal beliefs, which don't really matter. She has a history of judging cases based on her personal bias and many of her decisions were later overturned. In this case, her views happened to match the law. I expect the libs to try and overturn this simply because they don't like it, not because it's a sound judgment based on the law.

It's bad enough that other people are expected to subsidize people's entire lives, but forcing companies to cover birth control is ludicrous. Birth control is extremely cheap and no insurance should be forced to cover everything when people can purchase some things on their own without hardship. If protecting themselves is a hardship, then they are the ones who need to modify their behavior. I am against funding people too stupid to control their actions. Bad decisions are costly. I see the welfare people with tattoos, body piercings, expensive sneakers, cigarettes and other non-essentials, so it is completely insane that they can't spend $4 - $8 for birth control pills. When do we stop this bullshit and expect people to do something positive for themselves instead of being irresponsible because they can pass the responsibility on to others?

I'd like to see itemized summaries of the money people spend using their EBT cards. If they have charges that are bogus, like cigarettes or junk food, they need to start getting reduced amounts or at least be forced to pay for things like birth control.

 

[Meister]

Hmmmm......I kinda of felt cheated when Roberts legislated from the bench that Obamacare funding was a tax and not a fee. I didn't hear the rage from the left about that. I have no sympathy for those who think Sotomayor was wrong. Suck it up and move along, folks.

 

[Meister]

On her way to becoming the first Supreme Court justice to lead the Times Square New Year's Eve countdown, Sonia Sotomayor signed a last-minute stay on the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate for a Catholic organization.

Denver's Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged argued that the Act's compromise for religious nonprofits that did not want to pay for birth control coverage for their employees was not enough, and that signing the certification form authorizing a third party insurer to offer contraception would still violate their religious beliefs. Not signing the form would result in fines of an estimated $1.1 million. A federal district court denied the nuns' motion on December 27, so it was left to the Tenth Circuit Court's chief justice -- Sotomayor -- to either order a stay or leave the nuns to face the ACA as written when it became law today...

..Two for-profit companies' arguments against the contraceptive mandate on religious freedom grounds will be heard by the Supreme Court in March, but, as non-religious entities that happened to be run by religious people, they were not included in the ACA's exemption.

The government has until 10 am Friday to respond to Sotomayor's order. Justice Sotomayor Grants Last-Minute Contraception Mandate Stay, Rings in New Year - The Wire

The foregoing may or may not be related to this order from Rome in 2012:

Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

-- The Vatican orthodoxy watchdog announced Wednesday a full-scale overhaul of the largest umbrella group for nuns in the United States, accusing the group of taking positions that undermine Roman Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

An American archbishop was appointed to oversee reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which will include rewriting the group's statutes, reviewing all its plans and programs -- including approving speakers -- and ensuring the organization properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual. Vatican Orders Crackdown On U.S. Nun Association

Which poses an interesting question. If Sotomayor is a catholic, she will have to weigh burning in hell for eternity or excommunication. Not using hyperbole here actually. Those are the rules and I didn't make them.

So in the privacy of her thoughts on these pivotal social issues, Sotomayer, if catholic, will be thinking about her catechism vs current trends of the day.

Just something fun to discuss I guess.

Also, I think personally she should be reprimanded or impeached for showing up at Times Square as some sort of celebrity. US Supreme Court Justices must always maintain a public distance from any type of social events that might appear that they are biased. Kicking up her heels at a bacchanalic drunken celebration in public, featuring sex idols like Miley Cyrus and other Los Angeles fame-degenerates might send a message to the public that their Justices are biased.

If any of you have seen Mike Judge's classic "Idiocracy", Sotomayor appearing in public dancing like a Los Vegas stage girl is a very disturbing harbinger of what's to come.

I'm not being old fashioned or prudish. We have sound reasons for preserving the different branches of government in the ways they were intended to be preserved. Our founding fathers weren't a bunch of idiots who just slapped this stuff together. Bringing indignity and public displays of bias to the High Court is and should be an impeachable offense. Sotomayor was way out of line and at the very least I hope her colleagues are chilly to her at the cafeteria. When you are sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice, there are certain sacrafices you understand that you make in order to hold that Office. Apparently that memo never made it to Sotomayor's desk..

Let me know when you have some kind of statute where she had broken any laws.
You do come off as being old fashion and prudish when it comes to a person you are offended by.
Our president has seemed a bit indignant at times, but nothing but crickets coming from you. You Silhouette, come off as a hypocrite.

I must admit, I hate defending liberal judges, but I don't see a problem with her decision or her New Year's demeanor. It seems the left gets butthurt when "one of there own" is off the reservation.

 

[Edgetho]

Generally, a Justice won't grant a Stay unless he or she believes the appellant granted the Stay will prevail in the case.

IOW, she thinks the Catholic Church will prevail against the Godless scum in the dimocrap party.

And she's one of the most liberal Justices on the Bench.

Hang it up douche-nozzles. This Law is going down the shitter, where it belongs.... Beside the floating turd called the democratic party.

 

[g5000]

You know the retards are really comfortable with exposing their insanity in public when you have one of them calling for the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice for celebrating New Year's at Times Square.

Did I really hear that right? Did I?

 

[g5000]

As for the rest, the Denver nuns are self-insured, so this is a very narrow ruling.

 

[Silhouette]

Let me know when you have some kind of statute where she had broken any laws.
You do come off as being old fashion and prudish when it comes to a person you are offended by.
Our president has seemed a bit indignant at times, but nothing but crickets coming from you. You Silhouette, come off as a hypocrite.

I must admit, I hate defending liberal judges, but I don't see a problem with her decision or her New Year's demeanor. It seems the left gets butthurt when "one of there own" is off the reservation.

I'm no fan of Obama. That's for sure.

And Scalia has pulled similar stunts of which I am in equal critique of. No Justice should parade about publicly in socially-charged venues like this. Miley Cyrus/soft porn performer was the opening act for Justice Sotomayor.

Very very poor taste and contempt for her office that is above all things supposed to maintain an air of impartiality. Before the Court this year and this very minute in fact are highly charged social questions revolving around what the public must accept to be forced upon their religous mores. Miley Cyrus was Sotomayor's opening act!

 

[Agit8r]

Temporary injunctions are temporary. They withhold actions until the case can be decided.

 

[SwimExpert]

I am no fan of Sotomayor, but she did the right thing. It's just wrong to force people to go against their religion. I would like to think she did it for the right reasons, meaning she was following the constitution, but I suspect she may have done this due to her own personal beliefs, which don't really matter. She has a history of judging cases based on her personal bias and many of her decisions were later overturned. In this case, her views happened to match the law. I expect the libs to try and overturn this simply because they don't like it, not because it's a sound judgment based on the law.

IIRC, it's a temporary injunction. It makes perfect sense, considering that the court is preparing to take up essentially the same issue in other cases. People need to understand that this was not an action based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the Obamacare law. It is more like a procedural issue.

 

[SwimExpert]

Generally, a Justice won't grant a Stay unless he or she believes the appellant granted the Stay will prevail in the case.

IOW, she thinks the Catholic Church will prevail against the Godless scum in the dimocrap party.

And she's one of the most liberal Justices on the Bench.

Hang it up douche-nozzles. This Law is going down the shitter, where it belongs.... Beside the floating turd called the democratic party.

On the other hand, Scalia is the most conservative Justice on the bench, and he's authored some of the most defining case law against the nuns, Hobby Lobby, etc.

 

[Silhouette]

IIRC, it's a temporary injunction. It makes perfect sense, considering that the court is preparing to take up essentially the same issue in other cases. People need to understand that this was not an action based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the Obamacare law. It is more like a procedural issue.

Yes. Other issues. Perhaps like this one: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-depict-the-prophet-muhammed-on-a-cake.html