Catholic Online Forum

Round one: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/26/supreme-court-denies-hobby-lobby-request-for-reprieve-from-health-care-mandate/.

Still have all that faith in the SCOTUS? They wouldn't even grant a temporary injunction while the 44 case wend their way through the system.

Not to split hairs, but this was Justice Sotomayor acting on behalf of the court. From what I gather, she could be the biggest Catholic hater of the nine.

The lower courts have ruled in favor of colleges and entities like that. In this case, we're talking about for-profit businesses, and this is what she has based her opinion upon.

Not to split hairs, but this was Justice Sotomayor acting on behalf of the court. From what I gather, she could be the biggest Catholic hater of the nine.

The kind of remedy the Hobby Lobby and its owners had sought — an injunction pending appeal — can only be issued if it is necessary to protect the Supreme Court’s authority to rule ultimately on the constitutional challenge, or if the challengers’ right to such a remedy is clear without a doubt, Justice Sotomayor noted. She stressed that she was not ruling on whether the constitutional challenge ultimately would succeed, and noted that the Court had not previously ruled on whether constitutional or other legal protection for religious rights is available for closely held, for-profit corporations and their controlling shareholder when they object as an expression of their faith to mandatory employee benefits.

I do not believe Hobby Lobby is run by Catholics.

Christians, not specific to Catholic.

Christians, not specific to Catholic.

I do not believe Hobby Lobby is run by Catholics.

It's not, but it's a Christian principle that is being supported by the Catholic Bishops. I guess I didn't mean "Catholic-hater" but rather "hater of Catholic principles."

I would also observe that a company being fined over a million dollars per day might have difficulty coming up with the funds to support their legal battle. I hope that is just a coincidence and not by design.

To assess that, we would have to understand much more about the law than we do. What sort of relief is it even within the purview of the Court to grant?

Courts can't just do anything they want. They, too, are bound by the law.

Still have all that faith in the SCOTUS?

To assess that, we would have to understand much more about the law than we do. What sort of relief is it even within the purview of the Court to grant?

Courts can't just do anything they want. They, too, are bound by the law.

Aren't the three branches of government of equal importance? Why are the Supremes ruling for life, and why do they sometimes seem to be crafting new laws? Is our government a semi- oligarchy? (Sorry, I don't mean to criticize.)

I'm getting confused. I just read that Priests for Life won their case in a lower court, and I think a couple of colleges won something. I'm not clear on what those victories actually mean, and what this SCOTUS decision means.

Not to split hairs, but this was Justice Sotomayor acting on behalf of the court. From what I gather, she could be the biggest Catholic hater of the nine.

The lower courts have ruled in favor of colleges and entities like that. In this case, we're talking about for-profit businesses, and this is what she has based her opinion upon.

That, and she allowed the plaintiffs to continue the process in the lower courts.

To assess that, we would have to understand much more about the law than we do. What sort of relief is it even within the purview of the Court to grant?

Courts can't just do anything they want. They, too, are bound by the law.

What sort of relief is it even within the purview of the Court to grant?

injunction
specific performance
account of profits
rescission
declaratory relief
rectification
equitable estoppel
certain proprietary remedies, such as constructive trusts
subrogation
in very specific circumstances, an equitable lien
equitable compensation
Appointment or removal of fiduciary
Interpleader

Equity is said to operate on the conscience of the defendant, so an equitable remedy is always directed at a particular person, and that person's knowledge, state of mind and motives may be relevant to whether a remedy should be granted or not.

The religious establishments that fit within or are very close to the narrow confines of the mandate are winning, the secular establishments whose religious freedom is also being violated are not having any success.

The mandate kicks in January first, think the courts will issue opinions in less than two weeks? What do Hobby Lobby owners do; suspend their religious beliefs until the court gets off its tail and acts; incur millions in fines; lay off all the employees and suspend operation until the court gets off its tail and acts? Why is the unconstitutionality of this mandate so hard for anyone to grasp?

BobC and Charles, cool and impersonal analysis so now what do you recommend to the owners of Hobby Lobby who in three days will be forced to violate their religious convictions and would the recommendation be the same for a Catholic business owner? I see no harm in the Justice (sic) allowing a temporary injunction both to protect the rights of the business owner and to allow the courts time to rule. This is to me a heavy-handed trial balloon to see just what these claimants will do when pushed to the wall; if the owners do nothing the rest of the claimants won't stand a chance, victory for the HHS.

The ACLU rarely aids in anti-Christian cases but I agree, this would seem right up their alley

BobA,



I know that it often seems that way, but the expressed mission of the ACLU is to defend the Bill of Rights....so where are they? Is it p[ossible no one has asked them?

Hobby Lobby is apparently going to risk the huge fines of more than a million dollars a day. These people are courageous. I'm impressed.

Now that I think about it -I am pretty sure that any fines levied by the government can not be levied UNTIL there is due process and the party is found guilty.

I see that yesterday (Friday December 28th) a three judge panel of the 7th Circuit Federal Appeals Court made a ruling opposite from the topic of this thread. It is not clear yet, in what way the opinions agree, differ, or overlap...

It appears that their only alternative is to shut down now. They may think that running up the fines and going bankrupt is no worse.

In the latter case, Uncle Scrooge will face the publicity of shutting down a tax paying enterprise and adding to the unemployment line.

I see that yesterday (Friday December 28th) a three judge panel of the 7th Circuit Federal Appeals Court made a ruling opposite from the topic of this thread. It is not clear yet, in what way the opinions agree, differ, or overlap...

The panel majority did note Justice Sotomayor’s ruling on Wednesday against blocking the mandate, in an Oklahoma case. But it said the standard for obtaining an injunction from the Supreme Court is a more demanding one than to obtain one at a federal appeals court.

and Sotomayor's ruling are to me an indication of how the SCOTUS will ultimately rule

It may be indicative as to her opinions, but not necessarily the whole court. What we know for certain is that she saw no need for an emergency ruling.

As the Catholic Church and the Obama administration approach the first anniversary of what has become the most serious confrontation between the Church and the federal government in U.S. history — a confrontation caused by a regulatory mandate implementing Obamacare — a review of the strategic situation is in order, with an eye to the terrain ahead. But given the confusions about this struggle that were sown in many minds during the presidential campaign (not least by the vice president of the United States), it is important to begin by remembering just what is being contested here.

THE MANDATE

Early in 2012, the Obama administration first announced, and then finalized, a regulation implementing the “preventive services” requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the regulation generally requires that health-insurance plans, including plans sponsored by employers, provide contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and sterilizations without any cost (or “co-pay”) to the insured. While the mandate exempted certain religious employers, its definition of a “religious employer” was absurdly narrow and would not exempt the vast majority of Catholic educational, social-service, and health-care institutions, because they employ non-Catholics and serve non-Catholics.

The HHS mandate thus requires most Catholic institutions and employers to provide “reproductive-health services” or “preventive services” that the Catholic Church judges to be gravely immoral. In doing so, the mandate seriously burdens Catholics in the free exercise of their religious convictions. Those convictions are not abstractions. Religiously informed Catholic moral convictions are culture-building and institution-forming: They shape the ethos and activities of Catholic educational, charitable, and social-service agencies, and they shape the professional lives as well as the personal lives of conscientious Catholics.

Thus, in contesting the HHS mandate, the Catholic Church is defending and promoting religious freedom in full, as that first freedom touches both institutions and individuals. The Church is claiming the fundamental religious-liberty right to be itself, not least in its service to the poor, the vulnerable, and the marginalized; and the Church is defending the fundamental religious-liberty right of the people of the Church to be themselves, in their professional as well as their personal lives. In claiming and defending religious freedom in full, the Church is defending the American understanding, with which Catholic teaching is in full accord, that “religious freedom” cannot be reduced (as the Obama administration seems to want to do) to a privacy right to certain lifestyle choices — in this case, the choice to worship. Religious freedom in full is far more than freedom to worship without civil liability, although it surely includes that.

As I recall she promised to bring the wisdom of an old Spanish Lady to the Court. Fortunately, I know a few truly wise old Spanish Ladies and won't let her turn me into racist.

(CNSNews.com) - In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration is claiming that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings.

Because federal judges—including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—have refused to grant an injunction protecting the owners of Hobby Lobby from being forced to act against their Christian faith, those owners will be subject to federal fines of up to $1.3 million per day starting Tuesday for refusing to include abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plan.

The Obama administration is making a two-fold argument for why it can force Christians to act against their faith in complying with the regulation it has issued under the Obamacare law that requires virtually all health care plans to cover, without co-pay, sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The first argument the administration makes against the owners of Hobby Lobby is that Americans lose their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion when they form a corporation and engage in commerce. A person’s Christianity, the administration argues, cannot be carried out through activities he engages in through an incorporated business.

The second argument the administration makes to justify forcing Christians to act against their faith is more sweeping. Here the administration argues it can force a person to act against his religion so long as the coercion is done under the authority of a law that is neutral and generally applicable—in other words, as long as the law was not written specifically to persecute Christians as Christians, the government can use that law to persecute Christians.

I wonder how far the government would go to impose its will upon the people?

There is a reason that there are conscience exemptions recognized by law as legitimate exemptions -the reason primarily is premised upon the fact that some will die for what they believe in. It is quite difficult to impose something upon one that is willing to forfeit blood and treasure in opposing such an imposition.

It is my opinion that if enough citizens oppose this assault upon liberty that the government will have no choice but to retreat.

I am reminded of the following Benjamin Franklin quote:

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

It may be indicative as to her opinions, but not necessarily the whole court. What we know for certain is that she saw no need for an emergency ruling.