Jump to content

Christian Conservatives Abuse Judicial System In Battle Against ACA


Recommended Posts

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/26/christian-conservatives-abuse-judicial-system-latest-battle-aca.html

 

 

 

If there is only one thing Americans can be sure of, it is that there are always a substantial number of Americans who think they are above the law whether they are the uberwealthy, Republicans in Congress, or religious conservatives. The wealthy, like Willard Romney has connections in the judicial system and corrupt surrogates keeping him above the law, and congressional Republicans violate their oath of office with impunity because they will not investigate their own malfeasance, and “Christian” conservatives do not acknowledge any law that does not originate from their book of ancient mythology.

 

Two events this past week elucidate how Christian conservatives intend to abrogate a federal law and other Americans’ religious freedom by using their legal instruments (corporations) to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. As expected, conservative Christian business owners are appealing to other conservative Christians on the Supreme Court to grant them religious immunity from adhering to a federal law.

 

First, retail outlet Hobby Lobby appealed to the conservative Supreme Court to grant them Constitutional protection to impose their religion on their employees because two federal circuit courts ruled that religious corporate owners are forbidden from forcing phony bible rules on their workers.

 

According to Hobby Lobby’s lawyers, “As the federal government embarks on an unprecedented foray into health care replete with multiple overlapping mandates, few issues are more important than the extent to which the government must recognize and accommodate the religious exercise of those it regulates.”

 

In Hobby Lobby’s owner’s estimation, the federal government must acknowledge, and assist, conservative Christians’ religious right to impose their beliefs on their employees.

 

The issue at hand is the mandate in the Affordable Care Act that requires employers providing prescription coverage in health plans to include contraception the same as they do antibiotics, blood pressure medicine, and boner pills like Viagra. Hobby Lobby’s owners, like many conservative Christians, have determined that biological science and their bible are erroneous because they contradict religious extremists’ assertion that a fertilized egg is a person worthy of 14th amendment rights granted in the U.S. Constitution. Their contention is that a corporation has the same religious freedom as individual Americans giving them the right to force their employees to adhere to their absurd interpretation of the Christian bible.

There have been three lawsuits in three different Circuit Courts by corporations claiming religious freedom to disregard the contraception mandate in the health law, and for the second time the “religious corporations” were handed a defeat based on common sense and legal precedent. That is where Hobby Lobby took it upon their religious self to pray for relief from the High Court’s 5 conservative Christians to rule that the mandate violates the corporation’s religious freedom to withhold contraception from health plans.

 

However, in the 6th Circuit this week, a panel of federal judges handed down the second ruling rejecting the “religious corporate” argument with a pervasive assertion that “it is not possible for a for-profit corporation with secular purposes to ‘exercise’ religion in a way protected by the Constitution or federal statutes.”

 

There is legal precedent to back up the 6th Circuit’s ruling in the 1990 Supreme Court ruling, Oregon v. Smith, which held that even if it burdened religious practices, a generally applicable policy does not violate the First Amendment unless it specifically targeted a religious group or practice. Using that ruling, the conservative Christian corporation’s argument that the contraceptive requirements violate the free exercise of religion clause is non-existent, but the court did not stop there.

 

Writing for the court, a George W. Bush appointee said, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from statutory schemes to an employer operates to impost the employer’s religious faith on the employees.

 

Simply put, conservative Christians are forbidden from forcing their employees to adhere to their religious beliefs. However, the Court took the argument to the so-called “religious corporation” and told them they cannot have it both ways as a corporation and an individual.

The ruling said, “by incorporating his business, (plaintiff) voluntarily forfeited his rights to bring individual actions for alleged corporate injuries in exchange for the liability and financial protections otherwise afforded him by utilization of the corporate form. Adoption of his argument that he should not be liable individually for corporate debts and wrongs, but still should be allowed to challenge, as an individual, duties and restrictions placed upon the corporation would undermine completely the principles upon which our nation’s corporate laws and structures are based. We are not inclined to so ignore law, precedent, and reason.”

 

Translation; the individual who incorporated their business cannot have it both ways and claim they are, as individuals, separate from the corporation for tax and liability purposes, but not separate for religious purposes to impose their beliefs on their employees.

 

When Hobby Lobby sued the federal government for an exemption from the contraception mandate, the 10th Circuit did ignore established law, precedent, and reason and ruled that President Obama “imposed a religious burden” on a for-profit secular corporation and hurt the Hobby Lobby corporation’s religious sensibilities. Now, Hobby Lobby is begging the 5 conservative Christians on the High Court to rule that for-profit secular corporations formed to avoid taxes and liabilities are above the law because a corporations’ religious freedom to “impost the employer’s religious faith on the employees” is protected under the First Amendment.

 

This waste of the American judicial system’s time and resources is not about contraception, the Affordable Care Act, President Obama, or whether or not a legal instrument’s (corporation) religious freedom is being abridged. It is about conservative Christians imposing their will on the people and the government and it is high time that Americans come to grips with the reality that there is a decade’s-old war to transform this country into a theocracy. It is also about evangelical malcontents’ war on women to put them in their biblical place under subjugation to men according to the Christian bible that is being waged in earnest in Republican-controlled states.

 

The idea that a corporation has religious freedom, or faith-based right, over and above its employees is absurd and an outrage in and of itself, but that it is being appealed to the Supreme Court for adjudication portends this nation is already in the grips of religious extremists and one High Court ruling away from a government sanctioned 21st century crusade and inquisition. This Supreme Court has already granted personhood rights to corporations to buy elections, and there is little doubt that in a fit of religious fervor the 5 conservatives on the Court will give them religious rights to impose their beliefs on the American people that Dominionists have planned for the past 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Hobby Lobby just opened in my town.... Think I'll check them out and see what's cookin.....



Interesting that Hobby Lobby CEO David Green and wife have hooked up with The Giving Pledge.

 

The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the world to make a commitment to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes. The campaign specifically focuses on billionaires and was made public in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. The Huffington Post reported in April 2012 that "81 billionaires committed to giving at least half of their fortunes to charity".[1] As of July 2013, 113 billionaire individuals and couples and one family group have signed the pledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the Dems didn't have a problem with Justice Robert's breaking the law and rewrite legislation on the ACA which is not his job.

 

Talk about abusing the system,,,,

 

Also seems to be a problem with the ACA being written in the Senate and passed by the House but most people know the Senate cannot levy taxes, only the house can.

 

More abuse of the system covered by the nig in the justice department,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Hobby Lobby just opened in my town.... Think I'll check them out and see what's cookin.....

Interesting that Hobby Lobby CEO David Green and wife have hooked up with The Giving Pledge.

 

The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the world to make a commitment to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes. The campaign specifically focuses on billionaires and was made public in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. The Huffington Post reported in April 2012 that "81 billionaires committed to giving at least half of their fortunes to charity".[1] As of July 2013, 113 billionaire individuals and couples and one family group have signed the pledge.

I'm glad to see they are good people. It doesn't, however, change the fact that they are wrong.

 

 

Seems the Dems didn't have a problem with Justice Robert's breaking the law and rewrite legislation on the ACA which is not his job.

 

Talk about abusing the system,,,,

 

Also seems to be a problem with the ACA being written in the Senate and passed by the House but most people know the Senate cannot levy taxes, only the house can.

 

More abuse of the system covered by the nig in the justice department,,,

 

 

Yea, what "rewriting"? They called it a "tax", they didn't do any re-writing.

 

The fact that a bill started in the Senate is unusual, but has been happening a lot since 2010 at Boehner's expressed requests. It has more to do with Tea Party disfunction than "abuse of system".

 

I thought this was interesting to your point.

 

U.S. Constitution Online

Quick Links: FAQ Topics Forums Documents Timeline Kids Vermont Constitution Map Citation USConstitution.net

Constitutional FAQ Answer #125

 

Q125. "On the Checks and Balances Page, it says that a legislative check on the legislature is that only the House can originate revenue bills. I've been told that only the House can originate spending bills, too — is this true?"

A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

 

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

 

However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.

 

The last paragraph leads me to believe it's something that is done, not necessarily constitutional, but done routinely at the House prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see they are good people. It doesn't, however, change the fact that they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Yea, what "rewriting"? They called it a "tax", they didn't do any re-writing.

 

The fact that a bill started in the Senate is unusual, but has been happening a lot since 2010 at Boehner's expressed requests. It has more to do with Tea Party disfunction than "abuse of system".

 

I thought this was interesting to your point.

 

U.S. Constitution Online

Quick Links: FAQ Topics Forums Documents Timeline Kids Vermont Constitution Map Citation USConstitution.net

Constitutional FAQ Answer #125

 

Q125. "On the Checks and Balances Page, it says that a legislative check on the legislature is that only the House can originate revenue bills. I've been told that only the House can originate spending bills, too — is this true?"

A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

 

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

 

However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.

 

The last paragraph leads me to believe it's something that is done, not necessarily constitutional, but done routinely at the House prerogative.

The dissent called it:

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it…

Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry….

What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists….

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax….

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not.
It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching.
It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions,

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers.
But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty…

The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

 

Take whichever side you want, mine will always be against 9 GODS directing the will of 300 million plus people!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see they are good people. It doesn't, however, change the fact that they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Why are they wrong? Hobby Lobby is a privately held company. Don't they have the right to run it according to their beliefs?

It's no different than the government and their Affirmative Action laws.....and quotas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...