Scalia's Death Saves Obamacare - SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Religious Wackos

[wy]

The Supreme Court on Monday avoided issuing a major ruling on a challenge brought by religiously affiliated non-profit groups to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, wrote that they were not deciding the case on the merits but instead sent the case back down to the lower courts for opposing parties to work out a compromise.

The decision to send the case back to the appellate level appears to be a direct impact of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February. Scalia, a stalwart conservative, would likely have ruled against the Obama administration.

The court currently has four justices appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats.

"It seems pretty clear that this is a compromise born out of an eight-justice court, where the justices avoid saying anything on the merits and try to make the case go away," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law.

"It's not the first time they've punted since Scalia's death, but it may well be the most brazen one."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/politics/supreme-court-obamacare-contraceptive-mandate/index.html

[Gy]

Until it dies on its own which it will

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Your Subject line is misleading. It implies that SCOTUS thinks the
plaintiffs should not be heard. Instead, SCOTUS ordered that the lower
courts were to re-hear both the plaintiffs and the government.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 05/16/2016 11:45 AM, Gy wrote:
> Until it dies on its own which it will
>

The Left incessantly bemoans the death of Prince but they ignored
Scalia's death.

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

--
If Atheists demand scientific proof that GOD and Spaghetti Monsters
exist, why don't those same Atheists demand scientific proof that gayys
and Global Warming exist?

That's Karma

[wy]

The subject heading says that SCOTUS refused to hear the plaintiffs, not that they should not be heard. That's why they returned it back to the lower courts for them to hear it again.

[wy]

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-4, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 05/16/2016 11:45 AM, Gy wrote:
> > Until it dies on its own which it will
> >
>
>
> The Left incessantly bemoans the death of Prince but they ignored
> Scalia's death.

Scalia couldn't sing nor play multiple instruments. He was just a boring judge who said stupid things.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 05/16/2016 12:12 PM, wy wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-4, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 05/16/2016 11:45 AM, Gy wrote:
>>> Until it dies on its own which it will
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Left incessantly bemoans the death of Prince but they ignored
>> Scalia's death.
>
> Scalia couldn't sing nor play multiple instruments.

Oddly enough neither could Prince.... At least NOT well.

While Scalia did his job very well.

It looks like more Affirmative Action adulations. You know, the same as
Obama gets for NOT fixing anything and being the worst President since
Jimmy Carter.


*One man's Affirmative Action law is another man's Jim Crow law*

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I'm sticking with my opinion on the connotation of what "SCOTUS refused
to hear the plaintiffs" is.

[wy]

You can if you want, but they did refuse to hear it. Unless you believe that they are hearing it by refusing to hear it.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Do you understand the difference between denotation and connotation?

[wy]

I understand the difference between literal and figurative. Mine was literal, yours is figurative.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Precisely! (*). The problem is when people read the Subject, they don't
take it literally. The implication is the lower court decision, in
which the plaintiffs lost, stands. If you care to be intellectually
honest, you know that's how people interpret the subject, and you would
realize the Subject is thus misleading.

(*) And after thinking about it a bit more, you got the literal part
wrong too. The fact they bounced the case back to the lower courts
doesn't mean the plaintiffs weren't literally heard by SCOTUS. SCOTUS
heard the plaintiffs in briefs and oral arguments.

[Tom Sr.]

--------------
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-supreme-court-contraceptives-20160516-snap-story.html

*Supreme Court Clears the Way to Free Birth Control for Women with Religious Employers*
by David G. Savage
May 16, 2016

The Supreme Court on Monday announced a compromise ruling on contraceptives that clears the way for women working for religious organizations to receive the free birth control promised by President Obama's healthcare law.

In a short, unanimous decision, the justices said that the Catholic charities and government attorneys have agreed in recent weeks that these women may "receive cost-free contraceptive coverage" without infringing the religious rights of the church-based employers.

Based on that understanding, the justices said they saw no need to rule now on the major legal questions raised by this dispute.

The outcome appears to resolve a long-running clash between the Catholic Church hierarchy and Obama’s attorneys that had played out in courts across the nation.

But despite the intense rhetoric on religious liberty and women's rights, the practical difference had become very narrow.

From the start, the administration had agreed churches and other houses of worship were exempt from the requirements of the federal law and its promise of the full range of contraceptives. It also said church-affiliated employers, including colleges and charities, need not pay for this coverage if they had religious objections to doing so.

But Obama’s attorneys held to the view that these female employees, many of whom did not share the faith of their employers, were entitled to the full insurance coverage promised by the law.

The Supreme Court had agreed to resolve the lingering legal clash and rule on whether this required coverage put an unfair burden on the religious liberty of their church-based employers.

But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February left the justices split 4-4 on the underlying dispute. That in turn prompted the justices to suggest a compromise. They issued an unusual request for both sides to consider whether the insurance coverage could be provided in a way that did not directly involve the church-based employers.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. read a three-page statement in the court Monday, announcing what sounded like a settlement.

The Catholic charities and the evangelical colleges that sued the government “have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception, even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptives from the same insurance company,” he said. “The government has confirmed that the challenged procedures for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly.”

With that understanding, he said, the court has no need to rule on the legal issues raised in the combined cases, known as Zubik vs. Burwell.

“Nothing in this opinion…is to affect the ability of the government to ensure that women covered by [church-based employers’] health plans obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives,” he added.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a separate opinion that they will watch to see that the contraceptive coverage is provided as promised.
--------------




So...













. . .

[wy]

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 1:25:22 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 5/16/2016 10:18 AM, wy wrote:
> > On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 1:12:14 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The subject heading says that SCOTUS refused to hear the
> >>>>> plaintiffs, not that they should not be heard. That's why
> >>>>> they returned it back to the lower courts for them to hear it
> >>>>> again.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sticking with my opinion on the connotation of what "SCOTUS
> >>>> refused to hear the plaintiffs" is.
> >>>
> >>> You can if you want, but they did refuse to hear it. Unless you
> >>> believe that they are hearing it by refusing to hear it.
> >>
> >> Do you understand the difference between denotation and
> >> connotation?
> >
> > I understand the difference between literal and figurative. Mine was
> > literal, yours is figurative.
>
> Precisely! (*). The problem is when people read the Subject, they don't
> take it literally. The implication is the lower court decision, in
> which the plaintiffs lost, stands. If you care to be intellectually
> honest, you know that's how people interpret the subject, and you would
> realize the Subject is thus misleading.

I can't help people who can't get beyond the subject heading to understand what the real story is. But it still doesn't negate the literal fact that the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case - literally.

>
> (*) And after thinking about it a bit more, you got the literal part
> wrong too. The fact they bounced the case back to the lower courts
> doesn't mean the plaintiffs weren't literally heard by SCOTUS. SCOTUS
> heard the plaintiffs in briefs and oral arguments.

True, but not to the full extent of an actual full hearing that results in a decision by them and not the lower courts. Instead, they returned it back to the lower courts to have them decide for them. So, literally, they refused to hear the case to its fullest extent, one resulting in a decisive SCOTUS decision.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Whether or NOT it's repealed, ObamaCare is going to collapse soon.

None of it will matter. You'll all have to get what ever coverage you
can find or afford as soon as that happens. But then it's doubtful that
any care will be accessible by anyone but the most wealthy or
politically connected.

Shortages and collapse will NOT be unknown.

[Tom Sr.]

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 3:03:06 PM UTC-4, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Whether or NOT it's repealed, ObamaCare is going to collapse soon.

How many years have you been saying that now, Mr. Beam???




















































































































































































































































*YAWN*

. . .

[Tom Sr.]

Pastor David Hartung just heard another, very loud
***WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSHH!***
















. . .

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 5/16/2016 11:29 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:

Yikes! This gets the ruling all wrong. There is no settlement.

The government and the plaintiffs do not agree on *how* the women will
receive cost-free contraception coverage without infringing on the
employers' religious rights. Their differences will continue to be
litigated and appear on another day at SCOTUS. In short, SCOTUS punted
(and given the 4-4 split, they did the right thing).

[Josh Rosenbluth]

That would not be refusing to hear the case. It would be refusing to
rule on the case. And, that would have been an intellectually honest
headline.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 05/16/2016 08:56 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> ?

The real truth is that *NOTHING* can save ObamaCare!

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Since it was forced on America... and that time I spoke of is here, it
really took less time than I had anticipated. But it was worse
legislation than I had realized as well. So it makes sense that it would
die an early death.

[Tom Sr.]

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 8:56:21 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Yikes! This gets the ruling all wrong. There is no settlement.

Well...

--------------
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/16/478262940/supreme-court-sends-obamacare-birth-control-case-back-to-lower-courts

*As Supreme Court Sends Back Birth Control Case, Both Sides Claim Victory*
by Julie Rovner
May 16, 2016

When it comes to the issue of religious rights versus no-cost contraception, the only thing the Supreme Court could agree on was not to decide.

In an unsigned opinion issued Monday, the court sent a series of cases back to a raft of federal appeals courts, with instructions for those courts and the parties in the lawsuits to try harder to work things out. "The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases," the opinion said.

At issue is the extent to which religiously affiliated employers (such as universities or hospitals) need to participate in the requirement under the Affordable Care Act for most employer health plans to provide no-cost contraception for women.

The government made several changes to the rules over the past four years in an attempt to accommodate the religious employers' objections while still ensuring that female employees would get contraceptive coverage.

But dozens of religious nonprofit employers sued anyway, claiming that even the act of notifying the government of their objections (which would, in turn, trigger a requirement for the government to arrange coverage) made them "complicit" in providing a service they see as sinful.

The court's opinion, and an accompanying order on several similar cases that were awaiting a decision on whether the high court would take them up, erased all the lower appeals court rulings, all but one of which had sided with the government.

The opinion and order appeared at first glance to put at risk coverage for contraceptives for tens of thousands of employees of the organizations that filed suit.

However, the court made clear that because the employers who have sued have already in effect notified the government of their objections, the government can rely "on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage going forward."

At the same time, however, the opinion said the government "may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failure to provide the relevant notice."

The goal, the justices wrote, is that both sides "should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitions' religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners' health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.' "

Both sides in the dispute claimed at least a partial victory.

"From our point of view this is a win for religious liberty," said Mark Rienzi, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Little Sisters of the Poor, one of the groups that sued the government. "The government can find ways to give out contraception without hassling nuns."

But at the same time, said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the Americans Civil Liberties Union, "the opinion states clearly the need for women to receive full and equal coverage."

Contraceptive advocates also pointed to a concurring opinion from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg that stressed that the decision should not be read as approving coverage strategies that make it harder for women to get the benefits.

"Requiring standalone contraceptive-only coverage would leave in limbo all of the women now guaranteed seamless preventive-care coverage under the Affordable Care Act," they wrote. "And requiring that women affirmatively opt into such coverage would 'impose precisely the kind of barrier to the delivery of preventive services that Congress sought to eliminate.' "

It remains unclear what the lower courts might do. In an effort to break what was clearly a 4-4 deadlock, the court in March asked each side for supplemental material outlining potential compromises. The decision Monday referred to those new briefs as suggesting that providing contraceptive coverage without requiring notice from religious employers "is feasible."

But Sotomayor and Ginsburg, in their concurring opinion, noted that "the Courts of Appeals remain free to reach the same conclusion or a different one on each of the questions presented by these cases."
------

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
--------------











. . .

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 5/17/2016 3:05 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 8:56:21 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> Yikes! This gets the ruling all wrong. There is no settlement.
>
>
> Well...
>
> --------------
> http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/16/478262940/supreme-court-sends-obamacare-birth-control-case-back-to-lower-courts
>
> *As Supreme Court Sends Back Birth Control Case, Both Sides Claim
> Victory* by Julie Rovner May 16, 2016

Exactly! The spin doctors have taken over. Here is the real scoop:

The government conceded one point where the plaintiffs can claim
victory: the process for declaring they object to the contraception
coverage will no longer be a letter to the government. Instead, the act
of contracting for insurance that does not include contraception
coverage suffices.

Beyond that, nothing is resolved. The government can go ahead and
attempt to get the employees contraception coverage based on the trigger
of the employer's policy not covering it. But, how will they do that?
The government claims that should be done by the insurance company (with
no involvement from the employer) without the employees having to do
anything or sign up for anything new. The plaintiffs claim the
insurance company must have a completely separate policy just for
contraception that requires employees to sign up for and get new
insurance cards.

And what happens if there is no insurance company (i.e., the employer is
self insured). The plaintiffs claim the government must provide the
separate contraception policy (Medicare-like) with a separate sign up
and separate insurance cards. The government claims the employer's
third-party administrator (TPA) must take care of obtaining coverage for
the employees (with no involvment from the employer) without a separate
sign up or insurance card (the government reimburses the TPA's expenses
for doing so).

These disagreements will be litigated down the road.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

*BECAUSE*

They fully expect ObamaCare to implode.

--

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

That's Karma



*Rumination*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
The *Gruber Doctrine* is the Liberal plan that says it's "to the
Liberals advantage to have a lack of transparency and then lie about
everything"..