Sunday, July 08, 2012

Ginsburg v. Obozo

Most of you know that Obozo is stomping all over the 'free exercise' clause of the First Amendment and that the Catholic Bishops (and the Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, and some Jews) are hopping mad about it.

Seems that even the ACLU's own SCOTUS Justice has more than a shadow of reservation about our little Statist-wannabee's actions, too.

“Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching,” Ginsburg wrote. “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

That's from her opinion on ObozoCare (which she decided wrongly, but hey...)

HT:  HotAir


Jim said...

ACA does not infringe on religious freedom as it allows for exclusions on religious grounds. Clearly it does not abridge freedom of speech nor due process.

Although rules instituted under the ACA may require employers including, religious organizations, to adhere to certain rules, nothing in the ACA or its rules prevent individuals from their free exercise of religion.

Anonymous said...

If the church wants funding from the government, follow its rules. It can choose NOT to receive that money if that a particular provision goes against their tenets.

Jim is correct, one is still free to practice their religion. The HHS Mandate does not prevent people from practicing their faith. It only mandates that such institutions no longer be tax-exempt if it does not follow federal standards. The CHOICE is up to the RCC.

That is the legal issue before the court.

Dad29 said...

Since Jim lives in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, I'll simply ignore his ignorance.

As to Anony: taxation of non-profits is NOT the issue, although it might be so in your po' widdle mind, such as it is.

It IS an infringement on free exercise, as Ginsburg hinted.

P.S. I thought the Klan was gone. How did you surface?

Grim said...

No, Jim is wrong; and oddly enough, Ginsburg is right. There are serious freedom of religion and, in fact, freedom of expression issues raised by the HHS mandates.

OK: you don't care about the Catholic Church being told that its self-insured orphanages have to violate Catholic teachings by materially providing birth control pills because HHS says all insurances plans have to do this. But the same power that lets them mandate the pills be covered for free lets a future HHS secretary mandate that they not be covered at all.

If you can mandate that my plans must provide X, you can mandate that my plans can't provide X. The Catholics are right about this one whether you like them or not.

Jim said...

Somehow I don't think you are actually reading Ginsburg's words for comprehension. Note the phrases "would be unconstitutional IF" and "impermissibly abridged". I don't see where she says that the mandate IN FACT "impermissibly abridged" anything and was therefore unconstitutional.

she decided wrongly

You are a constitutional scholar, I take it.

Dad29 said...

So is Humpty Dumpty, who gave Roberts his magic formula for making Obozocare 'constitutional.'

As to Ginsburg's remark--if you ignore your wife's hints like you ignore hers, you're living on the edge.

Jim said...

Ginsburg isn't hinting anything. She is explaining why the ACA mandate, unlike mandating the purchase of broccoli, IS constitutional:

Consider the chain of inferences the Court would have to accept to conclude that a vegetable-purchase mandate was likely to have a substantial effect on the health-care costs borne by lithe Americans. The Court would have to believe that individuals forced to buy vegetables would then eat them (instead of throwing or giving them away),would prepare the vegetables in a healthy way (steamed or raw, not deep-fried), would cut back on unhealthy foods, and would not allow other factors (such as lack of exercise or little sleep) to trump the improved diet.9 Such “pil[ingof] inference upon inference” is just what the Court refused to do in Lopez and Morrison.

Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching. A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

The next paragraph sums it up:

Supplementing these legal restraints is a formidable check on congressional power: the democratic process. See Raich, 545 U. S., at 33; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 120 (repeating Chief Justice Marshall’s “warning that effective restraints on [the commerce power’s] exercise must proceed from political rather than judicial processes”.

Anonymous said...

Obozo is infringing on your religious freedom? Wait til the LDS apostate is in the Oval Office! You catholics will yearn for the days of Obozo in the Mittster's post-religious world!


Anonymous said...

Tell me dad, if the Catholic Bishops are so mad, and they want us to follow them, why should we follow them when we read about crap like this?

Can you tell me why Obama should not consider the Bishops a joke concerning religious freedom when the Bishops are already paying for contraception?

Why should I give any money to the Bishops when they pass the plate when I read about crap like this?

I am finding it very hard to defend the Bishops.

Please read:

"U.S. bishops’ relief agency gives $5.3 million to major contraception-providing charity"