Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ordered Liberty

Those claims will undoubtedly get a full airing. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston notes that, while Hobby Lobby focuses on the statutory RFRA claim against Obamacare, Conestoga Woods, the other case the Supreme Court has agreed to review (from the Third Circuit), raises constitutional issues under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, in addition to RFRA claims.

It is worth noting that the media reporting about the Liberty case has been misleading. It was covered as if it were a major Obamacare victory for the administration, an impression reinforced by the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case (at a time when the president is groping for any semblance of good news about his “legacy” reform). In fact, as Jon Adler and Cato’s Michael Cannon explain, Liberty did significant damage to the administration’s legal position.

The Obama Justice Department essentially argued that the claimants should not be heard in court. Eric Holder’s minions posited that Liberty University lacked standing to challenge the employer mandate, and that challenges to the employer mandate were premature – both because President Obama has presumed to delay its enforcement for a year, and because the Anti-Injunction Act does not permit pre-enforcement challenges to taxes. (Hmmm, remember when the president used to insist Obamacare did not raise taxes?) The Fourth Circuit rejected all of those claims, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case leaves that rejection in place.

It is true, of course, that the Fourth Circuit ruled against Liberty University on the merits. But that was virtually certain to happen on the individual mandate claim, which was not much different from the one the Supreme Court denied last year. It was, moreover, not at all surprising given the nature of the arguments on the employer mandate.

There is a much more serious challenge to Obamacare’s individual and employer mandate regime in the pipeline. As Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed a few days ago, the IRS’s enforcement of the mandates in states that did not opt to create insurance “exchanges” blatantly violates the express terms of the Obamacare statute (the “Affordable” Care Act).

Consequently, those of us who oppose Obamacare should not be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s denial of review in Liberty. That case has already served its purpose by wounding the administration’s effort to bar challenges from being heard. Religious liberty concerns will be fully covered by the two abortifacient/contraceptive mandate cases the Court agreed to hear. And other weighty challenges to the individual/employer mandate regime are on the way.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my friend's half-sister makes $72 an hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her pay check was $15553 just working on the internet for a few hours. link>>>>>>>>>>>>>
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
When I was in my childbearing years & CHOOSE NOT to procreate, (because I was single until age 57), I paid the ENTIRE COST of my birth control pills & the LAST THING I would have wanted is the government nosing around in my reproductive rights!! I CHOOSE to forego "luxury items" like a car & took the bus to work so I could afford my health insurance & birth control pills. If I was a male I would NOT WANT the government paying for my viagra either!! WHY OH WHY is insurance obligated to cover birth contol pills & viagra??
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The ACA mandates all sorts of private information (SS #s, health issues, etc). This alone should be unconstitutional. Then, this information is not properly protected from computer hackers. While navigators have no background checks -- so they could easily be felons or identity thieves. And the IRS seems to be able to do whatever it wants. Is the right to privacy dead?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"a distinctly different legal argument"

Well, this is the problem, that people can see this as distinctly different. Only lawyers think like that. To me, it is a distinction without a difference.

Doesn't matter, anyway. When the case for ObamaCare was argued before the SC, the plaintiffs clearly won the day in arguments. The government attorney got creamed. He was pathetic, completely unprepared. And it didn't matter. The fix was in. The arguments meant nothing. The merits of your case mean nothing. They are going to decide whatever they are going to decide. The trial is just for show. Smoke and mirrors.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In connection with Obamacare’s so-called “women’s preventive services” mandate..."

Phrase recalls a program the guidance services in a school district in which I taught came up with - and, as a teacher, I was in favor of for some students. The program was called "Youth Prevention." After a few weeks, the name was changed, for an obvious reason.

I'm sure there are some men out there who would be in favor of "women preventive services", as well.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All