So, Kim Davis, an employee of the State of Kentucky refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Just like employees of Hobby Lobby cannot compel it to provide services it finds objectionable so too a government employee cannot alter the terms of their employment and refuse to perform their duties as required by law.
If the terms of employment as expanded by the SCOTUS regarding same sex marriage so profoundly offends her values then she ought to do the honourable thing and resign. Like Hobby Lobby employees, her employment is not a right.
Kim Davis objections may be sound in reaction to a decision that invented a right out of thin air. That is to say that marriage is not a RIGHT for ANYONE. However, a decision has been made and she was correctly held in contempt of court. It is not as Mike Huckabee demagogically declared a "war on Christianity".
My objection is directed towards those who cite the "rule of Law" and its needing to be enforced.
For those who recite this I must ask whether you would support the DEA shutting down dispensers of pot in California and Colorado? It's still illegal under federal law which has supremacy over state law. Will you now demand they arrest the proprietors? If not, why not?
How about sanctuary cities and the rule of law?
So, as Kim Davis rots in jail go right ahead and light up a joint with an illegal immigrant and celebrate the "rule of law". After all we only care about the law when it's in line with our politics.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Friday, September 04, 2015
Monday, July 01, 2013
Gay marriage fight now becomes a religious liberty fight
From: Washington Examiner by Timothy Carney
Today's talk of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage will soon give way to intolerance and rejection of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
The next offensive in this culture war will involve wielding government to force individuals to accept the new definition of marriage, falsely invoking analogies to civil rights.
As a prototype, consider the assault on the liberty of Elaine Huguenin, the wedding photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a couple asked her to photograph their wedding. When she learned the couple were lesbians, she declined, explaining that pursuant to her faith, she only photographed man-woman weddings.
The couple got a different photographer, but they sued Huguenin. In New Mexico, there is no gay marriage. In a recent poll, most New Mexicans said they oppose gay marriage. But the state outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin had broken the law, and ordered her to pay $7,000. Huguenin, with the aide of the pro-bono civil liberties law firm Alliance Defense Fund, has sued and the case is now before state Supreme Court.
Try to live your own life according to traditional values, and the state will come after you, and compel you live according to its values.
Florist Barronelle Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash. A gay man, who was a long-time customer of Arlene's, asked Stutzman to arrange flowers for his wedding. She declined, citing her belief that marriage is a union between a man and woman. Now Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is coming after Stutzman, saying, in effect, she must participate in this gay wedding.
How does Ferguson justify using the power of the state to impose his morality? "If Ms. Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Ferguson saying, "she must sell them to same-sex couples."
But obviously Stutzman did sell flowers to same-sex couples, happily - that's why this particular client was a long-time customer. What she refuses to do is participate in a ceremony that the state calls marriage, but which she doesn't consider to be marriage.
This is why the civil rights analogy doesn't work. Huguenin's case and Stutzman's case aren't about small businesswomen refusing to serve gay people. They are about businesswomen refusing to endorse the novel definition of marriage.
Now that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the only reason to object to gay marriage is to "demean" gay people, expect this offensive in the culture war to escalate.
President Obama promised that he won't try to force churches to administer gay weddings. That's very kind of him. But Obama's contraception mandate has shown us how narrowly he views religious liberty.
Maybe Obama or his successor won't use an executive order to rewrite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but government will go after churches all the same. The Cardinal O'Boyle Hall that your parish occasionally rents to outside groups? Better allow gay wedding receptions there or face the wrath of the state.
You're allowed to be religious, of course, but only on the Sabbath. If you dare step into the world of commerce or public service, the government will impose its morality on you.
You see it in Obama's rhetoric: he talks of "freedom of worship" rather than freedom of religion. It's a push to bring to heel all rivals of government. Liberal writer Kevin Drum made it pretty explicit during the contraception mandate debate:
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," he wrote, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
The thrust: religious groups should only do religion--they shouldn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, educate the young.
And individuals who adhere to religions? Leave your faith at the church door. The Obama administration has argued in the contraception mandate cases that we lose our freedom of conscience the second we enter into commerce with other people.
The Left has long been the aggressor in the culture war. The crushing power of government has long been their weapon.
Many politically involved writers and advocates concerned with liberty and equality fought to open marriage to gay couples. Now that they've won, here's hoping that those who care about liberty will defend the liberty of cultural conservatives to live their lives according to their faith.
Today's talk of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage will soon give way to intolerance and rejection of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
The next offensive in this culture war will involve wielding government to force individuals to accept the new definition of marriage, falsely invoking analogies to civil rights.
As a prototype, consider the assault on the liberty of Elaine Huguenin, the wedding photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a couple asked her to photograph their wedding. When she learned the couple were lesbians, she declined, explaining that pursuant to her faith, she only photographed man-woman weddings.
The couple got a different photographer, but they sued Huguenin. In New Mexico, there is no gay marriage. In a recent poll, most New Mexicans said they oppose gay marriage. But the state outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin had broken the law, and ordered her to pay $7,000. Huguenin, with the aide of the pro-bono civil liberties law firm Alliance Defense Fund, has sued and the case is now before state Supreme Court.
Try to live your own life according to traditional values, and the state will come after you, and compel you live according to its values.
Florist Barronelle Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash. A gay man, who was a long-time customer of Arlene's, asked Stutzman to arrange flowers for his wedding. She declined, citing her belief that marriage is a union between a man and woman. Now Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is coming after Stutzman, saying, in effect, she must participate in this gay wedding.
How does Ferguson justify using the power of the state to impose his morality? "If Ms. Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Ferguson saying, "she must sell them to same-sex couples."
But obviously Stutzman did sell flowers to same-sex couples, happily - that's why this particular client was a long-time customer. What she refuses to do is participate in a ceremony that the state calls marriage, but which she doesn't consider to be marriage.
This is why the civil rights analogy doesn't work. Huguenin's case and Stutzman's case aren't about small businesswomen refusing to serve gay people. They are about businesswomen refusing to endorse the novel definition of marriage.
Now that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the only reason to object to gay marriage is to "demean" gay people, expect this offensive in the culture war to escalate.
President Obama promised that he won't try to force churches to administer gay weddings. That's very kind of him. But Obama's contraception mandate has shown us how narrowly he views religious liberty.
Maybe Obama or his successor won't use an executive order to rewrite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but government will go after churches all the same. The Cardinal O'Boyle Hall that your parish occasionally rents to outside groups? Better allow gay wedding receptions there or face the wrath of the state.
You're allowed to be religious, of course, but only on the Sabbath. If you dare step into the world of commerce or public service, the government will impose its morality on you.
You see it in Obama's rhetoric: he talks of "freedom of worship" rather than freedom of religion. It's a push to bring to heel all rivals of government. Liberal writer Kevin Drum made it pretty explicit during the contraception mandate debate:
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," he wrote, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
The thrust: religious groups should only do religion--they shouldn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, educate the young.
And individuals who adhere to religions? Leave your faith at the church door. The Obama administration has argued in the contraception mandate cases that we lose our freedom of conscience the second we enter into commerce with other people.
The Left has long been the aggressor in the culture war. The crushing power of government has long been their weapon.
Many politically involved writers and advocates concerned with liberty and equality fought to open marriage to gay couples. Now that they've won, here's hoping that those who care about liberty will defend the liberty of cultural conservatives to live their lives according to their faith.
Critics say Supreme Court's Prop 8 ruling takes power from voters
From: Washington Times
Conservative activists traditionally have used the ballot measure to greater effect than liberals, but left-wing political blogger Kevin Drum of Mother Jones agreed that the decision “has neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance, regardless of whether I like the outcome.”
“In cases like these, of course the governor and legislature are going to decline to defend the law in court,” Mr. Drum said in a post last week. The high court is “basically gutting the people’s right to pass initiatives that elected officials don’t like and then to defend them all the way to the highest court in the land.”
About half the states allow citizen ballot initiatives and popular referendums, and all states have mechanisms for their legislatures to refer issues to the ballot. The initiative typically is used “when elected representatives don’t do what the people want,” Mr. Matsusaka said.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, any ballot measure passed by state voters can be rendered moot by a lawsuit combined with an unsympathetic state attorney general.
In Colorado, for example, conservatives immediately connected the dots to the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a 1992 initiative that requires voters to approve tax increases. If Democrats in the blue-trending state are able to replace term-limited Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, with one from their own party next year, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights could be eliminated.
“Did the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Just Destroy Colorado’s TABOR Law?” said a headline Wednesday on the Colorado MediaTrackers website.
Conservative Denver commentator Joshua Sharf said the 20-year-old constitutional amendment “might be left without defense, and without any party with standing to conduct a defense.” It could be “killed by default,” he said.
In his dissent to the Prop 8 ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy broached the same issue, writing that the majority opinion “has implications for the 26 states that use an initiative or popular referendum system.”
“The court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the court now leaves unremedied,” Mr. Kennedy said.
In an unusual breakdown on the normally ideologically divided court, the centrist Justice Kennedy was joined in his dissent by conservative Justices Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas and liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Some constitutional scholars defended Chief Justice Roberts‘ ruling, saying it closely tracked with precedent and that any other decision could have led to enormous practical problems.
“Allowing private individuals to invoke federal court jurisdiction when they disagree with a government’s decision not to defend a law would have vitiated the long-settled [constitutional] requirement that federal court litigants have a direct and particularized interest in the case they pursue,” Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg wrote in a lengthy posting on the popular SCOTUSblog.com website.
“And this, in turn, would have created enormous political problems. Proposition 8’s sponsors — while claiming to be acting in the California government’s stead — were making arguments condemning gay parents that directly contradicted California law and policy,” she wrote.
Coincidentally, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the high court struck down Wednesday, was nearly left without a defense after the Obama administration refused to respond to a lawsuit filed against it. Instead, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives provided the funds to pay non-government attorneys to defend the measure.
Such examples of executive-branch cherry-picking are rare, but analysts say they could become more common as a result of Wednesday’s decision.
“Most government officials see it as their obligation to enforce the laws when they take their oath, so it’s unusual,” said Mr. Matsusaka, “but now that we know you can do it, I think we’re going to see more of it.”
Conservative activists traditionally have used the ballot measure to greater effect than liberals, but left-wing political blogger Kevin Drum of Mother Jones agreed that the decision “has neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance, regardless of whether I like the outcome.”
“In cases like these, of course the governor and legislature are going to decline to defend the law in court,” Mr. Drum said in a post last week. The high court is “basically gutting the people’s right to pass initiatives that elected officials don’t like and then to defend them all the way to the highest court in the land.”
About half the states allow citizen ballot initiatives and popular referendums, and all states have mechanisms for their legislatures to refer issues to the ballot. The initiative typically is used “when elected representatives don’t do what the people want,” Mr. Matsusaka said.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, any ballot measure passed by state voters can be rendered moot by a lawsuit combined with an unsympathetic state attorney general.
In Colorado, for example, conservatives immediately connected the dots to the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a 1992 initiative that requires voters to approve tax increases. If Democrats in the blue-trending state are able to replace term-limited Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, with one from their own party next year, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights could be eliminated.
“Did the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Just Destroy Colorado’s TABOR Law?” said a headline Wednesday on the Colorado MediaTrackers website.
Conservative Denver commentator Joshua Sharf said the 20-year-old constitutional amendment “might be left without defense, and without any party with standing to conduct a defense.” It could be “killed by default,” he said.
In his dissent to the Prop 8 ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy broached the same issue, writing that the majority opinion “has implications for the 26 states that use an initiative or popular referendum system.”
“The court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the court now leaves unremedied,” Mr. Kennedy said.
In an unusual breakdown on the normally ideologically divided court, the centrist Justice Kennedy was joined in his dissent by conservative Justices Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas and liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Some constitutional scholars defended Chief Justice Roberts‘ ruling, saying it closely tracked with precedent and that any other decision could have led to enormous practical problems.
“Allowing private individuals to invoke federal court jurisdiction when they disagree with a government’s decision not to defend a law would have vitiated the long-settled [constitutional] requirement that federal court litigants have a direct and particularized interest in the case they pursue,” Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg wrote in a lengthy posting on the popular SCOTUSblog.com website.
“And this, in turn, would have created enormous political problems. Proposition 8’s sponsors — while claiming to be acting in the California government’s stead — were making arguments condemning gay parents that directly contradicted California law and policy,” she wrote.
Coincidentally, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the high court struck down Wednesday, was nearly left without a defense after the Obama administration refused to respond to a lawsuit filed against it. Instead, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives provided the funds to pay non-government attorneys to defend the measure.
Such examples of executive-branch cherry-picking are rare, but analysts say they could become more common as a result of Wednesday’s decision.
“Most government officials see it as their obligation to enforce the laws when they take their oath, so it’s unusual,” said Mr. Matsusaka, “but now that we know you can do it, I think we’re going to see more of it.”
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Catholic Bishops Unanimous ‘In Our Vigorous Opposition to This Unjust and Illegal Mandate
From: CNSNews.com
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—sets the stage for an historically unprecedented confrontation between Roman Catholics and the federal government over whether Catholics remain free to exercise their religion in the United States of America.
The court’s decision leaves untouched the “preventive services” provision in the legislation under which the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
On June 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States—representing dioceses from Los Angeles to New York, from New Orleans to Chicago, from Miami to Seattle, and from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco—unanimously adopted a document that cited their “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and because the individual mandate in Obamacare will force virtually all individuals in the United States to purchase government approved health-care plans, Obamacare—as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday—will require all Catholic laypersons in the United States to buy health insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith.
The HHS regulation will also require Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate the Catholic faith.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a Catholic who has been ordered by her archbishop not to take Holy Communion until she recants her position in favor of legal abortion and goes to confession—has given most employers until Aug. 1 to comply with this regulation. She has allowed religiously affiliated non-profit organizations (such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) that do not currently cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients an additional year--until Aug. 1, 2013--to comply with the mandate and then violate the teachings of their faith.
Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions—including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University—have filed lawsuits against the sterilzation-contraception-abortifacient mandate arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Since the Catholics filed their lawsuits, President Obama has boasted about the contraception mandate in public speeches.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—sets the stage for an historically unprecedented confrontation between Roman Catholics and the federal government over whether Catholics remain free to exercise their religion in the United States of America.
The court’s decision leaves untouched the “preventive services” provision in the legislation under which the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
On June 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States—representing dioceses from Los Angeles to New York, from New Orleans to Chicago, from Miami to Seattle, and from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco—unanimously adopted a document that cited their “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and because the individual mandate in Obamacare will force virtually all individuals in the United States to purchase government approved health-care plans, Obamacare—as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday—will require all Catholic laypersons in the United States to buy health insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith.
The HHS regulation will also require Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate the Catholic faith.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a Catholic who has been ordered by her archbishop not to take Holy Communion until she recants her position in favor of legal abortion and goes to confession—has given most employers until Aug. 1 to comply with this regulation. She has allowed religiously affiliated non-profit organizations (such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) that do not currently cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients an additional year--until Aug. 1, 2013--to comply with the mandate and then violate the teachings of their faith.
Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions—including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University—have filed lawsuits against the sterilzation-contraception-abortifacient mandate arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Since the Catholics filed their lawsuits, President Obama has boasted about the contraception mandate in public speeches.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police
From: Washington Times
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.
“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.
But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.
Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.
On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.
The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.
On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.
“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.
But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.
Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.
On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.
The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.
On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama's immigration law claim
From: Washington Times
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.
Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Critics have said the law, known as SB 1070, will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics in Arizona. But the Obama administration has not challenged the law on those grounds, instead focusing on issues of federal versus state power.
Mr. Verrilli said Arizona’s goal is to try to force the federal government to change its priorities, but he said those policies are designed at the national level in order to balance concerns over available resources and international relations.
“What [Arizona is] going to do is engage effectively in mass incarceration,” he said. “It poses a very serious risk of raising serious foreign relations problems.”
Some of the justices, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemed concerned that allowing police to perform immigration checks could end up leading citizens being held even longer during stops by police.
Mr. Clement said the law still complies with the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable searches.
Anticipating an unfavorable ruling, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona law, said Tuesday that if the court does uphold the state’s law, he will introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal government sole control on immigration matters.
Mr. Schumer’s legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that upheld a separate Arizona law that requires all businesses in the state to check employees’ legal status using E-Verify, the federal government’s electronic verification system.
In that instance Congress specifically left open the chance for states to pass their own business licensing laws, and in a 5-3 ruling the justices upheld Arizona’s attempt.
Since Arizona passed its laws, other states have followed suit. Local enforcement laws have been adopted in a half-dozen states, though all have been challenged in court. Still states have adopted requirements that businesses use E-Verify.
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.
Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Critics have said the law, known as SB 1070, will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics in Arizona. But the Obama administration has not challenged the law on those grounds, instead focusing on issues of federal versus state power.
Mr. Verrilli said Arizona’s goal is to try to force the federal government to change its priorities, but he said those policies are designed at the national level in order to balance concerns over available resources and international relations.
“What [Arizona is] going to do is engage effectively in mass incarceration,” he said. “It poses a very serious risk of raising serious foreign relations problems.”
Some of the justices, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemed concerned that allowing police to perform immigration checks could end up leading citizens being held even longer during stops by police.
Mr. Clement said the law still complies with the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable searches.
Anticipating an unfavorable ruling, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona law, said Tuesday that if the court does uphold the state’s law, he will introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal government sole control on immigration matters.
Mr. Schumer’s legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that upheld a separate Arizona law that requires all businesses in the state to check employees’ legal status using E-Verify, the federal government’s electronic verification system.
In that instance Congress specifically left open the chance for states to pass their own business licensing laws, and in a 5-3 ruling the justices upheld Arizona’s attempt.
Since Arizona passed its laws, other states have followed suit. Local enforcement laws have been adopted in a half-dozen states, though all have been challenged in court. Still states have adopted requirements that businesses use E-Verify.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Supreme Court To Take On Arizona Immigration Law
FROM: Washington Times
The Supreme Court’s health care showdown last month was all about Constitution theory and prerogatives. Wednesday’s arguments between Arizona and the Obama administration over the state’s tough immigration law looks to be all about power.
Arizona argues that the federal government has failed to enforce its laws on the books and says states should be free to enforce their own laws as long as they complement the national goals. Obama attorneys say the Constitution gives power over immigration to the federal government, and there can be no infringement.
The electorate is clearly on the side of Arizona: A Quinnipiac University Poll last week found that 62 percent of voters said they want the court to uphold the law.
But what the justices do is another matter altogether.
The law at stake, known as S.B. 1070, would grant state and local police the power to check the immigration status of those with whom they come into contact who they suspect are in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their papers — a mandate of federal law.
First a district court and then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked those parts of the law, sending S.B. 1070 on to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, other states — including South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Utah — have followed Arizona’s lead in granting police enforcement powers.
Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer in New Jersey, said filling in where the federal government is failing is not a constitutional reason to tread on federal prerogatives.
“The problem is that you can’t have a patchwork — we can’t have a quilt made of different patches in different states,” he said. “We need a seamless federal immigration law that will treat everybody equally.”
Mr. Wildes said the polling that showed most Americans favor Arizona’s law is a testament to frustration with the federal government on immigration. He said voters, egged on by “the xenophobia the media has created,” are beginning to take an us-versus-them approach to immigration that he said would shock the country’s founders.
Kris Kobach, who helped write S.B. 1070, said the law was designed to help the federal government, not to compete with it. He said there is no federal law that conflicts with Arizona’s, but rather a federal policy by the Obama administration, which enforces the law selectively.
Mr. Kobach, who was elected secretary of state in Kansas in 2010, said that would set a troublesome precedent.
“If the 9th Circuit decision is affirmed and Arizona loses, then we would be in a situation where the president or any minor official in the executive branch could simply invalidate dozens of state laws by issuing a formal statement or order,” he said. “They literally are saying that unelected officials can pre-empt state laws merely by saying the state law doesn’t meet their preferences.”
While President Obama and his advisers criticized the law in 2010 for leading to potential racial profiling, the lawsuit they filed asking the court to block it relies not on discrimination claims but on issues of government power and decision-making.
In one claim, the administration says the law interferes with the federal government’s ability to control foreign relations. Underscoring that claim, the government’s legal brief filed with the Supreme Court is signed by the State Department’s legal adviser, Harold Koh.
The Supreme Court’s health care showdown last month was all about Constitution theory and prerogatives. Wednesday’s arguments between Arizona and the Obama administration over the state’s tough immigration law looks to be all about power.
Arizona argues that the federal government has failed to enforce its laws on the books and says states should be free to enforce their own laws as long as they complement the national goals. Obama attorneys say the Constitution gives power over immigration to the federal government, and there can be no infringement.
The electorate is clearly on the side of Arizona: A Quinnipiac University Poll last week found that 62 percent of voters said they want the court to uphold the law.
But what the justices do is another matter altogether.
The law at stake, known as S.B. 1070, would grant state and local police the power to check the immigration status of those with whom they come into contact who they suspect are in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their papers — a mandate of federal law.
First a district court and then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked those parts of the law, sending S.B. 1070 on to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, other states — including South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Utah — have followed Arizona’s lead in granting police enforcement powers.
Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer in New Jersey, said filling in where the federal government is failing is not a constitutional reason to tread on federal prerogatives.
“The problem is that you can’t have a patchwork — we can’t have a quilt made of different patches in different states,” he said. “We need a seamless federal immigration law that will treat everybody equally.”
Mr. Wildes said the polling that showed most Americans favor Arizona’s law is a testament to frustration with the federal government on immigration. He said voters, egged on by “the xenophobia the media has created,” are beginning to take an us-versus-them approach to immigration that he said would shock the country’s founders.
Kris Kobach, who helped write S.B. 1070, said the law was designed to help the federal government, not to compete with it. He said there is no federal law that conflicts with Arizona’s, but rather a federal policy by the Obama administration, which enforces the law selectively.
Mr. Kobach, who was elected secretary of state in Kansas in 2010, said that would set a troublesome precedent.
“If the 9th Circuit decision is affirmed and Arizona loses, then we would be in a situation where the president or any minor official in the executive branch could simply invalidate dozens of state laws by issuing a formal statement or order,” he said. “They literally are saying that unelected officials can pre-empt state laws merely by saying the state law doesn’t meet their preferences.”
While President Obama and his advisers criticized the law in 2010 for leading to potential racial profiling, the lawsuit they filed asking the court to block it relies not on discrimination claims but on issues of government power and decision-making.
In one claim, the administration says the law interferes with the federal government’s ability to control foreign relations. Underscoring that claim, the government’s legal brief filed with the Supreme Court is signed by the State Department’s legal adviser, Harold Koh.
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
911 Call: As Botched Abortion Injures Woman, Abortionist Laughs
From: LifeNews.com
The transcript of a 911 call a late-term abortion practitioner made to emergency personnel when a botched abortion victimized a woman at his abortion facility shows Martin Haskell laughing.
As LifeNews reported, a woman was rushed to a local hospital in the Cincinnati suburb of Sharonville, Ohio after appearing to have suffered from a botched abortion at the facility run by the abortion practitioner credited with promoting partial-birth abortions.
Operation Rescue has obtained a recording of a 911 call placed by Haskell after one of his patient suffered life-threatening seizures following an abortion. The call reveals Haskell was unsure of the patient’s age and described her as 19 or 20 years old. He told an emergency dispatcher that she had experienced “status epilepticus” since coming out of anesthesia. Status epilepticus is a life-threatening condition in which the brain is in a state of persistent seizure lasting more than 5 minutes.
The pro-life group indicates Haskell is heard laughing at the dispatcher when she offered him additional emergency instructions until the emergency responders could arrive.
“Haskell is a danger to the public, plain and simple. We are urging the Ohio Department of Health to rescind Haskell’s variance and close his dangerous abortion clinic immediately in the interest of public safety,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation.
Newman complains Haskell has no hospital privileges as required by law and points out Haskell has received a variance from the Ohio Department of Health to continue operating as long as other physicians agree to cover his abortion complications once patients have been admitted. One of those physicians, William T. Bowers II, has been disciplined in two states and is under criminal investigation in another.
Newman is urging pro-life advocates and other concerned Ohio citizens to contact the ODH and ask them to rescind Haskell’s variance and close his abortion clinic.
Dr. Steven Brinn, a pediatrician whose offices are next door to the Women’s Med Center abortion facility, commented on the incident.
“Today, March 28, paramedics with ambulance and police were called to Haskell’s Abortion Clinic in Sharonville and this was witnessed by many,” Brinn said. “”A young woman was seen being carried out on a stretcher by paramedics who were bagging the woman (giving life support). It is assumed that the woman suffered some kind of complication in the clinic while she was there for treatment. Police were also at the scene and closed down the clinic for a time.”
“Some of us in the SHD [Sharonville Health Department] and in the Medical community have worried about the care being unsafe at the Haskell Abortion Clinic and have heard of many other examples of 911 calls and ambulance calls,” Brinn added.
Paula Westwood, Executive Director of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, commented on the potential failed abortion.
“The Women’s Medical Center is one of several abortion facilities owned by abortionist Martin Haskell, who has championed the gruesome late-term partial birth abortion procedure,” she said. “The WMC remains open despite the fact that Haskell could not comply with a regulation requiring an Ambulatory Surgical Facility (ASF) to have a transfer agreement with an area hospital to handle complications from his procedures.”
Much to the chagrin of pro-life advocates and local Sharonville officials, the Ohio health department has updated an arrangement that allows Haskell to continue doing abortions without following state law requiring him to have a transfer agreement at a local hospital.
In 1996, Ohio passed a law requiring that all ambulatory surgical centers must be licensed by the state and, in 1999, it came to the attention of the Ohio Health Department that abortion clinics were not in compliance with the law, having never applied for licensing. The OHD began the process of insuring that all abortion clinics came into compliance.
Haskell refused to comply and, after years of court and administrative battles, the administration of former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland granted a variance [exception] allowing the late-term abortion practitioner to open a new abortion facility in Sharonville, Ohio, the Women’s Med Center at 11250 Lebanon Road. The state gave him this variance on the condition that he maintains privileges at an area hospital, a lesser standard than a transfer agreement.
Haskell’s variance has been modified and Ted Wymyslo, the health department director, says Haskell is no longer required to have privileges at an area hospital or a transfer agreement. He is allowed to operate by having his partner, Roslyn Kade, and two other Cincinnati doctors, David Schwartz and Walter J. Bowers, handle his emergency complications.
That decision is meeting with strong condemnation from Virgil Lovitt, the mayor of Sharonville and president of the Sharonville Board of Health.
“Now, Martin Haskell can continue to perform abortions without meeting these requirements, and he can replace his skills with other doctors that, also, do not need to meet the written state regulations,” he said. “Any abortionists working at the Women’s Med Center are now covered by the credentials of Dr. Haskell’s partner, Roslyn Kade, and two doctors off-site. This has expanded the variance to beyond the career of this 71-year old abortionist. Martin Haskell can finally retire and his late term abortion center will legally be able to operate indefinitely.”
Lovitt says the concerns are not merely hypothetical as the abortion clinic has already experienced botched abortions just one year after opening.
“Haskell’s two-day process for late term abortions has already produced one stillborn baby in a hotel toilet and another in a car on the way to an ER,” he said. “These complications are difficult to track, and there are probably more than we know. There are pro-life sidewalk educators outside the abortion facility, and it is estimated that this location is performing about 200 abortions each month.”
In August, Lovitt joined Mike Gonidakis of Ohio Right to Life, Paula Westwood of Cincinnati Right to Life, and Colleen Gerke of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati in a meeting with Wymyslo about Haskell where Lovitt says he “begged the new director not to liberalize the variance if Martin Haskell’s privileges at an area hospital changed.”
Westwood also complained about the health department’s decision, saying, “This expanded variance for the Women’s Med Center needlessly caters to the abortion industry at the cost of many unborn babies’ lives.”
She is calling on pro-life advocates to contact the following officials “to ask why the state of Ohio is helping the abortion industry.”
The transcript of a 911 call a late-term abortion practitioner made to emergency personnel when a botched abortion victimized a woman at his abortion facility shows Martin Haskell laughing.
As LifeNews reported, a woman was rushed to a local hospital in the Cincinnati suburb of Sharonville, Ohio after appearing to have suffered from a botched abortion at the facility run by the abortion practitioner credited with promoting partial-birth abortions.
Operation Rescue has obtained a recording of a 911 call placed by Haskell after one of his patient suffered life-threatening seizures following an abortion. The call reveals Haskell was unsure of the patient’s age and described her as 19 or 20 years old. He told an emergency dispatcher that she had experienced “status epilepticus” since coming out of anesthesia. Status epilepticus is a life-threatening condition in which the brain is in a state of persistent seizure lasting more than 5 minutes.
The pro-life group indicates Haskell is heard laughing at the dispatcher when she offered him additional emergency instructions until the emergency responders could arrive.
“Haskell is a danger to the public, plain and simple. We are urging the Ohio Department of Health to rescind Haskell’s variance and close his dangerous abortion clinic immediately in the interest of public safety,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation.
Newman complains Haskell has no hospital privileges as required by law and points out Haskell has received a variance from the Ohio Department of Health to continue operating as long as other physicians agree to cover his abortion complications once patients have been admitted. One of those physicians, William T. Bowers II, has been disciplined in two states and is under criminal investigation in another.
Newman is urging pro-life advocates and other concerned Ohio citizens to contact the ODH and ask them to rescind Haskell’s variance and close his abortion clinic.
Dr. Steven Brinn, a pediatrician whose offices are next door to the Women’s Med Center abortion facility, commented on the incident.
“Today, March 28, paramedics with ambulance and police were called to Haskell’s Abortion Clinic in Sharonville and this was witnessed by many,” Brinn said. “”A young woman was seen being carried out on a stretcher by paramedics who were bagging the woman (giving life support). It is assumed that the woman suffered some kind of complication in the clinic while she was there for treatment. Police were also at the scene and closed down the clinic for a time.”
“Some of us in the SHD [Sharonville Health Department] and in the Medical community have worried about the care being unsafe at the Haskell Abortion Clinic and have heard of many other examples of 911 calls and ambulance calls,” Brinn added.
Paula Westwood, Executive Director of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, commented on the potential failed abortion.
“The Women’s Medical Center is one of several abortion facilities owned by abortionist Martin Haskell, who has championed the gruesome late-term partial birth abortion procedure,” she said. “The WMC remains open despite the fact that Haskell could not comply with a regulation requiring an Ambulatory Surgical Facility (ASF) to have a transfer agreement with an area hospital to handle complications from his procedures.”
Much to the chagrin of pro-life advocates and local Sharonville officials, the Ohio health department has updated an arrangement that allows Haskell to continue doing abortions without following state law requiring him to have a transfer agreement at a local hospital.
In 1996, Ohio passed a law requiring that all ambulatory surgical centers must be licensed by the state and, in 1999, it came to the attention of the Ohio Health Department that abortion clinics were not in compliance with the law, having never applied for licensing. The OHD began the process of insuring that all abortion clinics came into compliance.
Haskell refused to comply and, after years of court and administrative battles, the administration of former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland granted a variance [exception] allowing the late-term abortion practitioner to open a new abortion facility in Sharonville, Ohio, the Women’s Med Center at 11250 Lebanon Road. The state gave him this variance on the condition that he maintains privileges at an area hospital, a lesser standard than a transfer agreement.
Haskell’s variance has been modified and Ted Wymyslo, the health department director, says Haskell is no longer required to have privileges at an area hospital or a transfer agreement. He is allowed to operate by having his partner, Roslyn Kade, and two other Cincinnati doctors, David Schwartz and Walter J. Bowers, handle his emergency complications.
That decision is meeting with strong condemnation from Virgil Lovitt, the mayor of Sharonville and president of the Sharonville Board of Health.
“Now, Martin Haskell can continue to perform abortions without meeting these requirements, and he can replace his skills with other doctors that, also, do not need to meet the written state regulations,” he said. “Any abortionists working at the Women’s Med Center are now covered by the credentials of Dr. Haskell’s partner, Roslyn Kade, and two doctors off-site. This has expanded the variance to beyond the career of this 71-year old abortionist. Martin Haskell can finally retire and his late term abortion center will legally be able to operate indefinitely.”
Lovitt says the concerns are not merely hypothetical as the abortion clinic has already experienced botched abortions just one year after opening.
“Haskell’s two-day process for late term abortions has already produced one stillborn baby in a hotel toilet and another in a car on the way to an ER,” he said. “These complications are difficult to track, and there are probably more than we know. There are pro-life sidewalk educators outside the abortion facility, and it is estimated that this location is performing about 200 abortions each month.”
In August, Lovitt joined Mike Gonidakis of Ohio Right to Life, Paula Westwood of Cincinnati Right to Life, and Colleen Gerke of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati in a meeting with Wymyslo about Haskell where Lovitt says he “begged the new director not to liberalize the variance if Martin Haskell’s privileges at an area hospital changed.”
Westwood also complained about the health department’s decision, saying, “This expanded variance for the Women’s Med Center needlessly caters to the abortion industry at the cost of many unborn babies’ lives.”
She is calling on pro-life advocates to contact the following officials “to ask why the state of Ohio is helping the abortion industry.”
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Justices signal possible trouble for health insurance mandate
From: Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on the controversial legislation.
Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.
"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.
"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.
The tough questioning of the administration's lawyer is no sure sign of how the justices will rule when they hand down their decision in the case, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., vs. State of Florida, et al., likely in June.
But Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal healthcare coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.
With the court's four liberal justices expected to vote to uphold the sweeping law, the administration will have to win over at least one of the five justices on the court's conservative wing.
Few believe Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel A. Alito Jr. will support the mandate. That has made Scalia, Kennedy and Roberts the focus of intense speculation for months.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. tried to argue that the insurance mandate would not open the door to other requirements to buy products because healthcare is unique.
"Virtually everyone in society is in this market,” said Verrilli, who was prodded on by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal justices. That means that if someone elects not to get health insurance but then gets sick, as everyone will, that person will pass along costs to everyone else, Verrilli explained.
To prevent that, the administration has argued that that Congress can use its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution to impose the mandate as a means to regulate health insurance.
The Constitution says Congress has the power to "regulate commerce" and to impose taxes to promote the general welfare. The court has in the past upheld federal laws regulating all manner of business -- from agriculture and aviation to who can be served at the corner coffee shop -- and Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy have in other cases supported the government’s broad authority in that area.
But Tuesday, the three -- and Alito -- repeatedly criticized the requirement to buy health insurance as forcing people to enter a market, which they said was a new and troubling use of federal power.
"That changes the relationship of the individual to the federal government," Kennedy said.
The architects of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included an insurance requirement after years of experience with insurance markets suggested that it is very difficult to guarantee health insurance to everyone, including people with preexisting medical conditions, without a way to induce younger, healthier people to get covered. That offsets the cost of insuring older, sicker ones.
Under the law, most Americans, starting in 2014, will have to get a health insurance plan that meets a basic set of standards or pay a tax penalty that will rise from $95 in 2014 to $695 in 2016. (The penalty for a family will be up to $2,085 in 2016.)
Health policy experts warn that without some incentive to get insurance, people could wait until they got seriously ill and then sign up for coverage, pushing up premiums for everyone.
The mandate was once embraced by both political parties. But more recently, it has been seized on by conservative critics of the healthcare law as an egregious example of government overreach. And it became the crux of lawsuits challenging the healthcare law by 26 states and plaintiffs represented by the conservative National Federation of Independent Business.
Over the last two years, federal courts across the country have issued conflicting rulings on the insurance requirement, though only one appellate court has backed the constitutional challenge to the law. Two high-profile conservative judges have supported the mandate.
The Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on the controversial legislation.
Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.
"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.
"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.
The tough questioning of the administration's lawyer is no sure sign of how the justices will rule when they hand down their decision in the case, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., vs. State of Florida, et al., likely in June.
But Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal healthcare coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.
With the court's four liberal justices expected to vote to uphold the sweeping law, the administration will have to win over at least one of the five justices on the court's conservative wing.
Few believe Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel A. Alito Jr. will support the mandate. That has made Scalia, Kennedy and Roberts the focus of intense speculation for months.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. tried to argue that the insurance mandate would not open the door to other requirements to buy products because healthcare is unique.
"Virtually everyone in society is in this market,” said Verrilli, who was prodded on by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal justices. That means that if someone elects not to get health insurance but then gets sick, as everyone will, that person will pass along costs to everyone else, Verrilli explained.
To prevent that, the administration has argued that that Congress can use its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution to impose the mandate as a means to regulate health insurance.
The Constitution says Congress has the power to "regulate commerce" and to impose taxes to promote the general welfare. The court has in the past upheld federal laws regulating all manner of business -- from agriculture and aviation to who can be served at the corner coffee shop -- and Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy have in other cases supported the government’s broad authority in that area.
But Tuesday, the three -- and Alito -- repeatedly criticized the requirement to buy health insurance as forcing people to enter a market, which they said was a new and troubling use of federal power.
"That changes the relationship of the individual to the federal government," Kennedy said.
The architects of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included an insurance requirement after years of experience with insurance markets suggested that it is very difficult to guarantee health insurance to everyone, including people with preexisting medical conditions, without a way to induce younger, healthier people to get covered. That offsets the cost of insuring older, sicker ones.
Under the law, most Americans, starting in 2014, will have to get a health insurance plan that meets a basic set of standards or pay a tax penalty that will rise from $95 in 2014 to $695 in 2016. (The penalty for a family will be up to $2,085 in 2016.)
Health policy experts warn that without some incentive to get insurance, people could wait until they got seriously ill and then sign up for coverage, pushing up premiums for everyone.
The mandate was once embraced by both political parties. But more recently, it has been seized on by conservative critics of the healthcare law as an egregious example of government overreach. And it became the crux of lawsuits challenging the healthcare law by 26 states and plaintiffs represented by the conservative National Federation of Independent Business.
Over the last two years, federal courts across the country have issued conflicting rulings on the insurance requirement, though only one appellate court has backed the constitutional challenge to the law. Two high-profile conservative judges have supported the mandate.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Thursday, October 13, 2011
DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church Who Its Ministers Will Be
From: CNSnews.com
In yet another stunning attack on freedom of religion, President Barack Obama's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court last week to give the federal government the power to tell a church who its ministers will be.
The case involves a former teacher at Lutheran school, who along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pushing a claim that a Lutheran congregation should be forced to restore her ministry position.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists, Inc. have filed briefs siding with the Obama administration against the church.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and the American Center for Law and Justice are among those who have filed briefs supporting the Lutherans.
In 1999, the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., hired Cheryl Perich to be a lay teacher on a one-year contract in its kindergarten.
The next year, Perich became a "called" teacher at the school after she became a commissioned minister in the church.
"To receive a call, a candidate must be selected by a local church congregation," said a brief the church submitted to the Supreme Court that was prepared by lawyers at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School.
"At Hosanna-Tabor, the school board typically presents a choice of candidates to the congregation, and after prayerfully considering the candidates, the congregation extends a call via congregational vote," the brief said. "Once the call has been accepted, the candidate is installed in office via the public rite of 'commissioning,' and is recognized as a 'Minister of Religion, Commissioned' — also known as a 'commissioned minister.'"
As a minister in the school, Perich taught religious classes, led students in prayer and performed other religious tasks. She was also expected to integrate the teaching of the Lutheran faith into all so-called "secular" classes, including math, science, social studies and art.
In 2004, Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and was unable to teach the fall semester. In January 2005, when she could not return, the school hired another teacher to take her place during the spring.
Later that month, according to a brief filed by the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General, Perich informed the school's principal, Stacey Hoeft, via email that she would be able to return to work the following month.
The principal informed her they had already hired a replacement teacher for the rest of the year.
The congregation then voted to ask Perich for a "peaceful release from her call."
"'Peaceful release' is a religious act by which a congregation and a called minister agree to release one another from the mutual obligations of the call," says the brief submitted by the church.
"Peaceful releases are common, and they leave the called minister in good standing and eligible for a new call."
Perich declined to be peacefully released. In late February, she showed up at the school and met with Principal Hoeft.
"Later that day, Perich told Hoeft that if she were not reinstated, she would sue the church," said the church's brief. "Hoeft immediately asked Perich if that were what she really meant, because a lawsuit would clearly violate the church's conflict resolution policy applicable to called employees. Perich repeated the threat."
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod explained this teaching in its own brief: "St. Paul teaches in his first letter to the Corinthians that Christians should generally resolve their disputes internally without going to the secular courts for relief." For this reason, the church has developed procedures for settling internal disputes.
A few weeks after the meeting between Perich and Hoeft, the Hosanna-Tabor congregation voted to "rescind Perich's call" because she had threatened to sue the church contrary to the church's teaching.
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against the church under the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging a single count of retaliation," says the church's brief. "Perich intervened, alleging the same retaliation claim and adding a retaliation claim under state law. Neither complaint alleges disability discrimination. Both complaints request an order reinstating Perich to her former position as a commissioned minister, together with back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief ordering new 'policies, practices, and programs' at the church."
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod told the court in its brief that its views on the ministry and the settlement of disputes may not be "widely shared" or "widely understood." "But," the church said, "they have been the views of orthodox Lutherans for centuries."
Acting Deputy Solicitor General Leondra Kruger told the court, during oral arguments, that the federal government should be able to trump the church on these decisions.
"Their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits," said Kruger. "And we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims."
Kruger contended this did not mean the government could order the Catholic Church to ordain female priests. But, even then, according to her argument, it would be a matter of the government weighing "the relative public and private interests at stake."
What is at stake is the First Amendment and the religious freedom of all Americans.
In yet another stunning attack on freedom of religion, President Barack Obama's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court last week to give the federal government the power to tell a church who its ministers will be.
The case involves a former teacher at Lutheran school, who along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pushing a claim that a Lutheran congregation should be forced to restore her ministry position.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists, Inc. have filed briefs siding with the Obama administration against the church.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and the American Center for Law and Justice are among those who have filed briefs supporting the Lutherans.
In 1999, the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., hired Cheryl Perich to be a lay teacher on a one-year contract in its kindergarten.
The next year, Perich became a "called" teacher at the school after she became a commissioned minister in the church.
"To receive a call, a candidate must be selected by a local church congregation," said a brief the church submitted to the Supreme Court that was prepared by lawyers at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School.
"At Hosanna-Tabor, the school board typically presents a choice of candidates to the congregation, and after prayerfully considering the candidates, the congregation extends a call via congregational vote," the brief said. "Once the call has been accepted, the candidate is installed in office via the public rite of 'commissioning,' and is recognized as a 'Minister of Religion, Commissioned' — also known as a 'commissioned minister.'"
As a minister in the school, Perich taught religious classes, led students in prayer and performed other religious tasks. She was also expected to integrate the teaching of the Lutheran faith into all so-called "secular" classes, including math, science, social studies and art.
In 2004, Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and was unable to teach the fall semester. In January 2005, when she could not return, the school hired another teacher to take her place during the spring.
Later that month, according to a brief filed by the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General, Perich informed the school's principal, Stacey Hoeft, via email that she would be able to return to work the following month.
The principal informed her they had already hired a replacement teacher for the rest of the year.
The congregation then voted to ask Perich for a "peaceful release from her call."
"'Peaceful release' is a religious act by which a congregation and a called minister agree to release one another from the mutual obligations of the call," says the brief submitted by the church.
"Peaceful releases are common, and they leave the called minister in good standing and eligible for a new call."
Perich declined to be peacefully released. In late February, she showed up at the school and met with Principal Hoeft.
"Later that day, Perich told Hoeft that if she were not reinstated, she would sue the church," said the church's brief. "Hoeft immediately asked Perich if that were what she really meant, because a lawsuit would clearly violate the church's conflict resolution policy applicable to called employees. Perich repeated the threat."
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod explained this teaching in its own brief: "St. Paul teaches in his first letter to the Corinthians that Christians should generally resolve their disputes internally without going to the secular courts for relief." For this reason, the church has developed procedures for settling internal disputes.
A few weeks after the meeting between Perich and Hoeft, the Hosanna-Tabor congregation voted to "rescind Perich's call" because she had threatened to sue the church contrary to the church's teaching.
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against the church under the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging a single count of retaliation," says the church's brief. "Perich intervened, alleging the same retaliation claim and adding a retaliation claim under state law. Neither complaint alleges disability discrimination. Both complaints request an order reinstating Perich to her former position as a commissioned minister, together with back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief ordering new 'policies, practices, and programs' at the church."
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod told the court in its brief that its views on the ministry and the settlement of disputes may not be "widely shared" or "widely understood." "But," the church said, "they have been the views of orthodox Lutherans for centuries."
Acting Deputy Solicitor General Leondra Kruger told the court, during oral arguments, that the federal government should be able to trump the church on these decisions.
"Their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits," said Kruger. "And we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims."
Kruger contended this did not mean the government could order the Catholic Church to ordain female priests. But, even then, according to her argument, it would be a matter of the government weighing "the relative public and private interests at stake."
What is at stake is the First Amendment and the religious freedom of all Americans.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Supreme Court rejects appeal challenging SF anti-Catholic resolution
From: Catholic News Agency
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging a San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution which condemned Catholic teaching on adoption.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League called the decision “regrettable” but said that the case has helped blunt negative comments towards Catholicism in the city.
“I’m delighted that ever since this lawsuit came down, we’ve seen a pivot. Catholics are not treated with the same sort of invective and vitriol that were thrown at us in San Francisco before this lawsuit began,” Donohue told CNA on May 3.
“So I think the message was delivered. I’d like it to be delivered in a legal way as well, but there has been a taming there. I think they realized that perhaps they overstepped.”
Several individual Catholics from San Francisco and the Catholic League accused the city supervisors of expressing hostility to Catholicism and violating the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging a San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution which condemned Catholic teaching on adoption.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League called the decision “regrettable” but said that the case has helped blunt negative comments towards Catholicism in the city.
“I’m delighted that ever since this lawsuit came down, we’ve seen a pivot. Catholics are not treated with the same sort of invective and vitriol that were thrown at us in San Francisco before this lawsuit began,” Donohue told CNA on May 3.
“So I think the message was delivered. I’d like it to be delivered in a legal way as well, but there has been a taming there. I think they realized that perhaps they overstepped.”
Several individual Catholics from San Francisco and the Catholic League accused the city supervisors of expressing hostility to Catholicism and violating the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Supreme Court Dismisses ACLU
From: The Daily Caller
In a decision school choice advocates are cheering, the Supreme Court dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against an Arizona school program, which allows residents to get a tax break for donations to organizations that grant scholarships to private schools.
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the 5-4 majority opinion for the Court, saying that the ACLU and its clients did not have standing to challenge the private donations of others.
In a decision school choice advocates are cheering, the Supreme Court dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against an Arizona school program, which allows residents to get a tax break for donations to organizations that grant scholarships to private schools.
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the 5-4 majority opinion for the Court, saying that the ACLU and its clients did not have standing to challenge the private donations of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
