9-0 SCOTUS Tells Lower Court Pound Sand and Protect Little Sisters

[jon_berzerk]

I suspect that the case had a 4 to 4 split.

They don't want any thing of it right now.

unanimous opinion

Also wrong and a lie.

The Court rendered no opinion at all.

you live under a fucking rock or what

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf

Per Curiam= unanimous agreement retard

BIK v. BURWELL

Per Curiam

15–35 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–105 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–119 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; AND ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER 15–191 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May 16, 2016]

get a new fake internet occupation loser

 

[WorldWatcher]

you live under a fucking rock or what

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf

Per Curiam= unanimous agreement retard

BIK v. BURWELL

Per Curiam

15–35 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–105 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–119 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; AND ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER 15–191 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May 16, 2016]

get a new fake internet occupation loser

Did you read the decision? It specifically says it is not a decision on the merits of the case:

"The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.​

What happened is conditions changed AFTER oral arguments based on supplemental briefs supplied later. The SCOTUS then remand the case back to the lower courts for a new decision based on the changes.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the problem with this overall- The Catholic Church as a policy on contraception that is in conflict with what not only the majority of sexually active women practice, but what the majority of sexually active Catholic women practice.

White House official says 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception

More to the point, should one's health care be held hostage to the religious beliefs of one's employer? Your employer is not a doctor and neither is your Priest, Rabbi or Minister.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's the problem with this overall- The Catholic Church as a policy on contraception that is in conflict with what not only the majority of sexually active women practice, but what the majority of sexually active Catholic women practice.

White House official says 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception

More to the point, should one's health care be held hostage to the religious beliefs of one's employer? Your employer is not a doctor and neither is your Priest, Rabbi or Minister.

The case wasn't about whether women would be able to get contraception through the insurers.

The problem was Little Sisters didn't want to submit a form stating as a religoius organization they would not be including contraceptives. They felt that was enabling their employees to get contraceptives because they had to fill out a piece of paper saying "we don't provide contraceptives".

The people will still get contraceptives, it just appears that Little Sisters won't have to put in writing that they don't supply them because of a new deal worked out based on briefs requested by he court after oral arguments had already been made.


Go figure.

>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

you live under a fucking rock or what

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf

Per Curiam= unanimous agreement retard

BIK v. BURWELL

Per Curiam

15–35 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–105 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–119 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; AND ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER 15–191 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May 16, 2016]

get a new fake internet occupation loser

Did you read the decision? It specifically says it is not a decision on the merits of the case:

"The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.​

What happened is conditions changed AFTER oral arguments based on supplemental briefs supplied later. The SCOTUS then remand the case back to the lower courts for a new decision based on the changes.


>>>>

i never said any different asshole

 

[WorldWatcher]

i never said any different asshole

You said...

no compromise

they told the lower courts to figure something this time

that does not violate their rights

seems even liberal justices dont like such abuses on civil rights

They did no such thing. They specifically said they made no decision on the merits of the case.

They said: "The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest."



>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you live under a fucking rock or what

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf

Per Curiam= unanimous agreement retard

BIK v. BURWELL

Per Curiam

15–35 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–105 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–119 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; AND ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER 15–191 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May 16, 2016]

get a new fake internet occupation loser

Did you read the decision? It specifically says it is not a decision on the merits of the case:

"The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.​

What happened is conditions changed AFTER oral arguments based on supplemental briefs supplied later. The SCOTUS then remand the case back to the lower courts for a new decision based on the changes.


>>>>

i never said any different asshole

See post 34.

It’s hard to tell which is more pathetic: that most on the right have a propensity to lie or that they’re such bad liars.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you live under a fucking rock or what

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf

Per Curiam= unanimous agreement retard

BIK v. BURWELL

Per Curiam

15–35 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–105 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 15–119 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; AND ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER 15–191 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT [May 16, 2016]

get a new fake internet occupation loser

Did you read the decision? It specifically says it is not a decision on the merits of the case:

"The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.​

What happened is conditions changed AFTER oral arguments based on supplemental briefs supplied later. The SCOTUS then remand the case back to the lower courts for a new decision based on the changes.


>>>>

i never said any different asshole

See post 34.

It’s hard to tell which is more pathetic: that most on the right have a propensity to lie or that they’re such bad liars.

well it is a loss for your side no matter how you slice it

 

[hazlnut]

The war against Christianity has been dealt a major blow.

Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate

I agree with this.

We support Little Sisters of the Poor and used to attend mass there occasionally. The work they do is truly inspiring--a real Christian charity that walks it like they talk it, caring for poor and indigent senior women.

But fuck hobby lobby.