SCOTUS Says Obama Can’t Force Notre Dame to Obey Pro-Abort HHS Mandate

Excellent.

"This interview: https://brandonvogt.com/24-...Lifesite launched this jihad in response: https://www.lifesitenews.co...Then, when Brandon tried to bring reason ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."
"Wait. Is this the same bill that is getting good reviews from the Population Research ..."

The GOP gets back to the ..."
"There is only one principle for the GOP's existence today - the rich should have ..."

The GOP gets back to the ..."
"Yes, and I just got an unsolicited e-mail from Susan B Anthony group touting the ..."

The GOP gets back to the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • PalaceGuard

    Most truly excellent!

  • TED FOR PRESIDENT

    Praise the Lord, Jesus Christ.

  • IRVCath

    I’m not sure the Court actually ruled that. The Court merely ruled that because the injunction was granted before Hobby Lobby, the lower courts need to reconsider the merits of the case based on the new ruling. IIRC many of the lower courts have done so – and found for the government. This is good, but it depends on how the 7th Circuit rules (which I believe is largely favorable to the plaintiffs in this case if precedent bears it out), and, depending on the election returns next year, how the Supreme Court finally rules on the mandate once and for all.

    I get the feeling that the Court is very reluctant to take on this case for the simple reason that it wants to avoid a contentious decision (remember the abuse directed at the Justices, right or wrong, in Hobby Lobby? Or Windsor?).

    • Mike Thack

      @almariojavier:disqus

      You appropriately remind the room that this was an action of SCOTUS, not a decision.

      Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___ (2014).

      The title of this post, and the title/content/analysis of the source post at Lifenews is dangerously misleading.

      The Supreme Court has weighed in on the lawsuit Notre Dame filed against the HHS mandate compelling religious groups and businesses to pay for drugs for their employees that may cause abortions.

      This is simply an unGodly misrepresentation of fact. Whether ill-informed or consciously constructed, it both shapes and informs the dialog in a direction that is questionably aligned with orderly direction.SCOTUS did not “weigh in on the lawsuit.” SCOTUS weighed in on a petition regarding a specific judgment influenced by anachronistic circumstances.It now goes back to the 7th Circuit, which will reconsider whether or not the appeal to dismiss the case was appropriate. The case may then be referred back to the court of origination (where it left off prior to the dismissal). It is wise to remember that such reconsideration is not resolution. The case has not reached its terminus — it is simply at a step on a journey.I offer this not in the light of advocacy, but in the spirit of reminder — that competition can cloud our hearts and distort our vision. At such times our wisdom is diminished; we become more the vehicle of self-will and less the vehicle of God’s will. Let us instead be inspired,

      Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. (Proverbs 24:17-18)

      It is appropriate to be joyful, but let us not forget that our joy should have a foundation of love. When we rejoice, it should come from a holy place — not inspired by “Got-Ya!” darkness.