Cardinals Wuerl, Dolan, University Of Notre Dame To Sue Obama Administ

[4588686]

I don't see where this goes. It's the conservatives on the court who battled back against the liberals and enshrined that religious belief does not get to negate laws of general applicability. Scalia is going to have to tie himself in some interesting intellectual knots if he wants to exempt the Church from this.

[4588686]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#Majority_opinion"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#Majority_opinion[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337724896' post='2433774']
I don't see where this goes. It's the conservatives on the court who battled back against the liberals and enshrined that religious belief does not get to negate laws of general applicability. Scalia is going to have to tie himself in some interesting intellectual knots if he wants to exempt the Church from this.
[/quote]What do you make of the recent unanimous ruling that the Court made on religious liberty?

From the outside the first case and the present case look similar, but I think there are enough differences here that we might see another unanimous ruling or overwhelming majority in opposition to the law, much like the second ruling gave.

Also, I think that there is some sort of law about causing undue hardship that was written in response to the 90s case.

Edited May 23, 2012 by qfnol31

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Katiebobatie94' timestamp='1337690398' post='2433634']
I also heard that Franciscan University is suing as well
[/quote]
[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1337644884' post='2433409']
I'm not surprised by Notre Dame - the school is "more" Catholic than it gets credit for, its alumni base is very upset over this, and the school stands to pay over a million annually in fines by not complying.
[/quote]

It's about time. Belmont Abbey College, my alma mater, has been in court cases for the last 4 years concerning contraception and insurance. They were sued for discrimination for not covering contraception and then were threatened by the EEOC with another suit after the EEOC ruled the Abbey had discriminated against women for not covering contraception, sterilization, and abortion. We eventually won. Then, when this HHS Mandate was passed and the Abbey was going to be forced to pay for contraception in their health care plans, the college sued the Obama Administration. Glad to see that Franciscan and Notre Dame are on the bandwagon and getting some love but where is the love nearly two years ago for the monks of Belmont Abbey that were willing to stand up for religious conscience, even if no one else stood with? And also, while they were doing this the monks decided open a crises pregnancy home on a secluded part of campus in order to try to address real cultural reasons why women seek abortion (i.e. they are afraid they can't get a degree and keep their child). Anyway, Hope this suit goes well.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337724896' post='2433774']
I don't see where this goes. It's the conservatives on the court who battled back against the liberals and enshrined that religious belief does not get to negate laws of general applicability. Scalia is going to have to tie himself in some interesting intellectual knots if he wants to exempt the Church from this.
[/quote]

If I remember the case you are referring to, they said that the Court would rule in favor religious liberty if there was an infringement of a "hybrid right," religious liberty and another one. All that would have to be done would be to a) find some kind of right that is being infringed upon along with religious liberty through requiring everyone to pay for a particular type of insurance or b) say that the government has gone too far in its compulsory powers under the heading of "regulation of commerce," a tactic which Chief Justice John Roberts and other Justices have shown they might take. Neither path seems problematic as far as the logic of this court is concerned and would not "tie oneself in an intellectual knot" so to speak.

Here is the Chief Justice's quote concerning the logic behind the mandate and how it might be problematic in that the logic of it as "market regulation" may be essentially a blank check for the government to do whatever it wants.
[url="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/justice-roberts-can-the-government-make-you-buy-a-118820.html"]http://www.politico....y-a-118820.html[/url]

***Edit: Grammar.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[4588686]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1337735181' post='2433812']
If I remember the case you are referring to, they said that the Court would rule in favor religious liberty if there was an infringement of a "hybrid right," religious liberty and another one. All that would have to be done would be to a) find some kind of right that is being infringed upon along with religious liberty through the requiring everyone to pay for a particular type of insurance or b) say that the government has gone too far in powers for compulsion under the guise of "regulation of commerce," a tactic which Chief Justice John Roberts and other Justices have shown they might take. Neither path seems problematic as far as the logic of this court is concerned and would not "tie oneself in an intellectual knot" so to speak.[/QUOTE]

That's a very fair points but you are talking about general questions about the capacity of the federal government to interfere in the insurance market and compel certain types of coverage. That's very different from the pure claim that this is an infringement of the religious liberty of the institutions in question. That is what I am talking about with regards to Scalia tying himself into intellectual knots. Employment Division v. Smith has nothing to do with the scope of government powers into the insurance market. If the mandate itself is constitutional with regards to secular institution, however, then Scalia cannot in my mind make an logically coherent exemption for the Church unless he simply engages in favoritism motivated by sectarian favoritism. Which I would hate to see since he is my favorite justice, despite my disagreements with him politically.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337735601' post='2433817']
That's a very fair points but you are talking about general questions about the capacity of the federal government to interfere in the insurance market and compel certain types of coverage. That's very different from the pure claim that this is an infringement of the religious liberty of the institutions in question. That is what I am talking about with regards to Scalia tying himself into intellectual knots. Employment Division v. Smith has nothing to do with the scope of government powers into the insurance market. If the mandate itself is constitutional with regards to secular institution, however, then Scalia cannot in my mind make an logically coherent exemption for the Church unless he simply engages in favoritism motivated by sectarian favoritism. Which I would hate to see since he is my favorite justice, despite my disagreements with him politically.
[/quote]

Agreed. However, I gave two accounts of a way out. 1) use the "hybrid rights" idea from the Employment Division v. Smith case. OR 2) Bypass that case altogether by attacking the regulation of commerce. Your last post only addressed my second suggestion of how to avoid knots by saying it didn't really address the claim that this infringed upon religious liberty, which is true. However, option 1 does. Also another difference in the cases was that the ED v. S prohibited the use of peyote while this second one requires the purchase of health care. This may be a substantive enough difference in that the Church's case is not simply about regulating the consumption of goods (which in the case of in ED v S was through prohibition) but rather is the forced consumption of certain goods. This lens on what is being required by the government may also be a way to avoid the previous case without contradicting oneself. Just some ideas.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[4588686]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1337736530' post='2433822']
Agreed. However, I gave two accounts of a way out. 1) use the "hybrid rights" idea from the Employment Division v. Smith case. OR 2) Bypass that case altogether by attacking the regulation of commerce. Your last post only addressed my second suggestion of how to avoid knots by saying it didn't really address the claim that this infringed upon religious liberty, which is true. However, option 1 does. Also another difference in the cases was that the ED v. S prohibited the use of peyote while this second one requires the purchase of health care. This may be a substantive enough difference in that the Church's case is not simply about regulating the consumption of goods (which in the case of in ED v S was through prohibition) but rather is the forced consumption of certain goods. This lens on what is being required by the government may also be a way to avoid the previous case without contradicting oneself. Just some ideas.
[/quote]

Right, sorry, and maybe I'm not reading you correctly or responded in a scatterbrained way. I think your alternative options are completely valid. I mean I think I have a political philosophy that allows for a more expanded view of federal powers but I think honest people can disagree and there is a reasonable and valid way of viewing the law in the ways that you have outlined. My comments should have been qualified to be clear that I was speaking strictly in regards to religious liberty, and in that narrow context I still think they are valid. But I do think that there are ways that have nothing to do with religious liberty in itself that this could be struck down.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337737573' post='2433830']
Right, sorry, and maybe I'm not reading you correctly or responded in a scatterbrained way. I think your alternative options are completely valid. I mean I think I have a political philosophy that allows for a more expanded view of federal powers but I think honest people can disagree and there is a reasonable and valid way of viewing the law in the ways that you have outlined. My comments should have been qualified to be clear that I was speaking strictly in regards to religious liberty, and in that narrow context I still think they are valid. But I do think that there are ways that have nothing to do with religious liberty in itself that this could be struck down.
[/quote]

Yea I understood you, though I think perhaps I was the one who was unclear. I recognized that my second option really just circumvented the issue of religious liberty, which is what I tried to acknowledge in my last post, perhaps poorly. I agree that these two cases when you try to mesh them are difficult to harmonize, but I think there is an out in the first option that I outlined about the majority opinion's understanding of hybrid rights. You are right though that this can still be struck down, using that ED v S case's understanding, concerning religious liberty if another right is also not found to be infringed upon along with religious liberty. That other case does set a rather interesting precedent.

[Clare~Therese]

Woohoo!!

Let's go!
Keep it up, Cardinals, Bishops, and everybody!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337724896' post='2433774']
I don't see where this goes. It's the conservatives on the court who battled back against the liberals and enshrined that religious belief does not get to negate laws of general applicability. Scalia is going to have to tie himself in some interesting intellectual knots if he wants to exempt the Church from this.
[/quote]
The text of the complaints acknowledges Smith and makes the case that the ACA is not generally applicable.

[BG45]

I'm somewhat surprised my diocese isn't suing. The Bishop's letters on the issue have been very fiery.

[let_go_let_God]

I'm surprised the Minnesota Bishops haven't acted yet. I'm sure now that there have been many Bishops, Dioceses, and organizations suing, more will step forward and join.