Remember, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld Obama-care, Obama will be president for another four years, the ages of the Supreme Court Justices are as follows:
The eldest is Ginsberg born in 1933
Scalia is second born in 1936
Kennedy was also born in 1936
Breyer is forth born in 1938
Then Thomas, the first Baby boomer on the court, born in 1948
Alito is next born in 1950
Sotomayer is next born in 1954
The Chief Justice is the second youngest man on the Court, born in 1955
Youngest is Kagan, born in 1960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
The Classic definition of a baby-boomer is anyone born between 1947 and 1964 (1965 saw a huge DROP in births, thus 1964 is considered the end of the baby boom, which peaked in 1957 and started a slow decline till 1964). Thus we have four Judges born during the Great Depression, but came of age during or after WWII and five Judges born during the post war boom, but came of age during and after Vietnam.
To undo Obama-care would require Obama to replace Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayer, Breyer or Ginsburg with a Conservative Justice, an unlikely event, I See Ginsberg retiring, but she may hold out till Scalia or Kennedy retires or dies in office, so Obama can pull what Reagan did with Scalia and Rehnquist. When Chief Justice Burger retired, Reagan appointed Rehnquist (who was already on the Court) to be Chief Justice, and appointed Scalia to be the ninth Justice. The Senate's questions was all aimed at Rehnquist so Scalia was barely discussed (almost a sneak nomination). If Ginsberg waits for Scalia or Kennedy to retire, she could retire at the same time and Obama can appoint two new justices, one to take the heat of the Nomination process, the other to fly in almost untouched. Lets see what Ginsberg does but given the above ages, it would require Obama to want to kill his own program for Obama-care to die now.
On the other hand, the June decision just ruled that Obama-care is a Tax and as such constitutional. The Courts have long held that a general law that affects a religion does NOT violate the First Amendment if the reason the law was passed was NOT an attack on that religion (The Peyote cases, just because Native Americans use Peyote in their religious ceremonies did not make any law banning the use of Peyote a violation of the First Amendment if the law is a general law not aimed at the religious group).
On the other hand, the Court has ruled it is a Violation of the First Amendment if a law, even a general law, affects a religion or other group with strong beliefs.
Remember the First Amendment has TWO religious protections, the first is that Congress will NOT establish a Religion, the Second is the one that comes into play, that Congress (or the states) can NOT make a law as to "prohibiting the free exercise {of Religion}"
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Even a "General Law" can be aimed at the religious practices of a religious minority, even while the law, on its face, sounds like it is religiously neutral. The Classic situation is Communist party affiliation. it took a while, but the court did finally rule that a law that required anyone who belong to an organization that "advocated the overthrow of the Government" to register with the Government violated the first amendment, in that while it was neutral on its face, the law was clearly aimed at members of the Communist party and thus violated the First Amendment. The rationale was simple, the "protected groups" in the First are interconnected, "Freedom to Assemble", "Freedom of Speech or of the press" are relate to being able to exercise one beliefs, be it a belief in God or or Superiority of Communism. Thus to require people who believed in one thing to register with the Government, not only affected the right to assemble peacefully, but also the prohibition against an law restricting the exercise of religion.
Now, Obama-care requires employers to have health insurance for their employees and furthermore made what is covered under those insurance programs clear. Most large employers (100 plus employees) tend to be self insured as to heath insurance. A insurance carrier may process the health insurance claims, but the claims are paid by the employer, the insurance company just process the claims. Such large employers find it is just cheaper to do it that way (also ends any dispute between Workmen's Comp and Health Insurance as who shall pay, in large employers it tends to be the same carrier, the employer).
The June case did NOT consider the requirement of Health Insurance on a group that for religious reasons rejects the insurance. In this case, the issue as to Obama-care itself has been resolved, but what about Abortion, where there is a sizable minority in the US that oppose PAYING for abortion on religious grounds, even as part of a general insurance requirement.
In simple terms, can Liberty University refuse to pay for abortions, when payment for such medical care is required under Obama-care of all Health Care providers, when Liberty University has a clear and well understood religious objection to any and all abortions? That issue was NOT addressed by the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals did not address it when they heard the case, thus the remand to the Court of Appeals to rule on that issue.
I see at least four Justices (including one Catholic, Sotomayer) to hold that the requirement for Abortion in Obama-care is a General Rule NOT aimed at any religious Group (Breyer, Kagan and Ginsberg are all Jewish extraction but will support that this is a General Law NOT a law aimed at people who oppose abortion).
On the other hand, I do see the remaining Catholics, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts supporting Liberty University right to religious freedom (and that would be true if the Pope came out for Abortion, it is less a religious objection, then an objection to any requirement).
That leaves Thomas, who had been a member of the Catholic Church in his youth, but dropped out due to the Catholics being to far to the left for him. Thus I see a 5-4 religious exemption for religious groups to the overall requirement to provide care. Thus I see an exemption, the issue is going to be how narrow is the exemption. I see the Court requiring Obama-care, except for Abortion, to remain, this by the same 5-4 vote that upheld Obama-care. On the other hand, I can foresee Roberts switching sides and ruling if a religious group has a religious objection, it can opt out of providing that medical procedure.
The real question is how wide will the court make its ruling? Will it be wide enough for anyone to demand an exemption to even having to provide health care on religious grounds, or will it be so narrow that it only applies to self insured employers who pay for the medical services themselves? Even if the actual payment is handle through a third party?
I do NOT see the court reversing Obama-care, Robert is what I call a "Corporatist" someone who wants to protect business and wall street more then anything else. Right now, Wall Street and Corporate American want everyone to have health insurance not for the health of Americans, but they see profit it such a requirement. For this reason Roberts switch sides as to Obama-care and for this reason I see him opting for a narrow exemption as to religious based groups that clearly objects to Abortion AND are self insured and otherwise meets the requirement of Obama-care. I do NOT see him going further, for to go further is to undermined what health insurance Wall Streets wants to offer (that includes abortions for that is cheaper then paying for a birth). Self Insured companies will be able to restrict its coverage to exclude abortions, but people who buy insurance will have to buy what is offered, which will include abortions.
I see the court ruling that you MAY buy Insurance that excludes Abortion, if you can find it, but if none is offered, the employer (and the individual if self insured) must still buy health insurance that includes abortion as a covered medical treatment. The exemption will end up only applying to self insured employers, which tends to be self-insured. That is the extend I see the court going on this issue, a very narrow exemption to the general requirement to have the level of health insurance required by Obama-care.
= new reply since forum marked as read
religious freedom? to be racist for generations? yeah sure. that's amerikkkan values at work. their mottos? christ is lord!!!!!myass.
