Sotomayor delays birth control mandate for some religion-affiliated groups

[cbayer]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2014/01/sotomayor-delays-birth-control-mandate-for-some-religion-affiliated-groups.html

POLITICS -- JANUARY 1, 2014 AT 11:41 AM ET

BY: ASSOCIATED PRESS


Hours before the start of 2014, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted an emergency stay, which blocks a birth control mandate for some groups under the Affordable Care Act. Video still by PBS NewsHour


The Supreme Court has thrown a hitch into President Barack Obama's new health care law by blocking a requirement that some religion-affiliated organizations provide health insurance that includes birth control.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor late Tuesday night decided to block implementation of the contraceptive coverage requirement, only hours before portions of the law would have gone into effect on New Year's Day.

Her decision, which came after federal court filings by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation in hopes of delaying the requirements, throws a part of the president's signature law into temporary disarray. At least one federal appeals court agreed with Sotomayor, issuing its own stay against part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Its request for an emergency stay had been denied earlier in the day by a federal appeals court.

more at link

[last1standing]

1. Unfortunately, precedent pretty much demanded she place a stay.

This case is not Hobby Lobby which is a private business with 'religious' owners; it is a religious organization whose primary purpose is the propagation of a specific faith. SCOTUS has generally held that religious orgs can make following the tenets of the org's faith a prerequisite for employment (Amos, Hosannah-Tabor), so this isn't a far step from that.

I would guess there's a very good chance the Little Sisters of the Poor will win this case but the exemption should be any worse than what is already in force. The bigger question is whether SCOTUS will allow a for-profit company force its employees to abide by the owners beliefs. If that happens it will set a precedent of allowing corporations to effectively discriminate against employees based on religion.

[cbayer]

2. Agree that it is the Hobby Lobby case that is really important here,

but I still think this is unfortunate.

[last1standing]

29. Definitely unfortunate, but no other choice, really.

I will be interested in seeing where the individual justices stand when this case is finished but I can almost guarantee at least a majority in favor of allowing a narrow exemption for religious organizations.

The real question is where the 'liberal' justices come out on this because it could be overturned if they hold together in favor of a separation between church/state and Obama is able to choose another justice.

[cbayer]

32. It is indeed going to be very interesting to follow this case.

I thought the compromise offered was a good one, as it appeared to me it would allow religious organizations to basically turf the contraceptive coverage to a third party.

I hope that is where the court comes down on this.

[last1standing]

46. It looks like our friend has been removed.

He was nothing if not animated.

Anyway, I think we already know where Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will come down. The question is where the rest fall. I have trouble believing that the remaining five justices will all agree with the ACA compromise. The problem, as I see it, is not that the orgs have to directly pay for the coverage (which the compromise sort of fixes) but that the orgs have to accept something they do not believe is moral as a condition for employing workers. In other words, look to the action not the money.

That said, I believe both Amos and Hosannah-Tabor were incorrectly decided and I hope very much the Court refuses to extend those rulings to cover this case.

Will they make the right decision? Unlike the Court itself, I have little faith.

[cbayer]

54. Thank goodness for MIRT.

I looked at his other posts and he was pretty outrageous. I think it was the OP that pushed it over the top.

You could be right about this, but there were (and still are) catholic employers already providing contraceptive coverage. It's a wise business decision, as unwanted pregnancies cost money. So I have trouble seeing how they can justify making an exemption based on the behavior/demands of only a subset.

You clearly have a better handle on the mechanics and history behind this, so I will defer to your expertise.

[last1standing]

59. It's not expertise, only a theory based on past decisions.

I'm merely a law student who has taken a couple of Constitutional Law classes (the last one dealing with this subject). That means I can name cases and what I think they mean but I have no real knowledge of what is likely to happen - as much as I act like I do.

Just as Kennedy's holdings in Lawrence and Windsor surprised many, he (or someone else) could surprise us all here. Still, I do believe that the question will come down to whether a religious organization can dictate the conduct of its employees. The Court has consistently held that they can. In fact, in Amos the Court ruled that a Mormon church could fire a janitor who worked at a gymnasium they operated because didn't follow the church's tenets. Neither the position nor the establishment were overtly religious but the Court still held that the church could dictate its employees' actions. I see this case being decided on the same grounds which will not be good.

And I hope I'm wrong.

[cbayer]

61. So cool that you are in law school.

I spent last evening with some new friends, one of whom is an activist lawyer. It was fascinating talking to her.

You seem quite knowledgable to me, but I also hope you are wrong, lol.

[last1standing]

6. She could if this was about Hobby Lobby, but it isn't.

As the OP states and I reasserted, this case deals with a religious organization, not a for-profit company. The precedent for Little Sisters being able to assert its religion on its employees is clear; the precedent for allowing Hobby Lobby to do so is not, but again, Hobby Lobby is not at issue here.

[elleng]

27. Thanks

[cbayer]

8. This decision does not include Hobby Lobby, and she is basing

her decision on the First amendment, as far as I can tell, which prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of religion.

I also doubt that someone with the class of Sotamayor is likely to tell anyone to "Fuck Yourself".

[cbayer]

11. The first amendment goes both ways you know.

I don't agree with her decision, but I understand what she based it on.

There is precedent when it comes to the Catholic church as an employer.

What they are objecting to is being told that they have to supply contraceptives. It has nothing to do with supplying them to nuns.

I think the Obama administration introduced a good compromise and I think they will loose their case in the end, but, again, I understand what she based the stay on.

[cbayer]

16. I don't think you really understand the issue here.

The church is making the case that they are protected by the first amendment. The issue comes down to "undue burden" and will be decided on that basis. It's not about the nuns not wanting the contraceptives, it's about the ACA requiring them to supply them to their employees.

The RCC should be thrown out of the United States? Well, that's a first in this group, and there have been some doozies here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. I don't give a shit what the church thinks....BC is prescribed many many many times

for things other than contraception...and she knows it!

[elleng]

26. Thanks

[YarnAddict]

66. Okay, I'm seeing it a bit differently

HL (or any other enterprise, religious or secuar) CANNOT "force its employees to abide by the owners beliefs." They aren't drug-testing for BC and then firing anyone who tests positive; they are saying it you want to use BC then pay for it yourself--you know, like you pay for cable, and Internet, etc., etc. Your choice.

[last1standing]

68. Hopefully the Court holds that Hobby Lobby cannot, but it has already held religious orgs can.

In Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, the Court ruled that a Mormon church could fire an employee who smoked cigarettes and drank caffeine that he purchased with his own money on his own time because the church did not want to be associated with those who did not follow the tenets of the Mormon religion. What makes this case amazing to me is that the employee was a janitor at a Mormon owned gym that was open to the general public. The skill set for the job required no religious observance in order to properly fulfill the duties yet the Court held that the church could dictate it's employee's private conduct.

I strongly believe Amos was incorrectly decided but I will never sit on the bench of the Supreme Court so my opinion means very little.

Please read the casebrief and see what you think.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/the-constitution-and-religion/corporation-of-presiding-bishop-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-v-amos/

[rug]

3. I wondered which one issued the stay. The first reports last night didn't identify her.

[cbayer]

4. IIRC, she has deep roots in the Catholic community.

[rug]

21. She went to Blessed Sacrament Grammar School in the Bronx but afaik is pretty much inactive.

[cbayer]

31. That's right. I saw a profile of here (60 minutes I think) where

she discussed this a little.

But I still think she has strong support in the Catholic community, particularly among latinos.

[rug]

34. Naturally, she is the first Latina on the Supreme Court.

I doubt she'd make a serious decision like this based on pandering.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. so she bases her decisions on what Catholics and Latinos want?

is that her job?

[rug]

39. Did you read this?

I doubt she'd make a serious decision like this based on pandering.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. I am saying if she used her experience as a Catholic or a Latina...

that is NOT her job.

Glad you admit this is a "serious decision".

Seems others on DU are telling women to "trust" that the future vote will be different. I don't trust her at all now!

[rug]

45. well, then, don't worry. She didn't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. How can you be so sure?

have you spoken to her lately perhaps?

[rug]

49. I have complete trust in President Obama's judgment.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. I trust him....I don't trust her.

don't tell me my outrage is misplaced.

[rug]

52. Feel free to place your outrage wherever you wish.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. I feel free to call you out when you tell women to temper it.

and just "trust" that it will all work out. Bully for you...

there should be solidarity for this issue on DU.

Sadly, this proves WHY there is a gender war on DU.....no one would tell African Americans to calm down if their rights were eroding.

[rug]

58. Call me out? And what exactly are you calling me out on?

Careful, there, I think you placed your outrage over some facts.

[cbayer]

40. I absolutely agree. I don't think her catholicism really has anything

to do with it, but was more noting that the nuns chose her to solicit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. Well her gender sure isn't being considered. We know that much for sure!

she sure isn't taking women's rights into her decision making process is she?

[rug]

44. There's a thread in LBN about this. The case came out of her Cicuit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014685671#post7

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. That was then this is now....

she needs to hear women ROAR over this....

[rug]

51. Much as I like her (she recently broke her retirement), this really isn't the time to discuss

Helen Reddy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. this is time for women to be HEARD and not told to

shut the fuck up and wait. We are about to get the first female President. How the fuck does that look when we allow churches to decide what constitutes women's "healthcare"?

[rug]

57. Hillary?

[cbayer]

56. Ah, I didn't know that was the way it worked.

Again, I agree with you. I really think her decision was based on the technicality of the law. I think I misspoke when I tied her catholicism into it. I believe she is much better than that.

[customerserviceguy]

70. Never underestimate

how deep Catholic guilt goes. Even I've had tiny tinges of it, and I quit that church about thirty years ago. Being as I don't strongly identify with any particular nation-based subgroup, I can only imagine how much harder the tug of guilt is for someone who is proud of her Hispanic heritage, which is completely tied up with the history of the Catholic church, probably much more than any other ethinicity I can think of. Yes, even Irish and Italian folks aren't as steeped in RCC tradition as Latinos.

[rug]

71. Never underestimate an intelligent woman.

[customerserviceguy]

72. We really don't know Sonia Sotomayer quite yet

She's only been a Justice for a short time, and while she's usually voted on the progressive side of things, we don't know her like we know Anthony Kennedy, who is the swing Justice on a lot of rulings.

I certainly hope your faith in her is not misplaced.

[rug]

73. We don't know what was in the petition for the stay either.

We'll know more tomorrow.

[pinto]

74. Never underestimate the ability of a seasoned jurist to be objective in a professional role.

Many of us in our particular niches, whatever the setting, have done so. I assume Sotomayor has been around this block many times in her career.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. WTF?

THIS is most certainly NOT why she got her job...

See how it is for women? One step forward two steps back....she just let in a crack....this just makes more room for their stupid arguments!

[cbayer]

12. Besides this issue, do you have any issues with any other decisions she has made?

Or is your sole objection that she is Catholic?

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. my sole objection is she is a woman and KNOWS that

birth control pills are NOT just for contraception!

[cbayer]

18. Like I said, I don't agree with her decision.

I suspect she will vote differently when the case is actually heard, but I understand why she issued this injunction.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. I DON'T

she is a traitor to her gender...she KNOWS how important this issue is to MY civil rights!

THIS is why their is a gender war on DU. Women's Rights are always given this kind of treatment!

"Shut up its no big deal"

if this were an LGBT issue there would be a strong show of force on DU behind them...

But because this effects women...MEH not so much!

[cbayer]

30. Actually, I agree with you and, like I said, I suspect

she will come down differently when it comes to the actual decision.

This is just a temporary move until they can hear the case.

Not one is saying, "Shut up, it's no big deal". It is clearly a big deal and I think that DU is overwhelming in support of a SCOTUS decision to enforce the ACA in this case.

I have no idea what this has to do with LGBT issues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. I don't care about what she will or wont do in the future....

she did THIS now...

I am saying if this were an issue about rights of LGBT....everyone on DU would be outraging with them. But because this is an issue about women's bodies...we are told on DU of all places to "temper our outrage" because she MIGHT vote differently when the actual vote comes up. (How the hell do you even know this when she did this....I am glad YOU feel so confident about that).

When its women's rights even on DU its "shut the fuck up and hope she votes differently later"

[cbayer]

38. Well, you should care about what she does in the future, because that is where the

real meaning is in this case.

It's a stay. It's temporary. I don't think she realistically had a choice.

Since I don't engage in the internecine wars that erupt on and disrupt DU, I'm going to say good bye now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. I am saying...I am glad YOU are confident what she will do in the future...

to me...this doesn't bode well.

You are telling women to just "shut the fuck up...and expect different outcome in the future".

[rug]

15. Ah, you want a regious test for a federal office.

[rug]

23. Your idea of "balance" is a quota which is also unconstitutional.

Not to mention, it's not a quota at all.

[hrmjustin]

25. Take out? How does he do that?

[cbayer]

28. You do know that he can't remove anyone from the court, right?

While I agree that the religious demographics of the court are out of line with the demographics of the US, replacing 3 catholics with three atheists would also not be representative.

Plus, you are suggesting a religious test for office, which would be unconstitutional.

[rug]

14. "not why she got her job"?

Do you know why injunctions are issued and what judges do?

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. Yes I do.....Presidents choose judges based on what thier stances on issues are going to be.

don't they? Do you think a Conservative President would put a Liberal on the courts?

[rug]

24. No they don't. The first thing they do is check their qualications.

Even though there is a wide spectrum in jurisprudence and politicians select among them people they're politically comfortable with, nobody is appointed to vote a certain way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Uh yes they do....don't even try that....

Give me a break...are you saying that the Republicans don't "pack the courts" in their favor?

[rug]

60. Of course they do. Why, one even appointed Earl Warren.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. How things are "supposed to be" and how they ARE are two different things.

[DonCoquixote]

63. Sonia

I defended you when everyone said you were not worthy, even though you were qualified, after all, better to have a liberal that looks like the majoity and says pretty things rather than someone qualified. However, since you are the most powerful Puerto Rican we have had, thoe Boricua has to tell you..

YOU FUCKED UP.

And you fucked up by giving in to the catholics, a group of people that, from the moment Columbus landed, never had any problems expliting Hispanics, and yes, this includes that Argentine fool Pope Jophnny the Rat is using to make people forget him.

[pinto]

64. My limited understanding is that this is not that unusual. A temporary, 36 hour delay.

Government has until 10 AM (EST) to respond. Then the court revisits the arguments.

Personally, I wish she had let the Fed Appellate court's denial stand, allow the law go into effect as scheduled and let the organization follow due process and appeal to the full SCOTUS.

Either way, I don't quite get the "substantial burden" argument.

[cbayer]

65. If I understand correctly, the whole case now hinges on the

substantial burden argument. It's complicated, and I don't quite get it either.

[pinto]

67. She may well be taking a measured, constitutional approach. That's her appropriate role, right?

36 hours. Letting both sides make their cases to be viewed in a constitutional framework. And she may well be giving some brief time to allow "substantial burden" frame the constitutional argument for SCOTUS, if that's how it goes. I suppose it works better to have a clearer constitutional set of arguments to consider.

[cbayer]

69. Based on my admittedly limited understanding, I'm not sure she had any other choice.