I’m not sure I find this surprising. I think it makes sense with only 8 justices. They are going to be strategically careful on what rulings they allow to become precedent. Here’s your 8 justices, Republicans. I think the Court will look for passive aggressive ways to up the pain on conservative lawmakers while finding unique methods to solve problems. Roberts will stay out of the fight publicly, but it’s like dealing with toddlers. Here’s the natural consequence of your behavior.
It is Little Sisters of the Poor, no apostrophe in Sisters. The case style got it right, for crying out loud. Is this stuff copy-edited at all?
When Hillary elects a new Justice, and a newly flipped Senate confirms her nominee we can put this issue to rest. Unless some pearl clutching Senators are too afraid to confirm a liberal justice we should be in a very good position for some time to come with the SCOTUS.
I’m not surprised that the Roberts Court is getting tired of being the final arbiter of the Rethugs’ culture wars since they haven’t been able to convince American society at large that they’re right.
This is what the opinion should have said:
“We find that there is no burden whatsoever on the petitioners religious freedom. Under the ACA, employers can provide any kind of health care plan they want, or none at all. If they provide comprensive coverage, they are not required to pay the tax under section 4980h. If they provide less than comprehensive coverage, they pay the tax. Because they can do whatever they want, there is no burden. None.”
A Klezmer Punk college band from IU or Northwestern, especially.
Thank you, I was just going to point that out, myself.
Sounds good to me. Far better than the alternative.
“So, send the damn letter noting your objections and call it a day.”
I think Garland gets approved ahead of the fall election, probably in Sept, possibly as late as October, maybe as early as August. There are two things that the McConnell camp is waiting for…first, for the polls numbers to harden after the conventions that make it clear that Trump will lose and they are facing a serious beating down ticket and two…that its late enough in the campaign season that the outside conservative groups can’t meaningfully hurt republicans who vote for Garland.
Oh Scalia, where are you when we need you to make sure that women are treated as third-class citizens in this country? Woe are we! Now we have to actually find a compromise rather than rule by fiat. Dagnabit. Who wouldda thought??
@intelliwriter…That noise you hear is not thunder…it’s Tony spinning in his grave.
I suppose this might be the best we could expect, given the current make-up of the Court and the fanatical religious zealotry of the petitioners and the males on the Court … but, how cowardly!
If your religion doesn’t believe in contraception, don’t buy them. If your religion doesn’t permit abortion, don’t get one. If your religion says it gets to prevent other people from either, it is wrong.
As James Brown once sung, “it’s a mans world!” Does anybody think that if more women were in office this would be a non issue?
It’s 2016 - women need to have contraceptives. All healthcare plans should have this option!
Josh had a post over the weekend saying that TPM is looking to hire…
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Math…
ABORTION (PERSONS)
Having to: wait 72-hours between multiple appointments, travel to another state multiple times, get a wand stuffed up your vag, be forced to watch and listen to ultrasounds, spend thousands of dollars in travel and medical and lost wages, etc. ≠undue burden.
BIRTH CONTROL (BUSINESS)
Having to: fill out and mail a single form once to permanently opt out and get someone else to pay = undue burden.
I think you mean prevent rather than permit?