Skip to main content

View Diary: "Supreme Court will take up controversial Obamacare provision on contraception" (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  varii - the Supremes didn't have a choice (7+ / 0-)

    As noted in the article you linked to the 10th Circuit ruled for the company that they could limit contraceptive coverage. Three other Courts of Appeal have ruled the opposite, that for profit companies must include full contraceptive benefits in their employer provided health insurance. One of the primary roles of the SCOTUS is to resolve conflicts among the Courts of Appeal. My guess is that all the members of the Court voted to take this case, not just the conservative members.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:24:42 AM PST

    •  Yes, I see your point, but I don't think... (0+ / 0-)

      ...it matters. As we have seen, the right wing judges decide cases, not on the law, but on their ideology (see: Voting Rights Act).

    •  That overstates the matter a bit, I think, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      and might leave some readers thinking this falls within whatever shred of mandatory jurisdiction remains.

      It's true that resolving intercircuit conflict is one of the Court's primary roles, especially in the area of federal legislation like the ACA, but it's also true that the SCOTUS often leaves intercircuit conflicts unresolved for a while as the issues "percolate" throughout the system. And while it's virtually inevitable that they would confront and resolve this issue, the choice of vehicle was not inevitable.

      I don't know the cases well enough to assess what that choice says about the likely outcome, but I do note that the Amer Jewish Committee filed an amicus in support of neither party that argued that the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases are not the best vehicles for deciding the matter, because of the posture of the cases and the state of the records.

      Each of these cases comes before this Court on an appeal of a decision granting (Hobby Lobby) or denying (Conestoga Wood-Working) a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the mandate that employer funded health insurance pay for all government recognized methods of birth control, which includes the handful of forms of contraceptives to which each corporate entity asserts it harbors religious objections (essentially postintercourse, pre-implantation, methods).

      In each case, each party made allegations about the presence or absence of a narrowly drawn compelling interest. The hurried and truncated nature of the proceedings nonetheless left the relevant issues unexplored by the adversary process. Each record falls far short of the detailed and focused inquiry RFRA mandates, 42 U.SC. 2000bb-1(b) (1-2).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site