Justice delays health law's birth control mandate


#1

sfgate.com/default/article/Justice-delays-health-law-s-birth-control-mandate-5106189.php


#2

For it to be Justice Sotomayor to put this on hold says a mouthful. Of the so-called "Liberal" justices on the Supreme Court, she seems the most - reasonable - to me. Just as Chief Justice Roberts seems to me as the most reasonable "Conservative" justice. The others (including the so-called "swing-vote", Justice Kennedy) always seem to have their minds made up about a case before hearing the case - declaring a law constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on their own personal political leanings.

Honestly, with Justice Sotomayor issuing a temporary injunction, it implies that she feels (regardless of her political leanings) that she believes that the plaintiffs actually have a case. None of her so-called "Liberal" colleagues would have dared put a hold on the contraceptive mandate, and a "Conservative" colleague doing so would have just been attributed to his (because all the so-called "Conservative" Justices are men) own political leanings.


#3

I am cautiously optimistic about this ruling. Sotomoyer is a bit of an unknown on social issues. This is now the third positive outcome regarding social issues from her. Here are two others regarding the abortion issue:

ontheissues.org/Court/Sonia_Sotomayor_Abortion.htm

Government may spend public funds on its abortion position

Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 2002)
Source: CNN report on upcoming Sotomayor hearings , Aug 1, 2009

Rejected abortion rights challenge to Mexico City Policy

Sotomayor wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 2002, a challenge to the "Mexico City Policy," which prohibited foreign organizations receiving US funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Relying on the Second Circuit's earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor's opinion rejected the group's First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs' due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves. On their equal protection claim, she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position" with public funds.


#4

[quote="powerofk, post:2, topic:349975"]
For it to be Justice Sotomayor to put this on hold says a mouthful. Of the so-called "Liberal" justices on the Supreme Court, she seems the most - reasonable - to me. Just as Chief Justice Roberts seems to me as the most reasonable "Conservative" justice. The others (including the so-called "swing-vote", Justice Kennedy) always seem to have their minds made up about a case before hearing the case - declaring a law constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on their own personal political leanings..

[/quote]

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court have always been for changing minds rather than helping the Justices make up their mind on the issues presented before them. They all have a thorough understanding and views of the law already. Its up to the lawyers to convince them that they may be wrong.


#5

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.