Court orders new look at health care challenge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college's challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms.
The court's action at this point means only that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.
A federal district judge rejected Liberty's claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school's arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty's request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, "This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address."
When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision.
Liberty's case joins dozens of other pending lawsuits over health reform, many involving the requirement that employer insurance plans cover contraception. These cases are working their way through the federal court system.
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama's health care law violates the school's religious freedoms.
The court's action at this point means only that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on.
A federal district judge rejected Liberty's claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school's arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty's request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, "This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address."
When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision.
Liberty's case joins dozens of other pending lawsuits over health reform, many involving the requirement that employer insurance plans cover contraception. These cases are working their way through the federal court system.
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438.
Maybe it's time for someone to challenge the general tax exemptions for churches...because it is immoral to force the rest of us to pay more taxes so that churches can avoid paying them at all.
 @OrcasThunder Then we had better get rid of a few more.
Â
A list of just a few organizations.
Â
Certain corporations organized under an Act of Congress.
Certain corporations organized and operated exclusively for: Religious purposes.
Charitable purposes.
Scientific purposes.
Purposes of testing for public safety.
Literary purposes.
Educational purposes.
Artistic purposes.
Health care and public health.
Fostering national or international amateur sports competition.
Fostering national or international amateur sports competition.
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the
employees of .a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purpose.
Labor organizations..
Agricultural or horticultural organizations. Business leagues.
Chambers of commerceâ¦
Real-estate boards..
Boards of trade.
Professional football leagues.
Clubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other non-profitable purposes.
Certain fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations.
Voluntary employeesâ beneficiary associations providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such association or their dependents or designated beneficiaries.
Teachersâ retirement fund associations of a purely local.
Certain benevolent life insurance associations of a purely local character.
Cemetery companies owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of their members or which are not operated for profit.
Corporations chartered solely for the purpose of the disposal of bodies by burial or cremation which are not permitted by their charter to engage in any business not necessarily incident to that purpose.
Credit unions without capital stock organized and operated for mutual purposes and without profit Insurance companies or associations other than life if the net written premiums for the taxable year do not exceed $350,000.
Corporations organized by certain association for the purpose of financing the ordinary crop operations of such associations.
A trust or trusts forming part of a plan providing for the payment of supplemental unemployment compensation benefits.
A post or organization of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or an auxiliary unit or society of, or a trust or foundation for, any such post or organization.
Legal services corporations.
Trusts for the purpose of satisfying liability for claims under Black Lung Acts. Multi-employer trusts created to pay any amount described in section 4223(c) or (h) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Corporations or trusts organized for the exclusive purposes of acquiring and holding title to real property for the benefit of a qualified pension, profit sharing, or stock bonus plan.
Â
Or is your hatred for religious organizations only? Do you know the definition of bigot?
 @komoispropaganda  @OrcasThunder Yep just his hatred for organizations of Faith
 @OrcasThunder  Just let them be.... You have some great points!Â
 @Gaikokujin  @komoispropaganda"and yet you bash people of faith virtually every chance you get"
So...you think that any comment that differs from your POV is "bashing" and/or "hateful"? Are not others free to think otherwise than you - and still have valid opinions? I think they are, and do...but you seem to think otherwise. You seem to think that - because of your faith - that your position is infallible, and therefore can't even be questioned.
You know, there is a word for someone who thinks that everyone is against them, that everyone is opposed to their POV, that only THEY are right in their world view.
If you are so "right", and can't stand someone telling you that you are wrong, why are you here on a forum where people are free to voice their own opinion, even if you don't agree with it? Why offer a POV, and then post a comment like you do above that sounds like a 7 year old saying "I'm going to tell Mommy what you said!"?
I have no problem with faith, or people who have it. The problem I have is with people who say they have it - and insist that everyone else MUST have it. Faith is a very personal thing, can be great as long as it take you where you want to be. But using it as a club to force others to share it, THAT I do have a problem with. THAT is not "debate", or even "discussion", it is dictating to someone else what they should believe...even when they do not want to do that. I have seen "faith" used to twist the truth, to misguide people who are already troubled and looking for some kind of "answer" for all their problems...and invariably they are like lambs led to the slaughter, their hopes are misused, and the person of "faith" turns out to be a charlatan, a thief of hope, a con man/woman.Â
And the worse ones are those who insist that THEIR "faith" must be enacted into law, even for those who wish to have none of it. Faith - real or imagined - has no place in law. Keep your faith all you want - but don't try to make it part of my life.
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Gaikokujin  @komoispropaganda and yet you bash people of faith virtually every chance you get in these forums.Â
 @Gaikokujin  @komoispropaganda Not true - I do not "hate" faith, I simply do not accept it in the forms that you do.
The point is, if religious groups can object to being forced to pay for medical practices they do not approve of from a "moral" standpoint, why can't a non-religious person object to having to pay more in taxes because religious groups get tax benefits simply because they a=claim to be religions? Every dollar the churches don't pay get's added to the tax bill the rest of us have to pay.
For example, if a church gets a break on RE tax for their multimillion $ building, the rest of the home and business owners have to pick up the tab.
And there ARE no Constitutional grounds for allowing these tax exemptions. The principle has been that they get them as long as they stay out of political activities - but when they step into political action mode, that exemption should disappear.
 @komoispropaganda What are the MORAL grounds for these other orgs?
Â
I do not - from a quick scan of your list - see any that claim tax protection under the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion clause.
Liberty College's school motto: Forward into the Past.
 @left-center I heard it was Our Constitutional Rights Trump Bigotry.
 @komoispropaganda  Trump bigotry... that would be a first for me. lol.