On Wednesday, an eight-member Supreme Court heard a challenge to the requirement under Obamacare that employer health insurance plans cover birth control. The case was brought by nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraception. ADVERTISING On Wednesday, an eight-member Supreme
On Wednesday, an eight-member Supreme Court heard a challenge to the requirement under Obamacare that employer health insurance plans cover birth control. The case was brought by nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contraception.
But questions from the bench suggested the justices might be evenly split on whether the complicated arrangement worked out by the Obama administration to balance religious freedom and women’s health violates the nonprofits’ rights under existing law. If so, two outcomes are possible: The justices could hand down a 4-4 ruling that would not establish a binding precedent around the country, leaving the law open for interpretation. Or they could decide to have the case reargued next term in the hope a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia will have been confirmed by the Senate.
Earlier this week the court divided 4-4 on another, less consequential, case, and further stalemates are likely if Senate Republicans continue with their ridiculous refusal to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Scalia vacancy. But that’s not the only danger posed by the Republicans’ shameless stonewalling. An even greater risk, as Obama has warned, is “an endless cycle of more tit-for-tat (that would) make it increasingly impossible for any president, Democrat or Republican, to carry out their constitutional function.”
Obama is in good company in sounding such an alarm. Last month, in remarks delivered before Scalia’s death, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lamented the politicization of the confirmation process.
Noting that Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were confirmed by virtually unanimous votes in 1986 and 1993, respectively, Roberts said in recent years the process had become much more partisan, with Democratic senators opposing Republican nominees and vice versa. “That suggests to me,” Roberts said, “that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.” …
Based on his comments last month, the chief justice would be doing his court and the Constitution a favor by explicitly calling on the Senate to do its job and give Garland a fair hearing.
— Los Angeles Times
