It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Out of seeming desperation, then, the justices gave the religious non-profits and the Obama administration an assignment that will keep them busy during the court's two-week break. In supplemental briefs due on April 12th, “the parties are directed to...address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees”. Hoping to find a way out of the impasse, the justices want women who work for Christian colleges, hospitals and social-service organisations to receive the Obamacare benefit of free contraceptives without asking nuns, bishops and devout deans to take any action that makes them feel complicit in distributing them. “The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners”, the order reads.
For example, the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners’ health plan.
It’s generally accepted, though, that the modern political battle over Supreme Court seats started with Democratic opposition to Robert Bork, a Ronald Reagan nominee, in 1987, Reid's first year in the Senate. Democrats launched a massive public assault on Bork’s conservative judicial philosophy and record. Bork did face a hearing and a Senate vote, which he lost, but his confirmation process made the rules of the game more contentious.
DESPERATE TIMES04.01.16 1:00 AM ET
The GOP’s Nuclear Option to Stop Donald Trump: A Third-Party Candidate
Forget the brokered convention: A cabal of establishment Republicans is working on the ultimate firewall that could keep Trump from the White House.
The first line of defense for establishment Republicans hoping to keep Donald Trump from carrying their party’s banner this fall is to prevent him from winning the delegates in the remaining primaries this spring.
If that fails, the next plan is to deny him a win at the GOP convention in Cleveland by peeling away pledged delegates on the second or third round of balloting.
And if that fails, a group of Republicans are readying a nuclear option: running a third-party alternative in just a handful of critical swing states in order to block both Trump and likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton from gaining the necessary 270 electoral votes required to claim the White House.
In such instances, according to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the choosing of the next president would then fall to the House of Representatives. In the House, each state casts one vote, and considering the current Republican majority in that chamber, would give the election to this newly created third-party ticket.
originally posted by: introvert
Who cares what the NRA thinks?
They do not represent the individual firearm owner and only serves to push the agenda of manufacturers.
This SCOTUS nominee deserves to scrutinized on the issue, but the NRA's opinion is not worth a lick of consideration.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Why did you link to thinkprogress and their spin on his words, instead of FNC for the actual interview and McConnell's actual words?
I watched the interview this afternoon and I'll admit the NRA drop was not the best way to describe Garland's anti-gun history, but it was a side comment at the very end of the interview and not the cornerstone of his argument.
As an aside, I think the Senate should have confirmation hearings for Garland and give him and up/down vote. Preferably down, because of his anti-gun and other political activism.