Supreme Court sends Obamacare case back to lower court

With a empty seat and a tied verdict on the case the supreme court has decided to send the Little Sister's and company case back down to the lower court in hopes that a compromise can be found.

The Supreme Court on Monday avoided issuing a major ruling on a challenge brought by religiously affiliated non-profit groups to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.
The justices, in a unanimous decision, wrote that they were not deciding the case on the merits but instead sent the case back down to the lower courts for opposing parties to work out a compromise.

"The court expresses no view on the merits of the cases," the justices wrote, adding that "given the gravity of the dispute" and the fact that the parties have clarified their positions during the course of the litigation the parties should be able to "arrive at an approach."
www.cnn.com...

So I guess if congress doesn't have to do their job and fill the seat, the supreme court doesn't have to do theirs and decide on a case, or admit that they can't come up with a majority vote which would leave the lower courts decision stand, which would leave some states going one way others going the other way.

a reply to: dawnstar

Don't know what the problem is, seems pretty simple to me.

The Govt shouldn't be able to force you to buy something. And contraceptives shouldn't be covered under health insurance.

Religious beliefs aside, which I have none. It's unconstitutional authoritarian nanny state madness.

a reply to: watchitburn

Don't know what the problem is, seems pretty simple to me.

me too.
but the US government doesn't do simple, can't get your money that way.

a reply to: watchitburn

but, the gov't is forcing us to buy insurance, it is also forcing taxpayers to pay for the medical care for the poor, children, ect.

And contraceptives shouldn't be covered under health insurance.

why, it's a medically valid health need for women!! and, unless you can show me proof that having six or seven kids, often times less than two years apart does I not wear down a women's body and cause physical problems.. (I can do a simple search and prove that it does!!!) then yes, it's just as worthy to be covered in health insurance than any other care that is covered!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

why, it's a medically valid health need for women!! and, unless you can show me proof that having six or seven kids, often times less than two years apart does I not wear down a women's body and cause physical problems.. (I can do a simple search and prove that it does!!!) then yes, it's just as worthy to be covered in health insurance than any other care that is covered!!!

well your quite wrong about that, although the desire for sex is a natural function of the body. there is one sure fire way for women not to get pregnant. keep your knees together and abstain from sex. or there are whole lot of other ways to have sex without getting pregnant.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

ya, abstinance...
you a married man? how would you like your wife to tell you sorry, we have enough kids, no more sex for you!! it seems that sex is thought to be a very natural aspect of marriage.. so much so that denying it is cause for divorce in many states.

a reply to: dawnstar

what part of
"or there are whole lot of other ways to have sex without getting pregnant."
you don't understand.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: dawnstar

what part of
"or there are whole lot of other ways to have sex without getting pregnant."
you don't understand.

And, the "Little Sister" approve of those ways? I think not. So, what does the various sex positions in your imagination have to do with SCOTUS passing this ruling back down for "compromise'?

a reply to: windword

And, the "Little Sister" approve of those ways?

can't say yea or nay on that not enough info given on their views and don't know anything other than what is given.

So, what does the various sex positions in your imagination have to do with SCOTUS passing this ruling back down for "compromise'?

for those that can't keep up, my imagination doesn't have squat to do with it. i was telling dawnstar that there is not a medical need if you don't have sex or practice different ways of having sex.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

there isn't really isn't need for 50+ year old men to be able to get it up and insurance still covers viagra!!!

and, just what do you think those men expect to do after they take that viagra with their wives???

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

for those that can't keep up, my imagination doesn't have squat to do with it.

Exactly!

This case has nothing to do with your judgement of how women should or should not be having sex. It's about paper work, as in, The Little Sisters refuse to do it.

a reply to: windword

I'm kind of hoping the court saw yet another case heading toward them dealing with the obamacare mess and just decided heck with it, we aren't dealing with all these headaches, we can't even get a majority vote! and well, they decided just not to decide on this case, and hopefully, if they are still functioning handicapped when the new case comes to them, they'll be so disgusted with the whole thing they will just declare the whole law as being badly written and send the congress and white house back to the drawing board to put humpty dumpty back together again.

a reply to: windword

nice try at a save, i see you still failed to grasp the conversation i was having with dawnstar.
i judged no one, and just made a simple statements of facts, i dare you to prove them prove them wrong.

a reply to: dawnstar

well believe it or not there are men who do want to have children after age 50.
and besides that ED is a Medically Diagnosed condition, if they want to have children that helps them.
not wanting to get pregnant is not a Medically Diagnosed condition, just a desire not to become pregnant.

ETA: now if it is shown that a Medically Diagnosed condition,if they become pregnant it will cause harm to them i have no problem with it.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I think that the centuries prior to the advent of the pill give proof that what you are arguing is false...
what, you think that all those women really wanted to have large families back then? if abstinence really was that effective and feasible, families would have been smaller long before they began decreasing in size.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

which, that desire can be shown to be very justifiable through common medical knowledge!
IT IS NOT HEALTHY FOR A WOMEN TO HAVE TOO MANY CHILDREN TOO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

large families in the past was a necessity. that was one of the ways a family survived. man where did you go to school.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

not in big cities is wasn't!! I mean they were so necessary in London and the rest of england that the work houses were filled with the unwanted!

look, youR position fell apart when you brought up the idea that there are other ways not to have sex without getting pregnant. unless you are prepared to say that men will accept their wives choice to go the rest of their child rearing years without sex, you should just accept that birth control IS HEALTHCARE!

a reply to: watchitburn

Birth control pills are prescription drugs. Why shouldn't they be covered if other drugs are? Viagra is. Should that be an exclusion?

a reply to: dawnstar

Show me that a woman net engaging in sex spontaneously gets pregnant.

In other words show me that good old-fashioned self control does not work as a method. Further show me that the women who don't engage in sex have worse health outcomes in contraception and STD prevention than the women who use it and engage in lots of sex.