WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems deeply divided over the arrangement devised by the Obama administration to spare faith-based groups from having to pay for birth control for women covered under their health plans.
The court’s conservative justices are sounding supportive Wednesday of the groups’ complaint that the administration’s effort violates their religious rights.
The four liberal justices seem likely to vote to uphold the accommodation offered to faith-based colleges, charities and advocacy groups.
A 4-4 tie would uphold four appeals court rulings in favor of the administration. But different rules would apply in parts of the country in which another appeals court has sided with the challengers.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Since we’re looking at an 8-member SCOTUS for the indefinite future, this will happen more and more. It’s crazy to think that you’re much better off living in blue states, or federal circuits consisting of primarily blue states, but it’s true.
We’re only looking at an 8 member Court until the next one dies. Republicans are hoping that Roberts will outlive them all, leaving us with a 1 member court.
Good grief. If the Court can past the “ick” factor to uphold same-sex marriage, they should easily get past it for birth control. C’mon guys (and it is only guys opposed) even if it offends you personally, some people really need this health care coverage.
Why do they insist on having dominion over the ‘lady parts’? Stop getting between me and my doctor.
Republicans are hoping that Bader Ginsburg is the next unscheduled departure from the Court, giving the right wing a 4-3 majority but they can’t hold out for a one man Alito or Roberts court. Federal law currently provides that the Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. I’m sure Scalia could have explained how that violates his originalism doctrine since the Constitution is silent on the issue but the Court no longer has his legal genius to guide it on the way to an autocratic theocracy.