wat0n wrote:Let me see if I get this straight.
Some States sued because setting the Obamacare tax to $0 damaged them, and the remedy they sought was a complete repeal of the Act?
Isn't this a bit... Inconsistent?
Nope, the states argued that they had been injured by Obamacare, and that reducing the Obamacare tax to $0 made the law as a whole unconstitutional because the individual mandate isn't severable from the rest of the law. Apparently Thomas agreed that the states had failed to show harm and so lacked standing, so this time that actually needs to be taken seriously.
Drlee wrote:It is. It is a warning shot that the court is not going to endorse strong central power but will rather empower states, as it should be.
It's broader than that, this involved a city government. Rather, I'd say it's a signal that the Court isn't going to endorse the use of government power to push religions that you don't agree with out of the public square.
As a religious person I was getting pretty tired of both sides of this argument. The left wants the central government to provide these services "untainted" by religion but they are unwilling to pay for it. The right wants to use public money to pay religious organizations to do this but does not want to accept public control of their money.
I'd say more that relgions insist that if governments are going to distribute funds to private organizations for purposes that churches have long helped fulfill, the churches cannot be denied access to their share of the funds due to religious doctrine. Though in this case I believe the issue isn't just funding but the religious organization's ability to operate in that city at all. which segues into your next point....
As a social libertarian and fiscal conservative (and of course Christian) I support private organizations in their work to provide for social services consistent with whatever religious beliefs they have. I would say to 'the left', "Look guys. If you want us out of this business then pony up the money and embrace every orphan in the country. Start 120 days before they are born."
When I see some progressive whining about (as an example) a Muslim orphanage requiring the little girls to dress IAW their modesty rules I am inclined to say, "well my progressive friend...adopt her and raise her any way you like".
That's pretty much my major problem with those trying to shut down religious adoption and foster care organizations--once they've been shut down, who's going to fill the void? As best I can tell, the answer has been "no one." So the secular fanatics are harming children, in the name of helping the children.
The expert is more aristocratic than the aristocrat, because the aristocrat is only the man who lives well, while the expert is the man who knows better.
—G. K. Chesterton