New York Judge Slaps Down Obama Justice Department


National Review

Go to this article

Want to understand the Catholic faith?

ABSTRACTNew York Judge Slaps Down Obama Justice Department - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online (No thanks. Take me to NRO. ) Get FREE NRO Newsletters   Log In   |   Register Follow Us     December 17 Issue  Subscribe to NR  Renew  December 17 Issue   |   Subscribe   |   Renew Home The Corner The Agenda Campaign Spot The Home Front Right Field Bench Memos Media Blog The Feed Planet Gore Audio & Video The Latest Three Martini Lunch Uncommon Knowledge Between the Covers Ricochet Larry Kudlow David Calling Exchequer Phi Beta Cons Critical Condition Human Exceptionalism Tweet Tracker NR / Digital Subscribe NR Subscribe NR/Digital Give NR Give: NR/Digital NR Renewals Store Donate Media Kit Contact Close To: Your Email: Your Name: Subject: New on NRO . . . The Corner The one and only. About This Blog Archive E-Mail RSS Send Print   |  Text   New York Judge Slaps Down Obama Justice Department By  Kathryn Jean Lopez December 5, 2012 7:33 P.M. Comments 4 Print Text   The Obama administration has been consistently arguing, since announcing a year’s grace period for some religious organizations to figure out how to violate their consciences and obey the HHS mandate, that the controversy over religious freedom and the mandate is over and the Catholics are happy.  That, as has been pointed out here before, ignores all the lawsuits pending. And that they are not just from Catholics.  Today in New York, a judge dismissed  the Obama Justice Department’s claims that the Archdiocese of New York’s lawsuit in response to the coercive mandate is unnecessary. Judge Brian Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York wrote:  Fundamentally . . . this Court cannot accept that the present costs incurred by plaintiffs are simply the result of their “desire to prepare for contingencies.”  Quite frankly, ignoring the speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs in the hope that it will stop might well be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that plaintiffs’ directors or officers owe to their members. As explained above, the practical realities of administering health care coverage for large numbers of employees — which defendants’ recognize — require plaintiffs to incur these costs in advance of the impending effectiveness of the Coverage Mandate. That is a business reality that any responsible board of directors would have to appreciate. Moreover, the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action. There is no, “Trust us, changes are coming” clause in the Constitution. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and.......