The appeal of our federal lawsuit targeting ObamaCare took another step forward today as we filed our reply brief with the Supreme Court once again urging the high court to take our case.
As you'll recall, last month we formally asked the high court to take our case. Today we filed what's called a reply brief - a response to the government's argument on why the high court should not take our case.
In our reply brief posted here, we argue that our lawsuit is separate and distinct from other challenges pending before the high court because it includes a claim that the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance or pay annual penalties, violates the rights of two of its clients who oppose health insurance on religious grounds.
The case we are making in our appeal to the high court is that we represent clients who not only believe ObamaCare is a flawed law, but argue that being forced to participate in ObamaCare - under penalty of law - violates their religious beliefs under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Our request is clear: The Justices should accept our appeal now in tandem with the Florida case currently before the high court. Along with challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, our case includes a unique RFRA claim and provides the Court with an additional vehicle by which to consider the impact the individual mandate has on those Americans who, like the ACLJ’s clients, object to taking part in the health insurance system for religious reasons.
While we argue that our case should be considered separately, we acknowledge that the Court may decide to hold its appeal pending the outcome of the Florida case, then grant certiorari, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings in light of the high court's decision in the Florida case.
As you know, we filed a critical amicus brief last week in the Florida appeal before the high court, representing 117 members of Congress and more than 100,000 Americans - urging the Justices to determine that the individual mandate is inextricably linked to the health care law itself, and that by declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, the entire law must be rejected as well.
We are now preparing two additional amicus briefs to be filed with the high court next month regarding two other issues that will be considered by the Justices. We will specifically make a constitutional argument against the individual mandate and present arguments on why the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits lawsuits that prevent the assessment or collection of taxes, does not apply to ObamaCare.
After his “glib” apology before Congress this week for calling the American people “stupid,” ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber attempted to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and … dodge every substantive question that came his way. He refused to answer even the simplest questions like how much ( millions )
From day one, we have warned that the real danger of Obamacare is not in the 2,700 pages of its text (as bad as they are), but in the hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that would flow out of that text. This week provides yet another example of that danger, and it is in the...
Yesterday, liberal Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer lambasted Democrats for the political failure of both ObamaCare and the stimulus. While he certainly has not changed his core belief that government can solve all the people’s ills (and said as much), he slammed his party for its political failures.
The lesson we learn from Jonathan Gruber (the MIT professor turned high-paid ObamaCare architect who admitted the Administration deceived the public to pass ObamaCare) is that the Obama Administration will do or say anything to prop up ObamaCare. You know the litany of lies (you can keep you plan,