Judicail Activism
A couple of months ago, we saw that Judicial activism is still alive and well in the 9th Circuit Court. This time, the most overturned appellate court had issued another ruling that is sure to proceed to the Supreme Court and will likely be overturned. We heard very little about this in the liberal media.
The 9th Circuit overturned an injunction in a district court case, allowing the state of Washington to force a pharmacy to stock and dispense morning-after pills.
Religious reasons are the rationale behind their decision, but the ruling goes even further by impinging on private businesses what they can and cannot stock.
Business owners make decisions all the time about their inventory and what they do and do not stock. Even apart from religious grounds, which are protected by the Constitution, business owners that don’t want to sell Tylenol, or widgets, or chlorine for swimming pools, should be able to decide that on their own. If customers object to their policies, they will find other businesses to patronize. The government has a public interest in telling retailers what they cannot sell for safety reasons (like dynamite, as an example), but should not force business owners to sell something they personally object to.
This is an intrusion on businesses and Judicial Activism by the radical 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit overturned an injunction in a district court case, allowing the state of Washington to force a pharmacy to stock and dispense morning-after pills.
Religious reasons are the rationale behind their decision, but the ruling goes even further by impinging on private businesses what they can and cannot stock.
Business owners make decisions all the time about their inventory and what they do and do not stock. Even apart from religious grounds, which are protected by the Constitution, business owners that don’t want to sell Tylenol, or widgets, or chlorine for swimming pools, should be able to decide that on their own. If customers object to their policies, they will find other businesses to patronize. The government has a public interest in telling retailers what they cannot sell for safety reasons (like dynamite, as an example), but should not force business owners to sell something they personally object to.
This is an intrusion on businesses and Judicial Activism by the radical 9th Circuit.
Labels: Judicial Activism
posted by Anonymous at 5:47 AM
2 Comments:
No doubt the government would also like to set the price charged for the morning-after-pill. After all , just because the store is forced to sell it doesn't allow them to make a profit. IF I ran that store I would charge $100 a pill more each day until none sold.
I missed that decision - probably while I was reading the recent decision from the Federal Court in Georgia (authored by a typically conservative Republican appointed judge, nonetheless) dismissing the ridiculous "Obama wasnt born in USA" lawsuit, and fining the idiot lawyer $20,000 for wasting judicial time and resources.
Proof the judicial system does weed out the frivolous cases. :)
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33315604/
Post a Comment
<< Home