SCOTUS: Hobby Lobby Wins. SCOTUS strikes the contraception mandate

[ArcadiaGP]

Court rules Little Sisters of the Poor must comply with Obamacare's birth control mandate

 

[jamil]

Damn. I feel sorry for you guys. I really do. I mean, it's not like they're conveniently making religion up as they go to get out of stuff. They're NUNS for cryin' out loud. It's a long held belief. I think no belief is beyond the limits of a court to invalidate. Whatever law they pass, no matter what your beliefs are, is there a limit? I'd like to know.

 

[rhino]

Absolutely reprehensible outcome.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Damn. I feel sorry for you guys. I really do. I mean, it's not like they're conveniently making religion up as they go to get out of stuff. They're NUNS for cryin' out loud. It's a long held belief. I think no belief is beyond the limits of a court to invalidate. Whatever law they pass, no matter what your beliefs are, is there a limit? I'd like to know.

No. Agenda trumps all.

 

[jamil]

No. Agenda trumps all.

I think if people want to invalidate the right to practice religion they should man up and overtly remove the clause from the constitution.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think if people want to invalidate the right to practice religion they should man up and overtly remove the clause from the constitution.

They are. The progressives decided some time ago, amending the constitution using the built in mechanisms was too difficult and slow. They learned all they have to do is get a few judges to rule in their favor and viola! A new amendment-ish was born. Once it is pronounced by the courts, it practically takes a real amendment to rescind. It really was a stroke of genius. When they decide your right to not be discriminated against trumps another person's right to practice their religion, the "nor the exercise thereof" portion will be effectively amended out.

 

[JTScribe]

They are. The progressives decided some time ago, amending the constitution using the built in mechanisms was too difficult and slow. They learned all they have to do is get a few judges to rule in their favor and viola! A new amendment-ish was born. Once it is pronounced by the courts, it practically takes a real amendment to rescind. It really was a stroke of genius. When they decide your right to not be discriminated against trumps another person's right to practice their religion, the "nor the exercise thereof" portion will be effectively amended out.

If only we had some on our side with some cojones . . .

It's Time For Conservatives To Play By The New Rules - Kurt Schlichter - Page 1

OT, has anyone ever read "Caliphate" by Tom Kratman? It's mil-SF set about 100 years in the future IIRC. Islam has conquered Europe and the US has been in a true multi-generational war with them. Of course, the saw about "one must not look too far into the abyss" has come to pass within the US. One of the methods the war-party that came to power uses to kowtow political dissidents is to essentially legalize Presidential assassination by pardon . . . IE, a Supreme Court Justice bucks the system. The guy who kills him gets a Presidential pardon. Suddenly all the decisions start going 9-0 in the war party's favor. Very thought provoking, very non-PC book.

 

[jamil]

They are. The progressives decided some time ago, amending the constitution using the built in mechanisms was too difficult and slow. They learned all they have to do is get a few judges to rule in their favor and viola! A new amendment-ish was born. Once it is pronounced by the courts, it practically takes a real amendment to rescind. It really was a stroke of genius. When they decide your right to not be discriminated against trumps another person's right to practice their religion, the "nor the exercise thereof" portion will be effectively amended out.

Well, I did say "man up". The virtual amendment process is for pussies.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If only we had some on our side with some cojones . . .

It's Time For Conservatives To Play By The New Rules - Kurt Schlichter - Page 1

OT, has anyone ever read "Caliphate" by Tom Kratman? It's mil-SF set about 100 years in the future IIRC. Islam has conquered Europe and the US has been in a true multi-generational war with them. Of course, the saw about "one must not look too far into the abyss" has come to pass within the US. One of the methods the war-party that came to power uses to kowtow political dissidents is to essentially legalize Presidential assassination by pardon . . . IE, a Supreme Court Justice bucks the system. The guy who kills him gets a Presidential pardon. Suddenly all the decisions start going 9-0 in the war party's favor. Very thought provoking, very non-PC book.

Let’s appoint judges, who understand that their purpose is to rationalize rulings that support our policy priorities, not seek some “legally correct” decision that might not. The law of the land is whatever we want it to be!

Sadly, this may be the only realistic way to counter the "other side". Can you imagine the wasteland our political and legal systems will become?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, I did say "man up". The virtual amendment process is for pussies.

Yeah but they're winning.

 

[rhino]

They are. The progressives decided some time ago, amending the constitution using the built in mechanisms was too difficult and slow. They learned all they have to do is get a few judges to rule in their favor and viola! A new amendment-ish was born. Once it is pronounced by the courts, it practically takes a real amendment to rescind. It really was a stroke of genius. When they decide your right to not be discriminated against trumps another person's right to practice their religion, the "nor the exercise thereof" portion will be effectively amended out.

Many incredibly evil persons throughout history have been very smart, ruthless, relentlessly devoted to achieving their goals, and sufficiently patient to realize them. The only differences today are the specific tactics.

 

[cobber]

If only we had some on our side with some cojones . . .

It's Time For Conservatives To Play By The New Rules - Kurt Schlichter - Page 1

OT, has anyone ever read "Caliphate" by Tom Kratman? It's mil-SF set about 100 years in the future IIRC. Islam has conquered Europe and the US has been in a true multi-generational war with them. Of course, the saw about "one must not look too far into the abyss" has come to pass within the US. One of the methods the war-party that came to power uses to kowtow political dissidents is to essentially legalize Presidential assassination by pardon . . . IE, a Supreme Court Justice bucks the system. The guy who kills him gets a Presidential pardon. Suddenly all the decisions start going 9-0 in the war party's favor. Very thought provoking, very non-PC book.

Maybe the persons pulling the strings don't need to assassinate anyone, but just have a binder of "inconvenient" information. On enough justices to ensure 5-4 majorities whenever they need them...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Maybe the persons pulling the strings don't need to assassinate anyone, but just have a binder of "inconvenient" information. On enough justices to ensure 5-4 majorities whenever they need them...

Maybe all 9 of them? It would explain the situations in recent memory when, contrary to everything I was inclined to believe, I could have choked the 'conservatives' while feeling that I owed the left wing including both Obama appointees a steak dinner. This serves to leave us not even knowing who to support which does much to undermine the process of a representative republic through confusion and de facto denial of choice. After all, one of the bigger concerns every presidential election is 'this person is likely going to appoint X justices to the Supreme Court'. What do we do when one is as bad as the other? At that point, the teleprompter wins.

 

[IndyDave1776]

While I am at it, we have this:

During oral arguments, the lawyers and judges focused in on the deceptively simple question at the heart of this case: the meaning of the piece of paper that religious non-profits have to submit to the government—Form 700. Does a formal statement of opposition to birth control which facilitates insurance coverage paradoxically amount to tacit, silent support, they asked? The Little Sisters say yes, but the judges of the Tenth Circuit say no. “Plaintiffs have not shown any likelihood that their sending in the Form or the notification would convey a message of support for contraception,” they write. “The First Amendment does not—and cannot—protect organizations from having to make any and all statements ‘they wish to avoid.’”

How in the universe can it be said that signing a paper to delegate a violation of one's religious standards to a third party is not a violation of that religious standard? This is much like saying that there is nothing illegal or immoral about killing that annoying neighbor as long as you have me do it for you instead of killing him yourself? You walk away from that with clean hands? Seriously?

 

[KG1]

While I am at it, we have this:



How in the universe can it be said that signing a paper to delegate a violation of one's religious standards to a third party is not a violation of that religious standard? This is much like saying that there is nothing illegal or immoral about killing that annoying neighbor as long as you have me do it for you instead of killing him yourself? You walk away from that with clean hands? Seriously?

If you sign a paper delegating your religious standards to another (washing your hands of it) do you really have clean hands?

 

[gstanley102]

While I am at it, we have this:



How in the universe can it be said that signing a paper to delegate a violation of one's religious standards to a third party is not a violation of that religious standard? This is much like saying that there is nothing illegal or immoral about killing that annoying neighbor as long as you have me do it for you instead of killing him yourself? You walk away from that with clean hands? Seriously?

OR.....This is much like saying that there is nothing illegal or immoral about killing that annoying neighbor, or baby, as long as you have me do it for you instead of killing him yourself?

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you sign a paper delegating your religious standards to another (washing your hands of it) do you really have clean hands?

OR.....This is much like saying that there is nothing illegal or immoral about killing that annoying neighbor, or baby, as long as you have me do it for you instead of killing him yourself?

I believe we are all on the same page. The court is essentially declaring that those who harbor religious objections can sign a paper passing off the responsibility for providing proscribed services like abortion to the government to assign to a third-party and this somehow does not amount to demanding a violation of the religious standard in question, which makes absolutely no sense to any but the most defective mind.

 

[cobber]

OR.....This is much like saying that there is nothing illegal or immoral about killing that annoying neighbor, or baby, as long as you have me do it for you instead of killing him yourself?

Sounds like Justice Kennedy may soon discover a new "right". Who knew??

 

[KLB]

Are they being forced to pay for the coverage?

If not, you are basically arguing semantics. They are signing a paper to opt out of having to provide coverage. That ends their involvement in the matter. What happens elsewhere after that does not involve them in any way.

If they are still paying for it, that is another matter.

 

[Fargo]

Are they being forced to pay for the coverage?

If not, you are basically arguing semantics. They are signing a paper to opt out of having to provide coverage. That ends their involvement in the matter. What happens elsewhere after that does not involve them in any way.

If they are still paying for it, that is another matter.

So, in order to exercise your first amendment religious rights, you now have to have the statement on file with the federal government?

How the hell does that square with freedom of speech or religion? How can they coerce this political speech (form 700) and condition it on deprivation of religious freedom if you don't?

Then, as a matter of law, the sole purpose of the coerced speech is to justify using laundered tax dollars to pay for private party's contraceptives?

if the law had another purpose for form 700, the government might have a point. In this case the only purpose is to distribute contraceptives.


Wow.