Nancy Pelosi: 'We should be afraid of this court'

[cal04]

Last edited Thu Jul 10, 2014, 03:18 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: Politico

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Americans should be afraid of the Supreme Court after it ruled that some employers can elect not to offer birth control as part of company health care coverage if they have religious objections.

“We should be afraid about this court … five men can decide if a woman can use a diaphragm,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday during her weekly news conference at the Capitol.

video at link


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/nancy-pelosi-americans-fear-supreme-court-108761.html

---

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/211850-pelosi-we-should-be-afraid-of-this-court

Hammering a pair of recent rulings related to birth control access, the House minority leader suggested the conservative leaning court is stealing women's freedoms when it comes to making healthcare choices.

"We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning," Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol.

[myrna minx]

1. The unchecked power those 5 men have is disturbing.

[samsingh]

2. we are terrified of this court

can our elected officials and party help us

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Our elected officials helped appoint them

Despite their extreme views, the Dems refused to filibuster Alito or Roberts.

[Skidmore]

14. Our elected officials need to legislate. DO their jobs. And we need to get our

collective butts to the polls in November and install a Congress who is responsive to the needs of the nation and not the few. Sound and well-crafted legislation does not leave holes that you can drive a 777 through.

[samsingh]

19. the elected officials need to make sure that our votes are counted

[calimary]

27. Well, if there are indeed so many more of us than there are of the bad guys, simply

by the numbers, it should not even be necessary. We need to tap into that majority and make sure it VOTES!!! There's nothing like a hands-down, NOT NEARLY close-enough-to-steal total that tells you who won, decisively and beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. They'll STILL try to question and challenge, but even those among them will be forced to concede the numbers are too indisputable.

VOTE! With ALL YOUR NUMBERS, DEMS!!! Make that majority we supposedly have in sheer numbers of voters speak the loudest. That's how Gore got it stolen from him. They were close enough to make a somewhat (to some, anyway) reasonable case that it could go either way. And they exploited that beautifully. DON'T GIVE 'EM MATERIAL THEY CAN EXPLOIT!!! DON'T GIVE 'EM AN INCH! Not a MILLIMETER! Think termites. A crack a millimeter in length can quickly become the Holland Tunnel. We're seeing that happening at this very moment with the Hobby Lobby case. There are all kinds of entities and claimants coming out of the woodwork now, seeking to exploit the alleged "narrowness" of this ruling and widen it out and push the edges and defy the arbitrary boundaries and not just push the envelope but rip it the fuck to shreds. Think termites.

[Dustlawyer]

39. Most of the Democrats are corrupt and all of the Republicans!

Most non-voters say the same thing,"My vote doesn't matter." When i ask them why they think it doesn't matter, most tell me they are all the same, bought off!

Don't get me wrong, I still vote for Democrats and encourage people to vote all of the time. My friends who don't vote feel strongly about it. I would expect that they just don't care, but that is not true of most of them. They hate what is going on but feel helpless to do anything about it. Try asking some non-voters and see what you get.

[JDPriestly]

44. Very True.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. I have been to the polls for every election since I could vote

and the government has continued to drift right.

The Scalia Five are free to do whatever they damned well please, regardless of how legislation or the Constitution is written. That is why it was CRITICALLY important that people like Roberts and Alito be filibustered, which the Dems failed to do.

We have lost the game since the right will control the SCOTUS for decades to come and thus defeat pretty much any genuine reform legislation we MIGHT pass. The only people who are considering leaving are the Old School conservative justices who are now called "liberals".

(My definition of a "liberal" justice is Thurgood Marshall. Who on the court even comes close to him these days?)

[24601]

33. Hypothesis: "Every nominee should get an up or down vote." Or shall we instead apply situational

ethics? Is an up or down vote a fundamental principle, or a perk reserved for those whose allies control the Senate?

I believe Senators should not block votes based on partisanship.

For example, suppose Democrats lose the Senate in the 2014 election, Justice Ginsburg retires in January and the President nominates Senator Warren. Is it your position that Supreme Court nominees may be filibustered?

[Kelvin Mace]

34. I believe judges should be appointed who follow the law

not political ideology. If we are going to take filibuster off the table then we take it away from them as well.

[AndyTiedye]

43. "Blue Dog" Boll Weevils Refused to Filibuster

Somebody's elected officials, but not mine. Unfortunately, "blue dogs" seem to be the best we can get in about half the country.

[rurallib]

26. I am terrified for me and really terrified for my daughters.

[randys1]

3. Thomas could be legally impeached today...

[Doctor_J]

25. He lied under oath at his confirmation hearing, and his tax fraud is well documented

another opportunity missed in 2009

[randys1]

30. Alito & ROberts lied non stop in their confirmation hearings

these are criminals, hired thugs to do the bidding of the richest, greediest human _ _ _ _ _ on the planet, I cant say the word of what I call them because I will be banned, cant hurt their feelings.

[louis-t]

4. They need to use the argument this way:

"The Republicans in government want to stand between you and your doctor. They want to tell you what you can do with your body, then talk about smaller government. They want to tell your doctor what procedures your insurance company won't pay for." This is not about 'religious objections.' This is about sticking a thumb in the president's eye whenever they can.

[MynameisBlarney]

6. I disagree with one thing in your post.

While this is about sticking their thumb in Obama's eye every chance they get, it is also very much about religion.
They are actively turning this nation into a Theocracy.

[louis-t]

9. It's about using any excuse to cut their costs.

They had no religious objection to their employees having birth control in the past and they have no objection to investing in companies that make birth control products. It's more about money. It's about using their religion to increase their bottom lines.

[HooptieWagon]

11. IMO, its not about cost.

I doubt the difference with or without birth control is very much. And birth control is far cheaper than a pregnancy/birth, which is probably covered.

I think this was ALL about imposing a religious belief on employees, and opposing Obama.

[BrotherIvan]

12. +1

They also need to get out there and educate right now. They need to educate that the decision was based on what HL "believed", that the contraception were abortificants, which is not scientifically true. So whatever your employer believes, they can impose upon you. Then show how the decision quickly went to all forms of birth control (because HL supporters are trumpeting how it is only 4) and how it could affect everyone in unforeseen ways.

They need to teach the public how birth control works it seems. They need to point out, loudly, that access to birth control is responsible for a decrease in abortions. Then, they need to talk about single payer.

[madamesilverspurs]

20. Not about religion.

Religion isn't the objective, it's the vehicle. Better yet, it's the excuse. If/when the rightists get the absolute power they are seeking, the first thing they will ditch is the semblance of religiosity. With absolute power, maintaining a pretense of conscience is an unneccesary expense.

[MynameisBlarney]

21. I dunno...

They sure as hell seem to be quite concerned with religion.
But, perhaps you're right.

[AndyTiedye]

42. It is About Theocracy because the People Cannot Overthrow a Theocracy

They know the people would rebel eventually if things continue on their current course (see recent essay about "pitchforks&quot , so they intend to replace our government with the one form of government that has been proven to be 100% immune from popular uprisings. That is theocracy. No theocracy has ever fallen to a popular uprising. A few secular monarchs who somewhat incidentally claimed "divine right of kings" may have lost their heads, but a fully integrated church state has always been able to force its will on its people.

[world wide wally]

5. In case you haven't noticed... Our country, our values, our very Constitution are under assault from

this court. They are out for one thing, and that is to advance the Republican fat cat agenda.

[MynameisBlarney]

13. And that agenda

is establishing the white bread sharia law.
A Fascist Theocracy, if you will.

[littlemissmartypants]

15. White bread sharia law. Catchy.

Like plague.

[Ash_F]

7. So if we get another Dem pres, who is going to die in office instead of retiring in a timely manner?

They are just barely hanging on to the old America, aren't they?

[whateyethynk]

10. Oh, Supreme Court, What Hath Thou Wrought?

Waiting for a Muslim company to ask for a religious exemption. The fireworks should be something to behold.

The Supreme Court has opened a can of worms that makes Godzilla look like a gnat.

http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/07/quick-note-oh-supreme-court-what-hath.html

[littlemissmartypants]

16. Thanks Nance.

Guess she just finished cleaning up after all of the Forth of July parties to stop and make a statement. What took her so long? We should be pouncing on this crap with visible claws.

Sorry. Weak moment.

Love, Peace and Shelter. littlemissmartypants

[bemildred]

17. We should impeach this court, and then convict them. nt

[Louisiana1976]

31. Yes. Figure out how to impeach the Fascist Five.

[Uncle Joe]

18. The Roberts Court is radical and reckless, showing no regard for the American People or

the Bill of Rights.


Thanks for the thread, Eva.

[Enthusiast]

22. They're RADICALS!

Seriously.

[Doctor_J]

23. That's our Nancy, right on top of things

[ReRe]

24. Seriously...

Where has she been the last 8-9 days?

[GeorgeGist]

28. Five guys ...

and a Pope.

[PDJane]

29. Frankly, I believe that Scalia and Thomas should be impeached

For conduct unbecoming....notably their ties to various right wing corporate cronies and their refusal to recuse themselves from certain judgements as corporate shills.

[Triana]

35. That court should be afraid of US.

That they the are obviously not, IMO is the problem. Scalia and Thomas are just a tad too arrogant. They need to be taken down a few notches. Impeachment would be a great start to the process.

[Lrobby99]

36. Was this a hint to Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

To retire soon?

[mwooldri]

37. The "easy" solution is this:

Dem House majority, Dem Senate majority, Dem Senate kicks out the filibuster rules entirely, simple majority vote to add two extra justices to the Supreme Court. Of the Dem President's choosing.

Would be nice if they were Lib Dems, not conservadems.

[valerief]

38. Duh, Nancy, we are and have been for quite some time. nt

[oldandhappy]

40. I have been afraid for a decade.

[JEFF9K]

41. If I'm not mistaken, the Bible doesn't mention birth control at all.

[Orsino]

45. Not just stealing women's freedoms.

The Roberts majority is crusading for corporate power.

Women, as usual, are simply being taken down the hardest right now because that's such an easy sale to the base and the country at large. Make no mistake, gentlemen: they are coming for us all.

[wordpix]

46. and why are these people appointed for life? There should be term limits

My gawd, if you're 100 yr. old and can't think straight, you can still be a Supreme deciding on the nation's most important legal issues.