HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby...

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:01 AM

Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby Lobby Ruling May Create 'Havoc'

The Supreme Court on Monday weakened Obamacare's controversial contraception mandate, ruling 5-4 that some employers cannot be forced to cover birth control as part of their health-insurance plans. The majority opinion, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, said such a mandate infringes on religious freedom, and thereby can be waived by certain business owners.

But in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as "a decision of startling breadth" that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The majority view "demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ" wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court's liberal wing.


She continued: "Persuaded that Congress enacted the (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court's judgment can introduce, I dissent."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/ginsburg-radical-hobby-lobby-ruling-may-create-havoc-20140630

143 replies, 18185 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 143 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby Lobby Ruling May Create 'Havoc' (Original post)
octoberlib Jun 2014 OP
Coventina Jun 2014 #1
GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #15
knightmaar Jun 2014 #42
BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #104
Cha Jun 2014 #121
GoCubsGo Jul 2014 #137
fasttense Jun 2014 #57
chknltl Jun 2014 #68
chknltl Jun 2014 #70
fasttense Jun 2014 #72
Marthe48 Jun 2014 #111
Diclotican Jun 2014 #81
fasttense Jul 2014 #134
Diclotican Jul 2014 #136
fasttense Jul 2014 #138
nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #106
Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #76
Marthe48 Jun 2014 #112
ColumbusLib Jun 2014 #120
roguevalley Jun 2014 #103
Bickle Jun 2014 #69
Rockyj Jul 2014 #132
JEB Jun 2014 #2
RKP5637 Jun 2014 #3
dickthegrouch Jun 2014 #28
RKP5637 Jun 2014 #32
3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #29
RKP5637 Jun 2014 #34
cui bono Jun 2014 #54
RKP5637 Jun 2014 #61
reformist2 Jun 2014 #4
GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #17
BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #41
Moostache Jun 2014 #99
BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #100
Voice for Peace Jun 2014 #52
BlueMTexpat Jul 2014 #125
Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #5
dhill926 Jun 2014 #16
Takket Jun 2014 #18
csziggy Jun 2014 #20
3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #31
csziggy Jun 2014 #36
etherealtruth Jun 2014 #93
cui bono Jun 2014 #56
3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #64
cui bono Jun 2014 #82
IggleDoer Jun 2014 #73
cui bono Jun 2014 #80
Marrah_G Jun 2014 #113
Horse with no Name Jun 2014 #6
Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #78
stevenleser Jun 2014 #7
truebrit71 Jun 2014 #8
christx30 Jun 2014 #53
truebrit71 Jun 2014 #55
christx30 Jun 2014 #65
truebrit71 Jun 2014 #66
Johonny Jun 2014 #9
valerief Jun 2014 #10
Salviati Jun 2014 #11
panader0 Jun 2014 #12
csziggy Jun 2014 #21
femmocrat Jun 2014 #13
DhhD Jun 2014 #74
toby jo Jun 2014 #60
GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #14
MindPilot Jun 2014 #19
Rider3 Jun 2014 #22
KatyMan Jun 2014 #45
Hekate Jun 2014 #58
happyslug Jun 2014 #23
RoccoR5955 Jun 2014 #24
rtracey Jun 2014 #25
Name removed Jun 2014 #26
Starry Messenger Jun 2014 #33
joeybee12 Jun 2014 #37
LexVegas Jun 2014 #40
BootinUp Jun 2014 #89
MadrasT Jun 2014 #44
Name removed Jun 2014 #71
CreekDog Jun 2014 #85
Skittles Jun 2014 #92
etherealtruth Jun 2014 #87
countryjake Jun 2014 #96
B2G Jun 2014 #77
CreekDog Jun 2014 #86
Skip Intro Jun 2014 #109
CreekDog Jun 2014 #116
CreekDog Jun 2014 #118
B2G Jul 2014 #133
Skittles Jun 2014 #90
Post removed Jun 2014 #101
countryjake Jun 2014 #108
countryjake Jun 2014 #110
octoberlib Jun 2014 #102
Javaman Jun 2014 #27
weissmam Jun 2014 #30
3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #39
ksdascribe2 Jun 2014 #59
EV_Ares Jun 2014 #35
Enthusiast Jun 2014 #38
tclambert Jun 2014 #43
BuddhaGirl Jun 2014 #46
malthaussen Jun 2014 #47
Xipe Totec Jun 2014 #48
3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #83
Xipe Totec Jun 2014 #94
mountain grammy Jun 2014 #49
cui bono Jun 2014 #50
Tetris_Iguana Jun 2014 #62
Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #79
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #51
progressivebydesign Jun 2014 #63
calimary Jun 2014 #67
Half-Century Man Jun 2014 #75
3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #84
nikto Jun 2014 #88
Adam051188 Jun 2014 #91
Thor_MN Jun 2014 #95
HereSince1628 Jun 2014 #97
nolabear Jun 2014 #98
McCamy Taylor Jun 2014 #105
freshwest Jun 2014 #107
freshwest Jun 2014 #114
octoberlib Jun 2014 #115
Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #117
octoberlib Jun 2014 #119
Kablooie Jun 2014 #122
supercats Jun 2014 #123
BlueMTexpat Jul 2014 #124
emsimon33 Jul 2014 #126
blkmusclmachine Jul 2014 #127
King_Klonopin Jul 2014 #128
BootinUp Jul 2014 #129
nolabels Jul 2014 #130
ReRe Jul 2014 #131
William769 Jul 2014 #135
Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #139
Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #140
nolabels Jul 2014 #141
Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #142
nolabels Jul 2014 #143

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:03 AM

1. Go, go Ginsberg!

and Sotomayor.

Very telling that only males voted for this insanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:14 AM

15. Justice Ginsberg is PISSED.

The only other time she said "I dissent", rather than the usual "I respectfully dissent", was when her colleagues installed Shit-for-Brains in the Whitehouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:13 PM

42. You noticed that, too?

That stuck out for me. The word "respectfully" is pretty much always there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:36 PM

104. good point.

Those shitbags (and I use the word "bag" in its colloquial sense here, as slang for 'scrotum') don't deserve any respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:07 PM

121. Thanks for that, GCG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #121)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:15 PM

137. I haven't read her dissent yet, but...

I understand it's a real barn-burner--all 37 pages of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:50 PM

57. The Supremes have turned this country into a constitutionally limited Monarchy

 

No where in the constitutions does it say the Supremes have the power to make the final decision on the constitutionality of a law. With this power grab of the Supremes, they are making law. Nowhere are the Supremes given that power in the Constitution. By taking this power on to themselves, they have made themselves the Monarchs of America.

These Supremes are making and legislating law almost everyday. They are 9 appointed and NOT elected partisan people who rule us.

I will never shop in Hobby Lobby ever again and the Supremes should be disposed of and we should go back to a democracy and NOT a monarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #57)


Response to fasttense (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:44 PM

70. Constitutional Monarchy is what Thom Hartmann calls it too.

Sadly, when SCOTUS 'legislation' goes against the desires of of one side or the other in our divided nation one side applauds it and the other side screams out for changing the 'radical' Judges. I recall when SCOTUS declared Obamacare Constitutional there were plenty of wingers calling for Chief Justice Robert's head while we applauded the decision. If We The People want REAL change we must drop our partisanship for a moment and come together to create that change. A divided electorate can NOT be the final arbitor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:29 PM

72. Yes, there are a few rulings that the Supremes make that are barely liberal

 

But ever since 2000, the Supremes have been overturning laws left and right with the only commonality being that they favor huge corporations and make suffer the average working person.

The Supremes do this because they are taking bribes from huge corporations or organizations ruled and funded by those corporations. Oh we don't call them bribes but that is what the Supremes do when they take speaking engagements, let their wives be paid by huge corporations with interests in front of the court (and not report it for decades), accept funding to their favorite charity, and get all expenses paid free vacations to exotic places for speaking to partisan groups.

The Supremes use to be somewhat restrained and tried to cloak their decisions with bad logic and precedent. But not anymore. I really don't care if they rule slightly liberal or extremely conservative. They should not legislating from the bench and they have no constitutional support for this.

They get away with it because Americans are not real bright and rarely protest. Also the very weak legislative and executive branches that should be reining them in are doing nothing to stop them.

The legislative branch should be restricting the cases the Supremes can rule upon. They should also be prosecuting the 9 judges when they violate law and common ethics. The executive branch should be refusing to abide by the Supremes sweeping legislation and call their decisions out as merely applicable in the single cases they ruled upon. Judaical Review has always been suspect. It is just now much more blatantly obvious that these judges mean to be kings of America, no matter how badly the majority of people suffer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #72)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:08 PM

111. Well said!

They can be impeached, but who has the guts to start proceedings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:21 PM

81. chknltl

chknltl

The current state of affair in the US is no where any constitution Monarchy I know about - and as I do live in a constitutional monarchy - I guess I have a idea how things work in a constitutional monarcy....? At least where I live - the King, or Queen do not have any political power at all - they are figurehead of state - and serve mostly as Representatives when they visits other nations - or open up our parliament every year - and do a lot of other duties of course - but this is the main job of an constitutional monarch - to represent our country when abroad - and to open the parliament every now and then when needed..

And of course have a speech every year at new years eve - first up is the prime minister - but in prime time it is the King who do the speetch...


Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Diclotican (Reply #81)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:17 AM

134. There are different types of constitutionally limited Monarchies.

 

As there are different types of democracies.

In your case, you have only one monarch that seems to be more of a figure head. In our case we have 9 kings who have (so far) limited their duties to legislating, writing laws, and handling some judiciary responsibilities and giving speeches to the partisan citizen groups that pay them the most. But who would stop Clarence or Alito if they decided to set up treaties and negotiate trade agreements? It seems that the legislative branch doesn't have the guts to even censure Clarence when he violates the law. So, these kings will be pressing the boundaries more and more and they will start looking like feudal kings of old more and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #134)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:55 AM

136. fasttense

fasttense

At least in our monarchy the king are not a political leader - he is sort of a figurehead who is king for all of his subjects - and have no real power when it come to how the country are run - on a political level at least - Of course or king do have some un formal power - but it is seldom used - mostly because the system seen to work as planned and have less turbulence than in many other form of governance it seen

And we do not have any court who play ball with the political system in the country either - our highest court is rather apolitical in its rulings - and it is seldom that our highest court is making any inroad into how the political system works in our country - I doubt we have any "small kings" as in the US, where they can deside on their own more or less from partisan ideology how they want to respond to a change in the country - and it is no doubt in my mind that some of your justices in your highest court is playing politic when on the bench - something that they might not really be allowed to do...

If anything - the kings of old was more decent in their rulings than the current US highest court - and the responsibility if they failed was rather brutal and rash.. I doubt Scalia or Thomas would end up in the business of a arrow or starved to death like Richard the 3th of England did... Even though I believe Scalia could have good use of a decent diet for a while...

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Diclotican (Reply #136)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:05 PM

138. Well put.

 

I agree. They are small kings. I think I like that term to describe the behavior of the Supremes.

Some kings are better than others and I think the small kings on the court are worse than real kings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:41 PM

106. I don't disagree, fundamentally, with what you're saying. But frankly I have no wish to "come

together" with religious fanatics who think a woman's life is worth less than a dog's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:49 PM

76. It's a pity at least one of these right-wing justices can't be impeached and then

replaced by Obama with a justice who'll stand up for the values of the American people, not the wacky religious views of a corporation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Louisiana1976 (Reply #76)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:11 PM

112. Corporations aren't human

They don't have religious views. People who own or operate the corporation are human and have views. The Supreme Court is empowering non-human entities and protecting the interests of a minority of humans at the expense of the majority of humans. It needs to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Reply #112)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:06 PM

120. Exactly

Thanks for stating the crux so clearly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:07 PM

103. don't worry, smirky and the chimp boys work in a protected zone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:37 PM

69. CATHILIC males

No one is bringing this up

Of course they were required to forte that way by their god. Why do we allow Of course, they've already crippled the recuse requirement, as well as ethics


Religion is fraud, only liberal atheists are.sane enough to hold office of any kind, and the sooner we learn this the better. It doesn't matter if she dissents. It's now open season FORVTHE church of Wal-mart to claim a living wage is violating their rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:11 AM

132. NATIONAL DAY to BOYCOTT & PROTEST Hobby Lobby's

#WarAgainstWomen! Saturday July 26, 2014! #HobbyLobby!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:05 AM

2. Employer mandated religion.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:05 AM

3. ... that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their

sincerely held religious beliefs."

This stupid inane and insanely unintelligent decision has now opened the floodgates for all types of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:38 AM

28. At least the MIC can't be too cavalier

"Thou shalt not Kill" being a core of those sincerely held religious beliefs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:42 AM

32. Yeah, selective religion. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:39 AM

29. And it wouldn't surprise me...

...if some employers suddenly develop new "sincerely held beliefs," now that they know they can get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:44 AM

34. One can be absolutely sure the wheels have been set in motion for exactly this. What an

insanely stupid, ignorant and unintelligent decision by SCOTUS for whom I have less respect all the time. I am so fed up with god crap in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:47 PM

54. Yes. It's like the courts are ruling in a way to allow lawlessness.

Just like the stand your ground law. They are making decisions that allow individuals to take "the law" into their own hands basically.

They're ruling away laws, eventually they will rule away the entire govt. somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:54 PM

61. Yep, that's basically how I see it too. It is such outright discrimination, unbelievable! Whine

about god and rights, and that gets you a free pass to practice and promote discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:08 AM

4. The problem is with forcing people to buy insurance in the first place. Single payer, NOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:17 AM

17. Thom Hartmann's current guest is suggesting something on those lines as a remedy to this.

The USSC's decision makes employer provided health insurance to be discriminatory. So women can sue. The government can also open Medicare up to all women with proper legislation. If ever there was an incentive to GOTV this November, this is it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:06 PM

41. ^^READ THIS^^

Someone please figure out how to do this!!!! Please!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrotherIvan (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:50 PM

99. 3 step plan to have the decision over-ruled

1) convert a large number of dark-skinned people (or just swarthy Caucasians if necessary) to Islam
2) begin suing employers across the country for an opt-out clause (with pay instead ) of all corporate "benefits" - demanding that their withholding of money from you is directly funding people who eat swine and follow offensive religions.
3) loudly begin talking to every reporter about how the laws of the United States ALL violate your "sincerely held beliefs in Allah"...

Law would be changed in 3....2....
(Well, more likely for the first few thousand would be law enforcement kicking in your door and detaining you...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moostache (Reply #99)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:54 PM

100. People have pointed out many possible options

What about Scientology and psychiatric meds? I do know there was some language about vaccines and possibly blood transfusions, but what about other supposedly non-life threatening diseases? It's just mind boggling. When it would have been so simple for them to state they could not discriminate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:43 PM

52. +++

 

there's always a way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:16 AM

125. Amen to that! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:08 AM

5. Are Muslims and Buddhists and Wickans and Hindu employers also celebrating the right to impose

their values on their employees?

The freaking religious zealots on this court may have gone too far with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:16 AM

16. perhaps time for some judicious monkey wrenching?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:18 AM

18. i expect to see every female at muslim owned businesses in Burkas from now on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:21 AM

20. As an atheist I want to impose my lack of religious belief on employees

(If I had any employees, that is). I want to require that NO money I pay them goes to religious organizations, or religious schools, or for religious books, or to organizations that support any religious point of view.


How is what the Supreme Court just allowed Hobby Lobby to impose on their female employees different from Sharia Law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:40 AM

31. I heard John Fugelsang this morning...

...ask a very good question - What is the difference between Sharia law and Scalia law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:47 AM

36. It really scares me

I'm glad I am old enough to no longer need birth control or hormone treatment. But I worry about my nieces that are still in that age range - they will not have the same freedom of reproductive choice as I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:53 PM

93. It is so frightening that the women that follow us have LESS freedom and less rights than we did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:49 PM

56. Where can one find Fugelsang these days?

I don't have cable TV so I hope to find him online sometime. I always love what he has to say. Mike Papantonio is another one of my favs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:58 PM

64. The truly awesome JF can usually be found...

...as a regular Friday morning guest on Stephanie Miller's morning radio show, which is on WCPT radio from 8-11 AM central time. He was guest hosting the whole 3 hours this morning.

Those who attempt to use the bible as justification for whatever intolerances they spout do not do well when trying to argue scripture with John. He politely beats them down every time.

Pap is one of my favs as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #64)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:22 PM

82. Yeah, the only time I can take Stephanie's show for any length of time anymore is when he is on.

I love the way he knows all about the bible. It's fantastic how he can refute the christian supremacists every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:30 PM

73. JF will be subbing for Stephanie Miller all this week.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IggleDoer (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:20 PM

80. Thanks!

Too bad I'm not working this week so I won't be awake before the show is over. But I'm so glad I get to sleep in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:14 PM

113. Wiccans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:09 AM

6. Unbelievable. First they take away access....closing Planned Parenthood Clinics, etc

that help (the majority) lower income women get contraception and then they go after middle income women by allowing their insurance companies to refuse to pay for it.

If that isn't a war on women, I don't know what is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:56 PM

78. Exactly. There is a war on Women. I wonder if that'll change after Hillary's

elected President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:09 AM

7. K&R nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:12 AM

8. Can't wait for the outrage when a Scientoligist, or a Muslim business tries this...

 

..the problem with 'christian' religidiots is that they NEVER think outside of the box and realize that this applies to ALL religions, not just their own brand of magical cloud-being belief...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:46 PM

53. As a Jehovah's witness,

I refuse to pay for any blood transfusion an employee might need to save his or her life. Let that person pay for it if they want to corrupt their soul. I'll have no part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:47 PM

55. Are you missing something...

 

One of these perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:59 PM

65. You're right.

I was trying to illustrate your point. I briefly considered the sarcasm smiliey, but I thought that might be misinterpreted as sarcasm against you. My apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #65)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:20 PM

66. No apology necessary...

 

..TBH I was momentarily freaking out that you were actually being serious....:eek: so we're all good....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:20 AM

9. Alito believe in the separation of corporation and state

the $ is the only thing he worships.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:00 AM

10. I don't believe in war. Can my tax money go to something other than war?

No, because I'm not a legal "person." I'm just an American citizen. That accounts for nothing anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:04 AM

11. an "American Consumer"...

... there, fixed that for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:05 AM

12. It would seem that this decision

would make it legal to not pay taxes if you don't believe in war. The 5 Scotus members that passed this did not think it through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:23 AM

21. Can I stop paying taxes that go to paying for vouchers for schools

That teach religious crap? I object to that as strongly as I object to war!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:06 AM

13. That is an excellent question.

Can a small business owner withhold taxes, for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:38 PM

74. Just what Teddy Tea Cruz ordered; pay taxes to your Church and not to the IRS. 501c3 not needed

any more.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/sen-ted-cruz-at-robert-jeffress-first-baptist-dallas-abolish-the-irs-99137/

IMO, the Ruling Class of 5 and the Tea Party are removing the Constitution of the United States of America.

I expect the United States to explode with Corporate Churches now. Will members of the first Baptist Church of Dallas have the right to refuse to pay income taxes to the Government of the United States and instead give 10th of their earnings as a Biblical tithe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:53 PM

60. This was my first thought. Good, I can finally challenge so that my pay

 

won't be going to war to kill people. -Buddhist, Shamanic, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:11 AM

14. "Havoc" is EXACTLY what they want.

Sadly, I am not surprised at this outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:19 AM

19. "a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs"

 

So now a corporation can have religious beliefs?

Havoc indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:26 AM

22. What's the saying?

Something like, "If men could get pregnant, then abortion would be a right." Yep, those who will never understand what it's like to be forced to carry out a pregnancy will be the ones who make the rules. Oh, but giving out Viagra is OK, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:22 PM

45. I think the saying is that "if a man could get pregnant

abortion clinics would be as common as Starbucks..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:50 PM

58. The original: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

It shocked people. It was meant to.

But who could ever have imagined a SCOTUS with so many male Opus Dei affiliates on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:27 AM

23. Here is the Actual Opinion

 

Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

A couple of Comments:

1. The Dissent divided on Corporations. Ginsburg and Somtomayor were willing to rule Corporations can NOT be a person for this litigation, while Breyer and Kagan were more then willing to say Corporations had such a right.

2. This action revolved around the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488,
42 U. S. C. §2000bb" NOT the First Amendment.

Now, the RFRA was passed right after the Court Ruled the First Amendment did NOT protect a Native American from a Criminal Conviction for smoking Peyote during a Native American Religious ceremony. The RFRA made it the rule that any Federal Law MUST be the least restrictive means of serving a compelling state interest. This is where the dissent and the Majority divided. The Majority said that it was a violation of the RFRA when the Federal Government told a corporation it must provided Birth Control medical care AND it was NOT a Compelling state reason given that the same Federal Agency had a procedures in place for non-profits that did provide an exception to the Birth Control Mandate.

The Scary part is, reading the opinion, and its refusal to address ANY First Amendment arguments implies to me that if any of the five did NOT think the RFRA did not apply to this case, they would have ruled that Under the First Amendment the Government could mandate that an employer provided medical coverage Hobby Lobby would have lost.

The RFRA was passed to reverse the decision of Justice Scalia in 1991 called "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith" In that case Scalia ruled that under the First Amendment the previous practice since the 1960s to balance between Religious Freedom and Compelling state interest was NO longer going to be the rule, instead the rule was going to be the law was constitutional if it was neutral on its face, even if it affects someone's strongly held religious beliefs.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

Thus the First Amendment was avoided to keep Scalia AND Kennedy on the side of the Majority. Both had been on the Court in 1992 when Smith was decided and both agreed with that decision reversing what had been the rule in the US Supreme Court since the 1960s.

Now, Congress was upset about that ruling, for it had far reaching affects, thus Congress in 1994 passed the RFRA to restore what had been the US Supreme Court rule since the 1960s. Thus this decision is based on the RFRA not the First Amendment, and it appears the reason it does NOT mention the First Amendment is Scalia and/or Kennedy would have wrote an concurring opinion OR join the dissent. A concurring opinion would have made this case restricted to the parties named in the case, with limited affect outside this case.

Just a comment on this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:30 AM

24. As a Pastafarian I guess

 

That gives me the religious right to drink beer all day on Friday, as it is our Holy Day.
Our only other holy day is Talk Like a Pirate Day, Sept. 19.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:31 AM

25. As stated earlier in another post

 

If this really angers you, then GET OUT THE VOTE 2014...the best way to change these laws is to gain majority in the house and senate. Lets see if we cant get legislation passed to protect women, seniors, Latinos, Blacks, all voters.... Time to get angry democrats, NOT time to be complacent, and just let the right wingers walk over everyones rights. Also remember, presidents suggest Supreme Court nominees, and Senate votes, so lets elect a democrat for President 2016....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:44 AM

33. So if a family-owned business was anti-gay and anti-black too, we'd want to encourage them

to limit the health choices for their gay or Black employees too, right? Let's not force our pro-racist, pro-homophobia "friends" to cry uncle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:48 AM

37. You are neither liberal or progressive...

 

You're someone who got bored with free republic and tried to post such ignorance here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:58 AM

40. What are these incoherent ramblings?

This reads like some psychopathic manifesto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:15 PM

89. Its bait.

Not biting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:21 PM

44. That opinion is daft.

"Reasonably conventional" - even if that were true - does not make the opinion just, rational, or correct.

Get back to me when you live under the threat of DYING from an unwanted pregnancy.

Women are not breeding stock and must be able to control their reproductive destiny. Period. Birth control is not optional, it is a medical necessity.

People whose "conventional beliefs" oppose that need to sit down and shut the fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #44)


Response to Name removed (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:54 PM

85. "Dear Sisterhood of Perpetual Outrage"???



screw that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:22 PM

92. they never can help displaying their misogyny, can they?

no indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:10 PM

87. How about treatment for Scizophrenia ... Bipolar disease ....

The Koch Brothers may simply become Scientologists and avoid all coverage for mental illness (Scientology decidedly does not believe in psychiatric care) ... Jehova's Witnesses do not find blood transfusions acceptable.

would you be in favor of this? your posts indicate that you would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:42 PM

96. Your hypothetical compares funding FGM, which is illegal in the USA...

to coverage of a common and necessary and LEGAL family planning method, used by most women in our country, regardless of their religious affiliations.

Where, exactly, should the women of this nation direct their outrage?

Those who use female genital mutilation comparisons when arguing against women's rights to reproductive health care are ignorant of the differences between contraception which has been rightfully legal for decades here and a barbaric practice with longstanding laws prohibiting such violence against women here. It's a conservative meme and an extremely poor one, at that. Such tactics are neither Liberal or Progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:51 PM

77. Jury results

 

On Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:01 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

At Last - A Reasonable Decision from SCOTUS on Birth Control and the AFA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5170894

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

rightwing troll just compared birth control to female genital mutilation in addition to comparing it to abortion and claiming it's reasonable to oppose women having access to it. Time for a MIRT nap.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:10 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely disagree with the OP and it does border on flamebaiting, but it is an opinion and argued for a couple of paragraphs. I think it should be rebutted and not hidden.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The person who sent the alert should get a life. The post is reasonable and not disruptive in the least. if you agree with his opinion or not is not reason to alert on it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post deserves to be roundly defeated in discussion--which it has already drawn to itself--not silenced by fiat.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is an interesting discussion. Better to be discussed instead of swept under the rug. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #77)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:59 PM

86. of course you voted to leave

B2G (3,244 posts)

Why must all health insurance plans include maternity coverage?
If you are an older couple or a single male, you now automatically are insured for maternity costs, which is responsible for driving up rates for that demographic. The same thing can be said for pediatric dental coverage, which is also mandated by the plans.

It makes no sense.
0

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023791179


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:41 PM

109. That right there - what you just did to B2G - that, that is what is killing DU.

Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:41 PM - Edit history (2)

That same old creepy, post-diving misrepresentation attack on anyone who doesn't think or speak exactly the way you deem they should, jumping from thread to thread excoriating anyone who expresses a thought you deem verboten.

You attack B2G with a post from nine months ago that is in no way objectionable, and try to attack his/her character with it in this thread, as a response to a post that is also innocuous. Was that the best you could find with a search for dirt, or did you just thumb through your vast library of "gets" on all those people who refuse to do as you say?

You and the other vigilante self-appointed censors and thought police are pulling this board down. And personally, I can't help but wonder if that is by design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Skip Intro (Reply #109)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:47 PM

118. oh, one more thing: PUMA

but i bet not anymore.

smooth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #86)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:40 AM

133. So did the other 6 jurors

 

In case you didn't notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:20 PM

90. there is NOTHING "pro-life" about those misogynist bastards

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT BABIES - only FETUSES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)


Response to Post removed (Reply #101)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:16 PM

108. Again, your conflation is disingenuous.

Your hypothetical now compares being obliged to pay for "some truly awful medical procedure" to coverage of a common and necessary and LEGAL family planning method, used by most women in our country for decades, regardless of their religious affiliations. Safe contraceptive practices that are harmful to no one.

What is vindictive is making it legal to discriminate against a majority of the nation's population on the whims of a few holding supernatural "convictions".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #108)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:06 PM

110. Many thanks to our MIR Team! (or Skinner or EarlG or Elad)

Whoever is responsible for the "Name removed" above, I thank you for your swift and determined action.



~ Stuartsdesk1 ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:58 PM

102. This is BS. I think you're on the wrong site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:37 AM

27. I wrote pretty much what she stated, on another site...

from the other site...

"what keeps any corporation, business or small business now from claiming "religious" reasons to deny any person anything because it violates their 1st amendment rights?

nothing.

be prepared for the right wing stooges to line up now, knowing full well that this has nothing to do with religion, to claim religious grounds for denying their employees anything they want.

fascism with a smiley face.

we, the middle, lower and poor classes are fucked, as usual.
this is absolutely disgraceful.

I guess the 5 supreme halfwits have sided with lost mittens romney, "corporations are people, my friend".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:40 AM

30. its time to start boycotting Hobby Lobby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to weissmam (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:50 AM

39. A lot of us already...

...have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to weissmam (Reply #30)


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:45 AM

35. OK for everyone who wants to protest & boycott Hobby Lobby stores, the Supreme Court ruled you don't

 

have to have a buffer zone anymore, its your right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:49 AM

38. Kicked and recommended!

Well done, Justice Ginsburg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:17 PM

43. Who decides a corporation's religious views?

I don't think its religious beliefs should be taken as "sincere" unless that corporation regularly attends church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:22 PM

46. Been posting on their Instagram but they keep deleting comments!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:27 PM

47. Somebody was saying yesterday they hoped Ginsberg would write the dissent...

I believe she is completely right, and this is going to create huge amounts of litigation.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:28 PM

48. The Supreme Court is being ruled by a dicktatorship nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:35 PM

83. Ooohh...

...excellent new word!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:58 PM

94. Fell free to use it and widely and as often as you can.

With, or without attribution.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:40 PM

49. I'm so mad I haven't been able to comment. I need a day to digest it

and puke it back up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:40 PM

50. This is such utter bullshit.

The 5 justices need to be impeached. Period. They have no idea what this country is supposed to be about. We've seen very clearly since Bush v. Gore that the GOP is using SCOTUS to push their agenda. Talk about "activist judges".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #50)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:56 PM

62. Exactly

The right are hypocrites, all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #50)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:05 PM

79. True. Impeach them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:42 PM

51. may ... ? Oh, trust me Ginsburg. It already has !! LOL. K and fucking R to the BIG TIME.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:56 PM

63. So is the Hobby Lobby thing a backdoor way to discriminate based on religion?

Think about it... if these corporations enact policies like this, that only a very devout christian would find acceptable, isn't this really a way to discriminate in hiring? They are not a religious organization, so they can't get away with hiring only devout christians, BUT if you enact policies that people who do not share their ideology would find unnacceptable, isn't that essentially the same thing? Would a non fundamentalist want to work at a place that restricts their birth control and family planning? No. It's almost like they actually thought about it.

Cuz god knows they don't give a flying fuck about enriching China, who forces abortions and only allows a very narrow Govt version of christianity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:23 PM

67. There goes our pal Justice Elena Kagan again - building that ol' consensus!

MAN is she a pistol. MAN does she build consensus! MAN does she get the job done...



NOT!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:42 PM

75. So, Christian Scientists can opt out of all health care coverage?

Or Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Zoroastrian) owned businesses can opt out of paying for the health care of followers of other religions, on the argument of aiding the enemy violates beliefs?

A secondary point: Why would we assume the religion of the owner is the religion of the company? Hear me out, We accept that personal religion following is irrelevant as a condition for employment. An applicant cannot legally be rejected due to any religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Ergo, the religion of any individual in an organization is irrelevant to the organization as a whole. If the owners declare a company as religious, shouldn't the beliefs of every member count an equal weight? I say a vote of the total membership is needed before a religion can be chosen.
A registered company is a legal separation of the private lives of the owner(s) and their money making endeavor. The owners religion is a very private thing, thus separated at incorporation. The owners religion is no more relevant then the religion of any other member of the organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:51 PM

84. Post #10 raises a question I have...

...often wondered about. Why are people with religious objections the only ones who get to have any say-so about what "their" tax money is spent on? Once I've paid my taxes, that money isn't mine anymore.

Like poster#10, I, too, object to war. Of late, I object to "my" tax money paying salaries to Congressional do-nothings. I object to subsidizing tobacco and oil.

Start taxing the churches and earmark that money for waging war, and designate mine, and that from people like me, to fund contraceptives of all kinds for anyone who needs them, and whatever other health care needs they have. I'm happy to have "my" money go to food stamps, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:13 PM

88. It's a good thing the GOP doesn't nominate activist judges

 

Thank goodness they stick to what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:36 PM

95. So now that the SC has expanded corporate 1st Amendment rights, will they move on to the 2nd?

 

After all, if corporations have 1st rights, they should have 2nd as well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:44 PM

97. The Oligarchs are about to become -very- religious...

This is not a loophole, it's the scuttling of the federal gov'ts capacity to include corporations in the tax base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:45 PM

98. Just call me Havoc.

Us. Because one pissed off woman does not a havoc make. We need to vote those bastards out or we'll be nothing but property in no time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:39 PM

105. Work for a Scientologist--no mental health care. Work for Christian Scientists--no health care.

Hell, all the employers in the country can convert to Christian Scientists and they can get out of supplying insurance. Claim a religious objection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:11 PM

107. And that is exactly WHY they ruled it. The Supreme Court wants chaos and to dissolve the federal gvt

No, I'm not going to be nice about a bunch of gangsters in robes who do not support freedom for women. And this was only about birth control, folks, not their sacred cow of abortion. Note that THEIR buffer zone is in full force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:15 PM

114. Hartmann: WHY does SCOTUS have power to strike down passed laws signed by the Prez? (Mar 27, 2012)

Warning for those who don't like him, Kucinich is on this video:



Published on Mar 27, 2012

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10th District) joins Thom Hartmann. The Supreme Court began hearing arguments today to determine the constitutionality of Obamacare. How does the most corrupt Supreme Court in history have the power to decide what healthcare Americans can get? All eyes are on the Supreme Court - as today kicked off three straight days of oral arguments to determine the constitutionality of Obamacare. The issue at hand is whether or not the "individual mandate" - also the core of "Romneycare" - is constitutional

A discussion took place at the DU thread on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act as mentioned in the video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101718710

Most DUers on that video thread disagreed strongly and there was controversy over Thom's later calling out what he saw as errors by DUers.

Will DUers now call the USSC wrong because they support the rights of women, or accept the Court's intrepretation of the First Amendment?

I know the answers are more complex than one issue. And I'd agree with Lars77, regarding unexpected corruption, except the Founders knew their new nation was not going to be perfect, and said that it needed to be perfected.

That process never ended and hopefully never will, to make this nation better as it changes. As MLK, Jr. said, America is more of an ideal than a country. One might say, America is not a finished product. At this rate, it may very well be finished, and the product permanently damaged as we fall into a corporate theocracy.

George Washington said he hoped America would become the most liberal of all nations. I cannot forget that the USSC handed down the Dred Scott decision, negating the meaning of the Constitution as we have come to think of it from the progressive era:

Dred Scott



Dred Scott (circa 1799 – September 17, 1858) was a slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his master, Dr. John Emerson, in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory).

The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.

While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage and deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision...


As to those unexpected results:

Following the ruling, Scott and his family were returned to Emerson's widow. In the meantime, her brother John Sanford had been committed to an insane asylum.

In 1850, Irene Sanford Emerson had remarried. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist, who shortly after their marriage was elected to the U.S. Congress. Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned the most prominent slave in the United States until one month before the Supreme Court decision. By then it was too late for him to intervene. Chaffee was harshly criticized for having been married to a slaveholder. He persuaded Irene to return Scott to the Blow family, his original owners. By this time, the Blow family had relocated to Missouri and become opponents of slavery. Henry Taylor Blow manumitted the four Scotts on May 26, 1857, less than three months after the Supreme Court ruling...

The Dred Scott Case ended the prohibition of slavery in federal territories and prohibited Congress from regulating slavery anywhere, overturning the Missouri compromise, enabling "popular sovereignty", and bloody Kansas.[9]

The ruling of the court helped catalyze sentiment for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States (excluding those subject to a foreign power such as children of foreign ambassadors).[9]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Interesting that his case arose in the region where Paul Ryan has called for the elimination of those three Constitutional amendments. He claims when the GOP control enough state legislatures they'll call a Constitutional Convention and re-write it. As a Koch lackey, we know pretty much what the new Constitution will look like. Remarks by the GOP show it, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#post17

I found it horrifying that Scott argued his case so well, using the Bill of Rights, and lost. But the USSC decided that as a black person, those rights did not apply to him. The USSC seems determined to apply that standard to women now.

Please note the picture in that thread by Ashling:

Have you seen the new uniforms... er, costumes?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#op

And now VT and CA are calling for Paul Ryan's Article 5 Constitutional Convention. It's alleged it it will take care of the USSC's Citizens United decision, which is not what the Move to Amend organization calls for in their work to overturn Citizens United. They want one Amendment, not opening the whole of the federal government, tossing the tools into the hands of wingnuts. Be assured, they will be the majority that show up.

It's a Trojan horse being given to us by the Koch brothers and theocrats. This newest decision, like the buffer zone, is prepping Americans to accept what will be the Kochstitution. Few seem to understand we're falling into their hands.

BTW, I enjoyed Thom saying 'Newt fricking Gingrich' as he is usually very polite. But then, the Newt was never known for his manners:



to madfloridian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023759636

Very interesting thread there from 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #114)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:38 PM

115. Wonderful post! Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:47 PM

117. The Backward Nation: USA. Thanks 5 to 4. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:55 PM

119. More from Justice Ginsburg's dissent

Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. … The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/here_are_the_highlights_of_justice_ginsburgs_fiery_hobby_lobby_dissent/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:34 PM

122. And it may not.

According to Alito.

So time will tell.

Conservatives have a pretty consistently awful history of predicting consequences of their actions, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:56 PM

123. Justice Ginsburg....

 

Is saddened and angry at the loss of truth and justice and relevance that the 'supreme court' has become. She now sees what a farce it has turned into. It used to be the last line of defense of the power and beauty and honor and searing justice of what this country stood for and believed in and now she sees it is corrupt just like the other branches of government, sold their souls for money and power too the highest bidders. Our government has turned into a vast wasteland of human decay. It is over my friends. The united states has been defeated by it's own 'leaders'. Good bye America, all thats left is for these vultures to pick apart it's dead carcass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:13 AM

124. The Five Shameful Supremes ...

Chief Injustice Roberts, Injustice Alito, Injustice Scalia, Injustice Thomas and Injustice Kennedy.

They should always and forever be referred to in that way and none other. They thoroughly deserve it, and not only for THIS decision.

May each and every one be reincarnated as a poor woman in a developing country controlled by religious "Taliban" (of whatever religious sect) or else in a US "red" state! It seems that there is little difference.

In the meantime, any "religious family" in corporate control who chooses to abide by this decision should find their actions overall carefully scrutinized by human rights groups and boycotted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:57 AM

126. Well written!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:04 AM

127. Theocracy Now! Theocracy Forever!

 

Sieg Heil, and amen too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:10 AM

128. The ruling is pure judicial horseshit.

They made explicit mention to exclude the beliefs of Jehovah's Witness re: blood transfusions.
Did they make exception for Christian Scientists ? They don't believe in modern medicine at all,
and they could theoretically opt out of the ACA altogether.

How can sauce for the goose not be sauce for the gander ? The ruling is so contorted and self-
contradictory that it makes any sane person wretch.

Health insurance provided by employers is part of most workers compensation package, along
with pay, 401Ks, sick time, etc. HOW THE FUCK do employers have any right to tell their employees
HOW TO USE THEIR COMPENSATION. Can they tell us that we can't spend our money at
McDonald's or buy cigarettes? Can they tell us that we can't invest in pharmaceutical companies that
manufacture BC pills ?

This ruling is completely FUCKED. It defies logic. It is the American version of the Tali-ban.

How can we get these frauds out of the SCOTUS? That is the burning question

This is about sticking it to Obama's ACA and giving another victory to the anti-abortion movement.
It has nothing to do with The Constitution. They couldn't care less about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_Klonopin (Reply #128)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:14 AM

129. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:37 AM

130. So some chickens came home to roost.

Please color me surprised,

Mostly this seems to so anticlimactic to me, and the only people that really got a wake up call were some of those sitting inside the huddle of nein.

In contrast to some of those sleep walkers, there are a whole lot of other people who already know who works for who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:40 AM

131. K&R

The SC just opened a can of worms, for sure. Not only are corporations "people", now they are "people with religion." And not only people with religion, but people who are more important than just ordinary people.

To me, the worst thing about this ruling is that the SC has now given religion a foot in the door of our government. The slippery slope to the end of separation of church and state.

I hope hope Hobby Lobby looks up one of these days and realizes that all their employees are pregnant. You talk about a business nightmare!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:46 AM

135. kick & recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:22 PM

139. Lol. The blowback against corporations will be funny. The decision helps remove the separtion

 

between owner and corp.

Corporations provided a buffer between the owners and lawsuits. Now not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:11 PM

140. I'm waiting for some of the DU men to tell her to calm down and not get hysterical.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #140)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:02 PM

141. Perhaps you missed something

Whatever shred of jurist prudence SCOTUS had or could exhibit was just thrown out the widow with this ruling. They invented horseshit out of whole cloth. The rule of law doesn't exist out of someones whim, it's a linear path with touchstones that are made with solid reasoning and example.

The only people that are hysterical here are those five offering the ruling. Those fellows have circled the wagons to protect their loins and the small minority of scoundrels who they serve. It plain language, it was just some more of the overreach they have done of late, but now it's being done with even more desperation.

Declaring business and corporations have religions and can bypass laws and practice medicine with it,

are you sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #141)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:44 PM

142. My post was a jab at the men here who are trying to shush and patronize women

 

who are criticizing the decision by telling them that they are overreacting.

Believe me, I know that the decision was an evil bucket of shit. I could tell you my opinion of what should happen to Scalia et al, but I then I would be banned from DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #142)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:58 PM

143. Excuse me then too, i thought it was something different

and with 44,000+ posts you have nothing to worry about banned. At any rate, as you obviously know, you could always pop up like a newbie with a new handle like one of those freepers would

Let's just kind of ask this question if i might. Lets say, if you put this on the other foot, took 30 young men and told them all that, out of this group 15 were going to get vasectomies at a random picking for the purpose of birth control. The specific reason being because the government has decided birth control (ie;health care) could be cheaper that way. Really what do think might happen? Do think there might be some consternation, do you think they might want to try and change the way government made decisions?

Please try to excuse and see through some of my other brethren though, they like just about everybody else have been trained to do what society expected from them. It's kind of like the Pavlov's dogs training thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread