Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:25 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
This is what I find most disturbing about the Hobby Lobby case...
I have not been posting much recently but I needed to say something about the Hobby Lobby case because I think there is a huge elephant in the room that the media coverage of the case seems to be avoiding.
All five of the "justices" who voted in Hobby Lobby's favor are members of the Roman Catholic Church which is a church that is well known for opposing insurance coverage for contraceptives. All five of them voted for their church's position, but they explicitly excluded the religious beliefs of faiths other than their own from having the same "religious freedom" they claim Hobby Lobby should be able to impose on their employees. The Supreme Court explicitly said that this ruling is limited to the issue of contraceptives and does not apply to other medical treatments that some other religions oppose such as blood transfusions and vaccines. Now don't get me wrong I absolutely do not think employers should get exemptions from covering blood transfusions or vaccines, like birth control those are basic forms of health care that everyone should have access to. What I do have a problem with is that the Supreme Court decided it can pick and choose which religious beliefs can get their followers exemptions from providing health care to their employees and which ones can not, and it just so happens that they chose their own religious belief as one whose followers do not have to follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow. This is something that I think needs to be called out, when a major Supreme Court ruling on religion is decided entirely by members of one religion that is a problem. When their ruling provides protections for their own religious belief while explicitly excluding the same protection for beliefs that they do not hold that is an even bigger problem yet. It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have five unelected men who have the power to make decisions that can alter the course of history, these are men who have the power to make a decision that benefits their personal religion over other beliefs be they religious or secular and there is little we can do to hold them accountable for making such a blatantly biased decision. Let's face it, the Supreme Court is an undemocratic institution and by using the courts to carve out a special exemption for people who share their religious views in opposition to contraception they have shown their contempt for equal protection under the law. I really think people need to start talking about removing these guys from the bench, there is no reason these people should be free from calls for accountability when they use the court to allow them to impose their own religious views on to others.
|
70 replies, 12895 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Bjorn Against | Jun 2014 | OP |
VanillaRhapsody | Jun 2014 | #1 | |
ewagner | Jul 2014 | #33 | |
smirkymonkey | Jul 2014 | #63 | |
marked50 | Jun 2014 | #2 | |
calimary | Jul 2014 | #21 | |
atreides1 | Jul 2014 | #51 | |
Skidmore | Jul 2014 | #28 | |
bullwinkle428 | Jun 2014 | #3 | |
KT2000 | Jul 2014 | #4 | |
theHandpuppet | Jul 2014 | #12 | |
KT2000 | Jul 2014 | #23 | |
theHandpuppet | Jul 2014 | #27 | |
IggleDoer | Jul 2014 | #52 | |
KT2000 | Jul 2014 | #55 | |
RainDog | Jul 2014 | #24 | |
theHandpuppet | Jul 2014 | #29 | |
G_j | Jul 2014 | #5 | |
HeiressofBickworth | Jul 2014 | #6 | |
LibDemAlways | Jul 2014 | #7 | |
BootinUp | Jul 2014 | #8 | |
ErikJ | Jul 2014 | #9 | |
truedelphi | Jul 2014 | #46 | |
Anansi1171 | Jul 2014 | #10 | |
progressoid | Jul 2014 | #11 | |
dickthegrouch | Jul 2014 | #40 | |
caraher | Jul 2014 | #67 | |
theHandpuppet | Jul 2014 | #13 | |
truedelphi | Jul 2014 | #47 | |
Kablooie | Jul 2014 | #14 | |
Stonepounder | Jul 2014 | #15 | |
Skittles | Jul 2014 | #17 | |
ohheckyeah | Jul 2014 | #42 | |
BlueinOhio | Jul 2014 | #20 | |
classykaren | Jul 2014 | #53 | |
spanone | Jul 2014 | #16 | |
stage left | Jul 2014 | #18 | |
mountain grammy | Jul 2014 | #19 | |
Little_Wing | Jul 2014 | #21 | |
BrotherIvan | Jul 2014 | #25 | |
Small Accumulates | Jul 2014 | #57 | |
Cha | Jul 2014 | #26 | |
IronLionZion | Jul 2014 | #30 | |
Trillo | Jul 2014 | #31 | |
mnhtnbb | Jul 2014 | #37 | |
truedelphi | Jul 2014 | #48 | |
Ilsa | Jul 2014 | #32 | |
yellerpup | Jul 2014 | #34 | |
TBF | Jul 2014 | #35 | |
underthematrix | Jul 2014 | #38 | |
TBF | Jul 2014 | #43 | |
lark | Jul 2014 | #36 | |
alfredo | Jul 2014 | #39 | |
theHandpuppet | Jul 2014 | #41 | |
ieoeja | Jul 2014 | #44 | |
Freddie | Jul 2014 | #54 | |
Ineeda | Jul 2014 | #61 | |
tclambert | Jul 2014 | #45 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Jul 2014 | #49 | |
Distant Quasar | Jul 2014 | #50 | |
m-lekktor | Jul 2014 | #56 | |
albino65 | Jul 2014 | #58 | |
Small Accumulates | Jul 2014 | #59 | |
demigoddess | Jul 2014 | #60 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Jul 2014 | #62 | |
indepat | Jul 2014 | #64 | |
AndyTiedye | Jul 2014 | #65 | |
theHandpuppet | Jul 2014 | #69 | |
catrose | Jul 2014 | #66 | |
liberalla | Jul 2014 | #68 | |
rhett o rick | Jul 2014 | #70 |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:33 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
1. I thought of another angle on this line of thinking earlier today....
the government can step in when a family is denying life-saving treatment to severely ill children based on their religious beliefs.....BUT they must not stand in the way of a corporation enforcing its beliefs on its employees....the government cannot interfere with THAT according to the Supreme Court.
This decision is all about putting women "back in their place" .....this was the men on the Supreme Court giving the women of this country a message ....a reminder that we have to be "given" our freedom and our rights....even though WE are the majority.....how is that for hubris? I hope we all remember that come the Midterms. |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #1)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:32 PM
ewagner (18,949 posts)
33. Whoa!
I forgot about that....the court has already ruled on interference to save the life of severely ill children....negating the religious beliefs of
"those" religions... They have gone waaaay past the "slippery slope" stage. |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #1)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:11 PM
smirkymonkey (63,221 posts)
63. Excellent point!
It's not about "religious freedom", it's only about freedom for the dominant religions in this country - or more specifically, the dominant religion of the members of this society that are in power.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:17 PM
marked50 (1,244 posts)
2. Exactly what I was thinking
and you outlined the issue well. This shows how dangerous the Supreme Court has become to our Democracy.
|
Response to marked50 (Reply #2)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM
calimary (74,899 posts)
21. Welcome to DU, marked50!
Glad you're here! They don't even realize what they've done. scalia himself wrote a warning about this years ago - the whole "what this opens up..." argument, and yet, he went there anyway with this case.
|
Response to calimary (Reply #21)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:23 PM
atreides1 (15,798 posts)
51. Scalia did warn us.
But that case had nothing to do with his religious belief!
|
Response to marked50 (Reply #2)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:39 AM
Skidmore (37,364 posts)
28. Welcome. Heartily agree.
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:20 PM
bullwinkle428 (20,579 posts)
3. K&R. And to think people worried about JFK.
(As a "tool of the Vatican".)
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:04 AM
KT2000 (20,323 posts)
4. that's what I was thinking
today. They didn't have to recuse themselves from a suit brought by the Catholic Church and they were able to rule for the church anyway. Very clever how this worked out.
|
Response to KT2000 (Reply #4)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:39 AM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
12. Just to be clear...
The Hobby Lobby case was not brought by the RCC but by the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) who are Evangelical Christians. The Greens recently had a private audience with the Pope and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief in support of the Hobby Lobby case, but the suit itself was not brought by the RCC.
The USCCB released a statement today praising the decision of the SC in this case. No doubt they are feeling hopeful for the score of other cases filed citing their "religious freedom". For a list of these lawsuits and who has filed them, see http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/ |
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #12)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:12 AM
KT2000 (20,323 posts)
23. Yes - I know that
If you recall, there was testimony before Congress about the birth control issue and Georgetown Univ. by Sandra Fluke. Then, it seemed likely that the Catholic Church would challenge the ACA on birth control. As it turned out they did not have to - thanks to HL. Had the church done the challenge there may have been questions about the Catholic justices recusing themselves. "As luck would have it - HL did the challenge, thereby keeping the Catholic Church out of it but reaping the benefits of the decisions voted on by justices whose religion forbids birth control.
No one has to recuse themselves over an amicus brief. |
Response to KT2000 (Reply #23)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:35 AM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
27. Thanks for the additional background info.
![]() |
Response to KT2000 (Reply #23)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:28 PM
IggleDoer (1,186 posts)
52. So Hobby Lobby was the Catholic Church's proxy.
To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, although it was clearly present.
|
Response to IggleDoer (Reply #52)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:36 PM
KT2000 (20,323 posts)
55. I don't know
but HL was approached by the Beckett Group (for religious freedom or whatever) to file this suit. It is likely Beckett Group considered the fact that HL would have a better chance and if the Catholic Church was the plaintiff it would be mired in controversy.
Certainly, Beckett Group considered many possibilities. The fact is though that the five justices are Catholic and in my opinion are tainted in their view of birth control. |
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #12)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:26 AM
RainDog (28,784 posts)
24. Evangelicals initially supported birth control
It wasn't until evangelical leaders started sucking the dick of the Republican Party that they changed their stance - and, even so, they have no qualms about married women using birth control.
They just want to punish women who don't behave they way they want them to. In this, they share a sentiment of the RCC, and have all along. I REALLY feel sorry for any female child whose parents make them attend a RCC or Fundie church, or any other religious cults whose beliefs are grounded in misogyny. |
Response to RainDog (Reply #24)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:41 AM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
29. Oh, I agree
The world has been made thoroughly sick from the influence of patriarchal religions.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:08 AM
G_j (40,347 posts)
5. very true
& that is one big elephant.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:16 AM
HeiressofBickworth (2,682 posts)
6. A lawer for Hobby Lobby proudly stated that
Hobby Lobby pays minimum wages to their workers as required by the various states in which they have stores. To my mind, the decision today amounts to a cut in pay for their female workers who now will have to pay full price for birth control. Way to go HL ---- NOT!
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:19 AM
LibDemAlways (15,139 posts)
7. All five are very conservative hardliners
who do not even represent the views of the majority of Catholics. They are members of the rightwing fringe in politics and religion. A very dangerous combination when it comes to power over public policy.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:19 AM
BootinUp (43,996 posts)
8. It definitely describes a politically activist decision, it reminds me so much of Bush v. Gore
in that way. They want to make a decision without setting precedents. Folks we can't logically justify this load of crap using the constitution but we know whats best for you. Terrible, terrible. They are literally destroying our institutions.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:20 AM
ErikJ (6,335 posts)
9. New name: The Papal States of America.
Response to ErikJ (Reply #9)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:39 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
46. Yeah, that would sum it all up, except for those moments when the
Real pope asks for tolerance of the LBGT community. I am sure our Five Devoutly Religious Jesuit Justices don't want any of that tolerance spread about. I mean, what would their Jesus say!
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:21 AM
Anansi1171 (793 posts)
10. This deserves a Kick and Recommendation. But I believe some will want kid gloves on for the elephant
Too close to home for many Catholics to admit to the gravity of this and the possible repercussions of their ovverrepresentation on the court.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:25 AM
progressoid (47,963 posts)
11. The Pope will be proud of his flock today.
Response to progressoid (Reply #11)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:36 PM
dickthegrouch (2,933 posts)
40. And he'd excommunicate them if they had voted differently
The most vile violent assault on a person possible, if you believe in that kind of thing.
I am fairly disappointed that Obama would meet with the pope, but I'd be far more concerned if SCOTUS justices met with him. |
Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #40)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:03 PM
caraher (6,232 posts)
67. I don't see him excommunicating Sotomayor
I actually doubt the Pope cares all that much about this decision either way. He's not from the US and while this will affect a lot of families, on the scale of the global Roman Catholic Church it's small potatoes.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:42 AM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
13. Yeah, well this is what happened when I broached this subject months ago
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #13)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:43 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
47. Your well written OP did not get ONE SINGLE
Rec.
Talk about timing being everything here. (I had an Op or lengthy comment about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton being broke after leaving the WH. This was several years back. And not only did I not get any rec's, I was told I was making it up and lying and also. That they had never been broke. If only I had waited until mid-June 2014 to mention it.) |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:46 AM
Kablooie (18,077 posts)
14. True but also I'll bet their image of contraceptives is only to encourage recreational sex.
This could seem to just be a frivolous and offensive perk to them.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:52 AM
Stonepounder (4,033 posts)
15. The thing that gets me about Hobby Lobby
Is they pious stance against birth control, while, at the same time, they buy most of their stuff from China - land of forced abortions and sterilizations. But, somehow, that's OK. They wouldn't dream of telling the Chinese, 'stop the murder of innocent unborn babies', because that would impact their bottom line.
Oh wait, telling their workers 'we're not going to cover your birth control' impacts their bottom line as well. Hmmm...WWJD. Ya think? |
Response to Stonepounder (Reply #15)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:06 AM
Skittles (148,599 posts)
17. conservative hypocrisy
they're not pro-life - they're anti-women
|
Response to Skittles (Reply #17)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:56 PM
ohheckyeah (9,314 posts)
42. I don't think they are even
pro-life - they are pro-fetus. Once your born - meh.
|
Response to Stonepounder (Reply #15)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:12 AM
BlueinOhio (238 posts)
20. Exactly
The Supreme Court ruled on another abortion issue that got rid of the buffer zones around clinics. Now Hobby Lobby merchandise is mainly from China. The country that has forced abortions, infanticide and involuntary sterilizations. Should maybe the same free speech be applied in the same matter about Hobby Lobby's support for forced abortions, infanticide and involuntary sterilizations to all their customers before they go in shop.
|
Response to BlueinOhio (Reply #20)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:30 PM
classykaren (769 posts)
53. I think that is a great idea
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:00 AM
spanone (133,389 posts)
16. k&r...
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:10 AM
stage left (2,563 posts)
18. Yes!
Impeach them!
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:11 AM
mountain grammy (25,297 posts)
19. We have to call them what they are; dangerous.
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM
Little_Wing (417 posts)
21. K&R
Thanks for speaking the truth.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:55 AM
BrotherIvan (9,126 posts)
25. TRUTH!!!!
I will go further to say that I wish our religious members would make a stand. One can only deny the facts so long. If you tithe to your church, and your church does harm, you are a part of that harm and cannot claim ignorance. Tithing is not mandatory: it is a choice. If you withhold your tithe, you have sway over the policies of the church. If you allow your church to discriminate against some, you are complicit.
And no more Pope PR threads. |
Response to BrotherIvan (Reply #25)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:46 PM
Small Accumulates (149 posts)
57. Courageously spoken, BrotherIvan!
There are apologists who will insist: but the hierarchy isn't the church, the people are the church! And yet, it is the people's money that empowers the church, and pays the bills for the lobbyists the church hires to do its dirty legislative work. Each and every person who provides money to that church carries responsibility for the outcome. Thank you for saying so.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:25 AM
Cha (283,919 posts)
26. Welcome back.. good post.
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:50 AM
IronLionZion (42,027 posts)
30. I'm Catholic and I agree with you. K+R nt
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:44 AM
Trillo (9,154 posts)
31. Well thought out.
Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1) I was just reading the first amendment at Wikipedia. It specifically says "congress" shall not.... I was thinking it was a major flaw to have designed the structure so that if another branch, the judicial branch in this case, does change a law regarding an establishment of religion, or curiously carves an exception for the religious not granted to any other group, that there isn't an automatic cancellation of the law in question as a fundamental threat to the concept of equality or equal protection under the laws. Yes, at an extreme logical endpoint, it would kill Obama's beloved healthcare, but single payer would be better anyway.
The idea of 'separation of church and state' was fundamentally a red herring. The first amendment does not say that, it only limited congress. Under our current system, we are watching in real time how inequal protection under the laws is intentionally created by those entities with enough funds to take their case to the courts and all the way to the top court. In this particular case, the inequality is for any employee of Hobby Lobby or any other corporation who wants to not cover contraception. |
Response to Trillo (Reply #31)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:12 PM
mnhtnbb (30,507 posts)
37. You know they probably spent way more money taking this to the Supremes than they
ever would have spent on birth control for employees.
It's not about the money with these people, it's about controlling women. |
Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #37)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:43 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
48. That is a very good point! n/t
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:17 PM
Ilsa (60,874 posts)
32. Thank you for writing this up. And it is galling
they believe they should be able to discern whose religious beliefs are "sincerely held." That isn't for them to determine, only a higher power.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:10 PM
yellerpup (12,226 posts)
34. It's not about religious freedom at all.
It's more designed to make a crack in the ACA, IMO. They're not through trying to kill it.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:52 PM
TBF (31,869 posts)
35. They can be removed by impeachment -
but wouldn't that have to start in the House (of idiots)?
|
Response to TBF (Reply #35)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:26 PM
underthematrix (5,800 posts)
38. I love that House of Idiots. May I use it?
Response to underthematrix (Reply #38)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:59 PM
TBF (31,869 posts)
43. I'm surprised everyone doesn't
call them that - feel free!
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:10 PM
lark (22,205 posts)
36. Impeach the Felonious Five!
Yeah, that's my current wet dream. I know it won't happen, but everyone deserves their dreams.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:29 PM
alfredo (59,814 posts)
39. Privatizing theocracy
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:39 PM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
41. Others are finally taking notice and are speaking up
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:09 PM
ieoeja (9,748 posts)
44. What I find most confusing about this case is, how do Mennonites distribute product across country?
They have a religious objection against using automated vehicles. Are they transporting everything cross country by mule train? The Mennonites I know have no problem with this because they hire non-Mennonites to do it for them. So they're not sinning, but their employees are. But that would be the exact same thing in this case. Clearly the Hobby Lobby owners object to other people sinning on their dime. How do they accomplish this incredible feat? |
Response to ieoeja (Reply #44)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:31 PM
Freddie (8,713 posts)
54. Mennonites v. Amish
Mennonites are the more "worldly" sect but otherwise related to Amish; they have no problem with cars, electricity, etc.
I live in an area with lots of Mennonites and while they traditionally tended to have big families (most were farmers) they were never particularly opposed to birth control until recently when some of them joined up with the Fundies. In the past they mostly kept to themselves and the only political issue they had was to be conscientious objectors in wartime. |
Response to ieoeja (Reply #44)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:04 PM
Ineeda (3,626 posts)
61. Unlike the Amish,
Mennonites, I believe, are allowed to use modern technology, including motor vehicles.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:28 PM
tclambert (10,967 posts)
45. Yeah, those five are not about legal reasoning but about rationalizing their prejudices
and decorating it with a little legalistic jargon.
Worst. Supreme. Court. Ever. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:52 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
49. Agree. This is about theocracy with a helping of laissez faire.
Hypothetically, if the ACA had guaranteed free vasectomies (like it does for tubal ligations) the justices would have created the exemption on the same basis; religious employers shouldn't have to offer them.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/ud-to-re-evaluate-contraception-plan/nMypM/ It's not just a war on women, the ...Christian soldiers, marching as to war... are equal opportunity deniers of choice. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:16 PM
Distant Quasar (142 posts)
50. I disagree with the idea of removing Supreme Court justices from the bench
simply because we don't like their rulings. That's a recipe for constitutional disaster.
That said, it's clear that this Court's idea of religious freedom is all about protecting right-wing Christian values, and no one else's. All those decades of scheming by the religious right have really paid off. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:41 PM
m-lekktor (3,675 posts)
56. EXCELLENT post.nt
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:48 PM
albino65 (484 posts)
58. I wonder if Clarence Thomas is still watching porn
and how that sits with the Catholic church.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:49 PM
Small Accumulates (149 posts)
59. Beautifully argued, Bjorn Against
I am very eager to join with others in calling and working for impeachment of these tainted justices. I'm puzzled about where to begin.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:51 PM
demigoddess (6,495 posts)
60. what I think is interesting
is that the SCOTUS which is supposed to address big issues are giving decisions that they say are for this case only, do not cite this as a precedent. It seems that is what they are doing for this case and they also did for Bush v Gore, which decided the 2000 election. And there was one other that I can't seem to bring to mind.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:08 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
62. Right Wingers use the abortion issue for only ONE reason...
To point at Liberals and call us baby killing murderers.
It's not about religion. It's about getting working class people to vote for the same asshole their boss votes for. This issue will continue as long as there are megachurches in the South. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:57 PM
indepat (20,899 posts)
64. Would be sad if the sand fleas of a thousand camels had a field day rummaging in the tender
places of the felonious five.
![]() |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:02 PM
AndyTiedye (23,499 posts)
65. They are Substituting the Religious Doctrines of Opus Dei for Scientific Fact and the Constitution
Unfortunately, Opus Dei has a majority on the Supreme Court, so they get to do that.
![]() |
Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #65)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:27 AM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
69. Yep, and it's about everyone faced that facts about what is going on
Just closing one's eyes doesn't make the elephant in the room disappear.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:06 PM
catrose (4,794 posts)
66. When I expressed reservations about such a Catholic-packed SC
because it did not represent the face of the US, I got my only ever hide and was called a bigot. Thank you, BjornAgainst, for explaining what I meant.
|
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:00 AM
liberalla (8,282 posts)
68. Thank you for making this point. I had this uneasy, queasy feeling after
the ruling came out, and this really helped bring it more into focus for me.
All are Catholic. All are men. Something really needs to change. |
Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:56 AM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
70. The power of the SCOTUS has far exceeded what our founders had in mind.
But like all tyrannies, it will take a big fight to reign them back in.
Also, the separation between church and state, no longer exists. It's time to tax mega-churches. |