HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This is what I find most ...

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:25 PM

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

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 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply This is what I find most disturbing about the Hobby Lobby case... (Original 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

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:32 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:11 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:17 PM

2. Exactly what I was thinking

and you outlined the issue well. This shows how dangerous the Supreme Court has become to our Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marked50 (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:23 PM

51. Scalia did warn us.

But that case had nothing to do with his religious belief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marked50 (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:39 AM

28. Welcome. Heartily agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:20 PM

3. K&R. And to think people worried about JFK.

(As a "tool of the Vatican".)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:39 AM

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:35 AM

27. Thanks for the additional background info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:28 PM

52. So Hobby Lobby was the Catholic Church's proxy.

To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, although it was clearly present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IggleDoer (Reply #52)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:36 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:26 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:41 AM

29. Oh, I agree

The world has been made thoroughly sick from the influence of patriarchal religions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:08 AM

5. very true

& that is one big elephant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:16 AM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:19 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:19 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:20 AM

9. New name: The Papal States of America.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:39 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:21 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:25 AM

11. The Pope will be proud of his flock today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:36 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:03 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:42 AM

13. Yeah, well this is what happened when I broached this subject months ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:43 PM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:46 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:52 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:06 AM

17. conservative hypocrisy

they're not pro-life - they're anti-women

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:56 PM

42. I don't think they are even

pro-life - they are pro-fetus. Once your born - meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:12 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueinOhio (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:30 PM

53. I think that is a great idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:00 AM

16. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:10 AM

18. Yes!

Impeach them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:11 AM

19. We have to call them what they are; dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM

21. K&R

Thanks for speaking the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrotherIvan (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:46 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:25 AM

26. Welcome back.. good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:50 AM

30. I'm Catholic and I agree with you. K+R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:44 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:12 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #37)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:43 PM

48. That is a very good point! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:10 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:52 PM

35. They can be removed by impeachment -

but wouldn't that have to start in the House (of idiots)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:26 PM

38. I love that House of Idiots. May I use it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:59 PM

43. I'm surprised everyone doesn't

call them that - feel free!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:10 PM

36. Impeach the Felonious Five!

Yeah, that's my current wet dream. I know it won't happen, but everyone deserves their dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:29 PM

39. Privatizing theocracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:09 PM

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?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:04 PM

61. Unlike the Amish,

Mennonites, I believe, are allowed to use modern technology, including motor vehicles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:16 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:41 PM

56. EXCELLENT post.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:48 PM

58. I wonder if Clarence Thomas is still watching porn

 

and how that sits with the Catholic church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:49 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:08 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:57 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:27 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:00 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread