Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

1. Read my post again. I never said Roberts wrote the decision, I only referenced Roberts with the links supplied in the decision. We don't know who inserted the links, I had to use someone's name. Thanks for nit picking on a meaningless detail.

As I stated in my very first post, this case had nothing to do with contraceptives. It had to do with the SCOTUS reaffirming that the federal government has constitutional limits, which makes the left bat shit crazy.

You have, by my count, told people twice to read the opinion in this case. I don't think it is a meaningless detail that after such a careful reading, you didn't appear to know who the author of that opinion was.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions since Marbury v Madison have been about the limits of constitutional authority. Saying that this case was about "reaffirming that the federal government has constitutional limits" is about as generic as saying that it was a legal case. The decision was about whether or not for-profit corporations (in this case, closely held corporations) had religious rights under the RFRA. Without trying to put words in your mouth, it would appear that you agree with the Court majority that such corporations have religious rights. I, personally, have difficulty with the concept that such entities (as opposed to individuals) have religious rights. Needless to say, I agree with the dissenting Justices on this point. However, you are correct in saying (if you did) that the Court has spoken on this point.

The Law of the Land now establishes that corporations (at least closely held ones) have religious rights.

A embryo/fetus/baby...what ever you want to call it, at whatever stage of pregnancy isn't a life until it can survive without being a parasite. Around week 26-27 the collection of cells growing in a woman's womb is just barely able to survive without aid from its mother's umbilical cord. Prior to that its just a bunch of mutated cells, no more capable of life than an unfertilized egg. It really is that simple. The only reason we think differently is because of the emotional attachment of what might have been.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

A embryo/fetus/baby...what ever you want to call it, at whatever stage of pregnancy isn't a life until it can survive without being a parasite. .

My Sister-In-Law might argue that her 15 year old son is still a parasite. But I get your point.

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...

The decision was about whether or not for-profit corporations (in this case, closely held corporations) had religious rights under the RFRA.

The answer is no. When was the last time a corporation went to church, prayed, or expressed its religious beliefs?

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...


My Sister-In-Law might argue that her 15 year old son is still a parasite. But I get your point.

Lol...in this case survive means to breathe on its own, regulate its own heartbeat, have kidney and liver function, and be able to remove its own waste from its body. Just for clarification so SOME people don't take your comment seriously.

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...

You have, by my count, told people twice to read the opinion in this case. I don't think it is a meaningless detail that after such a careful reading, you didn't appear to know who the author of that opinion was.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions since Marbury v Madison have been about the limits of constitutional authority. Saying that this case was about "reaffirming that the federal government has constitutional limits" is about as generic as saying that it was a legal case. The decision was about whether or not for-profit corporations (in this case, closely held corporations) had religious rights under the RFRA. Without trying to put words in your mouth, it would appear that you agree with the Court majority that such corporations have religious rights. I, personally, have difficulty with the concept that such entities (as opposed to individuals) have religious rights. Needless to say, I agree with the dissenting Justices on this point. However, you are correct in saying (if you did) that the Court has spoken on this point.

The Law of the Land now establishes that corporations (at least closely held ones) have religious rights.

My original quote was ....Liberals always want someone else to pay for what they should be paying for. Politicians like Clinton and Warren try and convince their minions that it is their right. The Left believe the government can do what ever it wants, and they soil their pants when the Supreme Court reminds them that there are limits placed on the government."

Your cut and paste missed a big section of what I said. When you include my entire quite is not as generic as you make it out to be.

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...

You have, by my count, told people twice to read the opinion in this case. I don't think it is a meaningless detail that after such a careful reading, you didn't appear to know who the author of that opinion was.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions since Marbury v Madison have been about the limits of constitutional authority. Saying that this case was about "reaffirming that the federal government has constitutional limits" is about as generic as saying that it was a legal case. The decision was about whether or not for-profit corporations (in this case, closely held corporations) had religious rights under the RFRA. Without trying to put words in your mouth, it would appear that you agree with the Court majority that such corporations have religious rights. I, personally, have difficulty with the concept that such entities (as opposed to individuals) have religious rights. Needless to say, I agree with the dissenting Justices on this point. However, you are correct in saying (if you did) that the Court has spoken on this point.

The Law of the Land now establishes that corporations (at least closely held ones) have religious rights.

We would not be having this discussion if the SCOTUS found the ACA unconstitutional as it should have. The court in essence said the federal government can now force an individual into a contract with a 3rd party. Since Roberts could not uphold ACA under the General Welfare clause, the only way he could uphold it was to call it a tax. So now we have it "on the books" that the federal government can do virtually anything it wants as long as it calls it a tax. If you think that is a good thing, think of Rick Santorum or Dick Chaney as president.

ACA will be the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to corporate American in the history of this county.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

We would not be having this discussion if the SCOTUS found the ACA unconstitutional as it should have. The court in essence said the federal government can now force an individual into a contract with a 3rd party. Since Roberts could not uphold ACA under the General Welfare clause, the only way he could uphold it was to call it a tax. So now we have it "on the books" that the federal government can do virtually anything it wants as long as it calls it a tax. ...

ACA will be the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to corporate American in the history of this county.

Your analysis of the Roberts opinion is interesting. You suggest that as long as there is a tax associated, the opinion has greatly expanded the power of Congress. It is an interesting take on the issue. Most of the written analysis on the opinion suggests the opposite point of view - that the opinion essentially guts 30 years of precedent and strongly limits the power of Congress, except when a tax is involved. I suppose that only time will tell how this actually falls out.

As far as the line about ACA being "the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to corporate America in the history of this country", I have heard the line before but I have seen absolutely no economic analysis that comes close to supporting this assertion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

My original quote was ....Liberals always want someone else to pay for what they should be paying for. Politicians like Clinton and Warren try and convince their minions that it is their right. The Left believe the government can do what ever it wants, and they soil their pants when the Supreme Court reminds them that there are limits placed on the government."

Your cut and paste missed a big section of what I said. When you include my entire quite is not as generic as you make it out to be.

No. Your quote in #216 is: "Some people believe in a higher being and some don't, I don't care. As I stated in my very first post, this case had nothing to do with contraceptives. It had to do with the SCOTUS reaffirming that the federal government has constitutional limits, which makes the left bat shit crazy."

If you don't like what you wrote, I can't help it.

On a related note, there are a few other reasons to use (or at least have access to) some forms of birth control...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/lena-dunham-birth-control_n_5611748.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063