Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit. Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about? I'll pick one (there are many examples) In 2010 the dream act failed, so Obama used executive orders to stop deportations and of illegal immigrants. So even though the law (he supported) failed, he just wrote it in and told law enforcement and the justice dept how to act. Someone or other passed a law about recess appointments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d19_story.html |
|
|
|
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit. |
|
|
|
Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.htmlVery few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. Very interesting link, thanks for posting it. The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice). And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process. just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not . The kid's dreams are more intelligent than a council of five of yourself deliberating for a month with Steven Hawking as your guide. |
|
|
|
Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.htmlVery few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. |
|
|
|
|
voynich manuscript is interesting.. i say its art.. i hear the CIA says its definitely some type of script.. i find it strange they haven’t decoded it.
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Franklin would ask us today “what are you doing for God’s sake??” Written by Allen West on July 4, 2014 On July 4, 1776, the greatest experiment in human liberty took shape. My passion for our Republic stems from a love of being blessed to live in an exceptional country and bear the simple title of American. I have seen many other countries and none beat the land of the “All night Denny’s and 7-11. These days, some feel America is what’s wrong with the world. I see an America that embodies what can be right with the world. In 238 short years we have achieved something that many have only dreamed of — a land where we “hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” When those words were written, no, it was not the prevailing reality. But, it was the hope of the writer, Thomas Jefferson, and that of the 55 other men who affixed their name. If those words had never been written, we would never have believed it possible — and we would never have achieved that goal. The Founding Fathers gave us a vision of what was possible in a land of opportunity. A place that simply said that it didn’t matter where you were born or from whence you came — here you could “be all that you could be.” All that was asked was a respect of the rule of law — our eventual Constitution. And what was given, with our consent, was a government chosen to represent our best interests — not self or special interest. And so here we are today. There is nothing wrong with America and the fundamentals for which she was established. What is wrong with America is the abandonment of those basic principles and a loss of respect and regard for the rule of law at the highest levels. What is happening with America is a lack of understanding our foundational values and precepts. What is happening in America is something that would cause those 56 men to shed a tear. However, I believe they would sit us down — especially ol’ Benjamin Franklin — and with a tinge of sarcastic wisdom he would simply ask, “what are you doing for God’s sakes?” Franklin would remind us of his challenge on that hot September day in 1787 that we have a Republic — if we can keep it. Here on this Independence Day in 2014, put down those hot dogs and hamburgers for just a moment to remember and honor the men, the 56, who pledged to give their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for your freedom and liberty today. Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/benjamin-franklin-ask-us-today-gods-sake/#X6BF04LfvcVFE2f7.99 Let's just sit back and watch how many progressives, who possess an ENTIRELY different set of values and ideology than Allen West, come here to agree with him. Because that's what we're supposed to do, don't you know. A buck says a couple of them will not be able to resist the usual labels. |
|
|
|
I am a social liberal Most lawyers seem to be social libertarians/liberals. , and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader. It can have a chilling effect, however. Look at how many court challenges there are to same-sex marriage right now, for example. So many people whose rights are being violated. That's a case where the court could have very easily broadened the scope of its ruling. But it chose not to ... which is typical of this court because it has no balls. #YesAllWomen |
|
|
|
|
Wonderful commentary and very inspiring .Have we ever seen a rickety boat leave the shores of America, seeking comfort in another land?
|
|
|
|
Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?
It has no balls. People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child. As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope. As noted by Ginsburg: Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision. The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment. There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring). In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues. I am a social liberal, and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader. No decision by the Supreme Court is ever based on the text of a single law. They always cite multiple cases, and they always bring up constitutional concerns and weigh them against various interests. This case is no exception. |
|
|
|
Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?
It has no balls. People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child. As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope. As noted by Ginsburg: Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision. The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment. There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring). In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues. |
|
|
|
|
As well as case law over the last twenty years.
|
|
|
|
Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter? Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law. But it matters because the law can be wrong. This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature. This case was decided on June 30, 2014. |
|
|
|
I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment?
Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle.
Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all.
Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it.
The government doesn't decree that companies offer 401k plans. Hobby Lobby could pay out higher wages instead, but I'm sure there are quite a number of alternate investments they could hold that actually align with what they claim to believe. If they REALLY were so principled as to be appalled at the thought of this, then they shouldn't have these investments. This does speak directly to the sincerity of the beliefs claimed by Hobby Lobby. Holding these investments while decrying insurers who cover them makes it seem like they are being entirely political and their problem was more about the politics of Obamacare than any sincere concerns about Plan B drugs. |
|
|
|
|
The real reason that unions are hated so much by the republicans is that the unions give the working man a loud voice. The unions were able to do a good job of making sure voters got to the booth. So for many years the corporations have been fighting to end union rights so they have no voice. I hate to tell you poor deluded idiots but the union voice was a voice for you. Try reading a little history of this country.' Can any of you tell me where the term redneck came from.
|
|
|
|
Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter? Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law. But it matters because the law can be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Heres are a couple of my favorite jokes
A priest and a rabbi are stranded on a deserted island.
One day they are sitting on the beach and staring out at the waves, when the priest says I wish there were some little boys on this island.
Well the rabbi thinks about it and looks around, and finally asks why?
The priest replies... So we could fuck them.
Well the rabbi thinks about it and looks around some more, and finally replies... Out of What???
One day a bear and a rabbit were taking a shit in the woods.
And when the bear was done, he looked down at the rabbit and asked... Tell me rabbit, have you ever had a problem with shit sticking to your fur?
The rabbit thought for a moment... and said he couldn't think of that ever being a problem.
To which the bear replied Good!
And wiped his ass with the rabbit.
|
|
|
|
Damn those children, what right do they have to want to live in a country that is not killing them. OH you righties want this country to be the same as the 3rd world countries these children are coming from. Yep our hate abortion republicans say just send them back to be murdered.
Who's murdering their own kids? And do you really think kids possess the wherewithal to undertake something as dangerous as immigrating across the third world alone? Look at who is bringing them . This is human traffic, money changing hands, using desperate people as their pawns. $ From these corrupt government officials to the cartels to the coyotes. Round and round. No I do not think that 3 year old knows why and what they are doing. But their parents did. Can you imagine the anguish the parents must feel when the only way for their kids to have a life is to be separated from them. It must be hell in those countries if a parent would let them come without them. |
|
|
|
Damn those children, what right do they have to want to live in a country that is not killing them. OH you righties want this country to be the same as the 3rd world countries these children are coming from. Yep our hate abortion republicans say just send them back to be murdered.
Who's murdering their own kids? And do you really think kids possess the wherewithal to undertake something as dangerous as immigrating across the third world alone? |
|
|
|
Maybe the right can tack this to their 'end the war in Iraq' platform? I'm sure Romney promising to end the war and close the border will be so much more convincing than Hillary promising to end the war and close the border.
Yeah, I get all that. But in the present, there are real kids being dumped here, not to mention real diseases and riff raff slipping in behind them. Someone in DC has to be grown up leader for once, which the Prez could actually try and perhaps have something other than a list of disasters on his record. He could start by getting off the golf course and actually working with Boehner and Reid to amend this bill now. That much at least could be done. Enough with him whining and casting insults on minions he expects to deliver his druthers up to him on a silver platter. He is an incompetent pompous ass who will do nothing to solve the problems he creates. Politicians provide political solutions, which in this case amounts to more bullshit piled on top of the last pile of bullshit we bought. The border needs to be militarized and closed. Period. There isn't a politician on earth with the nads, and we can continue to watch as we become part of the third world. Not necessarily true. It's being done successfully in AZ: While the federal government may have people worried that there is almost nothing that can be done to stop the flow of illegal-immigrant children crossing the border, newly released figures from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency seem to suggest otherwise. The more than 52,000 kids who illegally crossed America’s southwestern border in Fiscal Year 2014 through June 15 represent a 99 percent increase over the number of unaccompanied alien children crossing during the same period last year, and the Rio Grande Valley sector alone has seen an increase of nearly 180 percent.
But the Tucson, Ariz., sector has seen 4 percent fewer kids illegally crossing this fiscal year compared with last. That might be because Tucson has more Border Patrol agents working in its sector than any other sector on the southern border, leading the next closest station by more than 1,000 agents. (The staffing comparison is as of FY 2013, but according to the Tucson Sector’s website, there are currently even more agents, 4,200 in total, working on the sector.)
And Tucson’s drop is startling when considering the record high number of children crossing from Central America. The number of illegal-immigrant children from Honduras who have entered the country thus far in Fiscal Year 2014 includes 2,324 more kids than came during the previous five fiscal years combined. In those five fiscal years, Honduras produced an average of approximately 2,541 illegal-immigrant children per year, and fewer than 1,000 kids came to the U.S. during two of those years; more than 15,000 have arrived this year.
While the number of illegal-immigrant children crossing in the Tucson sector has dropped, the federal government has decided to ship illegal-immigrant children there anyway. The feds transported nearly 1,000 illegal-immigrant kids to Tucson and Phoenix during the first week of June alone, according to CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/08/us/arizona-dhs-undocumented-children-moved/http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381557/theres-no-illegal-immigrant-surge-best-staffed-sector-southern-border-ryan-lovelace |
|
|
|
|
The thing is, that kind of "cleaning" leaves a trail too - so if they DID try to pull that, they'd likely get caught. And KC, you're "BTW" makes no sense. How does an organization accused of being politically biased against Democrats filing a suit claiming fraud by Democrats disprove their partisanship?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
