Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All he had to say was the Commerce Clause invalidated the Freedom of Association part of the 1st Amendment and now it's going to invalidate the Freedom of Religion part.
Between the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, and Congress's taxation powers, there is nothing that is outside of the Federal government's scope. The Constitution as a limit on federal authority is a dead idea.
All he had to say was the Commerce Clause invalidated the Freedom of Association part of the 1st Amendment and now it's going to invalidate the Freedom of Religion part.
Between the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, and Congress's taxation powers, there is nothing that is outside of the Federal government's scope. The Constitution as a limit on federal authority is a dead idea.
The "limit" on Federal Power was meant to limit what the government could do to it's citizens.
It was never meant to limit what the government could do in terms of the issues you mentioned.
Neither the founders nor the Constitution was meant to put Americans in a state were a neo-Aristocracy would rule.
It WAS meant to set up a representative government that would reign in these elements of society.
If this is true, Roberts will be removed. It's no different from a municipal court clerk whispering "The fix is in."
Hope it's true... Good for Roberts if it is.
You calling anyone ignorant is supreme irony.If this is true, Roberts will be removed. It's no different from a municipal court clerk whispering "The fix is in."
??!!!You show your ignorance if you think Supreme court law clerk is generl clerk or the entire court, it is Roberts Court clerk who works with him , not just clerk who works in the sc building!! LOL
and you know all about how the sc works and the constitution!! LOL
Especially if what leaked out was that the Justices had already made up their minds...
If you read the article link it doesn't say that Roberts has made up his mind. The article said "My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the Presidents signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here.
This is the clerks opinion, not something that Roberts said.
... before a single word was heard.
The court has been reading briefs on Hobby Lobby since September 2013. If you don't think Justices begin to form legal opinions prior to oral arguments (if they are scheduled), then you are mistaken. Many pontificate about this justices opinion or that justicies opinion based on they types of questions asked during oral arguments.
Search - Supreme Court of the United States
>>>>
All he had to say was the Commerce Clause invalidated the Freedom of Association part of the 1st Amendment and now it's going to invalidate the Freedom of Religion part.
Between the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, and Congress's taxation powers, there is nothing that is outside of the Federal government's scope. The Constitution as a limit on federal authority is a dead idea.
The "limit" on Federal Power was meant to limit what the government could do to it's citizens.
It was never meant to limit what the government could do in terms of the issues you mentioned.
Neither the founders nor the Constitution was meant to put Americans in a state were a neo-Aristocracy would rule.
It WAS meant to set up a representative government that would reign in these elements of society.
IOW the federal gov't is limited by what you think it ought to do.
We get it. You're a lo-lo.
YOU sure as HELL do NOT. Now? Who's the ignorant one? And I hope this 'clerk' gets called on the carpet and FIRED.If this is true, Roberts will be removed. It's no different from a municipal court clerk whispering "The fix is in."
??!!!You show your ignorance if you think Supreme court law clerk is generl clerk or the entire court, it is Roberts Court clerk who works with him , not just clerk who works in the sc building!! LOL
and you know all about how the sc works and the constitution!! LOL
I would hope it goes 6-3 with him on the right side of the issue but that is a lot to hope for. You'd think these guys would be more realistic on the court after if said your Second Amendment rights could be taken away if you knocked the wife and kids around?Hope it's true... Good for Roberts if it is.
This really should be true about Scalia.
Who actually already ruled on this.
Employment Division v. Smith expressly points out that religion does NOT trump law.
I would hope it goes 6-3 with him on the right side of the issue but that is a lot to hope for. You'd think these guys would be more realistic on the court after if said your Second Amendment rights could be taken away if you knocked the wife and kids around?Hope it's true... Good for Roberts if it is.
This really should be true about Scalia.
Who actually already ruled on this.
Employment Division v. Smith expressly points out that religion does NOT trump law.
Rights have limitations people, and corporations aren't people. They are run by them and treated as such in certain aspects, that's all. If you want your faith to be your work, join a church as a Preacher. Everyone else might as well be cleaning the toilets for all the faith that's required.
...The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern....
Not fascism but insanity. I wouldn't cover ED drugs, kids, or pregnancy. And I can prove in court why I wouldn't using nothing more than what I've posted here.I would hope it goes 6-3 with him on the right side of the issue but that is a lot to hope for. You'd think these guys would be more realistic on the court after if said your Second Amendment rights could be taken away if you knocked the wife and kids around?This really should be true about Scalia.
Who actually already ruled on this.
Employment Division v. Smith expressly points out that religion does NOT trump law.
Rights have limitations people, and corporations aren't people. They are run by them and treated as such in certain aspects, that's all. If you want your faith to be your work, join a church as a Preacher. Everyone else might as well be cleaning the toilets for all the faith that's required.
Ruling for Hobby Lobby would set an extremely dangerous precedent and fast forward this country into theocracy.
This would really be a very big step toward religious fascism.
Paul Horner, legal clerk for Justice Roberts, spoke with National Report: “This is a tough decision for Justice Roberts. The issues in this case are extremely complex and all Justices are aware of the implications this decision will have on the future of both Obamacare and of the insurance industry in general. The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern. Who is to say a company could not come up with religious arguments against things like blood transfusions, heart transplants, etc. Outside of that, suggesting that companies themselves have religious beliefs is almost laughable and while it is inline with the Citizens United ruling, takes a step that is a bit much for Justice Roberts to swallow. My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here.” - See more at: Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
That "attitude" is why States, law enforcement, schools, and parents, almost always, get the benefit of the doubt. The Court will step on toes but it usually tries hard not to. Obamacare stood. That should tell you something important. The State got the benefit of the doubt....The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern....
wow... the attitude this sort of quote indicates speaks volumes.
Not fascism but insanity. I wouldn't cover ED drugs, kids, or pregnancy. And I can prove in court why I wouldn't using nothing more than what I've posted here.I would hope it goes 6-3 with him on the right side of the issue but that is a lot to hope for. You'd think these guys would be more realistic on the court after if said your Second Amendment rights could be taken away if you knocked the wife and kids around?
Rights have limitations people, and corporations aren't people. They are run by them and treated as such in certain aspects, that's all. If you want your faith to be your work, join a church as a Preacher. Everyone else might as well be cleaning the toilets for all the faith that's required.
Ruling for Hobby Lobby would set an extremely dangerous precedent and fast forward this country into theocracy.
This would really be a very big step toward religious fascism.
Paul Horner, legal clerk for Justice Roberts, spoke with National Report: This is a tough decision for Justice Roberts. The issues in this case are extremely complex and all Justices are aware of the implications this decision will have on the future of both Obamacare and of the insurance industry in general. The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern. Who is to say a company could not come up with religious arguments against things like blood transfusions, heart transplants, etc. Outside of that, suggesting that companies themselves have religious beliefs is almost laughable and while it is inline with the Citizens United ruling, takes a step that is a bit much for Justice Roberts to swallow. My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the Presidents signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here. - See more at: Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
Quick question:
How will Roberts and the rest of the Court justify at once that corporations are citizens, but at the same time not citizens in that citizens have a right to adhere strongly to their private religious convictions?
Citizen's United was a very very dangerous precedent to set. The fools who voted that in were high on crack in my opinion. Not only did they open up a gigantic loophole to the process of citizen naturalization: not requiring foreign-owned "corporate citizens" to swear an Oath of Allegiance to the US, they now have this to deal with.
How do you say a corporation is a citizen, but a citizen that cannot be thrown in jail or punished for "his" crimes and a citizen that isn't somehow allowed "his" first amendment rights?
Have fun sorting this one out Justices. Next will be their approval of gay marriage and a mandate across the 50, but assuring the public it will in no way provide a slippery slope for any other manner of marital arrangement to flourish and demand its day in Court.
So glad we have a bunch of forward-thinkers on the US Supreme Court. Back in the day, Justices were selected for their extreme gray-haired wisdom and conservative stances. Now it's "hip" to have young unseasoned Justices playing at wisdom while really playing a political game for their handlers.
I want the 21st Century to be the century of cleaning house in the Supreme Court and replacing justices who can't think beyond next week with ones who know how to look far far into the future to anticipate messes just like this one..
If this is true, Roberts will be removed. It's no different from a municipal court clerk whispering "The fix is in."
It is Roberts law clerk who works with him and helps him write the opinion, No fix, just what is coming based on sound legal reasoning
Not fascism but insanity. I wouldn't cover ED drugs, kids, or pregnancy. And I can prove in court why I wouldn't using nothing more than what I've posted here.Ruling for Hobby Lobby would set an extremely dangerous precedent and fast forward this country into theocracy.
This would really be a very big step toward religious fascism.
Insanity? Sure.
But Fascism, yeah.
Fascism is a nexus between the military, religion and the government.
And in this country citizens depend on an economy largely run by private interests.
We get all the necessities of life from people interested in profit.
Which is fine, so long as there are limits and regulations on that.
This, would remove some of those regulations.
