Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby

[theDoctorisIn]

DISCLAIMER: National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental . The views expressed by writers on this site are theirs alone and are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help (and you may be if you are on this page), please consult a professional. National Report is intended for a mature audience and not for children under the age of 18.

http://nationalreport.net/disclaimer2/

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Hmm, forgotten which came first, have we?

The Commerce clause was part of the Constitution before the 1st amendment was, correct?

Which means, when the 1st amendment (and the rest) were ratified, THEY changed what had come before them. That's what amendments do. Not the other way around.

As a hypothetical example, when the Const was first ratified and before it had any amendments, the Commerce Clause could have been used by Congress to forbid the shipping of Bibles across state lines. (I can't imagine Congress ever wanting to do that, even back then, but I'm just saying they had the power to do it if they wanted).

Then when the 1st amendment was later ratified, Congress could no longer forbid shipping bibles across state lines, because it would probably interfere with many people's free exercise of religion.

Similarly, before the 2nd amendment was ratified (same time as the first), Congress could plausibly forbid carrying a firearm across a state line. After the 2nd was passed, Congress could not longer do that. (This may come as news to a lot of politicians, some of whom passed the 1934 National Firearms Act that specifically put restrictions on firearms involved in interstate commerce. The 1934 NFA was found unconstitutional the first time it was brought before a Federal court in 1939, for that very reason: the 2nd amendment had taken away Congress's power to restrict firearms whether they were in interstate commerce or not.)

 

[Sallow]

NO ONE should be forced to pay for something that circumvents their belief system. This whole issue is an affront to the FIRST AMENDMENT.

I didn't believe that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do.

I paid for it.

Are you saying I can sue Bush now?

What's IRAQ and BOOSH have to do with this issue, Sallow? That's right NOTHING. Nice try at dodging. FAIL again assclown.

Well no.

Since none of you guys are advocating a line item tax return?

It's NOT a fail.

 

[dblack]

DISCLAIMER: National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental . The views expressed by writers on this site are theirs alone and are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help (and you may be if you are on this page), please consult a professional. National Report is intended for a mature audience and not for children under the age of 18.

http://nationalreport.net/disclaimer2/

Thanks. Good to know the quote was considered ridiculous enough for humor. But sad that things are so far gone that many of us were taking it seriously.

 

[ron4342]

As closely guarded as SCOTUS is with their decisions, this entire conversation is suspect. For a clerk to comment that a litigant's position is laughable, is not something that should be readily believed.

Believe what you want to believe. That is nothing new to you.

 

[ron4342]

If this is true, Roberts will be removed. It's no different from a municipal court clerk whispering "The fix is in."

To remove Roberts he much be impeached. Got the numbers??? I didn't think so. And yes, yes, yes, the election is coming at the end of the year and the conservatives will win everything (just like they did in 2012).
My suggestion to you is don't hold your breath!!!!! Hummm... on the other hand, maybe it would be a good time to hold your breath!

 

[Little-Acorn]

My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation

Two points:

1.) There's no way anyone can know what any judge will do, especially one like Roberts who has crafted bizarre "opinions" in the past.

2.) That said, I tend to unfortunately agree with the opinion posted above. Roberts stated frankly that the reason he decided in favor of the Obamacare mandate, even while declaring it unconstitutional as written in the same breath, is because he felt it was the Court's job to favor Congress's decisions whenever possible.

He could not be more wrong, of course. The Court's job is not to favor Congress. The court's job, instead, is to favor the Constitution. Specifically, the Court's job is to OPPOSE Congress in matters where Congress passes legislation that opposes the Constitution... as Roberts pointed out that the Obamacare mandate clearly did.

If Roberts continues the weird notion that his job is to favor Congress instead of the Constitution, then yes, it's very possible he may rule against Hobby Lobby and the 1st amendment rights of the people running it, since that's what Congress did.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Hobby Lobby stands, we're going to petition USMB to have everyone pray to Jesus prior to posting

 

[Little-Acorn]

If Hobby Lobby stands, we're going to petition USMB to have everyone pray to Jesus prior to posting

Interesting.

The liberal fanatics are already bending over backward trying to mis-represent what Hobby Lobby is doing, in a desperate attempt to soften the blow when Hobby Lobby wins.

They seem VERY worried about this case.

That's a good sign.

 

[ron4342]

As closely guarded as SCOTUS is with their decisions, this entire conversation is suspect. For a clerk to comment that a litigant's position is laughable, is not something that should be readily believed.

Anyone who know how SCOTUS works has to understand this is the most outrageous and unlikely leak ever!

Law clerks to the justices - especially the Chief Justice - do not speak out of school. Their very legal existence depends upon it. If this is true, this clerk WILL NEVER EVER find a job anywhere but another government agency. And, he will always be a pariah in the legal community.

And, nowhere in the article does it say anything about what Robert's possible position is. Just a bunch of babble about what possibly MIGHT be.

Are you really trying to tell me that in the entire 238 years this country has been in existence that not one law clerk or justice has not leaked information of any sort. I find that rather hard to believe.
Oh, and the career of the leaker is over only if they can find who the leaker was. That may not be as easy as you would like to believe.

 

[dblack]

As closely guarded as SCOTUS is with their decisions, this entire conversation is suspect. For a clerk to comment that a litigant's position is laughable, is not something that should be readily believed.

Anyone who know how SCOTUS works has to understand this is the most outrageous and unlikely leak ever!

Law clerks to the justices - especially the Chief Justice - do not speak out of school. Their very legal existence depends upon it. If this is true, this clerk WILL NEVER EVER find a job anywhere but another government agency. And, he will always be a pariah in the legal community.

And, nowhere in the article does it say anything about what Robert's possible position is. Just a bunch of babble about what possibly MIGHT be.

Are you really trying to tell me that in the entire 238 years this country has been in existence that not one law clerk or justice has not leaked information of any sort. I find that rather hard to believe.
Oh, and the career of the leaker is over only if they can find who the leaker was. That may not be as easy as you would like to believe.

It's satire. Not real.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If Hobby Lobby stands, we're going to petition USMB to have everyone pray to Jesus prior to posting

Interesting.

The liberal fanatics are already bending over backward trying to mis-represent what Hobby Lobby is doing, in a desperate attempt to soften the blow when Hobby Lobby wins.

They seem VERY worried about this case.

That's a good sign.

It's not the case, it's the implications, and there's a very good chance we won't lose. It is the government versus a corporation, just like law enforcement versus a citizen. The first usually wins.

And this works both ways. You won't cover abortion, I won't cover pregnancy. This ought to be a hoot if that barn door is opened.

 

[BDBoop]

The "National Report" is a satire site, guys.

So why didn't the thread get moved, Dr. Mod?

 

[The T]

If Hobby Lobby stands, we're going to petition USMB to have everyone pray to Jesus prior to posting

WATCH the board Progressives clear out...

 

[The T]

My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation

Two points:

1.) There's no way anyone can know what any judge will do, especially one like Roberts who has crafted bizarre "opinions" in the past.

2.) That said, I tend to unfortunately agree with the opinion posted above. Roberts stated frankly that the reason he decided in favor of the Obamacare mandate, even while declaring it unconstitutional as written in the same breath, is because he felt it was the Court's job to favor Congress's decisions whenever possible.

He could not be more wrong, of course. The Court's job is not to favor Congress. The court's job, instead, is to favor the Constitution. Specifically, the Court's job is to OPPOSE Congress in matters where Congress passes legislation that opposes the Constitution... as Roberts pointed out that the Obamacare mandate clearly did.

If Roberts continues the weird notion that his job is to favor Congress instead of the Constitution, then yes, it's very possible he may rule against Hobby Lobby and the 1st amendment rights of the people running it, since that's what Congress did.

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation

Two points:

1.) There's no way anyone can know what any judge will do, especially one like Roberts who has crafted bizarre "opinions" in the past.

2.) That said, I tend to unfortunately agree with the opinion posted above. Roberts stated frankly that the reason he decided in favor of the Obamacare mandate, even while declaring it unconstitutional as written in the same breath, is because he felt it was the Court's job to favor Congress's decisions whenever possible.

He could not be more wrong, of course. The Court's job is not to favor Congress. The court's job, instead, is to favor the Constitution. Specifically, the Court's job is to OPPOSE Congress in matters where Congress passes legislation that opposes the Constitution... as Roberts pointed out that the Obamacare mandate clearly did.

If Roberts continues the weird notion that his job is to favor Congress instead of the Constitution, then yes, it's very possible he may rule against Hobby Lobby and the 1st amendment rights of the people running it, since that's what Congress did.

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

And where exactly do you think we got the ideas for the Constitution, out of thin air? Oh right, many from other nations.

 

[The T]

Two points:

1.) There's no way anyone can know what any judge will do, especially one like Roberts who has crafted bizarre "opinions" in the past.

2.) That said, I tend to unfortunately agree with the opinion posted above. Roberts stated frankly that the reason he decided in favor of the Obamacare mandate, even while declaring it unconstitutional as written in the same breath, is because he felt it was the Court's job to favor Congress's decisions whenever possible.

He could not be more wrong, of course. The Court's job is not to favor Congress. The court's job, instead, is to favor the Constitution. Specifically, the Court's job is to OPPOSE Congress in matters where Congress passes legislation that opposes the Constitution... as Roberts pointed out that the Obamacare mandate clearly did.

If Roberts continues the weird notion that his job is to favor Congress instead of the Constitution, then yes, it's very possible he may rule against Hobby Lobby and the 1st amendment rights of the people running it, since that's what Congress did.

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

And where exactly do you think we got the ideas for the Constitution, out of thin air? Oh right, many from other nations.

GO read the Constitution...and it doesn't matter WHERE we got it or where YOU THINK we did... in your deranged mind shitstain. The Constitution is LAW of the LAND regardless. STFU and go address something you know about Painted Turd.

ASSHAT

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

and what about the slippery slope into government tyranny?

just the mere fact that the Fed forces employers to provide insurance is tyranny.


I hate liberals, all of you are nothing but freedom hating scum.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

And where exactly do you think we got the ideas for the Constitution, out of thin air? Oh right, many from other nations.

GO read the Constitution...and it doesn't matter WHERE we got it or where YOU THINK we did... in your deranged mind shitstain. The Constitution is LAW of the LAND regardless. STFU and go address something you know about Painted Turd.

ASSHAT

Sucks to get nailed eh? So sad, for you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

and what about the slippery slope into government tyranny?

just the mere fact that the Fed forces employers to provide insurance is tyranny.


I hate liberals, all of you are nothing but freedom hating scum.

We invented Freedom actually. You know Liberals, Liberalism, Liberty? And the Founders were Liberals. Your opinion of them as scum is noted.