Obama really runs Sandra Fluke via Anita Dun

[Jarhead]

The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.

Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.

When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.

Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.

You need to see what you are saying.

You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.

May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.

You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.

No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.

That's the court's job.

They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.

Stop it....now you are spinning beyond control......I ask that you stop. It is not getting us anywhere.

It is up to congress to ensure, to the best of their ability, that an initiative or potential law does NOT break the constitution before it becomes law.

Sometimes they get it wrong and that is found out when it reaches the supreme court.

But they do their best to make sure they are right before it is enacted.

And in this case? A mandate that takes freedom of choice away from a business owner and religious entities? Absolutely worthy of hearings before it is enacted.

That spin of your was unecessary.

 

[Si modo]

The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.

Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.

When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.

Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.

You need to see what you are saying.

You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.

May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.

You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.

No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.

That's the court's job.

They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.

You're right. It's not the Legislative Branch's responsibility to determine constitutionality. Thank gawd for Checks and Balances of three Branches.

But, it IS a responsibility to the Legislative Branch to pass laws without wasting tax payer monies when those laws challenge the Constitution. Silly of me to expect my representatives to know about the law when I give them the power to make law.

 

[Jarhead]

No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.

That's the court's job.

They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.

Let me ask you this....

Exactly what did Fluke have to offer as it pertains to whether or not the consitution was being breached by the mandate?

One more time: I'm not saying Fluke should have testified. I'm saying a discussion related in any way, shape or form to female contraception should include testimony from....women.

it did not have toi do with contraception!

It had to do with the constitutionality of a government mandate that takes freedom of choice out of the hands of a person (buisiness owner) or religious entity.

 

[8537]

Let me ask you this....

Exactly what did Fluke have to offer as it pertains to whether or not the consitution was being breached by the mandate?

One more time: I'm not saying Fluke should have testified. I'm saying a discussion related in any way, shape or form to female contraception should include testimony from....women.

it did not have toi do with contraception!

It had to do with the constitutionality of a government mandate that takes freedom of choice out of the hands of a person (buisiness owner) or religious entity.

I've listened to the hearing, Jarhead. It dealt almost exclusively with access to and provisions of female contraception.

This is not a topic of debate. It's a fact.

Are there any women capable of offering testimony on the government mandate?

 

[8537]

When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.

Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.

You need to see what you are saying.

You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.

May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.

You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.

No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.

That's the court's job.

They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.

Stop it....now you are spinning beyond control......I ask that you stop. It is not getting us anywhere.

It is up to congress to ensure, to the best of their ability, that an initiative or potential law does NOT break the constitution before it becomes law.

It's not a "potential law". It's a current law and the executive branch is charged with creating the associated regs. Courts are responsible for determining if those regs are constitutional.

The legislative body already did its job.

 

[Si modo]

No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.

That's the court's job.

They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.

Stop it....now you are spinning beyond control......I ask that you stop. It is not getting us anywhere.

It is up to congress to ensure, to the best of their ability, that an initiative or potential law does NOT break the constitution before it becomes law.

It's not a "potential law". It's a current law and the executive branch is charged with creating the associated regs. Courts are responsible for determining if those regs are constitutional.

The legislative body already did its job.

And, if the Legislative Branch does not do something about this, then the Church will. They have both the means and the motivation to do so.

And, I hope it gets to the SCOTUS soon. Having Obama's and the Dem's pet law get shot down as unconstitutional will be an awesome October Surprise.

 

[mudwhistle]

Anita Dunn is married to Obama's head legal council Robert Bauer. She was right in the middle of the war against Fox News.

The White House denies Targeting Fox News. Really? « Romanticpoet's Weblog

 

[Jarhead]

No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.

That's the court's job.

They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.

Stop it....now you are spinning beyond control......I ask that you stop. It is not getting us anywhere.

It is up to congress to ensure, to the best of their ability, that an initiative or potential law does NOT break the constitution before it becomes law.

It's not a "potential law". It's a current law and the executive branch is charged with creating the associated regs. Courts are responsible for determining if those regs are constitutional.

The legislative body already did its job.

Wrong.

A few weeks back, Obnama made a "compromise" that will require an ammendemnt to the law....a mandate that all insurance companies offer contraception at no extra cost to the insured.

And the hearing was to determine if the ammendment was within the boundaires of the constitution.

It is what our congress is supposed to do.

 

[8537]

Stop it....now you are spinning beyond control......I ask that you stop. It is not getting us anywhere.

It is up to congress to ensure, to the best of their ability, that an initiative or potential law does NOT break the constitution before it becomes law.

It's not a "potential law". It's a current law and the executive branch is charged with creating the associated regs. Courts are responsible for determining if those regs are constitutional.

The legislative body already did its job.

Wrong.

A few weeks back, Obnama made a "compromise" that will require an ammendemnt to the law....a mandate that all insurance companies offer contraception at no extra cost to the insured.

And the hearing was to determine if the ammendment was within the boundaires of the constitution.

It is what our congress is supposed to do.

It's an executive rule. It requires no congressional approval.

Seven states asked a federal judge Thursday to block an Obama administration mandate that requires birth control coverage for employees of religious-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs.

7 states sue over Obama administration's birth control rule

 

[bripat9643]

do you really think laughing emoticons make you sound less stupid than you are?

:cool?

The irony of that statement is truly special.

 

[Jarhead]

It's not a "potential law". It's a current law and the executive branch is charged with creating the associated regs. Courts are responsible for determining if those regs are constitutional.

The legislative body already did its job.

Wrong.

A few weeks back, Obnama made a "compromise" that will require an ammendemnt to the law....a mandate that all insurance companies offer contraception at no extra cost to the insured.

And the hearing was to determine if the ammendment was within the boundaires of the constitution.

It is what our congress is supposed to do.

It's an executive rule. It requires no congressional approval.

Seven states asked a federal judge Thursday to block an Obama administration mandate that requires birth control coverage for employees of religious-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs.

7 states sue over Obama administration's birth control rule

And congresss will ALWAYS review an executive order that results in ammending a law.

It is what congress does.

Whatever.....this is getting boring for me.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[8537]

Wrong.

A few weeks back, Obnama made a "compromise" that will require an ammendemnt to the law....a mandate that all insurance companies offer contraception at no extra cost to the insured.

And the hearing was to determine if the ammendment was within the boundaires of the constitution.

It is what our congress is supposed to do.

It's an executive rule. It requires no congressional approval.

Seven states asked a federal judge Thursday to block an Obama administration mandate that requires birth control coverage for employees of religious-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs.

7 states sue over Obama administration's birth control rule

And congresss will ALWAYS review an executive order that results in ammending a law.

It is what congress does.

Whatever.....this is getting boring for me.

Have a nice weekend.

Congress passes laws. The executive branch is responsible for implementing them - including the associated regs. The executive branch published the regs, like they do with every law. Republicans thought they had a political win by holding an all-male hearing to discuss the requirement to provide female contraception.

It backfired in spectacular fashion...and Republicans dug in their heels.

But anyway, great weekend to you as well. Final couple weeks of decent skiing in these parts....

 

[Claudette]

Sandra Fluke was nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Barry and his boys do not like the fact that religious organizations have this maddening exemption to government mandates called the first amendment.

When you accidentally let off gas in a crowded room, a good tactic to divert attention is to change the subject to something more 'pallitable.' Since attacking the religious exemption was a losing position, the Democrats changed the topic to something that was more favorable to them. And it worked thanks to Barry's darlings in the media.

Orbitron says that Rush's listenership is up. MoveOn.org is asking it's membership to contact Clear Channel and demand that Rush be removed. Uh, the MOST LISTENED to talk radio program in history? And I can expect pigs to fly out of my butt EXACTLY one minute after that happens.

Bingo.

 

[bripat9643]

Jarhead, the official committee hearing on issues of reproductive access had a long list of people testifying - all men.

It's not a committee on reproductive access. It's a committee on the First Amendment. Libs keep trying to turn this into a conctraception issue because that's what they think they can win. They already lost the First Amendment issue.

You already proved you're a propagandist, so there's no point in discussing the rest of your swill.

 

[bripat9643]

The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.

Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.

You're a hosebag propagandist who isn't interested in the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Did you listen to the hearing? The primary topic was female contraception and the right of certain organizations to opt out of providing it.

Again, the optics of an all-male panel on that are just terrible. awful. hilariously, epically pathetic. If you want to continue to explain it away be my guest. But the optics are what the optics are, and Republicans lost...badly. They will continue to lose if they don't learn from this. That's why women are running from the Republicans right now. Women can vote. Daughters, mothers, wives, grandmothers? They can vote.

Again, you're just a hosebag propagandist who isn't interested in the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.

Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.

You need to see what you are saying.

You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.

May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.

You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.

What 8357 is saying is that he/she doesn't give a crap about the First Amendment. No liberal does. That's why they keep trying to shut down FOX News and Rush Limbaugh.

 

[mudwhistle]

See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.

Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.

The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.

Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.

What makes women experts on consitutional law?

 

[8537]

Jarhead, the official committee hearing on issues of reproductive access had a long list of people testifying - all men.

It's not a committee on reproductive access. It's a committee on the First Amendment. Libs keep trying to turn this into a conctraception issue because that's what they think they can win. They already lost the First Amendment issue.

You already proved you're a propagandist, so there's no point in discussing the rest of your swill.

You should continue pushing that point. it's been working so well for you so far!

 

[8537]

What makes women experts on consitutional law?

^My point exactly. Please run with that inquiry.

Let's try this on for size: What makes men experts on constitutional law?