And the Ruling Is.....

[TemplarKormac]

In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.

As for the Harris v. Quinn case, I predict a 5-4 ruling in favor of the plaintiff. I believe that just because a certain field in the public sector is unionized, it doesn't mean that you can force someone who has a profession in said field to associate with you and make them pay dues. That's where government is wrong. I can understand the First Amendment argument here. She has a right to not associate with public sector unions in the state of Illinois. Moreover, I think the contract that the SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana made with the state violates the First Amendment altogether and is unconstitutional. This case has the potential to kill unions altogether, if the court rules in favor of Pamela Harris. And it will most likely overturn the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision of 1977.

So, what say you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My bet would be 5-4 your way. I think it's too hot to handle, and there are other options, so they punted.

 

[Kosh]

In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.

So, what say you?

I think your prediction is probably right on the money.

Although you have to admit that this supreme court has been about deciding about the case on legality point instead of trying to legislate from the bench.

It has ben said that it is up to Congress to write or change the laws not the supreme court. The supreme is there to make sure that it is legally valid under the constitution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.

So, what say you?

I think your prediction is probably right on the money.

Although you have to admit that this supreme court has been about deciding about the case on legality point instead of trying to legislate from the bench.

It has been said that it is up to Congress to write or change the laws not the supreme court. The supreme is there to make sure that it is legally valid under the constitution.

Check the revision, and yes, I am naturally pessimistic on SCOTUS cases dealing with religion and individual rights, given that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.

It's not the drugs, it's the employer being able to pick and choose, which I bet they will allow. It's gonna be a big can of worms though if that happens...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Christians can go fuck themselves.

What an eloquent argument

 

[TemplarKormac]

Christians can go fuck themselves.

Afraid I'll be wrong? Well, I'm afraid I'll be right. And while I'm at it, I think a neg is in order for that remark.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.

Indeed. Hobby Lobby has never refused to pay for contraception. Never once. They do not want to pay for abortion pills.


Just another example of "American Victimhood". What a sorry state we live in....

 

[Kosh]

In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.

So, what say you?

I think your prediction is probably right on the money.

Although you have to admit that this supreme court has been about deciding about the case on legality point instead of trying to legislate from the bench.

It has been said that it is up to Congress to write or change the laws not the supreme court. The supreme is there to make sure that it is legally valid under the constitution.

Check the revision, and yes, I am naturally pessimistic on SCOTUS cases dealing with religion and individual rights, given that.

Yes this ruling is very critical in many aspects.

Although with Obmacare the whole point was that Obmacare being a tax or a penalty.

So will this come down to something similar such as one word.

The government had a weak case before and it turned in their favor, but maybe this time will be different. I do not see that much of case for this from the government side.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Christians can go fuck themselves.

What an eloquent argument

Well, occupied has him beat. You should have seen what he said in one of my other threads yesterday morning. He wished I had never been born. But anywho, this is a SCOTUS ruling thread. Anyone who wants to make a prediction can, and if they feel so inclined, they can cite legal precedent in their arguments. I'd love to see it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now about Harris v. Quinn, Kosh, Oldie, PMH? Anyone? What say you?

 

[Kosh]

Now about Harris v. Quinn, Kosh, Oldie, PMH? Anyone? What say you?

Well this did not stop places like New York and Michigan from forcing those to pay union dues as previous SCOTUS rulings had been done. The real radical change in Wisconsin happened when Scott walker got elected.

The unions did not like it, but now we know that when given the choice most will opt out of the union.

Since that happened the SCOTUS ruling may be 7 -2.

Although here Is the case:

Issue: (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

And of course one needs to read this:

Argument recap: Public employee unionism under fire : SCOTUSblog

Argument preview: Is Abood in trouble? : SCOTUSblog

I think the unions will be safe and this will be 7 - 2 ruling.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obamacare's abortion mandate

You'll always be a liar and ignorant rightwing partisan hack.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obamacare's abortion mandate

You'll always be a liar and ignorant rightwing partisan hack.

KNB has competition I see.

No legal rebuttals this time? The self proclaimed expert on the law is worried that Obama may get his butt handed to him again later on this morning...

If anyone is a hack, it's you. Moving on.

 

[Kosh]

Obamacare's abortion mandate

You'll always be a liar and ignorant rightwing partisan hack.

And yet another far left Obama drone spouts propaganda!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Obamacare's abortion mandate

You'll always be a liar and ignorant rightwing partisan hack.

And you will always be a left wing hypocrite. But you know that, don't you....

 

[daveman]

Obamacare's abortion mandate

You'll always be a liar and ignorant rightwing partisan hack.

Pouting and stamping your feet is a less-than-compelling argument. C'mon, dood. You're good at the legalese stuff. Bring your A-game.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Look at all the little nutters. Letting the dopey OP have his little lie. No problem, right folks. Inserting lies into a post and then demanding that others don't discuss them is so sweet! You guys love doing that shit.

Who would like to restart the discussion? This time....with a little honesty regarding what the case is actually about?

Anyone?