And the Ruling Is.....

[TemplarKormac]

Well I'll be darned. Hobby Lobby won.

 

[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.

You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.

And more speculation from you.

To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.

Those higher wages mean squat if I am being forced to pay dues to a union I don't belong to.

 

[Pete7469]

Right...'cause that's exactly the same.

Well fuck me runnin'...

If healthcare is a "right" according to you bed wetters, or wait now apparently it's an obligation, then being armed is more than a right, it's an obligation.

Funny that when I read the Constitution there's no mention of medicine, healthcare or insurance. Nothing in there about marriage either.

Where do you bed wetters find all these rights and entitlements and yet can't tolerate real rights?

Funny, I don't see anything about a standing army in the Constitution either. I'd argue that having a right to "life" would be directly related to access to affordable healthcare, but I'm just one of those those "bleeding heart liberals" Jesus loved.

Nice strawman, Jesus is proud to stand up for your bullshit I reckon...

The Declaration of Independence isn't law, The Constitution is. We have a RKBA, nothing in there about medicine or fudge packing.

Try again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did I win the TK challenge? Other then the vote, I thought there would be 2 more on the yes side, I was correct in my prediction.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

At least I got the vote tally right. I still want to find what the decision on the Harris v. Quinn case...

 

[Freewill]

On the other case once I got all the details I understand and agree with their decision. Unions have to start showing people an advantage to being in the Union, just forcing people ain't gonna work and just taking their money for no benefit to the person is just pure robbery. This ruling will have very little effect on the unions, sadly, they will not learn a thing from it. They will still try strong arm tactics that went out long ago.

 

[Freewill]

Did I win the TK challenge? Other then the vote, I thought there would be 2 more on the yes side, I was correct in my prediction.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

At least I got the vote tally right. I still want to find what the decision on the Harris v. Quinn case...

Preserving her own right to not support a union, though, wasn't enough for Harris. With the help of the National Right to Work Coalition, an anti-labor group backed by large donors like the Koch and Walton families, she challenged the state's right to designate a union of public employees as their their sole representative. The right has been well settled in case law stretching back to the 1970s, and Harris lost in lower courts. But the Supreme Court took the case, indicating it might be willing to revisit the precedent.

The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Devastating Blow to Public Unions - NationalJournal.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ah yes, and in the Harris v. Quinn case, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Pamela Harris.

Another bad day for liberals and unions.

 

[Freewill]

Excellent idea seacunt.

Then force everyone to buy either a Springfield XDM .45 or a Colt AR-15.

Right...'cause that's exactly the same.

Well fuck me runnin'...

If healthcare is a "right" according to you bed wetters, or wait now apparently it's an obligation, then being armed is more than a right, it's an obligation.

Funny that when I read the Constitution there's no mention of medicine, healthcare or insurance. Nothing in there about marriage either.

Where do you bed wetters find all these rights and entitlements and yet can't tolerate real rights?

You do have a point. I am waiting to be supplied by the government a fire arm so I can be part of a militia if needed. It is in the constitution, look it up, liberals.

 

[Freewill]

Shit, man, an employer could declare himself a Christian Scientist and deny all health coverage.

You know what? I say, fine, do it. It's time to end the practice of employers paying for health care, period. Put the Public Option on the Health Care Exchanges, make everyone purchase individual care and be done with it.

that is coming and many in the middle class will no longer be middle class, unless they get a fairly hefty raise. My experience is that if the company takes away a 100 dollar benefit they will replace it with a 50 dollar one and say that is even.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Shit, man, an employer could declare himself a Christian Scientist and deny all health coverage.

You know what? I say, fine, do it. It's time to end the practice of employers paying for health care, period. Put the Public Option on the Health Care Exchanges, make everyone purchase individual care and be done with it.

And what are you suggesting? That Government take over? Are you crazy? Or are you simply ignorant of what the Public Option and the Employer Mandate do?

Even Obamacare forces employers to provide 'adequate' coverage for their employees.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Bull.

Since when are birth control pills "completely irresponsible"?

And, this has nothing at all to do with religious freedom or the First Amendment. If it did, it would include blood transfusions, which the greens have said is against their religion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Shit, man, an employer could declare himself a Christian Scientist and deny all health coverage.

You know what? I say, fine, do it. It's time to end the practice of employers paying for health care, period. Put the Public Option on the Health Care Exchanges, make everyone purchase individual care and be done with it.

And what are you suggesting? That Government take over? Are you crazy? Or are you simply ignorant of what the Public Option and the Employer Mandate do?

Even Obamacare forces employers to provide 'adequate' coverage for their employees.

None of which concerns you.

Why is it that some RWs want to control others while they themselves are on the dole?

 

[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.

"The court held on a 5-4 vote on ideological lines that such companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the healthcare law. The decision means employees of those companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources."

Yep...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know what? I say, fine, do it. It's time to end the practice of employers paying for health care, period. Put the Public Option on the Health Care Exchanges, make everyone purchase individual care and be done with it.

And what are you suggesting? That Government take over? Are you crazy? Or are you simply ignorant of what the Public Option and the Employer Mandate do?

Even Obamacare forces employers to provide 'adequate' coverage for their employees.

None of which concerns you.

Why is it that some RWs want to control others while they themselves are on the dole?

No. It does concern me. And you're simply upset this morning and I understand why. Grow up and understand the law doesn't always agree with you.

 

[Pete7469]

Shit, man, an employer could declare himself a Christian Scientist and deny all health coverage.

You know what? I say, fine, do it. It's time to end the practice of employers paying for health care, period. Put the Public Option on the Health Care Exchanges, make everyone purchase individual care and be done with it.

And what are you suggesting? That Government take over? Are you crazy? Or are you simply ignorant of what the Public Option and the Employer Mandate do?

Even Obamacare forces employers to provide 'adequate' coverage for their employees.

Good God...

If these assholes were "simply ignorant" of what the end results of their policies would create there might be room for improvement.

Parasites like seacunt are under no illusions that obozocare was designed to be anything but a disaster. It was put in place to usher in "single payer" as the only alternative. These assholes don't give a monkey's fuck about anyone's "rights", they're apparatchiks for statist sociopaths.

Period.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did I win the TK challenge? Other then the vote, I thought there would be 2 more on the yes side, I was correct in my prediction.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

At least I got the vote tally right. I still want to find what the decision on the Harris v. Quinn case...

Did you just claim to have gotten something right? Man....you are a weak minded dude. You got nothing right. Zero.

 

[Borillar]

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?

Why would you expect a ruling from a USSC that is majority conservative to rule favorably for unions or Obamacare? I would expect 5-4 votes in either case.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Bull.

Since when are birth control pills "completely irresponsible"?

And, this has nothing at all to do with religious freedom or the First Amendment. If it did, it would include blood transfusions, which the greens have said is against their religion.

Another far left Obama drone fallacy being presented due to programmed talking points and propaganda!

Oh the far left can not see or understand anything beyond their programming!

 

[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?

Why would you expect a ruling from a USSC that is majority conservative to rule favorably for unions or Obamacare? I would expect 5-4 votes in either case.

Here's the kicker, Justice Roberts originally ruled in favor of upholding Obamacare. So that is quite telling. He was originally a conservative justice, now he is a swing vote.