And the Ruling Is.....

[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.

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.

Well the far left can not help it when the commands come down and their far left programming takes over.

Although it would seem that you guessed correctly on the decisions of the day, both were 5-4 rulings.

Congrats!

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Well the far left can not help it when the commands come down and their far left programming takes over.

Although it would seem that you guessed correctly on the decisions of the day, both were 5-4 rulings.

Congrats!

Yep, but I did get the Hobby Lobby one wrong as far as who it was in favor of. I did originally state they would rule against Hobby Lobby, but they didn't. Fortunately I was wrong in that respect.

 

[Newby]

And we have a right to be "completely irresponsible" if we want to. It's that pesky freedom thing.

No you don't. You do not have the right to start shooting in a movie theater. You don't have the right to drive a POS car. You don't have the right to speed down the road. YOU are expected to NOT act irresponsible, where in the hell do you get your ideas?

Oh and where in the constitution does it say that you have to always be responsible? If someone wants to have sex all day, why should the government tell them no way?


BTW, False equivalency. Shooting in a movie theater is not the same as contraception.

You don't have to be responsible, however, you should then pay the price or face the consequences of your irresponsible behavior. Liberals want to be irresponsibile and then not have to pay any consequences, they want daddy government, i.e. the rest of the tax paying public, to pay for their irresponsibility so that they don't have to. Why do they want this? Because the more irresponsible you are and rely on daddy to save you, the more power and control they hold over you. Paying the price for irresponsibility also stops people from being irresponsible, when daddy comes in to save your ass every time, then there's no reason for you stop irresponsible behavior. So no one is saying that you can't be irresponsible, what we're saying is that we're sick and tired of paying for it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Well the far left can not help it when the commands come down and their far left programming takes over.

Although it would seem that you guessed correctly on the decisions of the day, both were 5-4 rulings.

Congrats!

Yep, but I did get the Hobby Lobby one wrong as far as who it was in favor of. I did originally state they would rule against Hobby Lobby, but they didn't. Fortunately I was wrong in that respect.

Me too. I guess that we (as conservatives) have become accustomed to beating our collective heads against the wall. I'm glad to see the outcome in favor of Hobby Lobby though. They will continue to pay for the majority of contraceptive means while not having to pay for "abortion in a bottle" for women who aren't responsible enough to take care of themselves.


This is only a small step however. Now the Clown In Chief is announcing that he will tell Congress to go screw themselves and he will issue "edicts" to "fix" a broken immigration system that is NOT broken. King Obama moves on.....

 

[JoeB131]

[

Ah forced, always the key word with liberal mandates. It seems to me that HL is pretty serious about this subject, enough so to go to the SCOTUS. So one would think that it is a pretty strongly held belief of the company owners and the owners do run the company. What they did in the past in not really relevant. First I don't know if they did pay for abortion and BC that is just what the left is saying. But if they did it might have just been because they just never thought about it before. Passage of Obamacare and the FORCING them to now buy coverage that the government is FORCING them to accept brought the subject to a head.

If Hobby Lobby were that serious about Abortion being evil, they'd stop buying shit from China, where Abortions are coerced under the ONe Child Policy.

They don't give a fuck about principle.

Why stop at China? Wouldn't HL have to cloister themselves on a Mountain top and do no business with anyone? After all most companies are not going to make this stand. Most would rather pay for abortion and BC instead of the much more expensive delivery of a newborn. Why is it that the liberal left is so all or nothing? If HL is allowed to not provide abortion or BC, so what? People just don't work for the company. People don't frequent that company that is all that needs done. What we don't need is the government FORCING anything, especially you being forced to accept that gay marriage is not a right, or anything else you strongly oppose.

Well, if they were really keen on their 'no abortion" policy, they could set up a factory in the Philippines, where Abortion is completely illegal. (500,000 Filipinas have abortions every year, but it's the thought that counts.

The point is five old men just told the women of America your boss can determine what kind of birth control is appropriate for you, over the objection of the Court's three women.

You guys have your "Legitimate Rape" moment for this election cycle.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Well the far left can not help it when the commands come down and their far left programming takes over.

Although it would seem that you guessed correctly on the decisions of the day, both were 5-4 rulings.

Congrats!

Yep, but I did get the Hobby Lobby one wrong as far as who it was in favor of. I did originally state they would rule against Hobby Lobby, but they didn't. Fortunately I was wrong in that respect.

So you think it's fine for 5 old men to say that your employer can dictate what kind of birth control a woman is entitled to?

 

[JoeB131]

Well I'll be darned. Hobby Lobby won.

Naw, that will come in November and in 2016 when women figure out what you just pulled on them.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So I guess this ruling prohibits women from getting their own stuff?

What, the cops are gonna follow them into the pharmacy?

Holy crap, that's terrible.


.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So I guess this ruling prohibits women from getting their own stuff?

What, the cops are gonna follow them into the pharmacy?

Holy crap, that's terrible.
.

Not the point, and you know it.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They have no business telling a woman what kind of contraception is appropriate for her.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So I guess this ruling prohibits women from getting their own stuff?

What, the cops are gonna follow them into the pharmacy?

Holy crap, that's terrible.
.

Not the point, and you know it.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They have no business telling a woman what kind of contraception is appropriate for her.

They aren't, and you know it.

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So I guess this ruling prohibits women from getting their own stuff?

What, the cops are gonna follow them into the pharmacy?

Holy crap, that's terrible.
.

Not the point, and you know it.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They have no business telling a woman what kind of contraception is appropriate for her.

They aren't.

.

Uh, yeah, they are. Most working class folks can't afford treatment without it being subsidized by their employers. Especially in a barely minimum wage job like a clerk at Hobby Lobby.

 

[Mac1958]

Not the point, and you know it.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They have no business telling a woman what kind of contraception is appropriate for her.

They aren't.

.

Uh, yeah, they are. Most working class folks can't afford treatment without it being subsidized by their employers. Especially in a barely minimum wage job like a clerk at Hobby Lobby.

Ah, so we're back to who is paying for it.

Whatever happened to your "doctor" argument? Holy crap, that was gone in one post.

.

 

[Rozman]

.

So I guess this ruling prohibits women from getting their own stuff?

What, the cops are gonna follow them into the pharmacy?

Holy crap, that's terrible.
.

Not the point, and you know it.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They have no business telling a woman what kind of contraception is appropriate for her.

They are not doing any such thing.
Their employees can buy anything they want.
They are not being prevented from getting any sort of drug they want...

 

[JoeB131]

They aren't.

.

Uh, yeah, they are. Most working class folks can't afford treatment without it being subsidized by their employers. Especially in a barely minimum wage job like a clerk at Hobby Lobby.

Ah, so we're back to who is paying for it.

Whatever happened to your "doctor" argument? Holy crap, that was gone in one post.

.

Okay, here's the discussion.

"Well, given your allergies to synthetic hormones, I think the best treatment for you is an IUD. The cost will be $1000.00, with implantation and follow-up treatments."

"I can't afford that. I only make $21,000 a year at my minimum wage job."

"Well, you have insurance, don't you?"

"My insurance is from Hobby Lobby. They don't pay for that."

but, please, you don't give a fuck about Poor People. Until they actually have the babies and you whine about paying for them.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So I guess this ruling prohibits women from getting their own stuff?

What, the cops are gonna follow them into the pharmacy?

Holy crap, that's terrible.
.

Not the point, and you know it.

Here's the thing. Hobby Lobby is not a doctor. They have no business telling a woman what kind of contraception is appropriate for her.

They are not doing any such thing.
Their employees can buy anything they want.
They are not being prevented from getting any sort of drug they want...

Uh, actually, they are.

But it's okay, you see, this involves that Science Stuff that you fucking knuckle-draggers don't understand.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So this isn't about "reproductive rights" or "women's health" or any of that bullshit. It's about who is paying to keep poor people from reproducing.

Great. Now at least we can all discuss this from a single point of reference.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

No you don't. You do not have the right to start shooting in a movie theater. You don't have the right to drive a POS car. You don't have the right to speed down the road. YOU are expected to NOT act irresponsible, where in the hell do you get your ideas?

Oh and where in the constitution does it say that you have to always be responsible? If someone wants to have sex all day, why should the government tell them no way?


BTW, False equivalency. Shooting in a movie theater is not the same as contraception.

You don't have to be responsible, however, you should then pay the price or face the consequences of your irresponsible behavior. Liberals want to be irresponsibile and then not have to pay any consequences, they want daddy government, i.e. the rest of the tax paying public, to pay for their irresponsibility so that they don't have to. Why do they want this? Because the more irresponsible you are and rely on daddy to save you, the more power and control they hold over you. Paying the price for irresponsibility also stops people from being irresponsible, when daddy comes in to save your ass every time, then there's no reason for you stop irresponsible behavior. So no one is saying that you can't be irresponsible, what we're saying is that we're sick and tired of paying for it.

if said people are paying for health insurance then they are paying for the coverage that they would use. Thus being responsible for their actions per-say.

But then again who seriously gives a fuck about this argument. You guys are all for Personal Responsibility unless it comes to what comes out of your fucking mouths. Then oh no, we cant be held for that.

fuck off

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

but they did belong to them, as partial members who got the full extent of what a union gave them. So they didnt mind the Union fighting for them, they just didnt want to pay the dues. So fuck them.

Look this is beyond you TK. You don't work thus wouldn't understand these things. Your union dues are not that much and they can be taken out weekly.
So even at 200 bucks a year thats nothing if you are making 18 an hour....Oh you wouldnt know what 18 an hour is.

Fatty

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

My job will be union once I pass probationary. I didn't need to take the job. I wanted too because it pays very good and has good benefits for my family. They are not forcing me. You always have the choice to not take the job.

Seriously unions are not bad. I've done a lot of shit jobs where the owners ass rape you wage wise. Unions are a tool, like a gun..there is no difference between unon people who do shit and are corrupt and a ceo who is corrupt.

Seriously, I was a union official and steward for many, many years and even lost a job when I helped form a union at one shop and no Unions are not inherently bad, but can be and they seem to like to shoot themselves in the foot. When I became disenchanted with unions is when they said that anyone who supported Clinton's "free" trade agreements would be punished and then they did nothing I realized they were nothing but rhetoric. When the president of the Union makes 10 times the rank in file I really have to wonder how much different are they then a corporation. I also think unions have become a bit on the sissy side. Consider when Reagan, according to unions, illegally fired the traffic controllers, what did the nations unions do? Absolutely nothing but whine like little girls.

But I stray from topic, so now that we both agree that people can choose to work or not work for a company then HL not having to pay for BC or abortion certainly doesn't force anyone to accept that policy. Freeeeeeedoooooom!

i dont disagree on a whole. there isnt much difference between higher up Ceo's and union members. Money corrupts and thus you dont have that balance. You will get that on either side of the coin.

Thats the problem i have with people railing on about unions. Unions are good when you have good people. Same goes for non-union companies.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So this isn't about "reproductive rights" or "women's health" or any of that bullshit. It's about who is paying to keep poor people from reproducing.

Great. Now at least we can all discuss this from a single point of reference.

.

Maybe if all males recused themselves from these discussions, we'd get to a sensible policy a lot sooner.

Here's the thing you wingnuts don't get about health insurance. The employee WORKED for that. He provided time, labor, skill that the employer lacked, and her compensation was in addition to salary health insurance.

In short, her insurance SHOULD cover what she and her doctor think are appropriate. NOT what the employer considers appropriate.

Or we could just do the breathtakingly rational thing of having universal health coverage for all citizens.