Justice Ginsburg knocks her colleagues’ blind spot again: Hobby Lobby case was ‘inex

[The Rabbi]

Thread summary:

Conservatives can't respond to Ginsburg's points, so they wish death on her and call her a ****.

Face it, conservatives, you're all yellow, a pack of squealing sissies. And you take great pride in it.

Post summary: Mamooth cant think beyond "Our side, YAY!". He certainly cant deal with the issues, like Ginzburg is a lying sack of shit if she thinks there was any constitutional issue here at all.

 

[saveliberty]

We really need to respect the position more, despite who holds it. I am guilty as well with our president, but still an effort needs to be made.

The way to respect the position is to impeach the Marxist ****. She has no business on the bench of the highest court. She openly lied in a dissent, shameful behavior by a shameful figure. Even the leftist MSNBC called her on it.

If an impeachable offense, it is a good course of action. Activist judges would be put on notice.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thread summary:

Conservatives can't respond to Ginsburg's points, so they wish death on her and call her a ****.

Face it, conservatives, you're all yellow, a pack of squealing sissies. And you take great pride in it.

Oh? Well, why don't you first demonstrate that you rightly understand the decision on its own terms. Then tell us what Ginsburg's blathering about. Then I'll tear it to shreds for ya.

 

[DGS49]

Ginsburg is "Exhibit A" when speaking of jurists who consider the U.S. Constitution to have no more validity than the curtains hanging on the windows in the justices' chambers.

If there is any law or government action that she personally thinks is a good idea, she uses her considerable intellectual gifts to craft opinions that render the Constitution moot. Indeed, she feels (not "thinks") that this is her obligation as a justice of the USSC.

Here we have a law that, under certain circumstances, requires employers to pay for - essentially - killing babies in the womb. Not only is it utterly absurd from an INSURANCE standpoint, but it compels American citizens (company owners) to subsidize conduct that they find morally abhorrent. It is as though the government mandated "blow holes" in the stalls of the company mens' rooms.

And Ginsburg not only finds the mandate to be Constitional, she claims to be bewildered as to why any of her colleagues found the law problematic.

Out of fucking touch.

How ironic it is that they can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but remain in office for decades when they flout their fucking oaths of office.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Justice Ginsburg is a Jedi Master. Watching her speak she's like Yoda frail and seemingly weak. So ya just know when she's behind closed doors deliberating with her colleges she's doing sommersaults and bouncing off the walls channeling the Force.

Ginsburg appears to channel Pol Pot on a regular basis. The old Marxist **** is the greatest threat to individual liberty in this nation.

 

[whitehall]

Get some political perspective. A former KKK member appointed to the liberal Court by FDR created the mess that the Hobby Lobby decision partially straightened out. The modern version of separation church/state written by former KKK member Justice Black took away the right to religious freedom inherent in the Constitution. The Hobby Lobby decision reaffirmed some of the 1st Amendment but the left wing continues to tear down every symbol of Christian beliefs. The little gnome that Clinton appointed is more inexplicable than the decision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We really need to respect the position more, despite who holds it. I am guilty as well with our president, but still an effort needs to be made.

The way to respect the position is to impeach the Marxist ****. She has no business on the bench of the highest court. She openly lied in a dissent, shameful behavior by a shameful figure. Even the leftist MSNBC called her on it.

If an impeachable offense, it is a good course of action. Activist judges would be put on notice.

A Supreme Court Justice has never been imeached - impeaching Ginsburg makes a lot more sense than impeaching Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Get some political perspective. A former KKK member appointed to the liberal Court by FDR created the mess that the Hobby Lobby decision partially straightened out. The modern version of separation church/state written by former KKK member Justice Black took away the right to religious freedom inherent in the Constitution. The Hobby Lobby decision reaffirmed some of the 1st Amendment but the left wing continues to tear down every symbol of Christian beliefs. The little gnome that Clinton appointed is more inexplicable than the decision.

Good point. We must never forget that Bill Clinton appointed this **** - who was a known Marxist at the time. It's not like she just started spouting Stalin and Mao after she joined the court, she had spent a decade with the ACLU attacking civil liberties and advocating for the dissolution of the United States Constitution to be replaced by a totalitarian dictatorship.

The idea that Clinton was a moderate is given lie by the fact that he appointed her.

 

[saveliberty]

Unfortunately, the politics of many in Congress match that of Ginsberg. Charges might be brought but the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

 

[mamooth]

Oh? Well, why don't you first demonstrate that you rightly understand the decision on its own terms. Then tell us what Ginsburg's blathering about. Then I'll tear it to shreds for ya.

Wanting to talk about facts? Big mistake. You should have stuck with whining, being that facts always have such a liberal bias.

It's stupid to say that corporations have religious rights. Corporations, being corporations, don't have rights. People have rights.

If you're going to make a new policy that corporations have rights because the people owning them have rights, then congratulations, you've just destroyed the corporate veil. A magic one-way door is not possible; there either is or isn't a veil, and you've just said there isn't one. If rights can flow from owners to corporations, then liabilities, both criminal and civil, can flow back from corporations to owners. (Thanks for handing that win to the liberals.)

It's also dishonest to put in a "This decision only affects the very narrow topic of birth control coverage, and should not be used for other precedence" clause, as the conservative justices did. The "don't use this as precedence" clause was also used in Bush vs. Gore, and it's a indication of unsupportable partisan crap. Honest judges making legally supportable decisions don't declare that their decisions shouldn't be used as precedence.

 

[saveliberty]

If a corporation can have a political point of view, which the Supreme Court says it can, then it certainly can have a religious view as well.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh? Well, why don't you first demonstrate that you rightly understand the decision on its own terms. Then tell us what Ginsburg's blathering about. Then I'll tear it to shreds for ya.

Wanting to talk about facts? Big mistake. You should have stuck with whining, being that facts always have such a liberal bias.

"Big mistake"? "Whining"?

It's stupid to say that corporations have religious rights. Corporations, being corporations, don't have rights. People have rights.

Spoken like a true . . . statist of the Marxist persuasion. (By the way, folks, mamooth, the statist, doesn't like the term statist . . . or the term womanish. )

No. The fact that privately owned business ventures in the Republic of the United States of America have First Amendment rights and have always had First Amendment rights goes to the fact that they are, you know, privately owned business ventures. They are owned by, you know, people, not the government.

This isn't the former Soviet Union.

If you're going to make a new policy that corporations have rights because the people owning them have rights. . . .

Bingo! However, you're still a bit confused. Corporations have always had the full slate of First Amendment rights. That's not a new policy, indeed, it's no policy at all. It's the imperative of natural and constitutional law, backed by more than two centuries of case and statutory law, most recently and significantly underscored by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which reasserted the Sherbert Test of Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Essentially, Congress slapped the Court down with the RFRA as the latter threatened to thwart historical and legal precedent! (Someone in the above suggested that the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision had nothing to do with the Constitution. Wrong!) What would be new is the notion that they don't have these rights, and what the Obama Administration attempted to pull is rank tyranny, the imposition of its depraved morality on the people against the inalienable prerogatives of ideological free-association and private property.

See how that works?

This still isn't the former Soviet Union, though not for any lack of treachery on the part of statists like you.

. . . then congratulations, you've just destroyed the corporate veil. A magic one-way door is not possible; there either is or isn't a veil, and you've just said there isn't one. If rights can flow from owners to corporations, then liabilities, both criminal and civil, can flow back from corporations to owners. (Thanks for handing that win to the liberals.)

LOL! Corporations along with their owners, which are one and the same, have been subject to the liabilities of civil proceedings and the sanctions of criminal misconduct for decades. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby has absolutely no bearing on that historical fact of life at all. So congratulations, you're the lucky winner of this thread's booby prize for make-it-up-as-you-go-along pabulum.

May you rest in peace.

It's also dishonest to put in a "This decision only affects the very narrow topic of birth control coverage, and should not be used for other precedence" clause, as the conservative justices did. The "don't use this as precedence" clause was also used in Bush vs. Gore, and it's a indication of unsupportable partisan crap. Honest judges making legally supportable decisions don't declare that their decisions shouldn't be used as precedence.

No. See there. You're wrong again. In this instance, the Court is alluding to the precedent of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in which that contemptuous whore Roberts saddled the people with yet another unconstitutional abomination when he magically changed the Affordable Health Care Act's penalty into a tax, and to (1) the compelling government interest and (2) the least restrictive application exceptions of the RFRA.

You're talking to an authority on immigration and nationality law, so I'm well-versed in the reading of case law. You don't know what you're talking about. The Court routinely restricts the applications of its rationes decidendi for purposes of clarity. Case law is bottomed on the principle of stare decisis. That is the only thing being emphasized here.

I think that just about destroys your lunacy. Anybody want to add anything to this?

As for Ginsburg, I say again:

Ginsburg's like that crazed and deformed aunt (the obscenity-spouting elephant girl) whom one might hide away from the neighbors in one's basement for most of the year and only briefly let out, though tethered to a chain, for spring cleanings. Fortified by a stiff shot of whiskey and wearing a face shield to protect the eyes from errant sprays of spittle, one would then drive her back into the dark recesses with a cattle prod while the eldest son stood by with a double-barreled shotgun . . . just in case the old battle-ax broke free of its bonds. —M. D. Rawlings​

 

[mamooth]

MD, you're just raving now about feminazis and statists.

I'm sure that plays well when you're sipping your latte at the Campus Revolutionary Bookstore with the other marxist-libertarians (there being no discernable difference between the two groups anymore). Make sure you stroke your beard thoughtfully. And stick out that pinky. And a new set of sandals would impress your homies. Make sure you talk a lot about "statists" or "borgeousie" or whatever the latest marxist-libertarian buzzwords are. I'm not up your authoritarian cult's lingo, so you'll have to fill us in, amidst all your proclamations of the glorious victory of the proletariat and all that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh? Well, why don't you first demonstrate that you rightly understand the decision on its own terms. Then tell us what Ginsburg's blathering about. Then I'll tear it to shreds for ya.

Wanting to talk about facts? Big mistake. You should have stuck with whining, being that facts always have such a liberal bias.

It's stupid to say that corporations have religious rights. Corporations, being corporations, don't have rights. People have rights.

If you're going to make a new policy that corporations have rights because the people owning them have rights, then congratulations, you've just destroyed the corporate veil. A magic one-way door is not possible; there either is or isn't a veil, and you've just said there isn't one. If rights can flow from owners to corporations, then liabilities, both criminal and civil, can flow back from corporations to owners. (Thanks for handing that win to the liberals.)

It's also dishonest to put in a "This decision only affects the very narrow topic of birth control coverage, and should not be used for other precedence" clause, as the conservative justices did. The "don't use this as precedence" clause was also used in Bush vs. Gore, and it's a indication of unsupportable partisan crap. Honest judges making legally supportable decisions don't declare that their decisions shouldn't be used as precedence.

You have clearly demonstrated you have no fucking clue what the decision was, much less what the case was about.
Congratulations.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, you're just raving now about feminazis and statists.

I'm sure that plays well when you're sipping your latte at the Campus Revolutionary Bookstore with the other marxist-libertarians (there being no discernable difference between the two groups anymore). Make sure you stroke your beard thoughtfully. And stick out that pinky. And a new set of sandals would impress your homies. Make sure you talk a lot about "statists" or "borgeousie" or whatever the latest marxist-libertarian buzzwords are. I'm not up your authoritarian cult's lingo, so you'll have to fill us in, amidst all your proclamations of the glorious victory of the proletariat and all that.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Uncensored2008]

MD, you're just raving now about feminazis and statists.

I'm sure that plays well when you're sipping your latte at the Campus Revolutionary Bookstore with the other marxist-libertarians (there being no discernable difference between the two groups anymore). Make sure you stroke your beard thoughtfully. And stick out that pinky. And a new set of sandals would impress your homies. Make sure you talk a lot about "statists" or "borgeousie" or whatever the latest marxist-libertarian buzzwords are. I'm not up your authoritarian cult's lingo, so you'll have to fill us in, amidst all your proclamations of the glorious victory of the proletariat and all that.

Mamooth - you belong to a party that advocates the means of production be controlled by the state.

Libertarians advocate for free markets where individuals may trade the fruits of their intellect and labor for things they value.

Look, you're ignorant and uneducated; it's why you're a leftist; but as I stroke my beard, it occurs to me what a fool you are.

 

[saveliberty]

We probably need to convince cheap beer companies to put definitions of terms, history and economic graphs on their labels...

 

[Uncensored2008]

We probably need to convince cheap beer companies to put definitions of terms, history and economic graphs on their labels...

If you want Mamooth to read them, they'll need to go on spray paint cans....

 

[PredFan]

Ginsberg is a left wing nut. Does she even know the definition of the word "inexplicable"? Agree with the decision or not, calling it inexplicable is, well, inexplicable.

The decision followed the constitution as it should. The SCOTUS's job Ms.Ginsberg, is not to legislate but to make sure that laws follow the constitution.