Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby

PaintMyHouse

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
44,141
Reaction score
2,760
Points
1,815
Location
...No Worse Enemy
It is not a myth, it was written by our Founders. Read about what they said.
I did, that's why I know it isn't true.
Yes they did.
Have you forgot the Declaration of Independence and what the limited powers are for our government ,written in out Constitution?
John Locke's law of natural rights to life, liberty and property was what inspired our Revolutionary War.
It is the very foundation of our Constitution.
Show us the Moral law part?
 

IlarMeilyr

Liability Reincarnate!
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
11,059
Reaction score
2,048
Points
245
Location
undisclosed bunker
Paul Horner, legal clerk for Justice Roberts, spoke with National Report: “This is a tough decision for Justice Roberts. The issues in this case are extremely complex and all Justices are aware of the implications this decision will have on the future of both Obamacare and of the insurance industry in general. The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern. Who is to say a company could not come up with religious arguments against things like blood transfusions, heart transplants, etc. Outside of that, suggesting that companies themselves have religious beliefs is almost laughable and while it is inline with the Citizens United ruling, takes a step that is a bit much for Justice Roberts to swallow. My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here.” - See more at: Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report


Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
Since the thread is premised on a news outlet that is akin to The Onion, it seems likely to generate some flames. Ergo, maybe it no longer belongs in "politics." Shouldn't the thread be moved to a safer venue?

I think the Rubber Room is a good place for it.

:lol:
 

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
And where exactly do you think we got the ideas for the Constitution, out of thin air? Oh right, many from other nations.
Irrelevant, of course. The Framers picked the laws they liked (some from other countries), put them IN THE CONSTITUTION, deliberately left others out, and ratified THE CONSTITUTION.

Legislators today who try to go by laws from other countries which are NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, are violating the Constitution AND the intentions of the people who wrote and ratified it.

While I'm not surprised to see little housepainter advocating that course, I'm surprised that he states his opposition for the written Constitution so flippantly and obviously, in a forum like this where it's so easy to point out his silliness and slap him down.
So laws from other nations were good enough to use to found the country, but aren't good enough to reference today in running the country? Interesting.

I didn't know time stopped 230 years ago, but for you guys it sure seems so. Funny, the Founders would have called you idiots for thinking such things. When they needed new laws, they sat around and wrote them. What a bunch of jerks eh, making laws that fit their needs at the time?
Unsurprisingly, you are ignoring what I said... because you can't refute it. Pretending it wasn't said, is about all you have left.

Laws that other countries have, are fine for this country... IF they are included in the Constitution, which some of them are. The ones that were not included, were left out for good reason. And no, those are NOT good enough for this country.

Plus, you are desperately pretending the Constitution couldn't be changed in 230 years, even though you know it was... and also know that the people also decided NOT to change it many times. Especially when unthinking leftists such as yourself tried to propose changes they didn't want.

So much pretension and fakery from these leftist losers. Don't you people ever get tired of that?

Back to the subject:
We can, and do, change the Constitution any time enough people want to, to fulfill the requirements we agreed on.

But it remains that most Americans are fundamentally conservative - people who believe that the government shouldn't have much influence in their lives. As a result, the like the Constitution pretty much like it is, assigning only limited power to the Fed govt, and leaving the rest to the states and the people. Even a century of trying by the leftists, to bribe people into giving the govt far more power, hasn't changed them much. Every time they go overboard, a backlash from the people boots out huge numbers of them, as happened in 1994, 2010, and will happen again in 2014.
 
Last edited:

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,761
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
I did, that's why I know it isn't true.
Yes they did.
Have you forgot the Declaration of Independence and what the limited powers are for our government ,written in out Constitution?
John Locke's law of natural rights to life, liberty and property was what inspired our Revolutionary War.
It is the very foundation of our Constitution.
Show us the Moral law part?
I am no going to type the whole book of the Federalist Papers, it's filled with it.

All laws, whether prescriptive or prohibitive, legislate morality. All laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, that some things are good and others bad, that some things are better and others worse. In the formulation and enforcement of law, the question is never whether or not morality will be legislated, but which one.

I will show you moral law though and the protection of life.

When we pass laws that require drivers to drive their vehicles at 20 mph or less in school zones, we do so because we have a value system that rightly puts greater worth in human life, than in vehicular speed. That valuation is a moral judgment. That moral valuation we properly and wisely seek to translate into binding and enforceable law. We propose and pass such laws because we think it wrong for drivers recklessly to endanger the lives of defenseless children, who lack the experience, foresight, and physical dexterity to keep themselves out of harm’s way on the streets. We punish drivers who do not do as the law requires. No one, in the face of such proposed legislation, says to the local authorities that those authorities have no right to impose their morality on others, even though that is precisely what such laws do.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
It is not a myth, it was written by our Founders. Read about what they said.
I did, that's why I know it isn't true.
Yes they did.
Have you forgot the Declaration of Independence and what the limited powers are for our government ,written in out Constitution?
John Locke's law of natural rights to life, liberty and property was what inspired our Revolutionary War.
It is the very foundation of our Constitution.
AS a matter of course? The Declaration was codified into LAW with the adoption of the Constitution.

Painted Turd knows NOT of what he/she/IT speaks.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
63,321
Reaction score
9,055
Points
2,030
Hope it's true... Good for Roberts if it is.
This really should be true about Scalia.

Who actually already ruled on this.

Employment Division v. Smith expressly points out that religion does NOT trump law.
Boy, that would send the knuckle-draggers over the edge if they lose Scalia on this month's decision that will spell the end of the world as we know it. :eusa_shifty:
 

TooTall

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,751
Reaction score
1,624
Points
265
Paul Horner, legal clerk for Justice Roberts, spoke with National Report: “This is a tough decision for Justice Roberts. The issues in this case are extremely complex and all Justices are aware of the implications this decision will have on the future of both Obamacare and of the insurance industry in general. The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern. Who is to say a company could not come up with religious arguments against things like blood transfusions, heart transplants, etc. Outside of that, suggesting that companies themselves have religious beliefs is almost laughable and while it is inline with the Citizens United ruling, takes a step that is a bit much for Justice Roberts to swallow. My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here.” - See more at: Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report


Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
I will watch and see what you post if Justice Roberts sides with Hobby Lobby.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,794
Points
2,165
I wouldn't count on a vote against HL from Sotomayor either. That Catholic already gave a stay in the Utah same sex marriage case.
She, Roberts, and Kennedy are taking the time to prepare a majority to enshrine marriage equality. They have five votes and are reaching out now for two more.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
138,471
Reaction score
16,162
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
Paul Horner, legal clerk for Justice Roberts, spoke with National Report: “This is a tough decision for Justice Roberts. The issues in this case are extremely complex and all Justices are aware of the implications this decision will have on the future of both Obamacare and of the insurance industry in general. The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern. Who is to say a company could not come up with religious arguments against things like blood transfusions, heart transplants, etc. Outside of that, suggesting that companies themselves have religious beliefs is almost laughable and while it is inline with the Citizens United ruling, takes a step that is a bit much for Justice Roberts to swallow. My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here.” - See more at: Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report


Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
I hope this fuck that leaked this gets hanged. But then Justice Roberts is hanging himself and his reputation going against the Constitution and the will of the people IF he rules against Hobby Lobby. It's a terrible blow to the first Amendment. But I suppose the left is just OK with that, huh, GUANO?
You should run for President again in 2016, get elected and make this right, Tommy.
 

paperview

Life is Good
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
14,558
Reaction score
2,966
Points
260
Location
the road less traveled
Paul Horner, legal clerk for Justice Roberts, spoke with National Report: “This is a tough decision for Justice Roberts. The issues in this case are extremely complex and all Justices are aware of the implications this decision will have on the future of both Obamacare and of the insurance industry in general. The slippery slope of allowing employers to decide what to and what not to cover with regards to employees health is of concern. Who is to say a company could not come up with religious arguments against things like blood transfusions, heart transplants, etc. Outside of that, suggesting that companies themselves have religious beliefs is almost laughable and while it is inline with the Citizens United ruling, takes a step that is a bit much for Justice Roberts to swallow. My personal opinion is that he (Roberts) will again side with upholding the President’s signature legislation and leave the court out of the spotlight. Justice Roberts has a long history of doing the right thing while maintaining the honor held by the court and it is believed he will do the same here.” - See more at: Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report


Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby, Uphold Obamacare Mandate for Contraception Coverage - National Report | National Report
I hope this fuck that leaked this gets hanged. But then Justice Roberts is hanging himself and his reputation going against the Constitution and the will of the people IF he rules against Hobby Lobby. It's a terrible blow to the first Amendment. But I suppose the left is just OK with that, huh, GUANO?
You should run for President again in 2016, get elected and make this right, Tommy.
:rofl:

Once he goes through Detox, anyway...
 

IlarMeilyr

Liability Reincarnate!
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
11,059
Reaction score
2,048
Points
245
Location
undisclosed bunker
Wasn't this thread about the law clerk leaking ...?
The law clerk who never was (or the intern who never was).

The thread is a fraud based on a crap outlet along the lines of Teh Onion.

On the other hand, given that the Chief Justice was a huge dishonest twat in his original ObumblerCare Distortion -- err-- Decision, the fake story might have something real just below the scummy surface.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Hi Steven: I just got off the phone with a fellow Democrat friend who is opposed to the rising out of pocket cost before he can get urgent medical help (at least 8800 he has to pay up front total before insurance would do anything, which he doesn't have).

But like you, he does not get how the Constitution checks government.

He has the same opinion about Christianity and the Bible; has no faith there is anything there but corruption and abuse, so those are dead to him also.

For people like you and him who do not believe in these principles,
THAT'S FINE if YOU don't.

but it is NOT OKAY to keep pushing your interpretaiton like a religious belief
on other people and BLOCK our ability to stop impositions on us from unconstitutional
overreaches of federal government.

I see more and more that people like us have DIFFERENT BELIEFS.

SO I am OPPOSED To either side IMPOSING on the other.

Seems to me both the major parties need to use their democratically elected
structures to run and fund their own administrations and as much of the programs
under those as we can get off the government.

Especially if we disagree, we need to keep government focused on just
the parts that ALL PEOPLE agree are federal duty.

The rest we don't agree on, neither party should impose their views on members
of other parties or groups who 'don't believe the same things.'

all this time, we have been imposing political religons or beliefs
back and forth, so no wonder we have wasted all ou time and resources fighting.

Especially if we are not going to agree if the Constitution is or isn't as fundamental
to the Government as the Christian laws are to the church, we need to separate
and quit imposing back and forth.

If people don't believe in the Constitution the same way Christians believe in the Bible,
we do not need to waste energy time or resources imposing our interpretations
on others.

If people believe the Bible is dead or worthless, they have no right to prevent someone else from following that.

If people believe the Constitution is dead and cannot be used to reform government,
the same thing is true: people cannot impose their views and block others from theirs.

the govt should be NEUTRAL and quit taking one side or the other on so many different issues nobody can fight all the battles going on.

This is becoming more and more evident that it is a RELIGIOUS belief
and that is why people can't change their minds, resolve differences and agree.

We need to accept our differences and separate by party, set up separate
structures and leave only the core functions and policies we all agree on to federal govt.

the rest can be structured by party to reach all people who believe that way.

My friend is like you and CANNOT relate to people who believe that the Bible
can be used to check church members and leaders against abuse, and that the
Constitution can be used to check govt from abuse.

He just does not think that way, and I finally figured it out it is like a religious difference
that people cannot help. Like Atheists who cannot relate to a personified God but see the universe as impersonal; or Christians who cannot understand how Atheists can see all the same things but not understand God, so they think there is something wrong with them!

We do not need to fight, insult, attack, discredit or demean each other.

Nor should EITHER side abuse govt to push policies the other groups don't believe in.
It's wrongful either way, and we need to start correcting all the problems that accumulated. Thanks and I hope we can work with forums like USMB to organize a nationwide structure by State and by Party to separate the programs we don't all agree on.


All he had to say was the Commerce Clause invalidated the Freedom of Association part of the 1st Amendment and now it's going to invalidate the Freedom of Religion part.

Between the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, and Congress's taxation powers, there is nothing that is outside of the Federal government's scope. The Constitution as a limit on federal authority is a dead idea.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top