Justice Roberts to Rule Against Hobby Lobby

[Little-Acorn]

Two points:

1.) There's no way anyone can know what any judge will do, especially one like Roberts who has crafted bizarre "opinions" in the past.

2.) That said, I tend to unfortunately agree with the opinion posted above. Roberts stated frankly that the reason he decided in favor of the Obamacare mandate, even while declaring it unconstitutional as written in the same breath, is because he felt it was the Court's job to favor Congress's decisions whenever possible.

He could not be more wrong, of course. The Court's job is not to favor Congress. The court's job, instead, is to favor the Constitution. Specifically, the Court's job is to OPPOSE Congress in matters where Congress passes legislation that opposes the Constitution... as Roberts pointed out that the Obamacare mandate clearly did.

If Roberts continues the weird notion that his job is to favor Congress instead of the Constitution, then yes, it's very possible he may rule against Hobby Lobby and the 1st amendment rights of the people running it, since that's what Congress did.

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

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.

 

[The T]

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

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.

As you and I did SLAP his silly ass down...as HE deserves, EARLY, and often.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense.

The issue concerns whether the contested provision of the ACA constitutes a violation of religious expression, which it clearly does not.

The contested provision does not ‘violate’ religious expression because its primary focus and intent is to ensure working Americans have access to affordable healthcare, not to ‘burden’ religious expression.

Nor does the provision violate the RFRA as it does not manifest a ‘substantial burden’ to the exercising of religious dogma; in fact, the provision doesn’t ‘impact’ religious practice at all, and consequently meets the second prong of the RFRA’s requirement that the ACA’s provision represents the least restrictive means to realize the goal of ensuring working Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

Consequently, the only reasonable conclusion is that opposition to the provision is purely partisan, having nothing to do with facts of law or the Constitution, and everything to do with the right’s desire to attack the ACA for some perceived political gain, even if such attacks are detrimental to working Americans.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just as it is an ABSURD notion for ANY of the Justices to consider LAWS outside of the United States...for which I believe in my mind that ANY Justice that refers to LAWS of other Countries for the sake of precident, political, societial, et,al should be summarily IMPEACHED for the mere thought, and Bar Be Qued IF they use such reasoning outside the Constitution.

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?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

As you and I did SLAP his silly ass down...as HE deserves, EARLY, and often.

You wish, and I know you do...

 

[percysunshine]

Why don't y'all google 'Paul Horner' and figure it out from there.

Onionesque...heh

 

[DriftingSand]

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

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

Never heard of religions that deny blood transfusions eh? It's Biblical, sort of, very sort of...

Faith and the Issue of Blood Transfusion - Science and Religion Today

 

[zeke]

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

and what about the slippery slope into government tyranny?

just the mere fact that the Fed forces employers to provide insurance is tyranny.


I hate liberals, all of you are nothing but freedom hating scum.

Well why the hell you keep coming around here? Just curious. You know, hating liberals and everything.
22 thousand posts. How many to those Liberals you hate? 21 thousand?

Or was that 22 thousand posts of FREEDOM. And HATRED.

Lmao. Yea, you hates you some liberals a lot. So much that they give you a reason to post.
And hate. You need 'em bad. You know you do.

 

[DriftingSand]

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

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

Never heard of religions that deny blood transfusions eh? It's Biblical, sort of, very sort of...

Faith and the Issue of Blood Transfusion - Science and Religion Today

Ummmm ... the point is whether or not a procedure or medicine saves a life verses ends one. Re-read the post and stop with the asinine deflections. Hobby Lobby isn't interested in avoiding blood transfusions. They're opposed to paying for death pills and procedures.

 

[The T]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense.

The issue concerns whether the contested provision of the ACA constitutes a violation of religious expression, which it clearly does not.

The contested provision does not ‘violate’ religious expression because its primary focus and intent is to ensure working Americans have access to affordable healthcare, not to ‘burden’ religious expression.

Nor does the provision violate the RFRA as it does not manifest a ‘substantial burden’ to the exercising of religious dogma; in fact, the provision doesn’t ‘impact’ religious practice at all, and consequently meets the second prong of the RFRA’s requirement that the ACA’s provision represents the least restrictive means to realize the goal of ensuring working Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

Consequently, the only reasonable conclusion is that opposition to the provision is purely partisan, having nothing to do with facts of law or the Constitution, and everything to do with the right’s desire to attack the ACA for some perceived political gain, even if such attacks are detrimental to working Americans.

It DOES. Look up the First Amendment. MEANS what it says. 'BYE.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

Never heard of religions that deny blood transfusions eh? It's Biblical, sort of, very sort of...

Faith and the Issue of Blood Transfusion - Science and Religion Today

Ummmm ... the point is whether or not a procedure or medicine saves a life verses ends one. Re-read the post and stop with the asinine deflections. Hobby Lobby isn't interested in avoiding blood transfusions. They're opposed to paying for death pills and procedures.

The point is, every corporation gets to pick and choose, if they rule that way. I won't pay for ED drugs or pregnancy. It the Court rules your way, I won't have to.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense.

The issue concerns whether the contested provision of the ACA constitutes a violation of religious expression, which it clearly does not.

The contested provision does not ‘violate’ religious expression because its primary focus and intent is to ensure working Americans have access to affordable healthcare, not to ‘burden’ religious expression.

Nor does the provision violate the RFRA as it does not manifest a ‘substantial burden’ to the exercising of religious dogma; in fact, the provision doesn’t ‘impact’ religious practice at all, and consequently meets the second prong of the RFRA’s requirement that the ACA’s provision represents the least restrictive means to realize the goal of ensuring working Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

Consequently, the only reasonable conclusion is that opposition to the provision is purely partisan, having nothing to do with facts of law or the Constitution, and everything to do with the right’s desire to attack the ACA for some perceived political gain, even if such attacks are detrimental to working Americans.

It DOES. Look up the First Amendment. MEANS what it says. 'BYE.

It that were true, we'd still be burning witches. It's religion remember, and, according to you, you can't limit that.

 

[DriftingSand]

The "National Report" may as well be called the "National Enquirer."

Here's one of its featured stories:

Adalia Rose Dead at 6 or 94, Nobody is sure yet - National Report | National Report

The story likens a human with a rare disease to a "space alien." Okee dokee then!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

Never heard of religions that deny blood transfusions eh? It's Biblical, sort of, very sort of...

Faith and the Issue of Blood Transfusion - Science and Religion Today

Ummmm ... the point is whether or not a procedure or medicine saves a life verses ends one. Re-read the post and stop with the asinine deflections. Hobby Lobby isn't interested in avoiding blood transfusions. They're opposed to paying for death pills and procedures.

It doesn't matter their position. It only matters if they are allowed to take it? If they are, then so is everyone else, and all hell starts to break loose.

 

[Howey]

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?

Whoa...

The "will of the people"? "The people" if you would care to check out the numbers, are overwhelming in favor of contraception, including Catholics.

Six in ten Americans, including Catholics, said they support a requirement by the Obama administration that health plans supply free contraceptives as a preventive benefit for women, according to the latest tracking poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Women were divided, with 85 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Independents supporting the requirement but only 42 percent of Republicans. Women across the political spectrum typically are closer together when it comes to supporting contraception rights.

"This is a time where the party attitudes about the role of government seemed to be a greater factor than necessarily being a woman," said Mollyann Brodie, the foundation's director of public opinion and survey research.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Whoa...

The "will of the people"? "The people" if you would care to check out the numbers, are overwhelming in favor of contraception, including Catholics.

He means Will of His People...

 

[dblack]

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

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

Not real. Satire. The authors felt the idea that the Court would rule based on concerns about "allowing" businesses to do anything - clearly not a valid concern of the SC - to be so ridiculous that it makes a good joke. The fact that so many authoritarian idiots here are going to bat for it is even funnier.

The "National Report" may as well be called the "National Enquirer."

Here's one of its featured stories:

Adalia Rose Dead at 6 or 94, Nobody is sure yet - National Report | National Report

The story likens a human with a rare disease to a "space alien." Okee dokee then!

 

[guno]

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

Pills that cause death are not a "health concern." A blood transfusion can save a life. An abortion pill takes one.

Never heard of religions that deny blood transfusions eh? It's Biblical, sort of, very sort of...

Faith and the Issue of Blood Transfusion - Science and Religion Today

This is all anti ACA is being one under the cloak of religious kookery

"There was little doubt where the Court’s three female Justices stood. After Paul Clement, the lawyer for Hobby Lobby, began his argument, twenty-eight of the first thirty-two questions to him came from Ruth Bader Ginsburg (four questions), Sonia Sotomayor (eleven), and Elena Kagan (thirteen). The queries varied, of course, but they were all variations on a theme. The trio saw the case from the perspective of the women employees. They regarded the employer as the party in the case with the money and the power. Sotomayor asked, “Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives, or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? For some religions, products made of pork? Is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well?” Clement hedged in response. When Clement asserted that Hobby Lobby’s owners, because of their Christian values, did care about making sure that their employees had health insurance, Kagan shot back:

I’m sure they want to be good employers. But again, that’s a different thing than saying that their religious beliefs mandate them to provide health insurance, because here Congress has said that the health insurance that they’re providing is not adequate, it’s not the full package.
Indeed, Kagan recognized that Clement’s argument took on much of the Affordable Care Act, not just the contraception provision. “Isn’t that just a way of saying that you think that this isn’t a good statute, because it asks one person to subsidize another person?” she asked. “But Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage. And when the employer says, ‘No, I don’t want to give that,’ that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.”

Women Justices Rock the Hobby Lobby Argument

 

[dblack]

The "will of the people"? "The people" if you would care to check out the numbers, are overwhelming in favor of contraception, including Catholics.

The only people whose will should be considered are those involved in the case. Neither Hobby Lobby nor their employees should be forced to do anything against their will.