Justice Scalia does not agree!

[Soggy in NOLA]

False. It is legal, because it was passed by Congress.

Not if it's found unconstitutional.... which many scholars believe it will be.

Until that day, it is a legal, valid law.

Sucks for you!

Really? So, your contention is the law is only good for some people?

I guess we were right all along.

 

[Amelia]

You dolt. You're not getting it. The religious conscious argument is not valid. The health care law is a valid law. The church cannot claim any kind of exception to it based on religious freedom, because the church has willingly entered into commercial activity that is legally regulated by the government. It does not get a special exception just because it wants one.

Your notion of "forcing people to deny their religious conscious" is question begging. You suggest that that invalidates the law, making it no longer "otherwise valid." You're presuming your conclusion within your argument, making the whole thing circular.

Sure it is a valid argument especially when SCOTUS has already set a precedent to that effect.

In a 9-0 defeat for the administration, the justices said the 1st Amendment gives “special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations” in decisions about their employees.

Yeah - that would be people employed at the church. Not people employed by the church's secular business ventures.

Wasn't the woman at the center of that court case employed by what some would deem a secular business venture - namely a school?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny right wingers cried about activist judges legislating from the bench and that is exactly what the Alito Roberts Supreme Court has done ever since Bush appointed them.

Since then, the Supreme Court always rules in favor of the corporation. Check every case. Exxon Valdez, check out how they screwed over the victims by lowering the settlement to what amouts to an insult!

Citizens now take a back seat to Corporations with the SUpreme Court, not just the GOP.

This is why we can not have a Republican president in 2012. He will most likely appoint a replacement when one of them or two of them retires. The court already leans too far to the right. Citizens United for example. What the fuck was that?

With any luck, we'll get it leaning all the way right.. you know.... not making goofy shit up as they go along based on personal agendas and whatnot.

 

[Amelia]

False. It is legal, because it was passed by Congress.

Not if it's found unconstitutional.... which many scholars believe it will be.

Until that day, it is a legal, valid law.

Sucks for you!

Yeah, it does suck for us that we have a president who so regularly pushes the bounds of constitutionality and is forcing us to tie up the court system for years in defense of our rights.

Hopefully the court will overturn Obamacare and hopefully that will just be the beginning of our successes in reversing what he is trying to do to this nation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sure it is a valid argument especially when SCOTUS has already set a precedent to that effect.

In a 9-0 defeat for the administration, the justices said the 1st Amendment gives “special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations” in decisions about their employees.

Yeah - that would be people employed at the church. Not people employed by the church's secular business ventures.

Wasn't the woman at the center of that court case employed by what some would deem a secular business venture - namely a school?

Yes but why bother liberals with facts?

 

[Liability]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

That makes no sense at all. Catholic Bishops can demand all day long, and the clinic or hospital performing abortions can tell them, in the now famous words of Dick Cheney, to go fuck themselves. Abortion is settled law, simply read the transcript of Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing.

Of course as most of us know bishops are never straightforward, they always play the angles.

It is your belief, then, that the law can compel a Catholic Hospital to perform abortions?

If not, you were just shitting in your own hat again, troll.

 

[The T]

Not if it's found unconstitutional.... which many scholars believe it will be.

Until that day, it is a legal, valid law.

Sucks for you!

Yeah, it does suck for us that we have a president who so regularly pushes the bounds of constitutionality and is forcing us to tie up the court system for years in defense of our rights.

Hopefully the court will overturn Obamacare and hopefully that will just be the beginning of our successes in reversing what he is trying to do to this nation.

Arguments happen in March...decision in June...can't happen soon enough.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Sorry to inform you of basic Constitutional law, but it's a valid law until it is overturned by SCOTUS.*

* * *

No. Not necessarily.

A FACIALLY unconstitutional law is still unconstitutional even before some old guys in black dresses say so.

A law which fails to comply with Constitutional requirements is void ab initio. That means it was void and a nullity from its very inception.

But who decides that?

Depends. If some OBVIOUSLY and facially unconstitutional law "directed" the President to deny admission into the armed forces ANY person who was 1/8th "negro" or more (sound familiar?), the President would (I hope) refuse to obey that "law." So, in that case, the initial determination would be made by the President.

If some law directed all American citizens to report to their nearest Catholic Church (or Episcopal Church, or mosque or synagogue, whatever) to become a congregant in that "faith," I would respectfully (actually, pretty disrespectfully) decline. In THAT example, it would be me. I would make the initial determination about the facial unconstitutionality of such a law.

You may argue that a law is "valid" until the SCOTUS says it isn't, but that's just untrue. It is maybe "on the books" until it is officially negated, but that merely means that it is a void piece of crap posing as a "law" that is "on the books."

 

[Inthemiddle]

The health care law is a valid law has yet to be decided

At best, that is an irrelevant point. But mostly, you're missing the real point. Citing freedom of religion does not create any constitutional problem with the law, because the law is one of general applicability with a purpose that is completely removed from religion. It's not a law about religion, so there is no first amendment violation by not allowing a special exception to applicability simply because someone or some group claims their religious beliefs are in conflict with such and such actions.

It looks more and more like it won't pass serious scrutiny.

You mean strict scrutiny? Do you even know what the standards are for strict scrutiny? Here's one for you: Do you know the percentage of laws in religious freedom cases that, when reviewed under strict scrutiny survive? An impressive 60% of all such laws.

This is actually stuff that has been well established by the courts for a long time now, going back well over 100 years. Religious freedom does not prevent the government from making laws that are otherwise non-religious in functional nature, and that apply to everyone without regard to their religion.

Anyhow, please tell us again what business Obama has imposing such nonsense on people?

If you'd been paying attention, you'd see that I said that I'm against the health care law. I have been all along, and I advocate for it to be repealed. But I'm not going to be so irrational that I'll lie about the facts, just because I disagree with the law. Either oppose it on the real merits, or don't say anything. When the best thing that opponents can come up with is BS constitutional gripes that will fail when they get to the Supreme Court, it's going to become infinitely harder to gain enough support to get the law repealed. Because by that point, opponents will have mostly made themselves out to be flaming idiots.

You leftist fuckwads

I'm not a leftist, I'm a centrist. I'm pretty sure that we've had this conversation before and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Leftists aren't staunch supporters of stronger immigration policy and enforcement, English as a national language legislation, and state level governance. How many leftists did you see supporting Romney last election? Or this election, for that matter (at least until he showed himself to be a real idiot, since which I've put my support behind Buddy Roemer)? Your problem is that instead of being an ideologue, I'm a pragmatist.

And I'm not a fuckwad, I'm a sex machine. You wingers need to understand that you can't please a woman by just leaning on one side and having a convulsion every time someone does something you don't like. You gotta lean to the left a little, then lean to the right a little, and then drive it on home right down the middle, strong and hard until they can year your name being yelled a mile away.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The health care law is a valid law has yet to be decided

At best, that is an irrelevant point. But mostly, you're missing the real point. Citing freedom of religion does not create any constitutional problem with the law, because the law is one of general applicability with a purpose that is completely removed from religion. It's not a law about religion, so there is no first amendment violation by not allowing a special exception to applicability simply because someone or some group claims their religious beliefs are in conflict with such and such actions.

It looks more and more like it won't pass serious scrutiny.

You mean strict scrutiny? Do you even know what the standards are for strict scrutiny? Here's one for you: Do you know the percentage of laws in religious freedom cases that, when reviewed under strict scrutiny survive? An impressive 60% of all such laws.

This is actually stuff that has been well established by the courts for a long time now, going back well over 100 years. Religious freedom does not prevent the government from making laws that are otherwise non-religious in functional nature, and that apply to everyone without regard to their religion.

Anyhow, please tell us again what business Obama has imposing such nonsense on people?

If you'd been paying attention, you'd see that I said that I'm against the health care law. I have been all along, and I advocate for it to be repealed. But I'm not going to be so irrational that I'll lie about the facts, just because I disagree with the law. Either oppose it on the real merits, or don't say anything. When the best thing that opponents can come up with is BS constitutional gripes that will fail when they get to the Supreme Court, it's going to become infinitely harder to gain enough support to get the law repealed. Because by that point, opponents will have mostly made themselves out to be flaming idiots.

You leftist fuckwads

I'm not a leftist, I'm a centrist. I'm pretty sure that we've had this conversation before and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Leftists aren't staunch supporters of stronger immigration policy and enforcement, English as a national language legislation, and state level governance. How many leftists did you see supporting Romney last election? Or this election, for that matter (at least until he showed himself to be a real idiot, since which I've put my support behind Buddy Roemer)? Your problem is that instead of being an ideologue, I'm a pragmatist.

And I'm not a fuckwad, I'm a sex machine. You wingers need to understand that you can't please a woman by just leaning on one side and having a convulsion every time someone does something you don't like. You gotta lean to the left a little, then lean to the right a little, and then drive it on home right down the middle, strong and hard until they can year your name being yelled a mile away.


wine and moan about freedom, then are all too willing to have the government telling you how to live.

[/QUOTE]

You're no centrist.... you're a leftwing whackaloon Urkel.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sure it is a valid argument

No it's not, it's question begging.

especially when SCOTUS has already set a precedent to that effect.

Link?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The part you fail to recognize is "an otherwise valid law". Forcing people to deny their religious conscience and forcing people to buy a product has not yet been determined to be a valid law.

Violating the constitution does put some doubt into the validity of said law....

 

[Dot Com]

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

I agree w/ Nino on this.

​

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wrong-o-moondo!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Forcing the Catholic church to provide birth control for employees of a PRIVATELY OWNED Catholic Hospital (or school) prohibits the free exercise of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church cannot force people NOT to use birth control, but it can refuse to provide it based on free exercise of their religion.

It's clear that you haven't the slightest clue about the long established history and case law of the first amendment. The first amendment has never been taken to grant an absolute right. This is a long established understanding. While the government cannot interfere with beliefs, the law can interfere with practices, inasmuch as laws are of general applicability to all people. In other words, it would be a violation of the first amendment if the Congress passed a law that forbade Catholics from carrying bibles on federal property. It would be acceptable under the first amendment if Congress passed a law that forbade all people from carrying any book on government property. If a Catholic then tried to claim that they had a spiritual duty under their religion to carry the bible, their claim to being exempt from the law would not be with standing.

As the SCOTUS explained in Reynolds, if we are to accept the notion that the intention of the founders was to state that religious belief were carte blanche to be exempted from any law whatsoever that a person might wish to so claim, then we would have to believe that the founders intended that society should be able to become completely lawless and dissolved in its entirety. In the words of Chief Justice Waite in Reynolds:

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Reynolds v. United States

Before you babble on about such silly things, you should take the time to actually study a little bit about what you're talking about, so that you'll be just a little educated on all of it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You're no centrist.... you're a leftwing whackaloon Urkel.

Actually, you're a flaming extermist. You would have gotten along with bin Laden, I'm sure. BLOCKED!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

I see you are assuming that the law is otherwise valid, it isn't. Thanks for continuing the clueless efforts to show your idiocy though, they are amusing.

 

[saveliberty]

Actually, if it is a good and valid law, both men will be correct.

 

[g5000]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You should not trust some moron on Daily Kommunist for your ideas.

What you missed, and the Daily Kommie dipshit does not realize, is that Employment Division v. Smith was a decision which said the use of marijuana for religious ceremonies is not allowed because pot is against the law.

That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the State forcing someone to DO something AGAINST their religion. That is not a LIMIT ON THEIR CONDUCT. That is forcing them to EXPAND their conduct into areas which violate their religion.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What you missed, and the Daily Kommie dipshit does not realize, is that Employment Division v. Smith was a decision which said the use of marijuana for religious ceremonies is not allowed because pot is against the law.

Actually, it was peyote, not pot. But that's not really that important.

That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the State forcing someone to DO something AGAINST their religion.

Eh, not really, at the end of the day. It's still a matter of whether religious beliefs are sufficient excuse to be exempted from a generally applicable law. Let's go back to Reynolds, which the Smith decision cites. In Reynolds, the defendant had a religious obligation to take multiple wives. To not do so would have been against his religion. That, however, was not sufficient to establish a constitutionally protected exemption from polygamy laws.

Scalia's decision in Smith further explains that laws can both prescribe and proscribe actions of general applicability, and that that first amendment does not create a means by which a person becomes exempt just because the prescribed action is a violation of one's religion. He also cites United States v. Lee, where Amish religious beliefs were opposed to Social Security taxes, but that such belief did not excuse the Amish from being obligated to pay the taxes.

That is not a LIMIT ON THEIR CONDUCT. That is forcing them to EXPAND their conduct into areas which violate their religion.

Tomato, tomato.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You should not trust some moron on Daily Kommunist for your ideas.

What you missed, and the Daily Kommie dipshit does not realize, is that Employment Division v. Smith was a decision which said the use of marijuana for religious ceremonies is not allowed because pot is against the law.

That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the State forcing someone to DO something AGAINST their religion. That is not a LIMIT ON THEIR CONDUCT. That is forcing them to EXPAND their conduct into areas which violate their religion.

Actually, what it said is that it is legal to fire people who use peyote, not that the government could actually prohibit its use in a religious ceremony.