Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?
It's strange that liberals and conservatives are making this ruling out to be a huge deal. All the ruling does is remove a very narrow coverage requirement, in very specific cases; 99.9 percent of Obamacare is upheld.
It's true that closely held corporate entities should not be forced to pay for this particular contraceptive coverage. But focusing on that narrow issue misses the bigger point: No employer should be forced to provide any health coverage at all.
This ruling just draws the line between freedom and regulation arbitrarily. If these employers are free to ignore this particular mandate, why aren't other employers free to ignore other Obamacare regulations? They should be.
Obamacare is unjust and unconstitutional from top to bottom. No employer should be forced to provide health coverage to its employees, or penalized by government if it doesn't.
Religion is not the issue. The fact that these employers have religious motives doesn't matter. Employers have the right to associate freely with their employees, and to come up with any mutually agreeable employment terms, whether their motives are religious, secular, generous, greedy, or whatever.
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control.
Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok.
Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok.
Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok.
NSAdawg?
That's just what I was hearing, not what I actually think. Stop twisting. Don't be a twister.
Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?
Sounds great the next time the govt forces a business or individual to buy an aircraft carrier or bailout for another individual. Of course you could argue the GM fiasco fit that mold...
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control.
SCROTUM, I mean SCOTUS, needs to have its powers severely curtailed. There should be no such thing as an 'activist judge.' It should have no power to rule on social issues that should be decided on a state by state basis, or by its own power alone overturn laws enacted by the vote of the people. The people of 50 states, not 9 biased individual imbeciles that are appointed for life, should be deciding the trajectory of the nation. It and the executive branch has overstepped its bounds at the expense of the legislative branch (which sadly doesn't really represent the people like it's supposed to). SCOTUS and POTUS are the two evil twins that currently act as vampires on the nation. They need a strong punch in the jaw to break some of their teeth off.
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control.
SCROTUM, I mean SCOTUS, needs to have its powers severely curtailed. There should be no such thing as an 'activist judge.' It should have no power to rule on social issues that should be decided on a state by state basis, or by its own power alone overturn laws enacted by the vote of the people. The people of 50 states, not 9 biased individual imbeciles that are appointed for life, should be deciding the trajectory of the nation. It and the executive branch has overstepped its bounds at the expense of the legislative branch (which sadly doesn't really represent the people like it's supposed to). SCOTUS and POTUS are the two evil twins that currently act as vampires on the nation.
If they don't rule on "social issues" then what should they rule on? At least they got this weeks rulings correct. If they would have ruled correctly on the ACA in the past, we wouldn't have had the Hobby Lobby case.
I agree with about 81% of what you said. But you kind of fucked up the presentation.
They need to stay completely out of social issues like the gay marriage debate for example. Things like this should be decided by the individual states. If a majority of citizens vote to legalize gay marriage in their state, like WA for example, fine. It's for them to choose. If a majority of citizens are against it, as is the case in Utah, that should be ok too. Utah doesn't want gay marriage. Utah shouldn't be forced to legalize it against the will of its people. Oregon was forced into it also like California was, and I think most people resent a federal court overturning the will of the voters who enacted a law stating they were against it. If the law is to be invalidated it should be invalidated by the people of that state, not by the pen stroke of a single biased activist judge. What do you call a nation state that is ruled by judges?
I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok.
Corruption? What corruption? I don't see nuffin, but I see everything!
I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.
I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.
I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.
feel free to secede
I would support it, but we would get attacked by the military if we did.
I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
Good point. It's hard to precisely define. I don't know exactly where abortion would fall on the spectrum and I'm going to stay out of that issue. Generally I believe the states should operate as their own mini nations, except in national defense and other key areas. Oregon for example has nothing in common with Washington DC, and Washington DC should not be deciding how we live our lives here. They should not be overturning our laws or trying to force their agendas on us.
Sounds like you need to think this one through a bit more.
I think OBK has a sound structure to his argument - maybe not every detail and every issue, but the broader context is one that resonates with me.
Recall when the Constitutional Congress barely even created the US because everyone was so concerned about the "Nation" usurping States rights. Well, just as the Founders feared, it has come to pass. I have no solutions for this, as the issue is more complicated than I can fathom, but as a personal opinion, it sort of sucks that the judiciary and the federal government have basically made States their bitch - and it has been accelerating greatly (seemingly) over the last 50 years. In another 100 years you might as well just dissolve states, because they won't have any rights/laws left that haven't been rammed down their throats and federalized.
That Thomas Jefferson dude was pretty smart, and saw all this shit 3 decades after we formed. Governments number one goal has always been power consolidation and the trampling of liberty. Same as it ever was.
"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341
"Monarchy, to be sure, is now defeated,... yet the spirit is not done away. The same party takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation of the government; the giving to the federal member of the government, by unlimited constructions of the Constitution, a control over all the functions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately at Washington." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:95
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146
My beef with the latest nonsense from the Supremes is that we have gone way into the weeds of corporate personality - a corporation *is* a person for the purposes of political speech (Citizens United) and religious belief (Hobby Lobby - although I have never seen a corporation in church, myself) which ignores the fact that the whole purpose of corporations is to evade personal liability. And when corporations kill people (see the latest GM case) they don't go to jail or get the death penalty (or get dissolved).
Comments
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok.
If they don't rule on "social issues" then what should they rule on? At least they got this weeks rulings correct. If they would have ruled correctly on the ACA in the past, we wouldn't have had the Hobby Lobby case.
I agree with about 81% of what you said. But you kind of fucked up the presentation.
Recall when the Constitutional Congress barely even created the US because everyone was so concerned about the "Nation" usurping States rights. Well, just as the Founders feared, it has come to pass. I have no solutions for this, as the issue is more complicated than I can fathom, but as a personal opinion, it sort of sucks that the judiciary and the federal government have basically made States their bitch - and it has been accelerating greatly (seemingly) over the last 50 years. In another 100 years you might as well just dissolve states, because they won't have any rights/laws left that haven't been rammed down their throats and federalized.
That Thomas Jefferson dude was pretty smart, and saw all this shit 3 decades after we formed. Governments number one goal has always been power consolidation and the trampling of liberty. Same as it ever was.
"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341
"Monarchy, to be sure, is now defeated,... yet the spirit is not done away. The same party takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation of the government; the giving to the federal member of the government, by unlimited constructions of the Constitution, a control over all the functions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately at Washington." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:95
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146
I was mostly referring to the idea that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear cases pertaining to social issues. I think OBK went off the rails a bit there.
Alexander Hamilton won.