Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE



    Score one for the Christian companies and the 1st Amendment. In a hotly contested political setback for liberals SCOTUS ruled, 5-4, they do not have to pay for contraceptives according to the law.

    Me thinks Roberts is looking like a genius after allowing O BUMMER CARE into law. He just wanted his court to look fair in the eyes of history all the while knowing it might fall under it's own weight as it was doing.

    And now his fair court is throwing out key parts of it already that were important to certain people but it only applies to Christian companies at that under the 1st Amendment.

    Justice Ginsberg wrote that the court was walking into a mine field.


    http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politi...ion/index.html
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-02-2014 at 04:52 PM.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,871
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    I kind of see this as a good thing and a bad thing.

    The good I see is that I don't think that any law should mandate someone has to pay for something they don't directly use or need. Regardless of religious belief, making an 80 year old have to pay for a health insurance policy that includes contraception is pretty over the top nonsensical.

    The bad I see is this could now pave the way for religious zealots to make a case that other laws and statutes shouldn't apply to them because it infringes on their religious beliefs. I just see this being potentially abused.

    This is why they should have looked at the damn ACA law with a fine toothed comb before declaring it law to begin with. Things like this could have been considered and addressed a year ago.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Good post except for the other laws. There's so much crap that's covered and spot on about looking more at the law. We were just discussing tonight. I said the justices even joked about not reading all of the law. I think it was Kennedy who said do you expect us to read this entire law or is this something our law clerks can do? ILAMO

    Point is, nobody has read the thousands of pages except those that wrote it.

    I asked my waitress tonight if she got cheap insurance and said said it's reasonable but not cheap. She didn't even know it covered this stuff. People don't know that it also covers other stuff.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 04:59 AM.




  4. #4

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Btw, maybe her rates aren't so cheap because over the thanksgiving holiday OBY raised taxes by 3% to cover O BUMMER CARE which is exactly what we said they would do. I was arguing with someone about this on FB who said he got cheap insurance.

    I said that cheap insurance just got more expensive over the weekend and you didn't even know it.

    Three % isn't much now but it will go up and up. Nothing is free or cheap.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.
    Great, great post.

    The liberal judges vote party line on all major cases like this while GOPs like Roberts and Kennedy will cross over at times.




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,871
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.
    I agree.

    In fact, judges (especially SCOTUS) should not be affiliated with any party.

    I've always disliked that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  8. #8

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    The cheapest plans provide little coverage except to bail the government out of paying the bill for uninsured , now after the 6000 deductible. That plan costs the government 6000 a year.... and pay for a checkup a year and small tests. Its a rip-off.
    Way Down South in New Orleans




  9. #9

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    What Obama got was a bad deal in....
    Way Down South in New Orleans




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I agree.

    In fact, judges (especially SCOTUS) should not be affiliated with any party.

    I've always disliked that.
    Pretty sure at the federal level, you cannot be party affiliated. I'll have to ask my wife.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,871
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Pretty sure at the federal level, you cannot be party affiliated. I'll have to ask my wife.
    Sure doesn't seem that way!
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Sure doesn't seem that way!
    Well, there's a difference between legal philosophy and political parties.

    The right tends to nominate textualists (believe in the concept of a dead Constitution) and the left nominates constructionists (believe in a living Constitution). And even then, it's not a guarantee the person you nominate will vote along the lines you believed they will. It's a crap shoot, especially at the level of SCOTUS.

    Many federal judges gave up on party politics long before their nominations. Outside of making campaign contributions, I think it's fairly common they stop affiliating with parties long before they put on their robes.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Here's the right answer while waiting for HRs wife to reply. US Supreme Court justices do not advertise their party affiliation because they're not supposed to consider partisan ideology when making decisions. Unfortunately, see my remarks above where certain justices vote party line most of the time on big issues.

    Of course, they're party affiliated. They still have the right to vote after being elected as justice. They're just not supposed to brag about it or let it influence their decisions but as we see they do and it does influence them.


    The president appoints the justices so that makes it politically affiliated right there. Presidents campaign to put judges in with their views. Boosters support candidates just to get justices in with their views. Look at the judges on the left especially the last two put in by OBY, extreme liberals - Kagen, Sottlemeyer plus Ginsberg before that. All DEMs all the time at least in all the major decisions like this one.

    Nixon got a bunch of conservative judges in that is affecting the court now like in this last decision however, it's now more difficult to put conservatives in. Reagan nominated Borke, a Christian conservative and the liberals in congress blocked him out. He then nominated Kennedy who was moderate and more to their liking and was unanimously confirmed, and he is always called the swing vote because he voted liberal on so many decisions. He was expected to on O BUMMER CARE but Roberts turned out to be the swing vote.

    Same thing with Roberts. W thought he was putting a conservative in. Then again maybe he wasn't because he has crossed the line, same as Kennedy and in the most important decision of our life time - OBUMMER CARE.

    It was funny but Karl Rove was on the nominating committee for a judge that recommended to Bush. Rove asked who he most respected that served on the court. He named a guy who wavered on many issues not siding with any one group and that's what he became but W still thought he was getting a conservative to placate those who elected him.

    Same with Souter. His pop nominated Souter who was supposed to be a conservative. They grilled him with the questions and he almost dropped out when again, Congress DEMs tried to stonewall him but he answered the questions the way the conservatives wanted but then rebelled once on the bench.

    Finally he gets in and voted liberal most of the time including the Florida re-count after the Bush-Gore election. His fellow GOPs voted for Bush but he voted against the family that put him in. However, when he retired he met with the conservative branch to see how long they would still be there and they said a while longer, enough time for another GOP to come in and maintain the balance of power. In
    the end he cared or somewhat care for the GOP ideology.

    In short, make no mistake about it. These are party affiliated positions and people are nominated by presidents who think their decisions will inflict his party's views at least on the major cases.

    It doesn't work that way as we have seen.

    That's the way it is.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 03:39 PM.




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    This is why it's getting hard to nominate a conservative judge. From WIKI:

    This is strictly party affiliation. See groups that stopped his confirmation.
    Civil Liberties Union also opposed William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito.

    Even JFK insisted on an ideological appointment to the Court when he chose Arthur Goldberg, a distinguished lawyer and darling of the unions - ALL DEMS - ALL THE TIME.


    ________________________
    U.S. Supreme Court nomination[edit]
    Main article: Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination


    Bork (right) with President Ronald Reagan, 1987
    President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[19] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[20] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[15] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

    Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward.[21] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[22] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

    Following Bork's nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:

    Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[23][24]

    Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."[25] In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked."[25] Bork also contended in his best-selling[26] book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[27]

    Television advertisements narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for two and a half months.[28]

    During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.[29] Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.[30]

    To pro-choice rights legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade.[citation needed]

    On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT)) all voting against him.[31]

    The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy who was unanimously approved by the Senate, 97-0.[32]

    Bork, unhappy with his treatment in the nomination process, resigned his appellate-court judgeship in 1988.[33]

    Bork as verb[edit]
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 03:25 PM.




  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    NIXON'S COURT.

    Like I posted above, presidential candidates campaign to put their views on the SC like here:


    ______________________________
    In his presidential campaign, Nixon had pledged to appoint a strict constructionist as Chief Justice.

    ____________________________

    From Wiki but it's spot on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...urt_candidates
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 03:35 PM.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland