Hobby Lobby or How I Chose God Over Country

[RecycleMichael]

She is the face of the tolerant left?

Of course not.

I am sure we can find many examples of extremists for every side of any political issue.

If you really believe they are representative of the left, you missed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I still think you need to get up to speed on what is "restraint" and "activism". Once you understand those terms, I think you should see why Plessy is the former and Brown is the latter. BTW, you do realize the two cases are connected, with Brown being a repudiation of what was at one point "settled" precedent (Plessy)?

Yes, I do realize that repudiation.  Plessey was also the "keep the status quo" that was the south.  It was extreme activism in the face of Federal Constitutional requirements of equal under the law - so it really wasn't restraint at all.  Another attempt by an activist, reactionary SC to rewrite the Constitution.  Brown wasn't - it was the turn around that put the country back in sync with the 1868 amendment.  It is tragically sad it took 80+ years to get there.


Oh, yeah...the guy that wrote the majority opinion - wasn't even a lawyer!  He was 'admitted' to the bar without full training - he took a couple courses.   Lots of credibility there for the SC!!  But he was an Alpha Delta Phi, so that probably makes up for it....  He was also a 'draft-dodger' during the Civil War!!   Are we starting to see a trend here?  And Republican, of course.

[Conan71]

Power is nothing until you use it.

Or stick a knife in the wall outlet.

[guido911]

Yes, I do realize that repudiation.  Plessey was also the "keep the status quo" that was the south.  Just move on from this. Please.

So you think judicial activism is following the status quo (Plessy). And so changing the status quo (Brown) is likewise judicial activism.

[guido911]

An absolute takedown of what happened in Hobby Lobby. Yes, it's faux news, but from the woman that took on Darth Cheeeeney.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4P3IkdA7Iw[/youtube]

[heironymouspasparagus]

So you think judicial activism is following the status quo (Plessy). And so changing the status quo (Brown) is likewise judicial activism.

Trying to be obtuse, are we??  Well, Plessey was activism going against the actual meaning AND intent of the law - 14th Amendment - as defined by Congress and the super-majority of states in 1868.  It continued the 30 year process of societal activism that went against the law of the land at every turn - all the laws written by the southern states (and northern) that went directly against the law of the land - and got away with it.  It is analogous to what the Oklahoma legislature does at every turn, passing law after law that they know is against the law, and will be struck down.  The difference is that the SC went along with those states with their illegal laws in an extreme activist way.

Many think Brown was activist - I guess if you consider that it went against 80+ years of blatantly, obviously illegal actions by so many states, ok, it is activist.

But real activist is when the court defines artificial constructs as people.  Corporations are not people!  I suspect you don't really believe they are, either, based on your background (Catholic) and the intense indoctrination you received through childhood about the importance of the human being, the sanctity of life, and all that jazz....   Of course, you could have gone REALLY rogue and put all that aside....but I don't get that feeling about you at all.

[guido911]

Trying to be obtuse, are we??  Well, Plessey was activism going against the actual meaning AND intent of the law - 14th Amendment - as defined by Congress and the super-majority of states in 1868.  It continued the 30 year process of societal activism that went against the law of the land at every turn - all the laws written by the southern states (and northern) that went directly against the law of the land - and got away with it.  It is analogous to what the Oklahoma legislature does at every turn, passing law after law that they know is against the law, and will be struck down.  The difference is that the SC went along with those states with their illegal laws in an extreme activist way.

Many think Brown was activist - I guess if you consider that it went against 80+ years of blatantly, obviously illegal actions by so many states, ok, it is activist.

But real activist is when the court defines artificial constructs as people.  Corporations are not people!  I suspect you don't really believe they are, either, based on your background (Catholic) and the intense indoctrination you received through childhood about the importance of the human being, the sanctity of life, and all that jazz....   Of course, you could have gone REALLY rogue and put all that aside....but I don't get that feeling about you at all.

Um, I am not a cradle Catholic. Sorry. I am also moving on from this topic. You are talking out of your Obama again.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Um, I am not a cradle Catholic. Sorry. I am also moving on from this topic. You are talking out of your Obama again.

Too bad....

Rational thought just doesn't compute with lawyerland thought??  Move on, huh?  Never would have expected that....

http://front.moveon.org/

[Gaspar]

Now this is funny!  Here is the headline that the AP is running:
BREAKING: Senate Republicans block bill to restore free contraception under health care law.

Seems to lack a little detail and little liberal cream puff brains are exploding all over social media.

Contraception is a thing of the past!  Gone!  Babies everywhere! It's the end of freedom!

It goes well with Pelosi's statement last week:
“That court decision was a frightening one,” she said. “That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It's not her boss's business."

First of all, Hobby Lobby's insurance covers use of the diaphragm.
Second, I agree, it's not a bosses business to pay for anyone's personal healthcare, dental care, vision care, shoes, or personal hygiene products.

This also plays well with Harry Reid's statement:
“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determine by virtue of five white men,” Reid said. “This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous and we are going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote.”


Not sure why the AP didn't just use the headline "GOP Votes to Block Out The Sun"

[Townsend]

Now this is funny! 

Was it "lol" funny?  You like "lol" funny.

[guido911]

Whole bunch of stuff happening today re: Obamacare. Two federal circuits with conflicting rulings apparently. This gives me the chances to post the "Papal Facepalm", which I do not recall seeing before...

[Townsend]

Whole bunch of stuff happening today re: Obamacare. Two federal circuits with conflicting rulings apparently. This gives me the chances to post the "Papal Facepalm", which I do not recall seeing before...

Is that the right papal?

[guido911]

Is that the right papal?

The "Emeritus Papal Facepalm".  smh

[Townsend]

The "Emeritus Papal Facepalm".  smh

You're shaking it after you post a pic of someone stroking out?

[Conan71]

Well smile.  I thought he said Paypal face palm!