Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 30, 2014, 07:25:56 AM
-
Boom
Link to follow
F you Obama you piece of shit
-
BREAKING: Court Sides With Hobby Lobby
Townhall ^ | Jun 30, 2014 | Christine Rousselle
Posted on 6/30/2014 10:24:29 AM by george76
In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly named Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby). The case was the strongest legal challenge to Obamacare since 2012.
Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, and Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/30/supreme-court-pares-back-obamacares-contraception-mandate
:D
KABBBOOOMMMMMMMMM
F you ofag and fluke Pelosi etc - SLAMMED
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/30/supreme-court-pares-back-obamacares-contraception-mandate
:D
KABBBOOOMMMMMMMMM
F you ofag and fluke Pelosi etc - SLAMMED
Actually, you lose because now you're taxes are going to go up in order to cover it rather than businesses.......the plan doesn't go away. It also affects Social Security and minimum wage benefits with the ruling.
-
Actually, you lose because now you're taxes are going to go up in order to cover it rather than businesses.......the plan doesn't go away. It also affects Social Security and minimum wage benefits with the ruling.
I'm sorry, is Obama still relevant anymore? Same with your taxes too Vince. Fucking people too lazy to spend a few dollars a month on birth control. Why do libs feel this sense of self-entitlement Vince? Why do they think everything should be given to them?
-
Actually, you lose because now you're taxes are going to go up in order to cover it rather than businesses.......the plan doesn't go away. It also affects Social Security and minimum wage benefits with the ruling.
I suspect my taxes won't go up for this.....the plan has been gutted...more so by Obama then by anything this does. the plan has even been fully implemented. Just wait..... ;D
-
I'm sorry, is Obama still relevant anymore? Same with you're taxes too Vince. Fucking people too lazy to spend a few dollars a month on birth control. Why do libs feel this sense of self-entitlement Vince? Why do they think everything should be given to them?
I'd rather spend money on tax dollars for birth control than spend a lot for someone's bratty little shitter. This ruling is certainly partisan in all ways and is going to cause a shitload of problems for everyone. If a business can claim "religious freedom" then they can claim it on a lot of other bullshit.
Big mistake...
-
I'd rather spend money on tax dollars for birth control than spend a lot for someone's bratty little shitter. This ruling is certainly partisan in all ways and is going to cause a shitload of problems for everyone. If a business can claim "religious freedom" then they can claim it on a lot of other bullshit.
Big mistake...
Answer my questions Vince. Why this sense of entitlement?
-
Obama doing great in court
-
Supreme Court Rules Family-Owned Corporations Are Not Required to Pay for Contraception Coverage
Requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated a federal law protecting religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision on Monday.
The decision, which applied to two companies owned by Christian families, opened the door to challenges from other corporations to many laws that may be said to violate their religious liberty.
The coverage requirement was put in place under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. It was challenged by two corporations whose owners say they try to run their businesses on religious principles: Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/supreme-court-ruling-in-contraceptive-case-is-awaited.html?emc=edit_na_20140630
-
I'd rather spend money on tax dollars for birth control than spend a lot for someone's bratty little shitter. This ruling is certainly partisan in all ways and is going to cause a shitload of problems for everyone. If a business can claim "religious freedom" then they can claim it on a lot of other bullshit.
Big mistake...
We shouldn't be spending on either. I don't have an issue with a business covering or not covering birth control but its up to them. There are plenty of policies that cover only certain things. The gov should not force them to cover...or not cover. That's the issue.
-
We shouldn't be spending on either. I don't have an issue with a business covering or not covering birth control but its up to them. There are plenty of policies that cover only certain things. The gov should not force them to cover...or not cover. That's the issue.
Are there (healthcare) policies that only cover certain things these days?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a major part of ACA was establishing certain requirements for ALL healthcare policies.
-
Good to see the First Amendment is alive and well. At least for a day.
-
Good to see the First Amendment is alive and well. At least for a day.
Sure about that?
For wasn't the scope of the ruling pointedly narrowed to businesses which are owned by a small number of people with plenty of qualifiers included, such as one saying that the ruling does not apply to all mandated treatments such as transfusions or vaccinations?
About that last part (essentially saying that some religious beliefs are more important than others), here's what Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent:
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
I have no legal training but that seems pretty logical to me.
So if, as you say, the first amendment is "alive and well", then you're only talking about some but not all of the religious beliefs held by owners of companies with a small number of share-holders, eh?
-
Sure about that?
For wasn't the scope of the ruling pointedly narrowed to businesses which are owned by a small number of people with plenty of qualifiers included, such as one saying that the ruling does not apply to all mandated treatments such as transfusions or vaccinations?
About that last part (essentially saying that some religious beliefs are more important than others), here's what Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent:
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
I have no legal training but that seems pretty logical to me.
So if, as you say, the first amendment is "alive and well", then you're only talking about some but not all of the religious beliefs held by owners of companies with a small number of share-holders, eh?
Yes I'm sure about that. The government cannot force the owners of this private company to violate their religious beliefs. That is a win for the First Amendment. That whole free exercise thing.
-
Yes I'm sure about that. The government cannot force the owners of this private company to violate their religious beliefs. That is a win for the First Amendment. That whole free exercise thing.
That's an oversimplification and therefore not technically correct.
Otherwise what about that language in the ruling concerning vaccinations and transfusions?
Or is this another example of lazy BB just skimming headlines and forming opinions without much real reading?
-
That's an oversimplification and therefore not technically correct.
Otherwise what about that language in the ruling concerning vaccinations and transfusions?
Or is this another example of lazy BB just skimming headlines and forming opinions without much real reading?
Read the opinion and get back to me Simpleton Simon.
-
Obama needs to go back to law school
-
Read the opinion and get back to me Simpleton Simon.
I've read Kennedy's and the dissent by Ginsburg.
How about you? Have you read any of it, LayZ-B?
-
I've read Kennedy's and the dissent by Ginsburg.
How about you? Have you read any of it, LayZ-B?
Who cares about the opinion? 5-4 amd a good headline destroying failure in chief is all that matters
-
Who cares about the opinion? 5-4 amd a good headline destroying failure in chief is all that matters
I only mentioned it because BB told me to read the opinion and get back to him (as if that old coot has read anything more substantial than a Fox News article...)
-
Yes I'm sure about that. The government cannot force the owners of this private company to violate their religious beliefs. That is a win for the First Amendment. That whole free exercise thing.
It does, actually, raise an interesting question though. If the owners of a particular private company believe it violates their religious beliefs to pay for medical intervention (e.g. they are Christian Scientists) could they avoid providing any coverage?
If they could, then what's the point of having any law?
If they could not, how does it differ from the case at hand?
-
Turley on Hobby Lobby Ruling: "Huge Blow" For Obama Admin, "Been An Awful Ten Days" For Them
Please upgrade your browser to view HTML 5 content
JONATHAN TURLEY: It’s a huge blow to the Obama administration. You know, this has been an awful ten days. They were previously found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment and privacy. Then they were found to be in violation of the separation of powers, and now they have been found to be in violation of the First Amendment and the religion clauses. I mean, you just don’t want to get out of bed after a week like that.
-
The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision
Hotair ^ | 06/30/2014 | Noah Rothman
Posted on 6/30/2014 4:39:21 PM by SeekAndFind
I imagine the horrified shrieks that rose from the streets outside the Supreme Court on Monday as the decision in the Hobby Lobby case began to filter out into the crowd of liberal observers was reminiscent of those poor souls who watched helplessly as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire claimed the lives of 146 young, female garment workers.
In fact, the similarities are eerie. It seems that liberal commentators have convinced themselves that, just as was the case in 1911, the courts and the country have deemed women to be of lesser value than their male counterparts. The distinction between these two eras, of course, is that while that argument could be supported in 1911, it exists only in the heads of progressives in 2014.
NBC News journalist Pete Williams, an accomplished reporter who is not prone to indulge in speculation, went out of his way to insist repeatedly that the Court’s decision in this case was a narrow one. He noted that the decision extends only to the specific religious objections a handful of employers raised about providing abortifacients (as opposed to contraceptives). Williams added that Justice Anthony Kennedy allowed in his concurring opinion that the federal government can pay for and provide that coverage if employers would not.
The Federalist published a variety of other observations about this ruling which indicate that it was narrowly tailored to this specific case. The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby and other employers could not simply drop health coverage in order to avoid mandates. This decision does not apply to other government mandates like those requiring employers cover vaccinations. Finally, if the will of the public in the form of an electoral mandate creates a groundswell of support for a government-funded program which provides access to abortifacients, then that would be perfectly constitutional.
Williams’ MSNBC colleagues nodded along and, when asked for their contribution, proceeded to display none of this NBC reporter’s caution.
“I think we’ve seen a real goal post-moving here,” MSNBC.com’s Irin Carmon said. “We may say it is a narrow ruling because Taco Bell and Wal-Mart can’t opt out, but it is still an enormous expansion of corporate rights and of the refusal from the laws that are passed to create benefits for everybody.”
“The larger doctrinal implication here is potentially significant,” MSNBC host Ari Melber agreed. “For the first time, the Court is going and taking the First Amendment rights that we’ve seen long established for certain corporate entities and extending them to the religious idea.”
“Just because it was only restricted to women’s health access doesn’t mean that it doesn’t create a devastating precedent which says that women’s health care should be treated differently,” Carmon added. She added that the Republican Party is the biggest beneficiary of today’s ruling. “So, the context of this is an all-out assault on access to contraception and access to other reproductive health care services.”
HotAir’s Karl has accumulated some of the best examples of liberal “schadenfreude,” as he’s dubbed it, in which the left utterly and intentionally misconstrues the scope of this ruling. Incidentally, their reaction also helps to service what appears to be a widely shared victimhood fantasy.
We’ve seen indications that the left believes this decision is a prelude to theocracy:
The Supreme Court #HobbyLobby ruling proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law.
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) June 30, 2014
"So as not to insult Allah, this accounting firm requires that all female employees wear the hijab."
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 30, 2014
We’ve seen liberal journalists and commentators rending garments over the implications of this ruling which exist only in their own minds:
This isn't a win for religious liberty it's an affirmation of privilege for advocates of conservative sexual morality http://t.co/ctb1FwXIWk
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 30, 2014
What Hobby Lobby means is there are now two separate classes of women in America: those who work for privately-owned corps and everyone else
— Jimmy williams (@Jimmyspolitics) June 30, 2014
Even poor SCOTUS Blog, an organization which merely reports the news out of the Supreme Court, has endured an torrent of misdirected liberal outrage:
Finally, and expectedly, we’ve seen liberal politicians stoking ire, generating enthusiasm, and soliciting donations:
It's time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.
— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 30, 2014
Pelosi on Hobby Lobby: "Supreme Court took an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women"
— Jim Acosta (@JimAcostaCNN) June 30, 2014
Can't believe we live in a world where we'd even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.
— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) June 30, 2014
And this, via John Podhoretz’s inbox:
It is interesting that there seems to be more outrage over this decision from the left than there was when the Court struck down dated portions of the Voting Rights Act. Though that decision had much farther reaching legal and political implications, this is the issue that has captured the passions of the left.
-
I've read Kennedy's and the dissent by Ginsburg.
How about you? Have you read any of it, LayZ-B?
So, Simpleton Simon, you read a concurring opinion and dissenting opinion, but not the majority opinion? About what I expected.
If you had read the majority opinion, a few paragraphs in you would have read this: "Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do."
The "exercise of religion" is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. So yes, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause is alive and well for a day.
-
It does, actually, raise an interesting question though. If the owners of a particular private company believe it violates their religious beliefs to pay for medical intervention (e.g. they are Christian Scientists) could they avoid providing any coverage?
If they could, then what's the point of having any law?
If they could not, how does it differ from the case at hand?
I don't know. It would depend on the specific facts of that particular case.
-
Boom
Link to follow
F you Obama you piece of shit
time for some more executive actions.
-
So, Simpleton Simon, you read a concurring opinion and dissenting opinion, but not the majority opinion? About what I expected.
If you had read the majority opinion, a few paragraphs in you would have read this: "Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do."
The "exercise of religion" is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. So yes, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause is alive and well for a day.
They claim "religious freedoms" on contreceptives......yet they still wish to keep Viagra and Vascetomies on their medical plan?????
-
They claim "religious freedoms" on contreceptives......yet they still wish to keep Viagra and Vascetomies on their medical plan?????
Let me get this straight... you are surprised because religious people act irrationally?
-
avxo is the most balanced poster getbig has ever seen, and one of the most intelligent.
-
Let me get this straight... you are surprised because religious people act irrationally?
Of course not.....I know that people and companies cite "religion" when they something to work in their favor from slavery to interacial marriages...etc. Shit has been going on for centuries and the Supreme Court...err its 5 Republican judges did the same thing. Can't wait until they are replaced
-
They claim "religious freedoms" on contreceptives......yet they still wish to keep Viagra and Vascetomies on their medical plan?????
Ok. And?
-
Ok. And?
I'm not sure what he's pointing out either unless it's that the ruling seems to affect one gender more than the other.
And I'm sure dems and Hillary in particular will try use this to their advantage.
-
Yet Another Supreme Court Setback for President Obama
By
Reid J. Epstein
People leave the Supreme Court in Washington on Thursday. —AP
It’s been a bad week for President Barack Obama at the Supreme Court.
The court’s 5-4 decision Monday to strike down another element of the Affordable Care Act – allowing “closely held” companies to decline to allow contraception coverage for employees – is the second major defeat for the White House since Thursday.
The decision in the Hobby Lobby case follows the court’s unanimous ruling last week that Mr. Obama exceeded his authority by making appointments to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief Senate break in 2012.
As a pair, the rulings play into Republicans’ 2014 sweet spot. Since the White House launched its campaign of executive actions earlier this year, Republicans have decried Mr. Obama as exceeding his authority – the cornerstone of the NLRB decision. And as gay marriage fades as a social issue most elected Republicans want to discuss, it has been replaced by a “religious liberty” argument that suits both social conservatives and Tea Partiers.
The Hobby Lobby case gets to both.
“The decision affirms that Americans, contrary to what the Obama Administration attempted to impose, have a right to live and work in accordance to their conscience and can’t be forced to surrender their religious freedom once they open a business,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said Monday.
Mr. Obama has suffered significant Supreme Court losses before. He so despised the Citizens United ruling that led to the unlimited political giving of the super PAC era so much that he famously chastised the justices during the 2010 State of the Union address.
But in the past two years the White House has been able to hang its hat on signature victories at the court: Obamacare was declared legal in 2012 and last year the court invalidated California’s gay marriage ban and declared married gay couples are entitled to federal benefits.
There was no such legal triumph for the White House this year. Democrats also found themselves on losing end of cases involving a buffer zone around abortion clinics in Massachusetts. The justices also removed a cap on individual political donations in a suit brought by Republicans.
The court did leave in place Environmental Protection Agency regulations on large power plants.
With Republican Sen. Thad Cochran‘s victory last week in Mississippi capping the early primary season, Monday’s ruling felt like the opening sequence to this November’s midterm elections. Republicans like Mr. Cruz declared it a landmark advance for religious freedom – a key issue for social conservatives as gay marriage recedes as an issue for elected Republicans.
“Today’s decision is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its Big Government objectives,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio).
And Democrats found themselves on the defensive, trying to use the court’s ruling to bolster their “war on women” narrative.
“If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). “We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room.”