Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The interesting bit is that there was not a single doctor testifying and I doubt that there was even one in the court. Isn't it amazing how all these medical decisions are taken without even consulting the people with the knowledge. I am willing to bet I know more about the human reproductive system than all five of those old farts combined.

Expert witnesses would have appeared at the trial court, not the appellate courts.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Well...serve this. It's none of your fucking business, none of my business, none of delusional David Green's business, none of Rush Limbaugh's business, none of Kelly Ayotte's business, none of Antonin Scalia's arrogantly narcissistic business either, in my non-constitutional opinion.. It's nobody's business but a woman and her physician's business.

It is also none of our business how the possessor of money chooses to spend it.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It is also none of our business how the possessor of money chooses to spend it.

Pete

True so perhaps taking that view the Supremes should have kept their nosess out of the case.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It is also none of our business how the possessor of money chooses to spend it.

Pete

Leave my women out of this.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It is also none of our business how the possessor of money chooses to spend it.

Pete

But is it our business to regulate one of the largest, if not the largest industry in the country - health care. If there is a reasonable basis for the regulation and it is reasonably within the authority of the government to implement the regulation, it should stand. There are numerous sound medical reasons why particular items are chosen for what is minimally acceptable health coverage. As a participant in the market, an employer is subject to that reasonable regulation. If one want's one's religious beliefs to have supremacy over the legitimately imposed regulation, then one should accept the consequences of taking that position - i.e., pay the fine for not providing minimally acceptable coverage.

Regards,

D-Ray

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by merrylander

True so perhaps taking that view the Supremes should have kept their nosess out of the case.

So, we have a health care system in which A contracts with B, then B contracts with C, and then D solicits health care from C in accordance with the contractual provisions in their several parts. C and D are jointly responsible for the quality and nature of services ultimately provided, with a certain level of interference from B. B and D pay for whatever services are delivered. A thinks he pays for it, but not so. He just hires B to go make contracts with C and D.

The latest brou-ha-ha has A wishing his contract with B to be altered to preclude certain things C and D might or might not find necessary or desirable. He will thus join B in using contractual leverage to interfere with the care relationship of C & D. This has now been upheld by the Supreme Count because A claims religious privilege.

The recognition of religious privilege as overriding both other parties' interests, and also the law providing public interest guidelines for this whole mess, is what some find disturbing. The court, an arm of the state, is giving of it's power to create this religious privilege. Thus, a combination of church and state power has been created. I feel it is therefore dangerous, a bad precedent that may lead to worse.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It is also none of our business how the possessor of money chooses to spend it.

Pete

When did I say it was? If you're talking about David Green...I have absolutely nothing to say about how a dumb motherfucker like David Green spends his $5 billion, sticking his nose into the reproductive organs of American women. I do have a lot of business sticking my nose into doing everything I can to make sure David Green gets none of what he wants. And that included canvassing for and voting for Barack Obama twice. And, it will include canvassing for and voting for the most nauseating vote whore the Democrats might possibly come up with in 2016. That is how nauseating I find the basic precepts of the Republican Party and American conservatives. Particularly their despicable positions on social issues.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Expert witnesses would have appeared at the trial court, not the appellate courts.

Just another reason why American law is an ass. Seems to me if the courts, including appellate and above want to really do a job, they need to consider more than the inappropriate application of the law in their deliberations. Once in a while, some higher court oughta be able to look at a lower court decisions and just say..."Look, this is fucking nuts."

[icenine]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We desperately need the government to tell us what we need.

Pete

I will take Uncle Sugar over Jimmy Swaggart any day of the week.

I have never received a check from Jimmy btw.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Just another reason why American law is an ass. Seems to me if the courts, including appellate and above want to really do a job, they need to consider more than the inappropriate application of the law in their deliberations. Once in a while, some higher court oughta be able to look at a lower court decisions and just say..."Look, this is fucking nuts."

There is name for judicial systems where anything goes. It is "mob rule".

On a lighter note, there are also situations where appellate courts can throw out the case late in the process. None of those situations applied here.