Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by ebacon

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.

An anything-goes mob of five members in this case.

There is no check on the Supreme Court, once members have been confirmed and seated. If the system messes up, and we get five members who want to be an anything-goes mob, they can.

[icenine]

You think that the Supreme Court is granting a certiorari in certain cases just to be activists? It would not surprise me.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by icenine

You think that the Supreme Court is granting a certiorari in certain cases just to be activists? It would not surprise me.

I think you win the Captain Obvious award for that one.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Oh and no I do not have any problems with the mirrors here, all they ever show me is a man who tries to be honest, and compassionate and fair, you might try it sometime.

Being honest and fair doesn't include asking one party to subordinate their religious beliefs to suit your point of view or your political agenda. Nor does it include a failure to acknowledge that in this case the target of your ire chooses to pay for 16 out of the 20 contraceptive options that are on HHS's approved list. 4 of those the owners of a self insured health plan find morally objectionable, and don't wish to support those methods their funds.

Your version of compassion comes at the expense of comprising someone's legitimate religious views. Doesn't sound compassionate or fair to me.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

IUD's and RU-486 are both FDA-approved therapies with excellent safety records. Should your employer be able to pick and choose which FDA-approved therapies that your family is allowed to avail themselves of? A lot of religious people will say that it is "God's will" when somebody (including themselves) come down with a disease and will therefore defer/reject FDA-approved (and effective) treatment. Do you want to cede such decisions to your employer?

If they're a company that meets the criteria outlined by SCOTUS in yesterday's case! then yes.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Being honest and fair doesn't include asking one party to subordinate their religious beliefs to suit your point of view or your political agenda. Nor does it include a failure to acknowledge that in this case the target of your ire chooses to pay for 16 out of the 20 contraceptive options that are on HHS's approved list. 4 of those the owners of a self insured health plan find morally objectionable, and don't wish to support those methods their funds.

Your version of compassion comes at the expense of comprising someone's legitimate religious views. Doesn't sound compassionate or fair to me.

Sounds like you have an issue with the founder's decision to separate church and state in their original intent.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by icenine

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

I have never received a check from Jimmy btw.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

FYI, I wasn't a Clinton guy. In fact, I served in the George H. W. Bush administration. I didn't bail from the GOP until the Iraq invasion was shown to have been based on hype, falsehoods, and bad intelligence.

I was unaware of this. Now I fully understand what the "reformed know-nothing" is all about.

[BlueStreak]

Having grown up in Youngstown, Ohio and watched first hand the intense battles that took place there, between the unions and the steel and auto industries, I felt that it was time for both sides to dial it down some. That a more conservative tone in the nation was needed. So, in my first several trips to the voting booth in the 1980s & '90s I voted for Republican candidates.

However, what I got for my vote was not efforts by politicians left or right to rein in on the militancy. What I got was "scorched earth", decimation and ruin. The deindustrialization, not just of Youngstown or the Rust Belt, but of communities all across America. I watched as corporate executives like Jack Welch, Roger Smith and far too many others exhibited callous indifference or even self-congratulating glee at their piracy. The Democrats may have done little or nothing effective to deal with it or at times even worse, and that's bad enough, but the Republicans seemed to relish it as if all of those lives upended and communities ruined was just collateral damage in some sort of sick fucking game. It seemed that rather than stand up and take some sort of action to keep this country from losing it's industrial base, which is why I was voting for them, they just sat there grinning and saying "Fuck'em" as they watched the nations industrial cities burn. Nero with a fiddle and an American flag. (Or should I say; "Confederate" flag?)

I began disliking them at that point. And, the more I see the less I like. Republicans used to be builders of great things. Now they are little more than drama queens and worthless, bitchy parasites, hiding their money in offshore accounts, lest it become useful to anyone but themselves.

And, what good is that?

Dave

[icenine]

You are right Dave

and when I hear Boehner say Obama violates the law by executive orders (while at the same time Boehner is blocking every single piece of Obama legislation) what comes across to my brain is the following translation:

We do not like having a black President and we will not work with him under any circumstances.

It is like those clowns I saw blocking the immigrants on my way home from work: if Bush had been in office not one of them (the protesters) would have shown up. Of course the Republicans would probably have given Bush an immigration reform bill by now.