Political hypocrisy

[mpholland]

Just another example of hypocrisy that I find around this place. It seems to me that all the people who were so overjoyed with the SCOTUS when they ruled on the ACA are the same people who are now saying how fucked up the SCOTUS is because of the Hobby Lobby case. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson’s attempting to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase because Chase disagreed with his politics. If it wasn't for John Q. Adams defending Chase, disagreeing with the President could have become a precedent for impeachment. Jefferson actually tried to market political dissent under high crimes and misdemeanors. Kind of shows you what some of our forefathers really thought of their constitution.

[bobabode]

This commie rat bastard lefty is goin' to watch the fireworks. I hope no one thinks I'm being a hypocrite. Later.

[BlueStreak]

So, the SCOTUS is a blind squirrel that manages to find a nut every now and again.
That's not hypocrisy, it's a fact.

Mind you the Hobby Lobby case was the result of a party line decision, the ACA decision was not.

P.s. Anybody who thinks the Founders "meant it" when they created the constitution is either ignorant or naïve. And, I'm pretty sure you've noticed that. Why do you think we still fight the powers that be to live up to it. A politician in 1776 is the same as a politician in 2014. Only a fairytale believer would think otherwise.

Dave

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Just another example of hypocrisy that I find around this place. It seems to me that all the people who were so overjoyed with the SCOTUS when they ruled on the ACA are the same people who are now saying how fucked up the SCOTUS is because of the Hobby Lobby case. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson’s attempting to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase because Chase disagreed with his politics. If it wasn't for John Q. Adams defending Chase, disagreeing with the President could have become a precedent for impeachment. Jefferson actually tried to market political dissent under high crimes and misdemeanors. Kind of shows you what some of our forefathers really thought of their constitution.

So why should this place be any different?

[finnbow]

If your argument had merit (which I don't think it does), the converse would be equally true (i.e., the GOP disliked the first ruling and liked the second). In both cases, I don't think it's hypocritical but logically consistent.

[icenine]

I would also say that there are millions of poor people being denied health care because they did not uphold the Medicare expansion. The court is not getting universal acclaim for that decision, and the recent Hobby Lobby can be seen as a threat to the ACA.

And to be honest, all politics involves hypocrisy. We are human after all. There has never been a politician or President or person who has not spoken out of both sides of their mouths. FDR did it all the time.

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If your argument had merit (which I don't think it does), the converse would be equally true (i.e., the GOP disliked the first ruling and liked the second). In both cases, I don't think it's hypocritical but logically consistent.

You don't think the GOP liked the first ruling or disliked the second? I don't agree. Personally, I didn't like either ruling and will never praise them for either.

[merrylander]

I think that the fatuous five displayed their hypocrisy in the Wheaton U ruling.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I think that the fatuous five displayed their hypocrisy in the Wheaton U ruling.

No, it didn't.

However, what it does demonstrate is that a government that continues to expand its reach almost always does so at the expense of individual rights. When folks here in this forum cheer on the expansion of something like the ACA, which seemingly extends its reach with each new reg written by HHS, it comes at a cost...which may seem minor today until its your freedoms being challenged.

Sotomayor said she was not calling into question the college's sincerity.

"I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs," she wrote. "But thinking one's religious beliefs are substantially burdened -- no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be -- does not make it so."

That's why religious freedom was part of the very first amendment and written with clear language that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is not an option. What part of that does Sotomayor not understand? And why does she think its up to her to be the arbiter of what a religious belief might be?

[icenine]

Alito, while dining on Uncle Sugar his whole career after law school, has decided that he will use the United States as his lab rat upon which he can foist his conservative and libertarian injections without any limits thanks to the other four idiots. He is like Paul Ryan without any brakes.