Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good. This is our process. Anything that controls 1/6 of our economy should be scrutinized six ways to Sunday, as the saying goes. One Sixth of the U.S. economy! Let that soak in.
Good. This is our process. Anything that controls 1/6 of our economy should be scrutinized six ways to Sunday, as the saying goes. One Sixth of the U.S. economy! Let that soak in.
The bad news is, it will be scrutinized by the entity that uses up one-half the U.S. economy: The government.
Last time the Supremes got hold of Ocare, they announced it was flatly unconstitutional... unless certain sections were rewritten. And then they re-wrote those sections themselves, without having Congress or the people vote on the changes, and announced it was now "all good"!
(If Ocare had said people who didn't participate, would be taxed instead of penalized, would it have been passed by the House and Senate in the first place? Only way it got through, was by the Obamanites swearing up and down it didn't contain any new taxes or increases)
I wonder what part of Obamacare they will change next?
The Hobby Lobby case is one of them.
Hobby Lobby has advertised for years about their faith because they are closed on Sunday.
They have for as long as I've lived near one (1996).
And they have never held back why they are closed on Sunday..for worship and family.
And they are not open 24 hours around the clock like some...9-8 Mon-Sat
I'm rooting for them. I hope they win their "right to choose".
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2...ig-win-to.html
Judge Tymkovich said in part:
..
A religious individual may enter the for profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values. As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.....
The Supremes will simply announce, in a 5-4 decision authored (or at least joined) by Chief Justice Roberts, that companies who don't want to participate because of religious objections, will simply have to pay a much higher tax that companies who do not have such objections.
Case closed, problem solved. And without any of that inconvenient "voting" business by the peons, in or out of Congress.
Why should they change what has already worked for them once?
This is MUCH bigger then just contraception. This is looking at allowing the first amendment freedom of religion applying to corporate personhood.
This could ripple through society.
Yup..look at the judge's comment I posted.
But Hobby Lobby didn't just do this overnight to get out of the mandate.
Therein lies the difference.
Hobby Lobby has always been open about their faith and family values.
Excellent news. The Constitution provides a system of checks and balances and it's being used. This is exactly how the framers of the Constitution wanted our government to work.
The bad news is, it will be scrutinized by the entity that uses up one-half the U.S. economy: The government.
Last time the Supremes got hold of Ocare, they announced it was flatly unconstitutional... unless certain sections were rewritten. And then they re-wrote those sections themselves, without having Congress or the people vote on the changes, and announced it was now "all good"!
(If Ocare had said people who didn't participate, would be taxed instead of penalized, would it have been passed by the House and Senate in the first place? Only way it got through, was by the Obamanites swearing up and down it didn't contain any new taxes or increases)
I wonder what part of Obamacare they will change next?
Parts of laws can be struck down without the entire law being struck down. This is not a case of "rewriting the law."
As for Justice Roberts' finding that the individual mandate was constitutional, he did not change anything in the law. He declared a legal justification for it (authority to tax), and dismissed one of the government's main defenses of it (commerce clause). Nothing in the mandate itself was re-worded.
SCOTUS decided that if a law is not aimed at the expression of religion, but rather has an incidental effect of impacting one's religious expression in its requirement that all comply with the law, the State has supremacy.
However, the issue was drug use, so I can't be confident that Scalia (who ruled for the state of Oregon) would follow the same line of reasoning in a case involving artificial birth control, something his religion objects to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
