Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE



    Score one for the Christian companies and the 1st Amendment. In a hotly contested political setback for liberals SCOTUS ruled, 5-4, they do not have to pay for contraceptives according to the law.

    Me thinks Roberts is looking like a genius after allowing O BUMMER CARE into law. He just wanted his court to look fair in the eyes of history all the while knowing it might fall under it's own weight as it was doing.

    And now his fair court is throwing out key parts of it already that were important to certain people but it only applies to Christian companies at that under the 1st Amendment.

    Justice Ginsberg wrote that the court was walking into a mine field.


    http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politi...ion/index.html
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-02-2014 at 03:52 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    25,822
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    I kind of see this as a good thing and a bad thing.

    The good I see is that I don't think that any law should mandate someone has to pay for something they don't directly use or need. Regardless of religious belief, making an 80 year old have to pay for a health insurance policy that includes contraception is pretty over the top nonsensical.

    The bad I see is this could now pave the way for religious zealots to make a case that other laws and statutes shouldn't apply to them because it infringes on their religious beliefs. I just see this being potentially abused.

    This is why they should have looked at the damn ACA law with a fine toothed comb before declaring it law to begin with. Things like this could have been considered and addressed a year ago.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Good post except for the other laws. There's so much crap that's covered and spot on about looking more at the law. We were just discussing tonight. I said the justices even joked about not reading all of the law. I think it was Kennedy who said do you expect us to read this entire law or is this something our law clerks can do? ILAMO

    Point is, nobody has read the thousands of pages except those that wrote it.

    I asked my waitress tonight if she got cheap insurance and said said it's reasonable but not cheap. She didn't even know it covered this stuff. People don't know that it also covers other stuff.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 03:59 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  4. #4

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Btw, maybe her rates aren't so cheap because over the thanksgiving holiday OBY raised taxes by 3% to cover O BUMMER CARE which is exactly what we said they would do. I was arguing with someone about this on FB who said he got cheap insurance.

    I said that cheap insurance just got more expensive over the weekend and you didn't even know it.

    Three % isn't much now but it will go up and up. Nothing is free or cheap.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.
    Great, great post.

    The liberal judges vote party line on all major cases like this while GOPs like Roberts and Kennedy will cross over at times.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    25,822
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.
    I agree.

    In fact, judges (especially SCOTUS) should not be affiliated with any party.

    I've always disliked that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  8. #8

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    The cheapest plans provide little coverage except to bail the government out of paying the bill for uninsured , now after the 6000 deductible. That plan costs the government 6000 a year.... and pay for a checkup a year and small tests. Its a rip-off.
    Way Down South in New Orleans




  9. #9

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    What Obama got was a bad deal in....
    Way Down South in New Orleans




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,151

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I agree.

    In fact, judges (especially SCOTUS) should not be affiliated with any party.

    I've always disliked that.
    Pretty sure at the federal level, you cannot be party affiliated. I'll have to ask my wife.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    25,822
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Pretty sure at the federal level, you cannot be party affiliated. I'll have to ask my wife.
    Sure doesn't seem that way!
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,151

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Sure doesn't seem that way!
    Well, there's a difference between legal philosophy and political parties.

    The right tends to nominate textualists (believe in the concept of a dead Constitution) and the left nominates constructionists (believe in a living Constitution). And even then, it's not a guarantee the person you nominate will vote along the lines you believed they will. It's a crap shoot, especially at the level of SCOTUS.

    Many federal judges gave up on party politics long before their nominations. Outside of making campaign contributions, I think it's fairly common they stop affiliating with parties long before they put on their robes.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland