Posted on 11/20/2012 1:12:51 PM PST by NYer
At the very least they should try it.
Fight for their principles.
Right to the end. Make Holder’s thugs arrest the execs.
My guess is a lot of patriots would turn out to make that a difficult arrest scenario.
Look at our taglines...
you are not alone.
My wife and I run a successful family business as well and there is no way we can keep it open....It was going to pay for my daughters college I guess not anymore.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Catholic Hospitals. The Catholic Hospitals really must resist or shut down, otherwise, they will be promoting 0-care and violating their principles.
A Catholic Hospital shutdown might even be a good thing if it creates massive access problems that can be blamed on 0bama and 0-care. The government could counter by moving to full blown socialized medicine, but that would not solve the problem of a lack of hospitals and providers.
They will shut them down IMHO and Obee tried a takeover of the facilities that might be the only thing that wake up the sleeping idiots. That is another level it they do that...
What if Hobby Lobby and other CHRISTIANS do not want to just “move on”. What if they answer to someone higher than Obama?
The judge is a Bush appointee, confirmed in 2001 by a Republican congress, and seems to have a Republican past.
I guess he just didn’t want to get hammered by the pundits and the media, so he took the easy way out.
I thought the same thing.
Ultimately, the Obama Administration’s overreaching in this area is going to be met by resistance and nothing but resistance. They have no idea what a s*itstorm they are unleashing every time a case like this comes to public attention. They have overconfidently assumed everyone would just roll over for them-—they were mistaken.
When people push back against these mandates, it’s going to be harder and harder for the Social Engineers to keep pressing their case: at a certain point it will be unmasked as the authoritarian intimidation it is , and always was.
The will suffer a precipitous decline in public approval, not just for this, but most of the rest of their agenda. Someday soon,
these stories will start getting the exposure they deserve;
until then, 98% of the voting public simply won’t know these stories even exist.
Joe gave the pro forma responses. One item was addressed to him by, I believe, the exceptionally evil and obnoxious Senator Leahy.
This was Question 5
"Question 5: In 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not allow states to criminally prosecute people who burn American flags as a political protest.
The Court said that, ``IMP there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'' Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414.
Immediately following the ruling, you called the Supreme Court's decision ``out of whack'' and advocated for a state resolution urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration. (Source: Ron Jenkins, Lawmakers Ponder Proposed Flag- Burning Amendment, Tulsa World, July 2,1989, at A2.]
Do you continue to adhere to this characterization of the Supreme Court's opinion that the majority was ``out of whack?"
Do you believe that flag burning is a form of political expression, which, no matter how offensive we might find it, is protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantees?
Would you have any difficulties adhering to the letter and the spirit of this decision if it provided controlling legal authority in a case before you?
Answer: In light of the decision in Johnson, the law is clear that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantees and I would certainly have no difficulty in applying that rule and standard in any case coming before me. My earlier characterization of the Supreme Court decision as a legislative policy matter would have no bearing on my rulings if confirmed as a district judge.
I recognize the critical, central role of free speech (including expressive conduct) in our constitutional scheme and in our society generally, and would have no difficulty in adhering to the letter and spirit of the controlling authorities in this area."
The inescapable conclusion is ol'joe perjured himself before the Senate at his confirmation hearing.
He should step down or be impeached ~ there's nothing clearer than that.,P>See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg82503/html/CHRG-107shrg82503.htm
Wait until Obama gets to pack HIS SCOTUS with 1 or 2 more "Progressive" judges. Elections DO have consequences.
The O-bots are counting on exactly that — Catholic hospitals shutting down. It gives them the perfect excuse to step in and “fill the gap” with, as you say, full-blown socialized medicine. All part of the scheme.
Yesterday I heard from a very distressed friend in Canada. She was in the emergency room with her fevered, vomitting toddler. They’d been there 7 hours already, still no one available to see them. Same friend — last year her sister was suspected of having breast cancer. It took almost a full five months before a biopsy was done (which confirmed the diagnosis).
Get used to it, folks. This is what Amerikkka have been begging for.
I think that Obama will end poorly.
Finally Obama does something to stimulate the economy - I will CONTINUE to support Hobby Lobby, CONTINUE to support Chick-Fil-A, etc.
And, wherever possible I will continue to AVOID companies that support the leftist regime.
And while this is going on, the Senate wants to pass a bill that allows the government to read our emails.
We are on the way to becoming like Venezuela, I’m afraid.
“Savita’s family thanks you for your support.”
Those that love abortion can pay for their own abortions. You can donate to abortion clinics like I donate to pregnancy centers that support life.
50 million abortions in the US. How many were for the mother’s life?
Moveon.org loves abortion, you can probably make some friends there.
Who is being adversely affected by an employer deciding the terms of their health care plan or whether they will offer one at all? You're not forced to work there, and you can also opt out of their plan and buy your own.
You might be adversely affected if your job requires manual labor vs. a desk job too. Once again, it's your choice to work there or not.
Since this whole level of health care regulation is a massive, unnecessary, unwarranted government overreach to begin with, any kind of bedrock constitutional principles should naturally take precedence over it. This is a case where any judge worth his salt should err on the side of the constitution.
Under this system of federal health care regulation, a system to which constitutional limits apparently do not apply, what is there to stop the government from requiring that all females are circumcised?
Employees could afford their own policies if government intervention, control and regulation wasn't driving up the cost of health care so much.
It is, rather, a move to conscript private business owners into a political agenda, forcing them to facilitate and fund services that violate their religious beliefs and ethical judgments, within their own businesses. It would be analogous to the government requiring the American Cancer Society to give their staffers a monthly carton of Marlboros as a employee benefit, or a drug counseling agency to give out coupons for suicide kits.
If this si true I willbe getting hand sliced bacon from the Muzzie place down the road, especially during Ramadan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.