Posted on 03/26/2014 10:49:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With the Roberts court, I wouldn’t make a bet on anything.
But the government mouthpiece is making some interesting noises. Starts to sound a bit like a religious test of office.
I feel the same way about the Constitution-trampling, America-hating commie DemocRAT justices. Can we “trust” them?
They believe in separation of church and state.
They believe the government should be able to force people to worship as the government dictates.
They believe all SC justices should be atheists or, at least, keep their mouths shut.
Roberts I dunno????????
My first thought also.
A couple of brief observations. 1) The First Amendment does not mention anything about personhood, individual or corporate. 2) If corporations cannot have a religion, how could a state, a city or the federal government?
Kennedy is the one to worry about in this case.
If the previous “news coverage” of previous SCOTUS arguments give us a hint, then we should not be counting out chickens just yet for a Hobby Lobby victory. Remember when conservative commentators on Fox News were gushing over the grilling 6 SCOTUS justices gave the Obama SG when hearing arguments for the repeal of Obamacare? Ends up being turned on its head in the decision.
My observation is when a justice asks these piercing questions to put an attorney off guard or grill them, they usually have their minds up in favor for the side getting grilled and just do it to clear out the little remaining doubt they have in their minds.
At least the past few years that has been the norm.
There are actually 6 liberals sitting SCOTUS justices. Kennedy is no swing vote at all (liberal). I will let you decide which of the remaining 4 justices is the last "masked liberal." It is not Thomas, not Scalia, not Alito...oops gave it up.
They are all getting up there in years and thinking about meeting their Maker. What an inconvenience.
Actually after yesterday I think Kennedy is in the bag for the government. The decision will most likely be in favor for the government 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the majority.
Right, but in case they don,t what every one needs to do is dissolve the corporations.
I don,t know how it would be done but there is a difference between a company and a corp.
Obama's SG yesterday fed Kennedy (and Roberts too) the "solution" to keep the contraception mandate intact. He offered that a corporation could just drop the healthcare coverage and have the employees sign up with the Obamacare exchanges. A most clever statist suggestion which the court will take to a 6-3 vote in favor of the government (Kennedy and Roberts will side with the majority).
Here’s why Hobby Lobby will win:
The left is arguing that as individuals everyone has first amendment religious rights, but once a group forms a corporation, those rights are lost and become subject to government regulation.
If this is the case, then it must also be true that individual journalists have a right to freedom of the press, but once those journalists come together to form a corporation aka New York Times, CNN, FoxNews, then they would also lose their First Amendment rights and be subject to government regulation. If one situation it true, then the other situation must also be true as there is no differentiation between any of our First Amendment rights. They cannot make a case that one right is less or more than the others.
The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. That’s like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.
But the best argument is statutory and Hobby Lobby will win the case on these grounds alone. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act passed in 1993 (under Clinton) already makes it illegal for the government to pass any law that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. In this case we have a department of the executive branch attempting to reinterpret statutory law by issuing regulations. Sebelius clearly does not have the authority to do this, it belongs to the legislative branch alone.
We got them; and they WILL make up their own minds.
There is secular law of the land, and there is a Higher Law.
When there is disagreement between the two; I would hope that someone, who CLAIMS to follow and believe certain Religious precepts, would rule in a manner that reflects them!
A most clever statist suggestion which the court will take to a 6-3 vote in favor of the government (Kennedy and Roberts will side with the majority).>>>>>
Right, with justices like that we do not have a constitutional republic.
The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. That’s like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.>>>>>
Good thinking, and if that fails the Government should steal from the tax payers and buy our guns for us.
I believe that the tolerant and open minded folks at MSNBC should be congratulated for showing their religious tolerance and lack of religious bigotry. (MEGA-SARCASM)
I forgot to add: Has anyone checked to see if their KKK robes are back from the laundry, so they can wear them the next time they voice another similar religious toleration toward Catholics.
What about the Jews, mein reporteratrix?
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.