Posted on 07/09/2014 9:10:41 AM PDT by maggief
Remeber when obamacare got past the SCOTUS? It was all “hey it’s law so deal with it”............................ Not now though huh?
It’s in the penumbra!
So Democrats make a law (obamacare) that requires employers to fund abortafacients over their religious objections. The law is ruled unconstitutional because it violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. Then the Democrats propose a law requiring employers to find abortifacients over the employers’ religious objections.
What’s the definition of insanity again?
Why not just put a big fence around Detroit .... sort of like ‘Escape From New York”
Exactly!
The Senate Dems are so totally clueless, to expect they can create a law that wouldn’t be tossed out of the same Supreme Court as unconstitional. But then again, they’re depending on the same cluelessness in their base voting block to eat this up (i.e., create votes in November) as if it were going to stand up to legal scrutiny.
That’s right. If they get a SCOTUS ruling, it’s the law. But if a state votes down homosexual marriage, they get a friendly judge to overturn the law. Now they don’t like the Court, so they’re trying a `reach-around.’ Just more grandstanding from a sleepwalking Congress.
And it’s worth repeating thousands of times a day—for six years now, the GOPee does nothing but encourage the Democrats to break the law. Wait a second, the Boehners, McCains, Linseeds and McConnells do keep busy ... fighting conservatives.
If your contraception is none of your boss’s business, why do you expect your boss to pay for it?
For the most part it wasn't a constitutional decision. It was about the application of the RFRA. Congress can exempt federal laws from the RFRA, but I don't think it has any chance of passing. This is an election year stunt.
Quote; “The Senate Dems are so totally clueless, . . .”
No they are not, they are just desperate to do something to stem the tide of bad news that just keeps on coming. They have two tactics, “Blame Bush” and “War on Women.” Who is to say that they will not get somewhere with the War on Women thing again. Until an effective counter to this nonsense is found, it could very well save a few seats for the dems.
I dunno, to me the perfect counter is to belittle the entire tactic as being a joke in light of the totality of the problems that face us. We face Obamacare, a skyrocketing debt, underemployment of record proportions, skyrocketing energy costs due to dependence on foreign oil, a crisis on our own border, the NSA spying on us, the IRS auditing us, our personnel being left to die in Libya while the administration blames a video and a foreign policy that is making America the joke of the world and the democrats want to talk about a pill!?!? Is that all they can handle, is a pill? The world burns, our country burns and they want to talk about a pill. Ok, we can talk about that but do they mind if we tackle some other minor (cough) issues first?
`reach-around.’...........*snicker*
It’s not insanity.
It’s good fundraising marketing. Scare a bunch of gullable people into thinking birth control is being taken away. Propose legislation to “prevent” that from happening. When the Republicans kill the bill, send out fundraising requests to the scared, gullable people telling them that only their donations will help overcome the threat from the extreme, antiwoman right wing GOP.
Then sit back and watch $$$ flow in ...
Can someone else please remind our friends on the left what it means to “reverse” or “overturn” a decision of the Supreme Court!
You can not do this with a bill, law, or even an amendment. Only a future SCOTUS ruling can do that. When the two other branches make administrative or legislative changes to get their desired result, then that does not constitute a “reversal” of the decision, but rather a required accommodation in deference to the interpretation of existing law provided by the ruling.
In fact, administrative actions (such as those already provided for religious NOT-for-profit corporations), were explicitly suggested by some writing for the majority. And naturally, the act of changing a law upon which a ruling is based is an obvious remedy, and therefore does not need to be mentioned in an opinion.
It truly dismays me that quotes by left-leaning politicians and media that refer to “overturning” or “reversing” this decision have gone unchallenged.
Certainly, from their point of view, I can understand why the left and their media allies don’t want to frame this with a more accurate headline like:
“Having Failed at an Illegal Mandate, Democrats Defer to Hobby Lobby Ruling to Find a Legal Alternative”
However, I am surprised that, so far, I seem to be the only one challenging them for referring to their efforts as somehow seeking to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision.
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.