Posted on 06/04/2018 10:52:48 AM PDT by yoe
Video
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
People can always go somewhere else for their needs....
I’m truly underwhelmed by this Napolitano guy.
Isn’t he a homo? That might explain it.
Add m to that long list.
Thinking he’s compromised.
I will now ignore him.
Wonder when he’ll make his debut on Morning Joe?
Put me on the underwhelmed list, right after 1op.
Dangerous to whom?
That is a good question. He prides himself on being a Libertarian, and that doesn’t sound like one does it? I won’t waste my time or bandwidth listening to his comments, but maybe someone else will and let us know.
I think the Hobby Lobby case involving the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate offers a better approach for dealing with the whole idea of religious liberty.
In the Hobby Lobby case, they successfully appealed -- in Federal court -- the insurance coverage mandate on religious liberty grounds. The key to their appeal was that they were able to demonstrate two things:
1. They are a privately-owned company that functions as a closed corporation (i.e., they are not publicly traded, and they maintain full control over who can own shares in the company).
2. Their Christian beliefs are written into their corporate bylaws, which means their business operations cannot be separated from their Christianity.
I don’t believe this case is the victory some think. As I understand it, the Court didn’t say that the baker was free to reject cakes for gays for religious reasons, they said the baker had been discriminated against by hostile Colorado Gov’t officials, at least one of whom went on the record as ridiculing the baker for his Christian beliefs. It was on a 7-2 vote, so it wasn’t a narrow decision, but it was decided on very narrow grounds that might not apply to other cases.
For the last year or so I’ve been disregarding virtually everything I’ve heard him say.
With all due respect, Napolitano’s role at Fox was always overstated. He is NOT a constitutional scholar at all and his experience is limited to the New Jersey superior court STATE bench. He has never once ruled on federal issues that the SCOTUS looks at regularly as a professional judge. If you think the television program “Power of Attorney” is what prepares someone to disagree with legal minds like Scalia or Gorsuch.... just give it up man. Napolitano has always been a fraud.
Is Judge Nap speaking like a 2nd or 3rd year law student again? He needs to be careful.
Ignore the judge. Just enjoy our victory over the butt muncher mafia...
I thought it was just me.
I read an analysis of this from some other lawyer this morning that was critical of the ruling, in essence, for not going for enough.
Meaning the baker is not limited to declining business with someone “JUST” on religious grounds ergo he thinks it’s dangerous also.
I agree with the same guys final point though which was “well, it’s a Scotus victory for “The Right” against “The Left” so he’ll take it.
Pretty sure he is.
That's a bingo!
In a free and rational country, the God-given natural right to private property includes ownership rights. The right of ownership means that the owner has the right to use and dispose of his own property as he wishes as long as it does not violate the rights of others, It is not dangerous because their are no conflicts of interests and no force or aggression when property is handled this way.
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.