- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Even though the two Supreme Court decisions went 5-4 in conservative favor
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:22 am
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:22 am
It is still frightening that we have 4 Supreme Court Justices who wipe their arse with the constitution. It shouldn't be that close. The framers are spinning in their graves once again - I am sure they have spun so much that they have made cotton candy out of the cobwebs by this point
15
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:23 am to goldennugget
blah blah blah, i didn't get my way, they must not understand the constitution.
Sheesh. And I probably agree with you on how I'd like to see the cases go.
Sheesh. And I probably agree with you on how I'd like to see the cases go.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:23 am to goldennugget
Agreed. We are close tobeing completely fricked
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:24 am to goldennugget
Are you dumb? In Harris, the entire issue was whether they were bound by precedent. the liberals said they were - that's hardly something novel in courts.
I haven't read the other dissent, and I know you haven't either, so you make an assumption based on your preconceived notions. Which is dumb.
I haven't read the other dissent, and I know you haven't either, so you make an assumption based on your preconceived notions. Which is dumb.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:24 am to Pettifogger
What part of the constitution:
1. Grants the government the power to force private businesses to provide contraception for their employees
2. Forces private families taking care of their elderly/disabled loved ones in the privacy of their own home to join a union
1. Grants the government the power to force private businesses to provide contraception for their employees
2. Forces private families taking care of their elderly/disabled loved ones in the privacy of their own home to join a union
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:26 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Are you dumb? In Harris, the entire issue was whether they were bound by precedent. the liberals said they were - that's hardly something novel in courts.
Precedent is a worthless concept these days - a faulty case/ruling is still a faulty case/ruling and anything that uses the precedent of it is flawed too
Roe vs. Wade is a highly flawed ruling, but its precedent is still unfortunately used
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:26 am to goldennugget
You do know that Hobby Lobby turned on the RFRA, which is not a constitutional provision?
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:27 am to goldennugget
quote:
1. Grants the government the power to force private businesses to provide contraception for their employees
You might want to look into that opinion
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:27 am to goldennugget
Yea, people like you should not be allowed to post about things they have no basic concept concerning.
5-4 decisions! Oh, the liberals are crazy.
5-4 decisions! Oh, the liberals are crazy.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:28 am to Pettifogger
quote:well said.
blah blah blah, i didn't get my way, they must not understand the constitution.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:28 am to Pettifogger
quote:
You might want to look into that opinion
Tell me where in the constitution that this power is granted to the federal government
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:28 am to goldennugget
If you knew anything about "the framers" - specifically Washington, Hamilton, Madison etc - you would realize how absurd your position is. In fact, do a little research on the Whiskey Rebellion & get back to us.
This post was edited on 6/30/14 at 9:42 am
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:29 am to goldennugget
edit: I thought this was the news thread.
This post was edited on 6/30/14 at 9:32 am
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:29 am to goldennugget
quote:
The framers are spinning in their graves once again
Can we stop with this ridiculous statement? Nobody knows how the framers would react to any Supreme Court decision.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:32 am to goldennugget
Any time "religious freedom" gets branded on a case or issue, people blow it up to be so much more than what it is in reality. This Hobby Lobby decision is so freaking narrow and doesn't affect the validity of Obamacare one bit. SCOTUS already had the opportunity to give Obamacare the poison pill, but Bush-appointed and friend of the religious right John Roberts went in favor.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:33 am to jonboy
quote:
If you new anything about "the framers" - specifically Washington, Hamilton, Madison etc - you would realize how absurd your position is. In fact, do a little research on the Whiskey Rebellion & get back to us.
Yes, because calling out the army to suppress an armed insurrection protesting a tax passed by an elected assembly THAT THEY VOTED FOR is totally the same as the government forcing business owners to pay for specific consumer products for their citizens.
Read the Constitution some time. It's not long, and it provides the framework for an incredibly small and limited federal government with very specific, limited, and well-defined powers. If you compare that government to the one we have, the document is unrecognizable. We haven't just strayed from it, our government has completely ignored it.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:35 am to goldennugget
quote:
Tell me where in the constitution that this power is granted to the federal government
Tell me where in the Constitution limitations on speech are granted to the federal government.
The RFRA won today. It protects CHCs from the contraception mandate. That is a good thing. It wasn't a First Amendment challenge.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:37 am to Rickety Cricket
As they just pointed out on Scotusblog, the HL opinion may actually be a death blow to other nonprofits because: "The majority opinion, by holding that the nonprofit accommodation is a less restrictive means for accommodating closely held for-profit business suggests (at least to me) that the non-profits who object to that process (because they don't want to have to certify that they object to providing contraceptive coverage) are in trouble. Seems unlikely the Court would say that this is a less restrictive means in this case, only to later hold that it is unconstitutional."
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:46 am to FalseProphet
quote:Hobby Lobby should have been a 9-0 decision. It was never a case about women's rights. It was a question of forced payment for service. Not too far afield from forcing a Jewish shop owner to financially support Hamas because he supports Jewish causes.
Yea, people like you should not be allowed to post about things they have no basic concept concerning.
5-4 decisions! Oh, the liberals are crazy.
Just ridiculous.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 9:49 am to NC_Tigah
The case didn't turn on whether the government could force HL to provide the coverage. In fact, all it said was that the government's method was not the least restrictive, because other non-profits had already received exemptions.
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News