Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thanks ..... any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

seems like it most often ends with someone running out of talking points and dodges and resulting to insults after being asked a few simple question to help clarify his belief on what is truly at the heart of the debate which might help come to some common understanding...one can declare "normalized reality", but if you don't define what normal is, reality is what to make up as you go along and see fit....the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all, and continue to argue about Constitutional issues without explaining whether or not you believe the Constitution applies them is to "debate" without any purpose avoiding what is at the heart of the debate ...and then we complain that the country is divided

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all,

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

I have no certainty that the case will go the way that it clearly should. I just don't understand why it's not 9-0 in favor of HL. I do think they will win 5-4, but I am no means certain of it. And even a 5-4 victory for HL means that there are 4 Supreme Court justices who don't have even a basic understanding of the Constitution.

Do you know when a decision is expected?

[Nebe]

Well this is interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/hobb...rce=newsletter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Well this is interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/hobb...rce=newsletter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good lord...

First, the article begins with the notion that HL has "qualms with basic medical care " That tells you what you need to know about the author's point of view. So if I don't feel responsible for paying for Sandra Fluke's rubbers, then I don't support basic medical care!

When they offer 401(k)s to employees, they are supposed to check the business practices of every single company whose stocked is owned by every single mutual fund they offer.

Nebe, there's this pesky constitution again. Even if I concede that HL's owners are hypocrites, the constitution even applies to hypocrites. It doesn't matter.

This is a naked attempt to blame the person asking the question (like they did with Joe The Plumber), rather than dealing with the constitutionality of HL's question.

I don't care if HL has condom machines in the bathroom. If so, that's their choice. Choosing to do something, and being forced by the feds to do something, are not the same thing. I chose to give $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing all of us to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose such a law on constitutional grounds. I guess, to the deep thinkers at Salon magazine, that makes me a hypocrite? Hardly.

[Nebe]

crickets...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

crickets...

How's this...

The Constitution applies to all of us, even to business owners who are despised by the editors of Salon magazine.

Nebe, instead of tryng to prove that the HL owners are hyopocritical jerks, try telling me why the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

I interpreted the news as 75% of the funds that are in the 401(k), have some exposure to those companies. If that's true (and I'm not saying it is), I'm not sure I see much of a scandal.

As I have said...I choose to give a lot of $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing people to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose that law as being unconstitutional. Doe sthat make me a hypocrite? Not in my opinion. If I endorse somehtnig personally (say, contraception), that's not the same thing as saying I support the government's right to mandate it.

I thought liberals were in favor of 'choice'. I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere. Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

If you asked me to give you $15,000 dollars and I refused to do so, would I be "forcing" my values on you and removing choices you can make?

Are the employees of HL so totally dependent on the company that it determines the values they live by and the choices they make?

If the government "forces" LH to give you something and it refuses to do so, what value has LH "forced" on you and what choices has LH removed from you?

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

Please explain how the store's owners are forcing their values on anyone. Be specific. And good luck, because you cannot succeed.

One. Last. Time. The owners are not trying to convert their employees to Christianity, the employers are not trying to convince their employees not to use condoms with the wages provided by the owners.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

And worse, most of the drugs they're now opposing they openly covered before the ACA was passed. You might wonder if the Citizens United case laid the groundwork for this suit to even happen.

Not to mention that their religious argument isn't even backed by science.

The more I read about this case the less chance is has of passing.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

since we(spence) yawns and discredits sources on a regular basis here...I'd just note that the Forbes article was written by Rick Ungar who describes himself as "I write from the left on politics and policy" and references the Mother Jones article as the premise for his article and continues from there, the Washington Post article by Gail Sullivan also references the Mother Jones article to launch her article and WOW...this is a shocker but the salon.com article also references the Mother Jones article to launch that article...head bone connected to the tail bone......and so since we all know that Mother Jones is ...well....biased just a tad???? can we play Spence's game and discount this as useless info from left wing neocommie rags? don't see it in any mainstream...oh wait...the dailykos.com ...has it too...geez

[spence]

There was another Salon article last week about how the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government.

This whole thing is a stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There was another Salon article last week about how the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government.

This whole thing is a stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government."

Oh My God! Are you saying that these citizens have the audacity to express their personal opinions to their duly elected representatives?! Can we send them to the showers?

Spence, when teachers unions donate huge $$ to Democrats, aren't they trying to "inject their values into government"?

Come on...

"This whole thing (freedom of religion, and by extension, the constitution) is a stunt"

[detbuch]

The mutual fund managers choose which securities to invest in. I would assume most mutual funds would include pharmaceutical stock which would be very beneficial, financially, to the mutual fund's investors, and would be wise choices for the managers to make. The investors don't get to decide what the prospectus of the portfolio is, or to customize with their choice of securities. The investors are trading with the mutual fund, not the individual companies that make up the portfolio. The Salon article could also have found other products that various companies in the portfolios manufactured which were not contraceptive related but also against personal values of HL owners. It would probably not be possible for them to invest in any mutual funds if all the products which were produced by the companies which make up the portfolios had to be morally pure to the HL owners.

And, the pharmaceutical companies that create abortifacients also produce many life saving products. Can the companies be separated from their good and evil products. Should HL also bar the life saving drugs from their health insurance plans because the companies also produce abortifacients?

Should the HL owners prohibit themselves from using the various "wonder" drugs available to help with heart, cholesterol, blood pressure, cancer, etc. etc., or the topical ointments for skin problems, etc., etc., because the companies also produce abortifacients. Now if the HL owners themselves used the abortion pills they don't want to provide, THAT would be the hypocrisy, the lying, the "stunt," that should be their downfall.

The HL owners cannot control what the rest of the world does, nor what all the companies which make those things we live by produce. It would be virtually impossible for the HL'rs to exist in society if they had to abstain from every necessity, or useful items, if those things had to be pure of touch by something or someone who or which was disapproved by their religion. Even the government is comprised of individuals or regulations that run counter to their belief. Render unto Caesar what it Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must. It is not only about what is Caesar's and what is God's, it is about fundamental unalienable rights, and if we actually have them. And if the HL owners are consistent, they would support the right of Muslims and of atheists, or believers in Gaea, or pantheists, of agnostics, or centrists, or "liberals," or "conservatives," or even devil worshippers, to refuse to offer government dictated insurance.

If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.

[scottw]

=detbuch;1037743

And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must.

If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.[/QUOTE]



seems to be the preferred mode of argument "personal opinion" for the likely more educated and holders of superior judgment crowd..."it would appear based on what I've read(at Mother Jones)" are paramount... Constitutional questions completely ignored...

this was great...

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?[QUOTE


simple...no...maybe..which law? (the one which Obama seems to change continually as he sees fit in true "law is the law" fashion) can we substitute "birth control" with other things and have the simple "law is the law" still apply ?? if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by scottw

=detbuch;1037743
if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....

Ha ha ha, my post was to include some humor in this thread...

Switching gears...my wife works for one of the largest companies in the world, they mandated this year that all prescription drugs covered under their plan must be bought through CVS and CVS only. No more Walgreens.

Also, my company doesn't include coverage for rubbers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

We are arguing inside the fog of transition. It is a sort of parallel to the fog of war. Things, or issues, are not clearly understood or defined. Foe is often perceived to be friend, or vice versa. With the best of intention, we kill that or who would save us. Because we see through the fictional "truth" of the fluid moment rather than the stable truth of principles and fundamentals, we see through a glass darkly.

There is no argument among those "in the know," the generals outside the pitch of battle, what the battle is about and who the enemy is. Those in the obscure heat of combat are merely following orders. So they follow the party line or the generals' commands, and often destroy each other.

There is no longer a debate, among "those who know" that we are in transition, that we are being transformed from a constitutional republic to a "progressive" authoritarian State. And the true battle is between those who wish to transform us and those who wish to resist and maintain the constitutional order. Most of the rest of us are enlisted as the grunts who provide the fodder for political war.

The leaders of transformation welcome the fog, in fact create it by not defining the ultimate mission. They did define it long ago, but the grunts were still attached to "outdated" notions of individual freedoms and constitutional protections against the very government that would supposedly free them from the tyranny of the wealthy class. Initial victories were gained, but eventually turned back and progressive government lost some of the freedom it had gained to "free" the people, and had to go underground. It no longer could clearly define its mission, but had to undermine the basis for the supposedly outdated constitutional order by co-opting it. Progressive government re-emerged more strongly by convincing the grunts that it was actually operating constitutionally. This tactic propelled it into dominance, and it has constantly gained ground against the old order, to the point that its grunts no longer question it. They accept that "history" has changed and "progressed" to a point that we no longer need to fear government, that it is the benefactor not the oppressor, that it, and it alone is our protector against a ruling class who would steal every penny we own and subject us to the slavery of supporting the 1% that robs us of wealth, dignity, and true "effective" freedom.

It is no longer necessary for the most part that progressive government even pretend to follow the Constitution, not only has it re-written it by judicial fiat, but their grunts no longer consider it a factor. So it is understandable that when a Hobby Lobby, or a baker, or photographer resists government mandate on personal individual, or even constitutional, grounds, the progressive grunts "see" that as "forcing" their values on others, but do not see government mandates as forcing its dictates on individuals. For them, government is not forcing, it has become the legitimate arbiter and decider of law, ethics, purpose, and method of existence. It is not a power of force, it is a creative power. It creates our reality. Reality cannot be forced, it just is.

Those who oppose this, "see" that government is to serve the ends of the people rather than people serving the ends of government . . . that individuals are the creators, and that government serves their freedom to create. They are not as much in need of grunts as their opponents since they are the acting grunts. They wish to convince the opposing grunts to join them . . . to understand that "grunts" are the true power. That in a truly liberal society, the grunts run the show. The show is about them, not about a ruling party or power, progressive or otherwise. But that to rule, as a united people, they must have a common ground acceptable to all on which to govern themselves. They understand that system of government has already been created by individual forbears who created a limited government to protect all against the real or possible tyranny of an overly powerful or all-powerful ruling class.

So there is an intellectual and political battle fought in the fog of thrown out bombs and fragments posed as issues and mandates which supposedly create fairness, equality, and freedom, but which actually deny those to some in favor of others, and eventually ensnare even those who were once favored into the same vortex of losing their "rights." There is the confusion that these are LAWS and are legitimately imposed by a beneficent government which is an irresistible force of history and should be obeyed because those who resist are antiquated, anti-historical, laughable retrogrades who do not understand the transformational purpose of government. These backward types, supposedly, do not understand that progressive government, the type of government that history has created, does not force, it creates. And it is legitimate because history, not individuals, not the People, not some supernatural or mystical or unknowable force, is the true creator.

And through that fog, the other side argues that history is entirely the reflective product of people, not that people are a product of history. This side argues that history is a record of human events. Without humanity, there is no history, and if humans wished, they could stop writing history, or, as many do, rewrite it. History is more imperfect than individuals since it is a second generation product created by individuals. We cannot be ruled by historical force, since we create the history which has no force beyond our recognition. And so, this side sees progressive government not as an historical imperative that must be obeyed, but as the rule of men who impose their will on others. That progressive government actually does FORCE the dictates of some people on other people. And this side does not see resistance to that force as forcing their values on others, but as preserving their own.

So long as there is no common basis for government there can be no resolution for what government is. That progressives are about transforming our society and its system of government is not in question. They have openly avowed to doing so. Their tactics may have been untruthful, but in war all is "fair." And the political fog of debate that has been created is the transitional one we are in. The discussions we have here pass by each other in parallel but opposite directions. The ends and the means are different, and cannot be reconciled. As in most wars, only victory will decide, not argument or compromise. Compromise is always temporary since it does not allow the fundamental differences to be fully satisfied, and the fight will eventually resurface until somebody "wins" with a total victory.

And that's what the ACA and the myriad of federal regulations which are outside the scope of the original Constitution are about. Even in using it's bogus "constitutional" power to mandate what we must buy, it was not necessary to force the majority of people who have medical insurance to undergo higher costs and deductibles as well as limiting their choices, all in order to provide insurance for the uninsured (actually to FORCE the uninsured to get insurance). All of the progressive anti-constitutional mandates eventually assure total victory of progressive government over constitutional government.

And so, in the meantime, we grunts are reduced by political fog to arguing about health plans, and who invested in what, and who are hypocrites, and who is forcing who, and who should have insurance, and who should pay for it, and what should be in insurance plans, and should they provide contraceptives for everyone (really!?! most people can't afford them?), and a myriad of trifling tidbits, and the obfuscation hides the ultimate objectives.

Which grunts are destroying each other in this fog of war with friendly fire is debatable. If you wish to preserve your individual and unalienable rights beyond the reach of government, but, in order to claim victory for your progressive side, you destroy those rights of others, you are destroying the protection of your own. And if, in the pursuit of your personal happiness, as a "conservative" you choose to fight for the right to do so beyond the reach of government, by accomplishing that you destroy the rights of others and government to impose on you, or, as well, to impose on those who fight against you.

One side fights for everyone's unalienable right not to be unlimitedly imposed on by government, the other fights for the government's "right" to impose without restriction on their "enemy," and so gains the government the right to impose without limitation on all, including on themselves. The fog of political war obscures who the enemy really is.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.

yeah..I don't think Paul is gonna make it through all of that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Ha ha ha, my post was to include some humor in this thread...

Also, my company doesn't include coverage for rubbers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it was pretty funny...no penis enlargements then probably huh?...too bad...because then since the law is the law other companies that do what your's does could be forced to provide enlarged penises for everyone if your's provided them under certain logic...pretty simple...no? ....pretty funny...yes

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by scottw

I thought it was pretty funny...no penis enlargements then probably huh?...too bad...because then since the law is the law other companies that do what your's does could be forced to provide enlarged penises for everyone if your's provided them under certain logic...pretty simple...no? ....pretty funny...yes

I work with a bunch of #^&#^&#^&#^&s anyway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

The more I think of it the better off we are here. Anyone ever been in a Hobby Lobby? We as a society don't want these people reproducing...trust me.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Fox news had it.....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Fox news had it.....

then it's definitely a lie

interesting reactions to the Supreme Court yesterday on another Constitutional issue, seems the same folks who are happy to continually expand the purview of the federal government, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy as a result of their time as "public servants", are somehow shocked and surprised that they can't keep the money out of politics

Hobby Lobby...or...."Lobby Hobby" ...should simply point out that the president has not followed his own "law is the law" since day 1....randomly granting waivers and moving deadlines(sidenote...Syria has missed every deadline since the redline, I no longer understand what a deadline is other than it's completely arbitrary)...regress...choosing to enforce or not enforce "laws is the laws"....my 4th graders are studying government and the Constitution and they understand that this and these are not the powers granted the executive but the brightest among us don't seem to have an issue with it...Mother Jones should do an investigation