Supreme Court Will Take Up Religious-Freedom Challenge to Obamacare's Contraceptive Mandate


There are four cases the Supreme Court will review. In two cases, including the Hobby Lobby challenge, a court found for the plaintiffs; in the other two, courts ruled, get this, that the federal government has the power, and here I quote directly from the decisions, "to do like, whatever, man."

As there's a split in how the Courts of Appeal have ruled, it requires the Supreme Court to harmonize the decisions.

Arguments probably would take place in late March with a decision expected in late June.

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act...

The administration wants the court to hear its appeal of the Denver-based federal appeals court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain that calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays....

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said corporations can be protected by the 1993 law in the same manner as individuals, and "that the contraceptive-coverage requirement substantially burdens Hobby Lobby and Mardel's rights under" the law.

In its Supreme Court brief, the administration said the appeals court ruling was wrong and, if allowed to stand would make the law "a sword used to deny employees of for-profit commercial enterprises the benefits and protections of generally applicable laws."

In two other cases, courts ruled for the administration.

The Administration seems to define a conscience exception for the religiously-observant as a "sword."

All this stuff is about birth control, something that can be had for $100 per year, or less, of course. So the question is not about money or denying "benefits;" the benefits, tangibly speaking, are trivial.

It's about coercing one culture -- a traditionalist, religious one -- to accept the dominance of another culture -- "progressive," secularist.

Drew points out in an email that the instant case does not provide much opportunity to scale back Obamacare very much at all. At most, it seems, the Supreme Court would write a conscience exception into the law.

I have a wonderful fantasy, though. I've mentioned this fantasy before: The fantasy that the Supreme Court, looking at the wreckage of Obamacare, will seize upon an excuse to revisit the last Obamacare ruling. Not explicitly, mind you, but revisit it nonetheless.

My fantasy is that they are looking for any plausible contrivance by which to invalidate the law.

Gabe will say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

What would that contrivance look like? All I can imagine is something like this (and I do realize this is a stretch):

The law of Obamacare is incomplete and offensive to the Constitution in that it requires, according to Obama, constant modifications by unilateral executive action. The law, then, is not really a law, but, as Charles C.W. Cooke termed it, an "Enabling Act" that effectively delegates an enormous amount of legislative power to the executive -- which is forbidden. Minor things can be delegated to the executive (the Court has blessed the regulatory state, in which Congress passes laws, but the executive writes the actual regulations giving specificity to those commands and forbiddances), but this limited blessing of an already constitutionally-shaky state of affairs cannot be stretched and extended infinitely.

It cannot be extended to an executive power to rewrite the explicit text of the law.

So that's my fantasy-- that the Supreme Court will use this challenge to begin asking if Obamacare is actually a "law" or an impermissible "enabling act" which serves to transfer an unconstitutional amount of legislative power from Congress to the President.

How would they do that? Well, they wouldn't even have to strike the law down. They could say: The Administration and Congress have until January 1, 2015 to cover all these questions by actual law (that is, they have until that date to rewrite Obamacare such that it conforms to the standards of an actual law) or else the law will be stricken.

I do know this is a fantasy. I know Gabe is right when he says (or will say) I'm a dreamer. And I think it's sort of irresponsible to suggest fantasy as analysis.

However: I do think the Supreme Court -- especially John "It's a Tax" Roberts -- is feeling some buyer's remorse. And the Supreme Court is, get this, a political institution.

If Roberts blessed Obamacare to make the Court popular (which was one of his reasons, Jan Crawford reported: to preserve the popularity and authority of hte court), then towards what outcome would that motivation lead him now?

Oh Right: dananjcon writes:

Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.

I forgot.

Corrected: Gabe tells me there are four cases that need to be harmonized here, and they split 2 for plaintiffs, 2 for government. I have corrected (I had written there were three cases, 1 found in favor of plaintiffs, 2 in favor of government).

Posted by: Ace at 12:11 PM



Comments

1 First Amendment is a Tax - John Roberts.

Posted by: Chaos the other dark meat at November 26, 2013 12:13 PM (oDCMR)

2 I hope someday you will join us

Posted by: berserker lurker at November 26, 2013 12:13 PM (nijvp)

3 Why does opening a business removes your constitutional rights? I've never understood that.

Posted by: Invictus at November 26, 2013 12:14 PM (FBkKA)

4 I wonder how much birth control costs after it has been churned through the fiasco that is Obamacare.

Posted by: huerfano at November 26, 2013 12:14 PM (bAGA/)

5 How would this invalidate the entire law? Can it be broken up? If it can't, it may give the assholes in charge a way out.

Posted by: François Villon at November 26, 2013 12:14 PM (kkbgQ)

6 I jumped the shark on Obamacare. Maybe I can redeem myself - sort of.

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:15 PM (/1ATA)

7 Happiness is a warm gun.

Posted by: Roy at November 26, 2013 12:15 PM (VndSC)

8
REPEAL

IMPEACH

Posted by: Parker at November 26, 2013 12:15 PM (YkW3i)

9 3 Why does opening a business removes your constitutional rights? I've never understood that.
Posted by: Invictus at November 26, 2013 12:14 PM (FBkKA)


Because...RACISM!

Posted by: François Villon at November 26, 2013 12:16 PM (kkbgQ)

10 I am NOT going to "invalidate" anything, wingnutz.

I'm just going to TAX Hobby Lobby some more.

Serves 'em right for worshiping the magic sky king in the first place.

TAXES, wingnutz.

Posted by: John Iscariot Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:18 PM (7ObY1)

11 This is bullshit. Its like a conscientious objector going to work for Raytheon then demanding they stop making TLAM's because they're offended by the killy/splody nature of the product.

If you don't like the employment conditions, then WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!

Posted by: Purp at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (Xlbr8)

12 Dreamer, you're nothing but a dreamer
Can you put your hands in your head, OH NO

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (7ObY1)

13 The Courts will Save us! Just like Votes have. You all realize that there are lot of black friday sales on gats, straps, ammo n' shit. Just so you know.

Posted by: Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (x60m8)

14 No, Ace, you are not alone.
It's been burning, and maybe now the SCOTUS will let it!!!

Repeal, and Let. them. burn.

And by them- I do mean the dastardly democrats who are now prairie-dogging their way into the elections. They ARE going down.

Posted by: DefendUSA at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (nAHMK)

15 After the Supreme Court revisits it's prior ruling Justice Roberts will reveal the behind the scenes video of how he set up his elaborate prank. Reportedly, the Chief Justice "just wanted to fuck with Scalia and it got out of hand."

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (+lsX1)

16 I have a wonderful fantasy, though. I've mentioned this fantasy before:
The fantasy that the Supreme Court, looking at the wreckage of
Obamacare, will seize upon an excuse to revisit the last Obamacare
ruling.



But Roberts has grown in office. Can evolution go in reverse?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (8ZskC)

17 Imagine going back to the Philadelphia Convention and telling those guys that in the future, the Congress and President thought it was good and right that employers be forced to pay for their employees' adult children's physician-assisted infanticide.

I put the over/under on "dropping dead from apoplexy" at 2.5.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (ZKzrr)

18 Good.

I'm not religious in the least, but I think religious people have the right to believe and the right to decide if they provide abortions/birth control to their employees.

Only thing more annoying than a busy body religious type telling me how to live my life is an uber atheist telling me how to live my life.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (0LHZx)

19 Why does opening a business removes your constitutional rights? I've never understood that.

Posted by: Invictus

You have never dealt with the IRS it seems

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:19 PM (CMlD4)

20 15 After the Supreme Court revisits it's prior ruling Justice Roberts will reveal the behind the scenes video of how he set up his elaborate prank. Reportedly, the Chief Justice "just wanted to fuck with Scalia and it got out of hand."

---

So... Roberts "Punk'd" himself?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 26, 2013 12:20 PM (/Crba)

21 >>> The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious
beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act...

How about asserting religious beliefs under the original First Amendment?

Posted by: Bomber at November 26, 2013 12:20 PM (JzQ+Q)

22 Get this: It's a tax!

Posted by: USSC at November 26, 2013 12:20 PM (QM5S2)

23 Why does opening a business removes your constitutional rights? I've never understood that.


Because Commerce Clause and shit.

Posted by: Barky O'Genius, Consitituional Lecturer and Reputed Scholar at November 26, 2013 12:20 PM (8ZskC)

24 We're all doing what we can.
Don't count us out.

Posted by: PC at November 26, 2013 12:21 PM (wT3qW)

25
So you're asking the court to decide, not on the basis of law, but on the whims of the Justices, and what they deem proper and good?

Even if it benefits "our" side, is that really what you want the court to be doing?

Posted by: BurtTC at November 26, 2013 12:21 PM (TOk1P)

26 What would that contrivance look like?

George Will always brings up the fact that Roberts said it was a tax because the penalty, er, I mean tax for not signing up was so small. He didn't define how large it had to get for it to become a penalty.

With the demographics of OCare clearly in a death spiral, they'll have to do something to raise more revenue. Perhaps Roberts will then choose to define whatever funding Obama extorts from the rest of us as to much for a tax, and now a penalty, thereby invalidating the law.

Posted by: pep at November 26, 2013 12:21 PM (6TB1Z)

27 Spending an extra $100 of salary is too burdensome.


Big govt will make things right!!!!




Posted by: EC at November 26, 2013 12:21 PM (GQ8sn)

28 "a sword used to deny employees of for-profit commercial enterprises the benefits and protections of generally applicable laws."


How? Employers are required to tell their employees that, if they choose, they can shop for insurance individually on the marketplace rather than going through the employer. It's in the g-ddamn law. If employees feel they're getting shafted by their employer (pff, whatever), they can buy their own insurance. And isnce it's the Affordable (g-ddamn) Care Act, that insurance should be affordable, RIGHT?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:21 PM (4df7R)

29 So who gets to decide whether a company is "religious" or not?

Will the IRS check to see how often you go to church?

Christmas and Easter Catholics won't count, but once-a-monthers will?

Which sects of Protestantism will be allowed to claim their religion should exempt them?

Do we get the IRS or the Black-Robed Ones telling us what our religion *really* believes?

Pelosi says she's a Catholic and she supports infanticide. Does Pelosi get to decide what Catholics *really* believe?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:22 PM (ZPrif)

30 I said it's a tax already, dammit! Now stop threatening to take my kids away, you SCOAMF!

Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:22 PM (uaEZS)

31 Nah,once you buy John Roberts,he stay bought.
Chief Justice Roberts

Posted by: steevy at November 26, 2013 12:22 PM (zqvg6)

32 So an unintended consequence of the law might be to get small business owners back into church on Sundays, closing on Sundays so their employees can go to Church, and embracing core Christian values as part of their business plan - genius Obama, pure fucking genius.

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:22 PM (CMlD4)

33 Who was it that said, "The Supreme Court follows the election returns?"

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at November 26, 2013 12:23 PM (zF6Iw)

34 Hey, guys. Wh-- Is that a rope?

Posted by: John "Turncoat" Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:24 PM (BDU/a)

35 I have a wonderful fantasy, though. I've mentioned this fantasy before:
The fantasy that the Supreme Court, looking at the wreckage of
Obamacare, will seize upon an excuse to revisit the last Obamacare
ruling.



Roberts could invoke the rarely-used writ of secunda cogitatione.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:24 PM (8ZskC)

36 John Roberts was coerced into voting for Obamacare. Whether it was about the kdis, a dead girl in his room or a live boy in his room...no matter the reason, that reason is still applicable. And he will most likely vote with Obama again...and again...and again....

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 26, 2013 12:25 PM (0LHZx)

37 If a company serves meat in the cafeteria on Fridays during Lent will the Courts rule they aren't *really* Catholic and deny them an exemption?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:25 PM (ZPrif)

38 This form prev thread...

***



Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.


Posted by: phreshone at November 26, 2013 12:20 PM (Pr6hk)
**
So be it. This law was passed through trickery and shenanigans it should be abolished through legal precedent and sound judgements based on constitutional law. It would burn the asses of many a leftist. Poetic justice.

And Shit.


Posted by: dananjcon at November 26, 2013 12:25 PM (wmU4G)

39 One question the Supreme Court can ask the Solicitor General that should have that jackanape scratching his head.

"So would you require an Islamic founded company to follow these guidelines on contraception?"

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 26, 2013 12:26 PM (787tI)

40 Hey Reggie, check out my grand sword.

Posted by: obama at November 26, 2013 12:26 PM (bMeMt)

41 Well you don't have a religious objection to not pay taxes, although a few religious orgs can opt out of SS. It does seem the taxing power is now the ultimate power enshrined in the Constitution. Probably a reason the Founders didn't want it there.

Posted by: brak at November 26, 2013 12:26 PM (iEoiA)

42 37 Catholics have been allowed to eat meat on Friday since Second Vatican.Except during Lent.

Posted by: steevy at November 26, 2013 12:27 PM (zqvg6)

43 If Roberts was smart, he'd try to time the decision to happen right before the State of the Union speech.

Posted by: Roy at November 26, 2013 12:27 PM (VndSC)

44 One question the Supreme Court can ask the Solicitor General that should have that jackanape scratching his head.

"So would you require an Islamic founded company to follow these guidelines on contraception?"


Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD)

I'd love to see CAIR's statement on that

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:27 PM (CMlD4)

45 I had to do it. They knew my secrets from college. How did they get those pictures of me taking it deeeeep in the ass and in the mouth?


Ahhhh, those were the days....

Posted by: John Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:27 PM (RBOCM)

46 How about asserting religious beliefs under the original First Amendment?

Yeah but that doesn't take into account all the BS legalese we've built up over the years that establishes "precedent" in a way that is more binding than the "Supreme Law of the Land".

Strict scrutiny blah blah blah.

--This is how Lawyers think

Hey, does anyone remember voting to allow the Judiciary the right to choose what levels of scrutiny they get to employ when reviewing laws? I don't.

Posted by: bonhomme at November 26, 2013 12:28 PM (sByIH)

47 How any judge can look at the implementation of Obamacare - the arbitrary enforcement of provisions, the favors and waivers granted to preferred constituencies while others are punished - and not conclude that the whole thing is a monumental violation of equal protection is beyond me. Add to that the enormous rule making authority that is granted to the Sec of HHS and to the IPAB and I think I can safely say that not only is the law unconstitutional, but is actually the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in history.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 26, 2013 12:28 PM (29vnO)

48 That's why I said during Lent.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:28 PM (ZPrif)

49 If Roberts was smart, he'd try to time the decision to happen right before the State of the Union speech.

Posted by: Roy

During the speech. Make the bastard stutter his way thru the rest ...

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:28 PM (CMlD4)

50 45 I had to do it. They knew my secrets from college. How did they get those pictures of me taking it deeeeep in the ass and in the mouth?


Ahhhh, those were the days....
Posted by: John Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:27 PM (RBOCM)

_________________

Given the way kids today put every minute of their lives on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram, 20-30 years from now SCOTUS nomination hearings will be a lot of fun to watch.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 26, 2013 12:29 PM (0LHZx)

51 Anita Hill claimed Thomas bragged about LongDong Silver. Obama has pictures of Roberts and Long Dong Silver.

Posted by: Roy at November 26, 2013 12:29 PM (VndSC)

52 This is all well-and-good, but I don't want economic policies, and how those policies affect my life, determined by some religious Rohrschach test.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:29 PM (6h2wp)

53 So what version of Obamacare will the justices use as their text? It seems to change every day based on the president's whims.

Posted by: Thatch at November 26, 2013 12:30 PM (qYvEa)

54 Supreme Court Rule No. 8: No Mulligans

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:30 PM (8ZskC)

55 48 Whoops,reading comprehension problem there!

Posted by: steevy at November 26, 2013 12:30 PM (zqvg6)

56 Roughly 40 for-profit companies have sued, arguing they should not be forced to cover some or all forms of birth control because doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said corporations can be protected by the 1993 law in the same manner as individuals, and "that the contraceptive-coverage requirement substantially burdens Hobby Lobby and Mardel's rights under" the law.

In its Supreme Court brief, the administration said the appeals court ruling was wrong. (AP) ABCnews

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 26, 2013 12:30 PM (MhA4j)

57 Another fake "hate tip". This time a gay faker, not a black faker.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:30 PM (ZPrif)

58 This is all well-and-good, but I don't want economic
policies, and how those policies affect my life, determined by some
religious Rohrschach test.


Posted by: SFGoth

or some political test, or some poll-tested public morality quiz, ... maybe we should just get the government the hell out of our lives as much as possible.

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:31 PM (CMlD4)

59 If Roberts blessed Obamacare to make the Court popular (which was one of
his reasons, Jan Crawford reported: to preserve the popularity and
authority of hte court), then towards what outcome would that motivation
lead him now?
***
Is Roberts prepared to take the hit then when Obama reveals what he is blackmailing him about?

It would be a way to redeem himself and hell, I don't care what Obama has over the man...

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:31 PM (P3U0f)

60 How would having gay sex be a disqualifier?I think they'd give you an extra cache now days.

Posted by: steevy at November 26, 2013 12:31 PM (zqvg6)

61 This is all well-and-good, but I don't want economic policies, and how those policies affect my life, determined by some religious Rohrschach test.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:29 PM (6h2wp)


Then buy your own abortifacient-covering insurance rather than forcing your employer to do so, in direct contradiction of their religious principles and beliefs.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:31 PM (4df7R)

62 I assume 90% of hate crimes are now faked by the victim.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (ZPrif)

63 Another fake "hate tip". This time a gay faker, not a black faker.
***
Even if it were real, why would a customer stiffing a waiter over a $18 tip be even local news?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (P3U0f)

64 So who gets to decide whether a company is "religious" or not?

Will the IRS check to see how often you go to church?


True story: I went to BYU. It's a private institution so it gets to set all sorts of interesting rules. Members of the LDS Church pay less to go there than non-members. It's under the theory that members pay tithing.

So one of the conditions of getting that nice discount is an ecclesiastical endorsement. Your local church leader (LDS Bishop) fills out a form that says you're a reasonably good Church member. You have to have one to apply as a member, and each year you have to get an updated one.

Posted by: bonhomme at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (sByIH)

65 What what what?!?!?


WASHINGTON—A pair of American B-52 bombers flew over a disputed island chain in the East China Sea without informing Beijing, U.S. officials said Tuesday, in a direct challenge to China and its establishment of an expanded air-defense zone.

The planes flew out of Guam and entered the new Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone at about 7 p.m. Washington time Monday, according to a U.S. official.

Posted by: RWC at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (fWAjv)

66 Also, we are out of the Limon Pledge.

Posted by: Justicia Sotomayor at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (rZU4B)

67 I do think the Supreme Court -- especially John "It's a Tax" Roberts -- is feeling some buyer's remorse.

I doubt that Barack "It's Not A Threat, It's Blackmail, John" Obama really cares.

Posted by: t-bird at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (FcR7P)

68 How would having gay sex be a disqualifier?I think they'd give you an extra cache now days.


That only works for Dems. When conservatives are suspected of gay sex, HYPOCRISY!!!!1111eleventy1!1!!1!! Just ask Larry Craig.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (8ZskC)

69 Even if it were real, why would a customer stiffing a waiter over a $18 tip be even local news?



Because...OMG!...a gay person's feelings were (fake) hurt!!!


Posted by: EC at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (GQ8sn)

70 to preserve the popularity and authority of hte court

I know that is a typo but I like that it says "hate" court.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (iGPSR)

71 [iEven if it were real, why would a customer stiffing a waiter over a $18 tip be even local news?
Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (P3U0f)


Because the alleged note that was left in place of the tip said that the customer allegedly did not leave a tip because they didn't agree with the waitress' "lifestyle."

*gasp* HATE CRIME!

Despite the fact that , the last I checked, "not tipping" is not a crime.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:34 PM (4df7R)

72 I assume 90% of hate crimes are now faked by the victim.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (ZPrif)


I haven't seen any evidence of the 10%

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:34 PM (8ZskC)

73 This is all well-and-good, but I don't want economic

policies, and how those policies affect my life, determined by some

religious Rohrschach test.
***
The 1st Amendment was written, specifically, to limit the government based on the religious views of its populace.

Now, the welfare state is patently unconstitutional as well so ideally a court abiding by the Constitution would strike down Obamacare and most of the rest of the government's policies anyway, but as the former is unlikely and the latter just not going to happen the protection noted by the 1st Amendment is a benefit, not a negative.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:34 PM (P3U0f)

74
Old and Busted: racism and homophobia
The New Hotness: making hoaxes about racism and homophobia

Posted by: Roy at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (VndSC)

75 The problem with Ace's fantasy here, which I assume he must know but never really quite indicated in his post, is that none of the issues he's talking about are before the Court. This is a case about the contraception mandate; I think it will be struck out from Obamacare, not only because it's a 1st Amendment violation, but also because it can be very easily done without affecting the legislation in any other way: it's a minimalist decision of the exact sort favored by the Roberts court.

The issues Ace talks about -- very, very real ones -- are not before the Court in any real sense w/r/t the contraception issue, however. So there's absolutely no grounds for the Court to take those issues up sua sponte, it would be unthinkable. If a case ever came before SCOTUS concerning the questionably legal "executive rulemaking discretion" Obama has used w/r/t "If you like your plan you can keep it" etc. etc., THEN the issues Ace talks about would actually be implicated by the matter before the Court and the case could theoretically be decided on his sub rosa analysis.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (18OPg)

76 yeah, good about the B-52s.
We'll see what China does next.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (ZPrif)

77 aint gonna happen, bub. unfortunate, but we are stuck with this effing trainwreck for the near future

Posted by: dillhole12 at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (uURnG)

78 Because...OMG!...a gay person's feelings were (fake) hurt!!!


Posted by: EC at November 26, 2013 12:33 PM (GQ8sn)

My feelings get hurt every day. Whom do I complain to?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (t3UFN)

79 Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.

So now that the Ds realize it's a shit sandwich Roberts can flush it without getting SCOTUS thrown under the bus.

Posted by: DaveA at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (DL2i+)

80 3 Why does opening a business removes your constitutional rights? I've never understood that.
Posted by: Invictus at November 26, 2013 12:14 PM (FBkKA)

Because...RACISM!
Posted by: François Villon

And GREED!!1!1!1!! Everyone knows a for profit co is evil.

Posted by: Orlandocon ette at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (SldZ2)

81 Raymond Pritchett ‏@Galrahn
B-52s are the most obvious plane in the world. When PACOM flies a P-8 with no ID through China's ID zone, then I'll be impressed.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (ZPrif)

82 And the Supreme Court is, get this, a political institution.

Shut the front door. I refuse to believe it.

Posted by: Blacksheep at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (8/DeP)

83 My feelings get hurt every day. Whom do I complain to?


Hi!

Posted by: The Wall at November 26, 2013 12:35 PM (GQ8sn)

84 WASHINGTON—A pair of American B-52 bombers flew over a disputed island chain in the East China Sea without informing Beijing, U.S. officials said Tuesday, in a direct challenge to China and its establishment of an expanded air-defense zone.


*rolling eyes* Wonderful. Obammy's trying once again to establish his street cred on the world stage. Fabulous.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (4df7R)

85 *gasp* HATE CRIME!

***
Yeah, I know. But it would be nice to see someone in the media push back. Something like, "Fifty thousand people lost their health insurance today due to Obamacare and you are talking about a $18 tip. What the hell is wrong with you?"

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (P3U0f)

86 Imagine there's no mandate...

http://tinyurl.com/n6ccpv7

It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no mandate
It isn't hard to do

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (MhA4j)

87 All this stuff is about birth control, something that can be had for $100 per year

Stick to little boys and you save a fortune!

Posted by: Hairy Reid, The Searchlight Strangler at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (FcR7P)

88 Some people say the White House is haunted. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not true. If the White House was haunted, I can think of quite a few dead patriots that would be b!tch slapping obamanation on a routine basis.

Posted by: Havedash at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (BMEZ0)

89 29 So who gets to decide whether a company is "religious" or not?

*******************


That would apparently be HHS. Which is currently being sued by the Little Sisters of the Poor because they won't exempt them from the birth control mandate. Actual fricking NUNS aren't exempt from this shit.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (qFpRI)

90 All this stuff is about birth control, something that can be had for $100 per year



Stick to little boys and you save a fortune!

Posted by: Hairy Reid, The Searchlight Strangler at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (FcR7P)


Bwahahahaha!!!!!

Posted by: EC at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (GQ8sn)

91 >> Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.

Don't get your hopes up.

Requiring states to expand Medicaid was already found unconstitutional, yet this fucker still stands.

Posted by: Andy at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (cUeJC)

92
There were no grounds for the law to be considered constitutional in the first place so it doesn't really matter. They are well and good with twisting and contorting anything they want to get the decision they want.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (iGPSR)

93 Obama is, get this, a clusterf*ck of a miserable traitor.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (V70Uh)

94 Obama is, get this, a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable traitor.


Posted by: Jimbo at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (V70Uh)



Fixed.

Posted by: EC at November 26, 2013 12:38 PM (GQ8sn)

95 I assume 90% of hate crimes are now faked by the victim.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (ZPrif)

Who "deserve" to be prosecuted to the full extent of the hate crime law.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 26, 2013 12:38 PM (MhA4j)

96 Ace: Oh Right: dananjcon writes: Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.
I forgot.
=======
The ACA is not severable by Congress, but IS severable, apparently, by the Executive Branch. Perhaps the Supremes want a piece of the piecemeal approach to ACA "reform".

Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 12:38 PM (HjPtV)

97
That only works for Dems. When conservatives are suspected of gay sex, HYPOCRISY!!!!1111eleventy1!1!!1!! Just ask Larry Craig.
***
Remember when Barney Frank got a boy toy from Fannie Mae for the services he provided them? That would have been a pretty interesting story to cover on the whole "hypocrisy" front wouldn't it?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:39 PM (P3U0f)

98 *rolling eyes* Wonderful. Obammy's trying once again to establish his street cred on the world stage. Fabulous.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (4df7R)

I'm actually pleasantly surprised they did this.

Posted by: RWC at November 26, 2013 12:39 PM (fWAjv)

99 If the federal government can / can not order a business to not observe a religious practice does that mean the federal government can / can not order the prohibition of the burka or polygamy because it's a religious belief?

Posted by: Well ok then! at November 26, 2013 12:39 PM (ZRftZ)

100
Well, Justice White did quite a bit of pirouetting on the death penalty in his day, so individual reversals do happen.

But Justice John "Bob" Roberts, W's gift to History? Nawwww......

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 26, 2013 12:39 PM (kdS6q)

101 Obama is going to be really pissed when he reads about those B-52s in the NYT.

Posted by: Bomber at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (JzQ+Q)

102 Redistribution of faith.

Posted by: Obama HelterSkelterCare at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (KQp38)

103 I love it! So, I get to haul out my "Roberts is worse than Roger Taney" routine again.

Good times, good times (HIC!)

Posted by: Tingles Matthews at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (7ObY1)

104 That they'd strike the whole law over such a small bit of it is extremely unlikely. However, if they did, it would be almost as though Sandra Fluke was to blame.

The schadenfreude, were that to turn out true, would be satisfying enough I might not need to eat again for days.

Posted by: davem at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (wmzCM)

105 All this stuff is about birth control, something that can be had for $100 per year
___
I blow through that in an average weekend.


Posted by: Sandy Fluke at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (P3U0f)

106 I assume 90% of hate crimes are now faked by the victim.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:32 PM (ZPrif)
I haven't seen any evidence of the 10%

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:34 PM (8ZskC)



There was a recent case of "hate crime" vandalism here in NH, where a black high school football player had racial slurs graffitied on his house. The school's superintendent forfeited the last two games of teh team's season because it's widely believed that it was another member of the team who actually did the graffiti, though as far as I know there've been no public charges brought or identifications made.

Here were my reactions upon first hearing the story, in order of how they occurred to me:

1) "Probably fake."

2) "If it's true, whoever did it had better have to pay out the ass to clean and remove the graffiti, and issue a public apology."

3) "But yeah, probably fake."

Was it fake? No idea. But until proven otherwise, I automatically assume all alleged "hate crimes" are fake.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (4df7R)

107 If the White House was haunted, I can think of quite a few dead patriots that would be b!tch slapping obamanation on a routine basis.

Nah, anytime there's a ghost haunting a location they're always rearranging small things or moving about in your peripheral vision. The problem is that Obama's memory is shot from drug use, so he doesn't remember where he put anything. And moving in his peripheral vision? He's too busy admiring himself in the mirror to notice.

Posted by: bonhomme at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (sByIH)

108 The ACA is not severable by Congress, but IS severable, apparently, by the Executive Branch.

Could we talk about something else?

Posted by: Wayne Bobbitt at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (FcR7P)

109 Has Hank Johnson issued a press statement on whether Guam tipped over after launching those two B-52s?

MWR, Gaylord Focker is the yappy dog in the middle of the street trying to act tough.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (787tI)

110 "I thought working for Hobby Lobby was birth control"

Stolen from Iowahawk

Posted by: fluffy at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (Ua6T/)

111 I'd settle for a SCOTUS ruling that says simply Obama can't change the law on a whim.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 26, 2013 12:41 PM (0LHZx)

112 Actual fricking NUNS aren't exempt from this shit.
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (qFpRI)

Well unless they are Indian Nuns or Amish Nuns

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 26, 2013 12:41 PM (t3UFN)

113 I still favor the "Roberts kept his powder dry" theory over the "Roberts is a preening prancing pony who needs to be fawned over" theory.
.
The court is *the* slowest moving branch of government... used to be a closer race between it and the Senate but .. 16th amendment.
.
Thing is, the court knows this, and therefore the court knows they will get a second (and third and fourth..) whack at almost every ball...

More simply, if we could see the train wreck, there's no reason Roberts could not also see it - whether he did or not is in question.

Since Roberts knew he'd get another whack at it, branding it a tax as a first cut seems reasonable, and .. as I said .. kept his powder dry for this round.
.
Even if the court finds narrowly, that there is a "conscientious objector" exemption to *regulations* (which are not, themselves, law) that's .. kind of a problem for O-care because it sets up anyone who has ever attended a church as having a way to buy a cheaper "objector plan", like buying a cheap "kosher cell phone". (yes, that's a real thing)
.
After all, the plans *must* be cheaper they offer fewer services... and taxes must be applied equally.
.
Mew

Posted by: acat at November 26, 2013 12:41 PM (4UkCP)

114
*rolling eyes* Wonderful. Obammy's trying once again to establish his street cred on the world stage. Fabulous.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (4df7R)



I'm actually pleasantly surprised they did this.

Posted by: RWC at November 26, 2013 12:39 PM (fWAjv)


It's fine until the Chinese down one of our planes and Dogeater reacts by sending Lurch over with a RESET button.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 26, 2013 12:41 PM (8ZskC)

115 can not order the prohibition of the burka or polygamy because it's a religious belief?
***
Polygamy will be legal within a decade. There is a much stronger argument for it then for gay marriage, oh the and the religion of pieces holds it dear so...

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:42 PM (P3U0f)

116 Has Hank Johnson issued a press statement on whether Guam tipped over after launching those two B-52s?


They both took off at the same time, using two separate runways!

Posted by: EC at November 26, 2013 12:42 PM (GQ8sn)

117 I'm actually pleasantly surprised they did this.

Posted by: RWC

I makes me wonder if PACOM even called it in, or just didn't stop a pre-planned training flight. Maybe ValJet is distracted screwing Israel over.

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:42 PM (CMlD4)

118 Some people say the White House is haunted. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not true. If the White House was haunted, I can think of quite a few dead patriots that would be b!tch slapping obamanation on a routine basis.
Posted by: Havedash at November 26, 2013 12:37 PM (BMEZ0)



You're assuming it's the patriots who would stay behind to haunt the place. I don't. I'm sure they're in the next world, their souls at rest.

No, it's the Woodrow Wilsons, FDRs and other commie/socialist/regressive bastards who are still hanging around the White House.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:42 PM (4df7R)

119 Especially any "hate crime" that involves no actual damage or bodily harm, just a mean word or prop or graffiti.

Actual hate crimes tend to involve actual bodily harm.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:42 PM (ZPrif)

120 Hey, I'm smart as hell. Wise, I am not.

Posted by: John Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:42 PM (RBOCM)

121 >>>€Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.


I mentioned in the last thread that there was some speculation that this is why the worthless traitor Roberts ruled the way he did. Because he didn't want to strike down the entire law

Posted by: Buzzion at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (sEULB)

122 no hope for court- false hope in judiciary. whatever is decded,now,the court and all appellate courts will ultimately be packed w/ liberal- progressives, and law will be what they and the aba want it to be

Posted by: tully sempronicus at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (lB/5N)

123 Can we send a plane with Barry on it through the Chinese ADIZ?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (oFCZn)

124 I blow through that in an average weekend.

Posted by: Sandy Fluke at November 26, 2013 12:40 PM (P3U0f)


ISWYDT

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (zF6Iw)

125 The school's superintendent forfeited the last two games of teh team's
season because it's widely believed that it was another member of the
team who actually did the graffiti
***
Isn't collective punishment illegal by UN charter or some such?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (P3U0f)

126 Polygamy will be legal within a decade. There is a much stronger argument for it then for gay marriage, oh the and the religion of pieces holds it dear so...

Maybe for Muslims. They'll still go after the whackos in Utah, as they should.

Posted by: bonhomme at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (sByIH)

127 "If Roberts blessed Obamacare to make the Court popular (which was one of his reasons, Jan Crawford reported: to preserve the popularity and authority of hte court), then towards what outcome would that motivation lead him now?"

This is why we are screwed. Judges no longer ruling on 'law' but 'legacy'.

Posted by: blindside at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (mXJ34)

128 I'm actually pleasantly surprised they did this.
Posted by: RWC at November 26, 2013 12:39 PM (fWAjv)


I'd be pleasantly surprised if I didn't know in my bones that it was nothing but a patently political move designed to make Obammy looks like he's got a backbone or some fucksuch. If I thought it actually MEANT something -- "Knock it off or you'll get the hose again," for example -- then okay. But this? Political posturing. Pathetic.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (4df7R)

129 "If it's true, whoever did it had better have to pay out the ass to clean and remove the graffiti, and issue a public apology."

If it's true? Especially if it's fake, make whoever did it pay/work/apologize in public.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (ZKzrr)

130 Anything at all is OK with me to keep 404NoCare in the headlines and nightly newscasts.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (tmFlQ)

131 61
This is all well-and-good, but I don't want economic policies, and
how those policies affect my life, determined by some religious
Rohrschach test.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:29 PM (6h2wp)



Then buy your own abortifacient-covering insurance rather than
forcing your employer to do so, in direct contradiction of their
religious principles and beliefs.

Posted by: MWR

Ummm, I am my own employer. What I don't want is believers (of any kind) exempted from this but non-believers not.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (6h2wp)

132 This is why we are screwed. Judges no longer ruling on 'law' but 'legacy'.
___
Also, Justice Ginsburg was giving me the stink eye. The guy is scary. Uh, woman.

Posted by: John Roberts at November 26, 2013 12:45 PM (P3U0f)

133 OT but important in a "know your enemy" sense: The AP apparently knew about the Administration's secret negotiations with Iran all along but kept it confidential until their conclusion.

No doubt they would have done the same for Bush.

Posted by: Blacksheep at November 26, 2013 12:45 PM (8/DeP)

134
the court and all appellate courts will ultimately be packed w/ liberal- progressives, and law will be what they and the aba want it to be
Posted by: tully sempronicus




Not as long as the Senate can still filibuster judicial nominations.

Wait? What happened where?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 26, 2013 12:45 PM (kdS6q)

135 We had one of those "hate crimez" here.

Remember Rep. Louise ("We'll DEEM it passed") Slaughter a/k/a Slaughterhouse Rules?

Several weeks after she shit all over The Constitution, someone threw a brick through her campaign office window.

Um, yeah. Except her campaign office is only used a few months out of every few years, when she's running again. Which she was not at the time of the brick-throwing. It was closed up, deserted and empty.

On top of that, her campaign office is in a horribly crime-ridden, gang-plagued ghetto. Throwing a brick is about the least serious crime that goes on there. And I highly doubt any Tea Partiers were down there mixing with the Crips and the Bloods in the middle of the night.

It was almost certainly just a robbery attempt.

But of course, the local media made it out to be ZOMG RAYCISS TEABAGGERZ!!!!111!eleventy!!!!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 26, 2013 12:45 PM (7ObY1)

136 My opposition is more on fiscal grounds, I think an employer should be able to offer whatever insurance plan they want. If an employee doesn't like it, they can work somewhere else.

Conservatives need to be careful though about jumping on the "no birth control" train for why they oppose ObamaCare. It tends to bring out the nuts.

Those who are opposed to birth control on religious grounds and want to deny it to other people that work for them, that's not exactly a winning issue at the ballot box, and I'm guessing 99% of people who were on a company's insurance plan would probably be annoyed the owner was inserting their religious beliefs into their contraception decisions, especially since NOBODY really follows that particular teaching, even Catholics almost universally ignore it.

I'll take any victory over ObamaCare, but just understand, Obama and Democrats would LOVE this fight.

Posted by: McAdams at November 26, 2013 12:46 PM (2TMCu)

137 Anyone else already got their Thanksgiving week drunk on? It's on! It. Is. On. Got to Tweeter this stuff to the youth!

Posted by: Joe Biden at November 26, 2013 12:46 PM (/1ATA)

138 Ummm, I am my own employer. What I don't want is believers (of any kind) exempted from this but non-believers not.


Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM
-------------------------------------

Sucks to be you.

Posted by: teh Amish at November 26, 2013 12:46 PM (8GKDa)

139 WASHINGTON—A pair of American B-52 bombers flew over a disputed island chain in the East China Sea without informing Beijing, U.S. officials said Tuesday, in a direct challenge to China and its establishment of an expanded air-defense zone. *rolling eyes* Wonderful. Obammy's trying once again to establish his street cred on the world stage. Fabulous.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:36 PM (4df7R)

That B-52 flyover needed doing. I don't care who's President or what his interior motives are.

Posted by: troyriser at November 26, 2013 12:47 PM (gNlvW)

140 OT but important in a "know your enemy" sense: The AP apparently knew about the Administration's secret negotiations with Iran all along but kept it confidential until their conclusion.

No doubt they would have done the same for Bush.
Posted by: Blacksheep at November 26, 2013 12:45 PM (8/DeP)

Everybody knew about the "secret" negotiations with Iran. That has been on the Web for since the last election.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 26, 2013 12:47 PM (t3UFN)

141 Obama can no longer see Reggie because his equipment is substandard and no longer meets the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

Posted by: AE at November 26, 2013 12:47 PM (sSKe8)

142 No, it's the Woodrow Wilsons, FDRs and other commie/socialist/regressive bastards who are still hanging around the White House.

Posted by: MWR,

I thought WW ghost was up at the National Cathedral protecting it from the technomancy?

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:47 PM (CMlD4)

143 Isn't collective punishment illegal by UN charter or some such?
Posted by: 18-1 at November 26, 2013 12:43 PM (P3U0f)


Pfft. You're assuming the superintendent cared about fairness or something. She just wanted to look like she was doing something, so sure, punish the shit out of the whole team.

Public school is child abuse.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:48 PM (4df7R)

144 If you like your Obamacare, you can keep it. Period.

/fingers-crossed

Posted by: Crim the Adequate at November 26, 2013 12:48 PM (Rg22G)

145 Obama can no longer see Reggie because his equipment is substandard and no longer meets the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

Genital warts on his chin?

Posted by: Blacksheep at November 26, 2013 12:49 PM (8/DeP)

146 "Oh Right: dananjcon writes:

Remember, ACA has no severability clause. If anything is unconstitutional, they 'may' strike the entire act.

I forgot."

They already ruled the Medicaid expansion extortion of the states unconstitutional, and they didn't toss the entire law when they did that. And this is also slightly different then ruling on any specific language in the law. They are ruling on an HHS mandate which is not explicitly within the law.

Posted by: NotCoach at November 26, 2013 12:49 PM (rsudF)

147 If I thought it actually MEANT something -- "Knock it off or you'll get
the hose again,"


Perhaps not the best choice of quote when speaking of our leader.

That B-52 flyover needed doing. I don't care who's President or what his interior motives are.

It would have been better if the crew had all dropped trou and mooned the Chinese as they passed by.

Posted by: pep at November 26, 2013 12:50 PM (6TB1Z)

148 That B-52 flyover needed doing. I don't care who's President or what his interior motives are.
Posted by: troyriser at November 26, 2013 12:47 PM (gNlvW)


Fine. But I would rather have a Preezy order (or allow) such a thing because he felt it needed to be done, not because he wanted to see his fucking poll numbers jump up. Because I know that's why he did it, and the Chinese know it, too.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:50 PM (4df7R)

149 Real question isn't whether Obama sends a couple B-52s. That's just PR. B-52s are obvious.

The real question is whether Obama sends our surveillance planes through that airspace.

That's what China wants to stop. If we stop sending surveillance plans there to spy on them, but send an occasional chest-puffing, but useless, B-52s ... then China will be fine with that.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:50 PM (ZPrif)

150 OT: What is this, Bass-Ackwards world?



Power Rangers billionaire and staunch Israel supporter Haim Saban
tonight offered strong support to President Obama for his efforts to
wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his recent initiative in
negotiations with Iran. “We’re out of Iraq, we’re out of Afghanistan and
the military and intelligence cooperation with Israel — our staunchest
ally in the Middle East, arguably in the world, has never been deeper
and the president’s commitment to Israel’s security has never been
stronger,” Saban said

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 26, 2013 12:52 PM (XUKZU)

151
That's what China wants to stop. If we stop sending surveillance
plans there to spy on them, but send an occasional chest-puffing, but
useless, B-52s ... then China will be fine with that.
___
Hey Joe, I've got an important secret assignment for you...

Posted by: Barack Obama in a secret memo to Joe Biden at November 26, 2013 12:52 PM (P3U0f)

152
And a related boning for you:


Republicans charge the Obama
administration is giving labor groups 'special treatment,' following a
new proposal that could exempt union health plans from an ObamaCare fee —
which AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, far left, has fought.

At Fox.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 26, 2013 12:52 PM (iGPSR)

153 The B-52s are just a PR stunt. It's a useful PR stunt if we follow that with a normal surveillance patrols.

If we stop the normal surveillance patrols, but do the occasional B-52 PR stunt, then it's just a show for American media to make Obama look tough, but reality is we backed down.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:52 PM (ZPrif)

154 Ummm, I am my own employer. What I don't want is believers (of any kind) exempted from this but non-believers not.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (6h2wp)

You've never heard of conscience exemptions? Quakers and the adherents of certain other pacifistic religious denominations, for example, are traditionally exempted from the military draft (when a draft is in place). You think those exemptions should be thrown out, as well? If so, then do you think Quakers et al who refuse to serve should be prosecuted? And if you argue that draft exemptions are different from Obamacare exemptions, how so? The underlying principle remains the same.

Posted by: troyriser at November 26, 2013 12:53 PM (gNlvW)

155 I don't buy the severability theory. Many contracts lack such clauses, and the remedy is almost always modification or waiver, not recission. I'd lay money courts would be even more reluctant to blow up a law on those grounds.

Posted by: Blacksheep at November 26, 2013 12:53 PM (8/DeP)

156 Power Rangers billionaire and staunch Israel supporter Haim Saban

tonight offered strong support to President Obama
___
...and I mostly definitely do not have compromising pictures with the power rangers actors and actresses on my computer Mr NSA People. For reals.

Posted by: Haim Saban at November 26, 2013 12:53 PM (P3U0f)

157 ACA may not have a severability clause written in, but didn't Roberts say that it still has severability because of Medicare or something?

Posted by: darii at November 26, 2013 12:53 PM (RdrW8)

158 "Those who are opposed to birth control on religious grounds and want to deny it to other people that work for them, that's not exactly a winning issue at the ballot box, and I'm guessing 99% of people who were on a company's insurance plan would probably be annoyed the owner was inserting their religious beliefs into their contraception decisions, especially since NOBODY really follows that particular teaching, even Catholics almost universally ignore it."

And this is the bullshit we deal with. Sigh.

No one is denying anyone their fricking pills. They are declining to pay for said pills and the admin is trying to force them to pay for the pills. There is a big difference. A business owner has zero idea what you do in your own home and if you want to take birth control, no one cares so long as you pay for that shit yourself. And no one is holding anyone at their desks gunpoint. If your employer isn't providing benefits you like, you're always free to supplement that with your own money OR find another job.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 26, 2013 12:54 PM (qFpRI)

159 My understanding is that Moslems are not governed by the ACA, but I may be wrong about that. Some religions are more equal than others.

Posted by: Null at November 26, 2013 12:55 PM (P7hip)

160 They will never strike the entire law. They don't have the balls.

Posted by: François Villon at November 26, 2013 12:55 PM (kkbgQ)

161 That's what China wants to stop. If we stop sending surveillance plans there to spy on them, but send an occasional chest-puffing, but useless, B-52s ... then China will be fine with that.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:50 PM (ZPrif)


They want to provoke the Japanese. They know Obammy's not going to do a damn thing to defend Japan in the event of an altercation, except issue strongly worded memoes of condemnation.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:56 PM (4df7R)

162 OT but I'm about 11 hours from starting the trip home and I am thoroughly enjoying ignoring General Order 1 with my last little bit of contraband rum.

Posted by: Bomber at November 26, 2013 12:57 PM (JzQ+Q)

163 Meanwhile the PRC has given a paltry $200k in relief for the Philippines after the typhoon.
http://tinyurl.com/lf62h5z

Love this bit, so sums up our own President also.
Forget smile diplomacy. This is sneer diplomacy.

And strangely the Philippines is looking to South Korea for 12 fighters. Why can't the US donate some F-16s from AMARC to our ally?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 26, 2013 12:57 PM (787tI)

164 The B-52s are just a PR stunt. It's a useful PR stunt if we follow that with a normal surveillance patrols.



If we stop the normal surveillance patrols, but do the occasional
B-52 PR stunt, then it's just a show for American media to make Obama
look tough, but reality is we backed down.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe

There are many reasons for the 52 flights, they aren't just a PR stunt. And, we absolutely need to continue them, and the recon flights. Maybe parking a PAC-3 battery on those islands for good measure.

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 12:58 PM (CMlD4)

165 Conservatives need to be careful though about jumping on the "no birth control" train for why they oppose ObamaCare. It tends to bring out the nuts.

*sigh* Not even going to try arguing with that level of painful stupid.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 12:58 PM (4df7R)

166 99. Huge Can 'O Worms

anti-polygamy laws already on the books, precedence for prosecution abound in Western States late 19th Century through mid-20th Century. Romney's ancestor borrowed money to get out of jail on bail awaiting his day in court, and then skipped town (St.Johns, AZ) and fled down to Mexico to continue "practicing" polygamy (as if he wasn't an expert, yet). All the Mormons sent to colonize AZ are having a hard time making a go of survival, still dependent on SLC headquarters funding. Go figure, Romney is so broke he has to borrow bail money from a friend who has to scrape it together, and gets left holding the debt. Meanwhile, Romney's trip to Mexico and funds to purchase lands to build the Mormon Dublin Colony are provided. So much for that church headquarters' hierarchy singularity on the issue. Many shades of gray.

And law enforcement still conducts raids in compound towns. Even Canada has begun to crack down on Christian polygamous communities.

But you are correct that only Christian polygamists are harassed, never Islamists.

It's a fusion bipartisan shared values thing in the US. TX Gov.Perry authorized all the children of polygamist Mormons kidnapped by CPS and kept from contact with any family members for over a year, and refused parents a meeting with him. Took TX Supreme Court to order the return of the children to their parents.

Polygamy was one of the unproven charges Bill Clinton used to burn alive everyone at the Mt. Carmel, TX Davidian community after weeks of psychological warfare barrage under siege. No day in court. Federal refusal to let the Texas Rangers take those under siege into custody. Bloody ugly pox. Whatever "evidence" burned up in smoke along with the supposed culprits, children, women and men.

Posted by: panzernashorn at November 26, 2013 12:59 PM (MhA4j)

167
Tyler Perry just texted me that he and Barry are alone ina sauna! I'm crockery - throwing furious! Ooo!

Posted by: Reggie Love at November 26, 2013 12:59 PM (/1ATA)

168 Pass me the soap and that towel, plebe.

Posted by: pontius roberts at November 26, 2013 12:59 PM (JlX6q)

169 This particular B-52 flight was a PR stunt.
It's why the US advertised they did it. To get it in the media. Cause it was a PR stunt.

I'm glad we did it. PR stunts are necessary some time.

I'm saying we'll see what happens going forward.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 12:59 PM (ZPrif)

170 OT but I'm about 11 hours from starting the trip
home and I am thoroughly enjoying ignoring General Order 1 with my last
little bit of contraband rum.


Posted by: Bomber

Getting out at good time Bomber, things are likely to get down right shitty as Karzai starts to feel the knives circling a little closer.

Posted by: Jean at November 26, 2013 01:00 PM (CMlD4)

171 A Supreme ruling with a limited carve-out for "religious" institutions at the end of the term would put another gaping hole below the ACA's waterline. That would make a fun summer for Dems leading up to the fall midterms.

Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 01:00 PM (HjPtV)

172 Safe trip, Bomber!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 01:00 PM (4df7R)

173 The legal crux of the case seems to be interpretation of the RFRA. Most of the cases that have relied on RFRA to date have involved Native American tribes. The appellate court that ruled for the Hobby Lobby determined that RFRA does apply to companies, not just individuals (with the feds arguing the opposite). From Wiki:

"In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its
findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as
much as one that was intended to interfere with religion; therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially
burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a
rule of general applicability.”
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First,
the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling
government interest.”
Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is
more than routine and does more than simply improve government
efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core
constitutional issues. The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest."

So to win, the feds have to convince SCOTUS that RFRA does not apply to corporations. If they fail in that, they then have to argue that forcing these companies to offer insurance with birth control coverage is a compelling government interest AND that this is the least restrictive way to further the government interest.

Someone posted the appellate court decision along with the dissent. I can't find it right now, but I read them both, and the dissent showed, I think, the arguments the feds will use against applying RFRA. Although I thought the decision for Hobby Lobby was well-argued, I'm not optimistic that SCOTUS will agree.

Posted by: Trotsky with an ice-pick in his head at November 26, 2013 01:01 PM (MAlP4)

174 No one is denying anyone their fricking pills. They
are declining to pay for said pills and the admin is trying to force
them to pay for the pills. There is a big difference. A business owner
has zero idea what you do in your own home and if you want to take birth
control, no one cares so long as you pay for that shit yourself. And no
one is holding anyone at their desks gunpoint. If your employer isn't
providing benefits you like, you're always free to supplement that with
your own money OR find another job.

Posted by: Mandy P

I agree that the owner shouldn't have to pay for it, I'm not making that case at all, but what I'm saying is the optics of it are "religious nuts don't want insurance to cover birth control".

That's a winning issue for Democrats, them being on the side of the 99% of people (including most religious conservatives) that use birth control and don't think it's immoral.

Posted by: McAdams at November 26, 2013 01:01 PM (2TMCu)

175 Ace is right. This is not policy dispute, this is a culture clash. The policy is only a proxy. Until we start seeing these issues as cultural rather than political, we're going to keep losing, because the left DEFINITELY understands that it's cultural.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 26, 2013 01:02 PM (CyP2Z)

176 The Court will never take away my free shit. Without my free shit how can you expect the tax farmers to "plough" me without fear?

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 26, 2013 01:02 PM (Tb01R)

177 The law, then, is not really a law, but, as Charles C.W. Cooke termed it, an "Enabling Act" that effectively delegates an enormous amount of legislative power to the executive -- which is forbidden.


*fist of fury*

Delegation doctrine, motherfucker, do you speak it?

*fist of fury*


You know, part of me really really really wants to throw the monkey in the wrench and attack this via discrimination against me on sexual orientation basis. Why should I have to pay to support breeders'* contraceptive needs? At most I should have to pay half.


*contra ace, who thinks it is no big deal, breeder is the equivalent of the c word for me*


Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 26, 2013 01:02 PM (VtjlW)

178 If a bully says, stay off the playground or I'll beat you up, it's good if you make a big show about going on the playground the next day.

But if you make a big show, and then quietly sign up for study hall so you never have to go on the playground, then the bully won.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 01:02 PM (ZPrif)

179 Just got here and read Ace's post (yeah, I actually read it) and now I've got that stupid song rolling around in my head. Thanks, Ace.......not.

Posted by: Soona at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (FtgP2)

180 154
Ummm, I am my own employer. What I don't want is believers (of any kind) exempted from this but non-believers not.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 12:44 PM (6h2wp)



You've never heard of conscience exemptions? Quakers and the
adherents of certain other pacifistic religious denominations, for
example, are traditionally exempted from the military draft (when a
draft is in place). You think those exemptions should be thrown out, as
well? If so, then do you think Quakers et al who refuse to serve should
be prosecuted? And if you argue that draft exemptions are different from
Obamacare exemptions, how so? The underlying principle remains the
same.

Posted by

You're comparing the Draft to a freaking tax? In its simplest form, it goes like this: everyone has to pay an additional $5,000/year tax, but if you believe in one of these religions (see long list provided by government), you get a $5,000 credit. Got anything better than the Draft? No? Thanks for playing. Oh, and yeah, I'm against conscientious objectors. You don't have to kill to serve your country, in the military, in a time of war.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (6h2wp)

181 It's a papal tax, bitches.

Posted by: John Roberts at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (0+r+G)

182 Anyone think that Roberts's being Catholic will sway him at all on this?

Posted by: darii at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (RdrW8)

183 "So to win, the feds have to convince SCOTUS that RFRA does not apply to corporations."

So, given the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, what are the odds?

Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 01:04 PM (HjPtV)

184 Raymond Pritchett ‏@Galrahn
ADIZs are typically employed by nations prior to hostilities. Should we worry about China's carrier deployment today to the South China Sea?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 26, 2013 01:04 PM (ZPrif)

185 Is the Airing of Grievances still in effect?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 26, 2013 01:05 PM (oFCZn)

186 So, given the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, what are the odds?
Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 01:04 PM (HjPtV)



Depends on if the pictures ValJar has of Iscariot involve a dead girl or a live boy.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 01:05 PM (4df7R)

187 182. As a catholic myself, I hope not

His personal belief should never count into his verdict

Posted by: Navycopjoe at November 26, 2013 01:06 PM (i4RhQ)

188 186
So, given the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, what are the odds?

Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 01:04 PM (HjPtV)





Depends on if the pictures ValJar has of Iscariot involve a dead girl or a live boy.

Posted by: MWR

These days, it doesn't really seem to matter. Now, dead boy is still up for grabs.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (6h2wp)

189 Anyone think that Roberts's being Catholic will sway him at all on this?
Posted by: darii at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (RdrW


Nazi PeloKKKi is allegedly Catholic, too.

Honestly, though, I don't want the SCOTUS Justices basing their rulings on their personal beliefs. I want them basing their rulings on the Constitution. Wishful thinking, I know, but a girl's gotta dream.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (4df7R)

190 Oh, and yeah, I'm against conscientious objectors. You don't have to kill to serve your country, in the military, in a time of war.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (6h2wp)

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding the military--which doesn't surprise me, given your nick. Every soldier is a soldier, every sailor is a sailor, whatever one's assigned specialty. If ordered to do so or if circumstances dictate, cooks and clerks pick up weapons and engage the fucking enemy. You blithering idiot.

Posted by: troyriser at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (gNlvW)

191 I agree that the owner shouldn't have to pay for it, I'm not making that case at all, but what I'm saying is the optics of it are "religious nuts don't want insurance to cover birth control".

That's a winning issue for Democrats, them being on the side of the 99% of people (including most religious conservatives) that use birth control and don't think it's immoral.
Posted by: McAdams at November 26, 2013 01:01 PM (2TMCu)




How about queer girl who is fully capable of taking care of her own contraception needs when she's in the mood to sleep with guys thankyouverymuch is livid as hell at the concept of a gun being put to her head to force her to pay for some little breeder bitch's contraception? How about that?


Here's the optics of it for me: Sweetie, the only person for whose contraception I am paying is the person I am fucking. And in that case? Contraception isn't really going to be necessary, now, isn't it?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (VtjlW)

192 These days, it doesn't really seem to matter. Now, dead boy is still up for grabs.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (6h2wp)


True.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (4df7R)

193 Why should I have to pay to support breeders'* contraceptive needs?

(You do know if they're using it right, they're not actually breeding....)

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (ZKzrr)

194 187 & 189: I'm wondering more in terms of actual decision making rather than whether or not it should have any role.

Posted by: darii at November 26, 2013 01:08 PM (RdrW8)

195 180. I disagree
The primary task of every member of the armed forces is to kill the enemy

Posted by: Navycopjoe at November 26, 2013 01:08 PM (i4RhQ)

196 182 Anyone think that Roberts's being Catholic will sway him at all on this?


No, and why should it sway him?

Roberts needs to make his decisions based on the law, not his personal belief system.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 26, 2013 01:08 PM (7ObY1)

197 I've always imagined Obamacare to be a sing-a-long.

Imagine all the people,
something, something, something,
totes free-ee-hee!!

Posted by: Fritz at November 26, 2013 01:09 PM (TKFmG)

198 (You do know if they're using it right, they're not actually breeding....)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (ZKzrr)



Until they STOP using it and proceed to have their placentas made into picture frames, because Power of Vagina Conquers All or some bullshit.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 01:09 PM (4df7R)

199 MOAR B52s

I don't buy the severability theory. Many contracts lack such clauses, and the remedy is almost always modification or waiver, not recission. I'd lay money courts would be even more reluctant to blow up a law on those grounds.
Posted by: Blacksheep at November 26, 2013 12:53 PM (8/DeP)

I partially agree on this. The severability or non-severability seems to get abused and twisted all the time.

Posted by: The Jackhole at November 26, 2013 01:09 PM (nTgAI)

200 (...and when they don't use it right, 50% of the time you're paying for the birth, too.)


(Fuck, I hate everybody today.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:09 PM (ZKzrr)

201 187 189: I'm wondering more in terms of actual decision making rather than whether or not it should have any role.
Posted by: darii at November 26, 2013 01:08 PM (RdrW


I'm sure it will flavor his personal opinion, but if he has any actual judicial integrity, it won't affect his decision.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 26, 2013 01:10 PM (4df7R)

202 Imagine no possessions?

AYEEEEEEEEEE SCREEEEEEEE AYEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

That didn't apply to US! That was pablum for the proles.

But no possessions?

AYEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!



Posted by: Yoko Ono at November 26, 2013 01:11 PM (7ObY1)

203 ACA may not have a severability clause written in, but didn't Roberts say that it still has severability because of Medicare or something?

You know what's cute? All this pretending that there is a rule of law or something.

Yes, the court is political. That is why the Left wants to own it.

The court will NOT toss Obamacare because some religious folks in Texas are offended by it. And they aren't going to save us from ourselves, either. They aren't there to get rid of laws that are bad ideas or poorly executed.

Posted by: blaster at November 26, 2013 01:11 PM (W6bkf)

204 (You do know if they're using it right, they're not actually breeding....)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (ZKzrr)



You stop it with your logic and facts and reason.


I would hope that it's clear that the only reason I am advancing such a position is that if the Left wants to play Identity Group Victim Bingo, well, game on.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 26, 2013 01:11 PM (VtjlW)

205 For the record, Kathleen Sebeilius' bio states that she is a Roman Catholic.

Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 01:12 PM (HjPtV)

206 You have no idea what you're talking about regarding the military--which doesn't surprise me, given your nick. Every soldier is a soldier, every sailor is a sailor, whatever one's assigned specialty. If ordered to do so or if circumstances dictate, cooks and clerks pick up weapons and engage the fucking enemy. You blithering idiot.


Every Marine is a rifleman first.....

Posted by: rickb223 at November 26, 2013 01:12 PM (cUARf)

207 189. Heh
See 187
You and I have the same thoughts

May as well either go buy your cutler jersey or curl up in the shower and cry

Posted by: Navycopjoe at November 26, 2013 01:12 PM (MBzEc)

208 Poor Alec Baldwin has been fired.


Bashir still employed.

Posted by: RWC at November 26, 2013 01:13 PM (fWAjv)

209 Poor Alec Baldwin has been fired.

----

Oh, I'm sure he's crushed.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 26, 2013 01:14 PM (Od5/V)

210 190
Oh, and yeah, I'm against conscientious objectors. You don't have to
kill to serve your country, in the military, in a time of war.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:03 PM (6h2wp)



You have no idea what you're talking about regarding the
military--which doesn't surprise me, given your nick. Every soldier is a
soldier, every sailor is a sailor, whatever one's assigned specialty.
If ordered to do so or if circumstances dictate, cooks and clerks pick
up weapons and engage the fucking enemy. You blithering idiot.

Posted by troyriser.

13 years Army reserve (1988-2000) Served as a legal clerk, forward combat signal platoon leader, signal trainer, and JAG officer. I also won highest APFT score (322) in my signal platoon leader course. I have *no* idea what I'm talking about. "If ordered to do so or if circumstances dictate" -- "sorry I couldn't help save the country that has sheltered me all my life, but I was being conscientious." If someone is doing duty in this country, as a cook, or whatever, and that person has to pick up a weapon and engage, we've got bigger problems than your dander getting all up and stuff.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:15 PM (6h2wp)

211 Until they STOP using it and proceed to have their placentas made into picture frames,

Those women concern me a lot less than the ones who can't be bothered to take it because when they get pregnant the government will give them their own apartment and food stamps they don't have to share with their mother and half-siblings.

So we've got the people who can afford to pay for their own fucking birth control whining that it's not free, but we don't get any savings from giving it away to people who should be using it because they won't.

And we can't unfuck any of this.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:15 PM (ZKzrr)

212 Gabe will say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.


Oh God ace, tell me you're not schtupping a loony Japanese performance artist.

Posted by: joncelli at November 26, 2013 01:16 PM (RD7QR)

213 Poor Alec Baldwin has been fired.



What's in his wallet now?

Posted by: rickb223 at November 26, 2013 01:16 PM (cUARf)

214 You have no idea what you're talking about regarding the military--which doesn't surprise me, given your nick. Every soldier is a soldier, every sailor is a sailor, whatever one's assigned specialty. If ordered to do so or if circumstances dictate, cooks and clerks pick up weapons and engage the fucking enemy. You blithering idiot.


Every Marine is a rifleman first.....
Posted by: rickb223 at November 26, 2013 01:12 PM (cUARf)

I just have to smile. Your both 100% correct, every Soldier Sailor Marine is combatant first no matter what they do in the Military. But as a Dental Officer man do I take some shit from the Senior Enlisted every time I am at the range. Funny stuff

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 26, 2013 01:16 PM (t3UFN)

215 If we could unfuck there would be no need for birth control.

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at November 26, 2013 01:17 PM (RZ8pf)

216 Re Hank Johnson and Guam tipping over, I watched the whole clip a few times, and think he was joking. See anything ever said by Steven Wright http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITo_Ugq9bbo

Posted by: macgeorge at November 26, 2013 01:17 PM (I4Qbd)

217 I just have to smile. Your both 100% correct, every Soldier Sailor Marine is combatant first no matter what they do in the Military. But as a Dental Officer man do I take some shit from the Senior Enlisted every time I am at the range. Funny stuff
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 26, 2013 01:16 PM (t3UFN)



Do you smile and say see you at your appointment next week and fingers crossed the drill will be whetted by then?


Also nood.


Further also *nukes Iowa City*

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 26, 2013 01:17 PM (VtjlW)

218 Oh, I forgot to add, I usually, but not always, shot expert.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:17 PM (6h2wp)

219 Using highly scientific methods on top of my own keen, nearly infallible insight I rate the odds of the SCOTUS invalidating Obamacare as a whole as approximately 0.0%

Rounded to the nearest significant digit, of course.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 26, 2013 01:17 PM (SY2Kh)

220 For the record, Kathleen Sebeilius' bio states that she is a Roman Catholic.
Posted by: mrp at November 26, 2013 01:12 PM (HjPtV)


---------------------------------------------


The Catholic church really needs to do some major housecleaning. No wonder so many people turn away from religion. When religions start buying into the moral relativity horseshit, they're no longer believable.

Posted by: Soona at November 26, 2013 01:17 PM (FtgP2)

221 joncelli, there are some garbage cans the Ewok wont toss. Oh No Yohko's is one of those.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 26, 2013 01:18 PM (787tI)

222 Leftist Catholics are probably some of the most corrupt people in existence, once they get entrenched into a bureaucracy.

I've YET to have a good encounter with one.

Posted by: grognard at November 26, 2013 01:18 PM (/29Nl)

223 Further also *nukes Iowa City*

*tears of joy and wonder*

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:20 PM (ZKzrr)

224 Here's the optics of it for me: Sweetie, the only
person for whose contraception I am paying is the person I am fucking.
And in that case? Contraception isn't really going to be necessary,
now, isn't it?

Posted by: alexthechick

You're making a dumb comparison, we're talking about a company's health insurance plan. The employees ARE paying for it themselves with their premiums.

I guess you could also say "sweetie, the only person that should be paying for the delivery of my child is me" Okay, so health insurance plans should be made illegal and no maternity care in hospitals?

My point is, there's religious nuts that want to push their hobby horse issue of no birth control at every opportunity. I think employers should be able to make any health care plan they want, or deny health care altogether.

I will say though that the kind of employer that has a problem with birth control and wants to make sure the company plan doesn't cover birth control is a little nutty, and not the person I think conservatives should rally around as most people are going to say "what a freak" and they'd probably be right.

It would be like an owner that's a Jehovah's Witness and wants to make sure his employer plan doesn't cover vaccinations because they think it's immoral.




Posted by: McAdams at November 26, 2013 01:22 PM (2TMCu)

225 If someone is doing duty in this country, as a cook, or whatever, and that person has to pick up a weapon and engage, we've got bigger problems than your dander getting all up and stuff.
Posted by: SFGoth at November 26, 2013 01:15 PM (6h2wp)

REMF.

Posted by: troyriser at November 26, 2013 01:23 PM (gNlvW)

226 no matter what the court's decision may be hobby lobby is not obligated - can not be obligated - to purchase health insurance structured by the federal government. i don't care to hear or participate in the how many angels can dance on the head of a pin arguments. the court has gotten way, way too smart. no justice no peace

Posted by: tully sempronicus at November 26, 2013 01:23 PM (lB/5N)

227 No one is denying anyone their fricking pills. They are declining to pay
for said pills and the admin is trying to force them to pay for the
pills. There is a big difference.
====================

I'm actually tired of having this argument as I find that the people who want someone else to pay for their birth control are as stupid as a box of rocks. Here's the conversation that I ALWAYS have:

Me: I don't think birth control pills should be covered (under any insurance, not just Obamacare).

Her (it's always a her): But having a child would be much more expensive than paying for my pills. Besides, Viagra is covered, too!

Me: I don't think Viagra should be covered unless it's used to treat the circulatory condition for which it was originally designed. No one should have to pay for me to get wood.

Me: And for the record, birth control pills cost around $10/month. Without insurance.

Her: WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?!?!?!?!?
===============================

I swear to God that I've had stool samples with higher order cognitive abilities.

Posted by: physics geek at November 26, 2013 01:24 PM (MT22W)

228 "I will say though that the kind of employer that has a problem with birth control and wants to make sure the company plan doesn't cover birth control is a little nutty, and not the person I think conservatives should rally around as most people are going to say "what a freak" and they'd probably be right."


Nutty. Right. Like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Those damn nuns are just so nutty for not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 26, 2013 01:27 PM (qFpRI)

229 This case could be it -- the end of the Supreme Court and of America. If they rule against Hobby Lobby, if that pathetic pismire John Roberts abandons religious conscience, we're done.

Posted by: rrpjr at November 26, 2013 01:27 PM (s/yC1)

230 I just have to smile. Your both 100% correct, every Soldier Sailor Marine is combatant first no matter what they do in the Military. But as a Dental Officer man do I take some shit from the Senior Enlisted every time I am at the range. Funny stuff
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 26, 2013 01:16 PM (t3UFN)

I was once NCOIC at the repelling tower in Ft. Bragg teaching ROTC students, many of them headed for non-combat arms commissions. I often felt like a cop talking down suicides from a ledge on a high-rise.

Posted by: troyriser at November 26, 2013 01:28 PM (gNlvW)

231 Big Sith hugs for everyone having an aggro day!

Which, you know, appears to be everyone.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of Somethingorother at November 26, 2013 01:28 PM (qyfb5)

232 The moment he wakes up
While he's putting on his make up
Ace dreams a little dream of me...

Posted by: Justice Roberts at November 26, 2013 01:28 PM (6H6o8)

233 What on Earth could make you think Roberts or any of the other Supremes are having "buyers remorse" about that decision?Roberts was never going to allow this law to be overturned by the Court.He expected the political and legislative processes to sort it out, which is pretty much exactly what is happening right now.

Also the lack of a severability clause has not constrained this Court from striking individual provisions of laws in the past. It's unusual, but it has happened. But that is moot anyway in this case. The contraceptive mandate isn'tin the statute,it's in a regulation that defines "preventive care" which must be covered by all policies offered by employers. The Court can find this part of the regulation is an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's religious freedom without touching the actual statute at all.

IMO the Administration is going to get smacked down hard on this one. It has to show that there is a compelling state interest that overrides the religious freedom of the plaintiffs, AND that there is no alternative policy that can achieve the goal without violating that freedom. I think this mandate flunks on both counts.

Posted by: rockmom at November 26, 2013 01:29 PM (aBlZ1)

234 Here's the optics of it for me: Sweetie, the only
person for whose contraception I am paying is the person I am fucking.
And in that case? Contraception isn't really going to be necessary,
now, isn't it?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 26, 2013 01:07 PM (VtjlW)
=============================Don't make alexthechick angry. You wouldn't like her when she's angry.
Okay, I really like her when she's angry, just so long as her rage isn't directed at me.

Posted by: physics geek at November 26, 2013 01:29 PM (MT22W)

235 Like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Those damn nuns are just so nutty for not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control.

I thought they were being forced to buy plans for themselves which included birth control, which seems extra-nutty, although not any more than being forced to buy plans that cover their maternity care.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:34 PM (ZKzrr)

236 "Convert or die!" Barack Torqemama

Posted by: jd at November 26, 2013 01:34 PM (Id+W0)

237 235 Like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Those damn nuns are just so nutty for not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control.

I thought they were being forced to buy plans for themselves which included birth control, which seems extra-nutty, although not any more than being forced to buy plans that cover their maternity care.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:34 PM (ZKzrr)


Yes and no. The deal is they do employ a few non-nuns in their work providing shelter and care for the elderly. So they are supposed to adjust their health insurance coverage, which covers the employees and the nuns, to one that covers birth control for all of them. According to our friend McAdams, that makes them nutty religious freaks.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 26, 2013 01:38 PM (qFpRI)

238 Dear Ms. Fluke:

Perhaps you haven't considered fellatio. It obviates the need for contraception, and can--if implemented wisely--actually turn a tidy profit. Well, perhaps tidy" isn't the mot juste we were looking for here, but you get the idea.

Think of it! At the very affordable price of 25 cents per, you could pay off your student loans in a matter of weeks.

Posted by: all those one-night stands who didn't want to look at your face, anyway at November 26, 2013 01:42 PM (9hVHZ)

239 Obamacare is not a "law" law.

Posted by: Whoopi Goldberg at November 26, 2013 01:42 PM (mka2b)

240 I thought that there were already exclusions for Muslims, so that SWORD has been drawn and SWUNG already by the Administration, case closed.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at November 26, 2013 01:43 PM (gdGJ1)

241 Regarding are corporation "persons" under RFRA, the 10th Court of Appeals noted that most (if not all) religious institutions that are exempt from the birth control provision are in fact incorporated. So the fed's argument is really against a subset of corporations --- those that are "for-profit" --- and decided that that is really really retarded, sir.

Posted by: Trotsky with an ice-pick in his head at November 26, 2013 01:44 PM (MAlP4)

242 Oops, that was poorly written.

The 10th Court of Appeals opined that since some corporations (e.g. churches) are already exempt from the birth control provision, the feds argument that other corporations (only for-profit ones) should not be exempt from it was BS.

Posted by: Trotsky with an ice-pick in his head at November 26, 2013 01:51 PM (MAlP4)

243 We should all support Hobby Lobby.

And it is easy to do because they have great products, prices and service.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at November 26, 2013 01:52 PM (zDsvJ)

244 So, if somebody else isn't paying the expenses for your preferred mode of intimate personal physical interaction, then you're being oppressed?

I wonder how far the NRA would get if they filed a lawsuit for 2nd Amendment rights violation because the government isn't making our employers pay for our ammo?

Posted by: Socrateae at November 26, 2013 02:01 PM (6uy7v)

245 237 235 Like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Those damn nuns are just so nutty for not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control.

I thought they were being forced to buy plans for themselves which included birth control, which seems extra-nutty, although not any more than being forced to buy plans that cover their maternity care.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at November 26, 2013 01:34 PM (ZKzrr)


Yes and no. The deal is they do employ a few non-nuns in their work providing shelter and care for the elderly. So they are supposed to adjust their health insurance coverage, which covers the employees and the nuns, to one that covers birth control for all of them. According to our friend McAdams, that makes them nutty religious freaks.
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at November 26, 2013 01:38 PM (qFpRI)


If you see a comment by him the chances are very good that it's going to be nothing but him bashing socons. It's all he does here. Same for the guy that uses "shoot me" as a name. If there's not a chance for them to take a shot at social conservatives then they're not going to be making a comment.

Posted by: Buzzion at November 26, 2013 02:01 PM (sEULB)

246 I'm very dismissive of carve outs of "because I morally object to X, I shouldn't have to pay for it".

What would you say to a religious pacifist that believes military action is evil, and doesn't want to pay that part of their taxes? Should they get a discount over someone who doesn't share that belief?

How about instead we band together and agree that the less things the government funds, the better?

For the record, I don't want to pay for birth control with my tax dollars or my insurance plan, but it's over issues of personal responsibility and free market choice. Not enforcing my morality on others.

I would say the same if a Jehovah's Witness owner made his plans not cover vaccinations. It's nutty, and although I think he should legally be allowed to offer any insurance plan he wanted, I would not hold him up as some sort of hero for conservatives.

Posted by: McAdams at November 26, 2013 02:04 PM (2TMCu)

247 Interesting about that severability clause.

It seems the court was uninterested in canceling O-care last time but now may decide otherwise due to dwindling popularity?

However, I doubt any briefs against ACA mandate will include the good stuff that Ace has written about how this is basically cultural bullying by the abortion loving left.

Posted by: joeindc44 is totally not on Soros's pay now...right? at November 26, 2013 02:12 PM (QxSug)

248 I like that the Hobby Lobby owners have stated that they will not comply with the mandate and if the courts rule against them, they will shut the company down, not bend, nor even just sell the business. Shut it down.

I love people of conviction, they being so rare today.

Posted by: toby928© at November 26, 2013 02:12 PM (QupBk)

249 My fantasy is that they are looking for any plausible contrivance by which to invalidate the law.
_____________________

That may indeed be true, but the case(s) challenging the statute on the basis of eligibility for the federal subsidy by states that didn't create their own exchanges are probably a better vehicle for striking down Obamacare than this case, which is really just challenging a regulation by HHS that can easily be re-written to conform to the 1st Amendment.

Posted by: Trivial Pursuer at November 26, 2013 02:47 PM (/sohm)

250 Obama hates the church. He's been trying to destroy it at every opportunity.

ANd yet Roman Catholics still vote for their own destruction.

I'll just leave this here...

>>Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics<<

Washington Times has the entire story.

Posted by: Marcus at November 26, 2013 02:52 PM (GGCsk)

251 250 Obama hates the church. He's been trying to destroy it at every opportunity.

ANd yet Roman Catholics still vote for their own destruction.

I'll just leave this here...

>>Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics

Washington Times has the entire story.
Posted by: Marcus at November 26, 2013 02:52 PM (GGCsk)

The actual Roman Catholics not the cafeteria Catholics tend to vote republican in a manner that is something like 80-20

Posted by: Buzzion at November 26, 2013 04:22 PM (sEULB)

252 Hobby Lobby exists to proselytize or to make money????

“One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Posted by: JEA at November 26, 2013 07:35 PM (hpPAv)

253 Oh I am sure Roberts will cave on this ruling as well. He's such a wimp. He's the one person that could have saved the country from this monstrosity, and he folded up like an umbrella. I have absolutely no respect for Roberts. None!

Posted by: Mistress Overdone at November 26, 2013 09:20 PM (2/oBD)

254 Even though they *can* strike the whole thing due to the lack of severability, odds are they would not. SCOTUS, Appeals Courts, District Courts have all, in many other cases, pretended that laws have severability clauses even though they do not. Striking down only one section rather than the whole thing even though there is no severability clause.

Also, what is really being challenged here, in any of these cases?? Seems to me, they are really just challenging the HHS regulations written by Sebelius under the authority of the PPACA. SCOTUS could decide to merely strike down these regulations and not touch the law.

Would love to see them strike the whole thing, but really, what are the odds of that? There are, at best, 3 of the 9 that would favor it, and even then that's a huge maybe just for those 3.

Like Obama said, "Elections have consequences". Want to know what Obama's real legacy is going to be? Kagan, Sotomayor, and all the hordes of liberal ideologues he's been appointing to other courts. The lot of them will be a plague on our society for generations.

Posted by: Callawyn at November 27, 2013 05:43 AM (+7Wfv)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0496 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.015 seconds, 263 records returned.
Page size 157 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat