Who do you support for Governor in Oh...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31066 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
My God, why do you insist on remaining willfully wrong?
"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely heldcorporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
What do you think the words, "unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim" mean?
we know its a first amendment issue and if it wasnt Hobby Lobby would have lost before the SCOTUS which is clearly stated as I posted yesterday from the SCOTUS website.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31067 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you are so confused. What you posted from the Supreme Court website explains that the difference between the First Amendment and the statute the Supreme Court applied in the Hobby Lobby case.
dude your confused because if it wasnt at issue Hobby Lobby would have lost their SCOTUS case which Hobby Lobby didnt.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31069 Jul 5, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>dude your confused because if it wasnt at issue Hobby Lobby would have lost their SCOTUS case which Hobby Lobby didnt.
Why did the majority write this, "Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31070 Jul 5, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>dude your confused because if it wasnt at issue Hobby Lobby would have lost their SCOTUS case which Hobby Lobby didnt.
Actually, if it was a First Amendment case, Hobby Lobby would have lost. The Court held that the RFRA provides more protection than the First Amendment does.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31071 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have clammed up on this one, Ray. What's the matter, you can't admit when you were wrong?
Well I'm a little busy right now since it's global warming and I do have a lot of work around here to do outside. Trying to pull apart sentences and words is just very time consuming.

But what I will say is Indy is doing a fine job of carrying on the fight for our side.:-)

You can claim it had nothing to do with freedom of religion, but that was the suit brought on by the Hobby Lobby people. They sued right up to the SC because they felt their constitutional rights were being violated, and the SC agreed to hear the case based on those grounds.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#31072 Jul 5, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm a little busy right now since it's global warming and I do have a lot of work around here to do outside. Trying to pull apart sentences and words is just very time consuming.
But what I will say is Indy is doing a fine job of carrying on the fight for our side.:-)
You can claim it had nothing to do with freedom of religion, but that was the suit brought on by the Hobby Lobby people. They sued right up to the SC because they felt their constitutional rights were being violated, and the SC agreed to hear the case based on those grounds.
The wingnut go to. Try to change what I said. I never said it wasn't a religion case. I said it wasn't decided on First Amendment grounds. The wingnut ability to continue to insist that something is so when it obviously isn't is incredible.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31073 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the majority write this, "Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."?
Thanks for a bit of education. Adding the sentence just before makes it even clearer: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31074 Jul 5, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for a bit of education. Adding the sentence just before makes it even clearer: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
It does, but I tried that originally with them and it didn't seem to work. I was trying to break it down to as few as words possible for them this time.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#31075 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
It does, but I tried that originally with them and it didn't seem to work. I was trying to break it down to as few as words possible for them this time.
They don't care, they just deflect.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#31076 Jul 5, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>They don't care, they just deflect.
It's fun to watch. Especially from the faux intellectual Indy.
d pantaloni

Toledo, OH

#31077 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
My God, why do you insist on remaining willfully wrong?
"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely heldcorporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
What do you think the words, "unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim" mean?
That they dont want to open that can of worms because they would have to spend years declaring thousands of statutes unconstitutional?
d pantaloni

Toledo, OH

#31078 Jul 5, 2014
which most of statute is..
d pantaloni

Toledo, OH

#31079 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if it was a First Amendment case, Hobby Lobby would have lost. The Court held that the RFRA provides more protection than the First Amendment does.
Yeah. Because the constitution says absolutely nothing about religious freedom like the statute you cite. Sure.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Toledo, OH

#31080 Jul 5, 2014
d pantaloni wrote:
<quoted text> That they dont want to open that can of worms because they would have to spend years declaring thousands of statutes unconstitutional?
It's more simple than that. It's just that they decided the case based on the statute and not the constitution.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Toledo, OH

#31081 Jul 5, 2014
d pantaloni wrote:
which most of statute is..
That book of waterfall cartoons.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Toledo, OH

#31083 Jul 5, 2014
d pantaloni wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah. Because the constitution says absolutely nothing about religious freedom like the statute you cite. Sure.
You really should stick to riding that garbage truck. The statute provides greater protection than First Amendment stare decisis does. Without the statute, Hobby Lobby loses.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31084 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if it was a First Amendment case, Hobby Lobby would have lost. The Court held that the RFRA provides more protection than the First Amendment does.
True because the RFRA is another means by the Federal Government to restrict the 1st Amendment too if the politicians want too because for years the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution did not pretain to the Citizens of the States only pretained to the Federal Government until the SCOTUS started using the 14th amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights down to state level through a series of SCOTUS cases over the years.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31085 Jul 5, 2014
What's with Topix high lighting certain words & why?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31086 Jul 5, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for a bit of education. Adding the sentence just before makes it even clearer: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
Which means it was null and void before even discussing the First Amendment. However, the SC wouldn't have even heard the case (concerning constitutional violations of religion) if they didn't think there was something that needed to be heard.

Think of it kind of like a baseball game. It's two outs and the game is tied. After the ball is hit, the home team scores the winning run. After a replay challenge is made, they discover that the guy running to second was thrown out before the relay to home which was questionable.

What difference does it make what happened at home? The game is still over so what's the point of reviewing the play at home base?

Either way, this is a point for the good guys. The United States Federal Government is not in charge of telling employers what kind of benefits they have to offer to their employees. Hell, the former Soviet Union probably didn't demand that of their employers.

Under the DumBama administration, our federal government has gotten too strong and too intrusive in our lives. Because if the courts ruled (under any provision) that government has that kind of power to micromanage our personal lives, then we would surly be in a state of tyranny.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31087 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
What's with Topix high lighting certain words & why?
It does on certain words which I seen that too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minster Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Piqua girls open with Skyhawks (Mar '11) Mar '17 Sky pharrt 2
Election Who do you support for State House in Ohio (Dis... (Oct '10) Mar '17 State pharrt 7
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Ohio (Dist... (Oct '10) Mar '17 You pharrt 16
Yorkshire Music Thread (Feb '17) Feb '17 Musikologist 1
furniture store (Sep '11) May '16 munch 3
Our Police Department (Dec '15) Dec '15 MEtoo 2
Camper fire (Sep '15) Sep '15 Curios 1

Minster Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minster Mortgages