Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31063 Jul 5, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong and its you that is so delunded and in love with bigtotry that Liberalism advocates and that was the SCOTUS's website I Posted that wrote the majority opinion.
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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31065 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> You & others have made that point a number of times. Some people can't comprehend what they read or hear & others are in denial of what they don't want to read or hear. Sad that too many people are that way.
Liberals today and Liberals like FDR were that way since the SCOTUS kept ruling Liberalism as FDR called it along with his New Deal unconstitutional which is why FDR proposed the court-packing plan which FDR knew the had to undermine the US Constitution for Liberalism to survive the Constitutional Test before the justices on the SCOTUS who knew his Liberalism was unconstitutional just as it is today.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1](frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedu...

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

Lodi, 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

Lodi, 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

Lodi, 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

Cincinnati, 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

Lodi, 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

Waverly, 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

Lodi, 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

Detroit, MI

#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

Detroit, MI

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

Detroit, MI

#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

Detroit, MI

#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

Detroit, MI

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

Detroit, MI

#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?

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.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
why do white people smell like wet dogs? (Oct '14) 12 hr A Rope And A Tree 14
"Our Humvees are good and tough enough" Thu Leon Harrison 1
We have the urge to merge! Thu The Duke of Hazard 1
Today's Leon Harrison Quotation Thu Leon Harrison 31
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu Mother Mcreeeeee 20,096
News Dayton-area office targets $21 billion in work ... Aug 25 The Old Cold Warrior 1
"Michael Bloomberg 'FROM THE RIGHT'?!!!" Aug 25 Leon Harrison 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springboro Mortgages