Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30966 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think the Supreme Court is for? They are there TO judge issues based on the Constitution.
They are also there to be the court of last resort on federal law issues. The Hobby Lobby case was not a first amendment case.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30967 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
My fat diabetic @ss works all day so you have products in the store to purchase. Without us, you'd starve.
With out you, some other high school dropout would drive the truck. No worries.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30968 Jul 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the decision. The court applied the statute, not the first amendment.
I know the Constitution was involved with the reason for the decision.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30969 Jul 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
They are also there to be the court of last resort on federal law issues. The Hobby Lobby case was not a first amendment case.
it was a first amendment issue and the SCOTUS went about it a different way which is why the Liberals are up in arms.

The New Law of Religion

Hobby Lobby is for religion what Citizens United was for free speech—the corporatization of our basic liberties. But Hobby Lobby is also unprecedented in another, equally important way. For the first time, the court has interpreted a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or RFRA), as affording more protection for religion than has ever been provided under the First Amendment. While some have read Hobby Lobby as a narrow statutory ruling, it is much more than that. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.

To see how we got here requires some history. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court adopted an expansive interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In a pair of cases, Sherbert v. Verner (1962) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the court held that the government may not impose substantial burdens on religion unless it has a “compelling interest” and “no alternative forms of regulation” could be used to advance that interest. But in 1990, the Supreme Court repudiated this balancing test for assessing Free Exercise claims. In Employment Division v. Smith, which upheld a federal law banning the use of peyote, the court declared that generally applicable laws can incidentally burden religious practices without violating the First Amendment, and that the government does not need to provide any special justification for such laws.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#30970 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Don't you hate those politicians that block jobs?
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/
You need to quit posting useful links. It riles the libs & koolade drinkers & i am tired of about reading how challenged they are
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#30971 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Right you are. Who do parents think they are wanting their children to be taught certain subjects? The nerve of some people.
That's the problem with parents these days, they think they can actually parent. Little do they know that parents shouldn't be looking out for their children, that's what government is for. What would a parent know about their child anyway?
That's what the "village" is for. I don't mean to correct you on that!(<:
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#30972 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think the Supreme Court is for? They are there TO judge issues based on the Constitution.
Actually they are to give opinions based on LAW that is constitutionally legal. Truly not meaning to pick on this one but there is a difference.
It does seem tho that sometimes SCOTUS has forgotten that time from time.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30973 Jul 3, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I know the Constitution was involved with the reason for the decision.
You do realize that you disproved this post with your next post, right?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30975 Jul 3, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>You need to quit posting useful links. It riles the libs & koolade drinkers & i am tired of about reading how challenged they are
They get upset every time their left-wing blogs tell them otherwise, like "It's the Republicans who are obstructionists."

They elected a joker that not only doesn't know his job, but refuses to deal with anybody. Then when things don't get done, it has nothing to do with the Democrats, NO, it has to do with the Republicans only.

It doesn't take two to Tango as long as liberals think they can use it for their side. Did you see or hear how DumBama acted after the SC ruling? Like a brat that was told by his mother he couldn't have an item in the store that he wanted. I was actually waiting for him to say "Now I have three pens and three cell phones."
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30976 Jul 3, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it was a first amendment issue and the SCOTUS went about it a different way which is why the Liberals are up in arms.
The New Law of Religion
Hobby Lobby is for religion what Citizens United was for free speech—the corporatization of our basic liberties. But Hobby Lobby is also unprecedented in another, equally important way. For the first time, the court has interpreted a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or RFRA), as affording more protection for religion than has ever been provided under the First Amendment. While some have read Hobby Lobby as a narrow statutory ruling, it is much more than that. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.
To see how we got here requires some history. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court adopted an expansive interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In a pair of cases, Sherbert v. Verner (1962) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the court held that the government may not impose substantial burdens on religion unless it has a “compelling interest” and “no alternative forms of regulation” could be used to advance that interest. But in 1990, the Supreme Court repudiated this balancing test for assessing Free Exercise claims. In Employment Division v. Smith, which upheld a federal law banning the use of peyote, the court declared that generally applicable laws can incidentally burden religious practices without violating the First Amendment, and that the government does not need to provide any special justification for such laws.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...
The bottom line is this is a big win for those of us that are against the Cradle-To-Gravers. I mean for crying out loud, HTF can a government of a supposedly free society charge employers with the responsibility of personal matters for their employees?

These Cradle-to-Gravers think government should be involved in every single aspect of our lives. From personal hygiene to transportation. From transportation to personal safety. From personal safety to work benefits. From work benefits to personal family matters. They won't stop until every single one of us has a government agent in our house to make sure we are doing things the government way. They pray to the pages of the book 1984.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30977 Jul 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
With out you, some other high school dropout would drive the truck. No worries.
Yeah, I guess that's the reason why employers can't find good drivers these past few years. Oh, we certainly can't expect liberals to drive trucks. They are too busy sitting at home on some social program, watching their big screen and talking on their Obama phone. Did I hit a nerve?????

The one good thing about being in and understanding this industry is I can tell you liberals how FOS you are when you try to tell me there are no jobs out there, and I retort by telling you there are plenty of jobs, it's just that Americans won't take the time or energy to get any of these jobs.

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/trp/
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30978 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
They get upset every time their left-wing blogs tell them otherwise, like "It's the Republicans who are obstructionists."
They elected a joker that not only doesn't know his job, but refuses to deal with anybody. Then when things don't get done, it has nothing to do with the Democrats, NO, it has to do with the Republicans only.
It doesn't take two to Tango as long as liberals think they can use it for their side. Did you see or hear how DumBama acted after the SC ruling? Like a brat that was told by his mother he couldn't have an item in the store that he wanted. I was actually waiting for him to say "Now I have three pens and three cell phones."
Posting propaganda from the House majority leader isn't very convincing proof. It's like posting a link to O. J. Simpson's website to prove he didn't kill those two people.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30979 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is this is a big win for those of us that are against the Cradle-To-Gravers. I mean for crying out loud, HTF can a government of a supposedly free society charge employers with the responsibility of personal matters for their employees?
These Cradle-to-Gravers think government should be involved in every single aspect of our lives. From personal hygiene to transportation. From transportation to personal safety. From personal safety to work benefits. From work benefits to personal family matters. They won't stop until every single one of us has a government agent in our house to make sure we are doing things the government way. They pray to the pages of the book 1984.
You don't understand the Hobby Lobby case either. It didn't do anything close to what you are saying. It interpreted a statute on a rather limited scope.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30980 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I guess that's the reason why employers can't find good drivers these past few years. Oh, we certainly can't expect liberals to drive trucks. They are too busy sitting at home on some social program, watching their big screen and talking on their Obama phone. Did I hit a nerve?????
The one good thing about being in and understanding this industry is I can tell you liberals how FOS you are when you try to tell me there are no jobs out there, and I retort by telling you there are plenty of jobs, it's just that Americans won't take the time or energy to get any of these jobs.
http://cleveland.craigslist.org/trp/
You seem to have a problem confusing people with better jobs than you with people not having jobs at all. It's kind of cute in a way, how you think that if someone doesn't have a menial job like you they must be unemployed.

If there are plenty of jobs, why are you so petrified about immigrants?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30981 Jul 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a problem confusing people with better jobs than you with people not having jobs at all. It's kind of cute in a way, how you think that if someone doesn't have a menial job like you they must be unemployed.
If there are plenty of jobs, why are you so petrified about immigrants?
Because it plays right into the liberal agenda: get other people to do the jobs and create more social leeches thus expanding the Democrat base. The more foreigners, the larger the Democrat vote since thinking Americans realize what sleeze the Democrat party is. It will take foreigners a few years to figure it out. Besides that, bringing in foreigners lowers the pay scale for real Americans such as myself.

In the meantime, we've expanded social leeches to it's highest level in history. Need the numbers, just ask and I'll post the links. Not to mention we have one of the highest figures of Americans "out of the workforce" since the 70's. But do you libs ever question how people support themselves being out of the workforce? No. You cry about how Republicans are stopping DumBama from creating jobs even though he wouldn't know how to crate a job if his life counted on it. The only experience he has is being a Community Organizer.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30982 Jul 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Posting propaganda from the House majority leader isn't very convincing proof. It's like posting a link to O. J. Simpson's website to prove he didn't kill those two people.
Typical liberal. Attack the messenger instead of the message.

Yet with all these attacks, you libs can't prove one of these messages wrong.

The Senate stops everything the Republicans try to do. But even if they passed anything, it would surly stop at DumBama's desk. Of course MSM will not tell you that. All they tell you is that the Republicans are stopping DumBama's more destructive bills for America.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30983 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical liberal. Attack the messenger instead of the message.
Yet with all these attacks, you libs can't prove one of these messages wrong.
The Senate stops everything the Republicans try to do. But even if they passed anything, it would surly stop at DumBama's desk. Of course MSM will not tell you that. All they tell you is that the Republicans are stopping DumBama's more destructive bills for America.
When the messenger is Eric Cantor talking about the relationship between the House and Obama, yes I attack the messenger. Do you believe O.J. when he says he didn't kill those people?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30984 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it plays right into the liberal agenda: get other people to do the jobs and create more social leeches thus expanding the Democrat base. The more foreigners, the larger the Democrat vote since thinking Americans realize what sleeze the Democrat party is. It will take foreigners a few years to figure it out. Besides that, bringing in foreigners lowers the pay scale for real Americans such as myself.
In the meantime, we've expanded social leeches to it's highest level in history. Need the numbers, just ask and I'll post the links. Not to mention we have one of the highest figures of Americans "out of the workforce" since the 70's. But do you libs ever question how people support themselves being out of the workforce? No. You cry about how Republicans are stopping DumBama from creating jobs even though he wouldn't know how to crate a job if his life counted on it. The only experience he has is being a Community Organizer.
Why is the GOP blocking any effort that President Obama makes to improve our infrastructure? Because of the scary foreigners? Because they are trying to get people off of welfare? Because they are trying to increase the workforce? What is it, Taliban Ray?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30985 Jul 3, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that you disproved this post with your next post, right?
No because the US Constitution is always involved with any Federal Law that is passed by Congress.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30986 Jul 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is this is a big win for those of us that are against the Cradle-To-Gravers. I mean for crying out loud, HTF can a government of a supposedly free society charge employers with the responsibility of personal matters for their employees?
These Cradle-to-Gravers think government should be involved in every single aspect of our lives. From personal hygiene to transportation. From transportation to personal safety. From personal safety to work benefits. From work benefits to personal family matters. They won't stop until every single one of us has a government agent in our house to make sure we are doing things the government way. They pray to the pages of the book 1984.
Right, it was a big win against the Cradle to Grave Advocates or Liberals as they like to call themselves today.

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.

Xenia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Pauls have been denigrated if not hated... 7 hr The Old Cold Warrior 1
Swamiji Sri Selvam siddhar- Dr Commander Selvam... (Feb '13) 8 hr lakshmi 29
The Vast Indiference of Government Fri The Fart Checker 15
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Fri Samuel-6g-Jackson 19,631
The ISIS crisis! The ISIS crisis! Fri patty 2
who want's my phone number?... (Oct '07) Fri Kyle davis 107
Health & Food Inspections Fri Tantor 1
Xenia Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Xenia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:48 pm PST

Yahoo! Sports 3:48PM
Josh McCown decides to sign with the Cleveland Browns
Yahoo! Sports 4:05 PM
Browns agree to terms with QB McCown
CBS Sports 4:56 PM
QB Josh McCown agrees to terms with the Browns: Three things to know
Bleacher Report 5:19 PM
McCown Signing Doesn't Improve Brutal QB Situation
NFL 8:50 AM
Josh McCown: I want to help Manziel as much as I can