Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*Reads name of source*

*reads article*

Not sure if they're ruling in general, hence the future constraints, or if they were ruling specifically on Obama's actions and clarifying existing law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
LOL, Obama is a douchebag like all before him, except Carter, who was a nice guy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anti-constitutionalist tyrant ? Absolutely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anti-constitutionalist tyrant ? Absolutely.

---

So was president Cheney, your point?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*Reads name of source*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

2. The some 1000 rulings the NLRB made with these 3 ILLEGAL appointees may essentially be null and void. We shall see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Might be the GOP had issues with those who Obama wanted to appoint ? As evidence by the Boeing case, which the President also go smacked around on too, as I recall.

12 times this President was spanked by the USSC 9-0.

That ain't just partisan concepts of law there folks. That's the USSC sending a clear and unambiguous message to Barry that he is NOT, despite his wishes, the RULER he thinks.

And the saddest part ? He still doesn't get it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Chalk up 2 more HUGE loses for Barry @ the USSC.

Hobby Lobby 1 Obama 0

America 1 Unions 0

Really surprised there wasn't some quid pro quo with earlier rulings, but goodonya, Justices!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Of course it does not matter that recess appointments have been done this way for many years now and that all the supreme court said was that congress had to be in recess for at least 10 days before a president can make any recess appointments. Also the appointments Obama made that were in question were to the National Labor Relations Board which could not function while the seats Obama filled were empty. Why would the Republicans wish to block them from doing their job? Well we all know the reasons behind that. Many here won't acknowledge it was all an attempt by Republicans to support big business at the expense of the working class.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Justice Roberts was very clear. He wanted this to apply only here for this small company. However the door has been opened and the challenges will be made. Pandora is out of the box. Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization. This ruling in not based on a churches rights to practice its faith. It is based on the man at the top saying in effect, I don’t believe in it so I should not have to do it.

How do you like the fact that the Supreme Court just said if you work for a company the boss, “ who’s faith never mattered before” can now call you into his office and tell you that many of the things in your health insurance policy he does not agree with. You see he believes in sharia law so you can no longer expect coverage for them.

That is what some of you are jumping up and down celebrating. Society gained nothing and the CEO gained a whole new set of ways to challenge regulations put in place for the sake of the general population. Great news right because what we really need in this country are more ways to protect corporations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
A bit more than you do. As a matter a fact, a lot more than you do.

si shen

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
OMG! I'm going to go out and buy a gun and learn Chinese now, the world is truly over.

---

Quote:

---

.. Ru
Actually, ya don't.
See, Obama and the Left believe in the twisted premise of 'positive' rights, that the govt has certain things that it MUST give , to everyone. It's quite the counter to what the Founders thought, that govt must protect rights which are inherent and inalienable.

---

Quote:

---

..Ru
Healthcare isn't an actual 'right'. But the Left view that everyone MUST be treated exactly equal, and that the only way to ensure that is the case is for the govt to furnish , or see to it that every 'right' isn't merely available, but offered up to all, for free.

---

Quote:

---

..Ru
Hobby Lobby offered some 16 of the 20 available contraceptive methods. It didn't DENY anyone who worked for them to have the other four, they just didn't feel it was their duty to supply them. The pill isn't a constitutional RIGHT. You aren't OWED that, by the govt, your employee, or anyone. If you choose to go that route, then fine... you can. But that should be entirely up to you.

---

Quote:

---

..Ru
It's a bit like claiming the 2nd Amendment is a Right, so all should be offered free guns and ammo. Either by the govt directly, or by the govt forcing your employer to supply them.

This entire issue has been fabricated by Obama, NOT to ensure women get 'reproductive rights ', but as a campaign issue. He had to have known this would not have made it through the USSC. Good for his side if it had, but he was banking on it not, so that he could then fund raise and politic for the next campaign cycle, or more.

Seriously folks, you're being played.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's about control, not " seeing things differently ".

There is no RIGHT for you to take from others & give to those who can freely get on their own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To whom do YOU belong ? Yourself, or the STATE ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
And so it starts:

Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hob
by-lobby

si shen

---

Quote:

---

The only absolute or yes or no that this discussion has room for is in your mind. As I have notice that is a tiny (small) island. Fortunately the country is much larger than that with many more opinions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
A bit more than you do. As a matter a fact, a lot more than you do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
And so it starts:

Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hob
by-lobby

si shen

---

Like they didn't want to before the ruling ?

They can TRY, but I don't think it'll work out as they hope.

Jesus would want LBGT types hired by religious orgs, I'd think, wouldn't he ?

Quote:

---

The only absolute or yes or no that this discussion has room for is in your mind. As I have notice that is a tiny (small) island. Fortunately the country is much larger than that with many more opinions.

---

The proggies seem to think that the 'individual' belongs to the State.


We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.

- Hillary Clinton

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hillarycli385982.html#4I1Dg
XkrWTuY1ClP.99


Seems you share in her view, no ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, it's not the beginning, as you claim.

If you knew the case, and the decision , you'd not be fear mongering the issue as you are.

But what the hell, right ? Obama wanted this as a campaign issue, and you're just falling in line, like a good soldier.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
She's wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
She's wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The proggies seem to think that the 'individual' belongs to the State.

We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.- Hillary Clinton

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
She's wrong.

---

Yes of course she is except some of what see predicted has started already. Do you suppose those in the middle politically are going to be upset about all the nut jobs being turned lose to make crazy challenges. Like having to hire gays, opps that has happened already hasn't it. What about blood transfusions and women having to wear burka's. After all, do Muslims not have the right to dismiss our laws in favor of their religion. Now you do not even have to be a religious enterprise to make such claims. I mean now that the courts have given them precedent. Hey, lets get together and sacrifice a chicken or something. I wonder how much tax money is going to go to hearing all theses court cases. But of course you are right she is wrong because what does she know. She is just a Supreme Court Justice.

---

Quote:

---

…Au
Women are not being degraded by the GOP.
That right there is a false narrative, either an intentional lie, or the result of willful propaganda.
The House and Senate will be GOP this fall, so the Dems will have to deal w/ that first.
I doubt Hillary makes it to the convention as a candidate.

---

Quote:

---

I don’t have to show myself to be right about the Republicans and women’s issues. It has been the topic of much political analysis and if you are not aware of it, it is because you do not wish to acknowledge it. Fine by me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

I don’t have to show myself to be right about the Republicans and women’s issues. It has been the topic of much political analysis and if you are not aware of it, it is because you do not wish to acknowledge it. Fine by me.

---

Yeah, you do, because the Left has wholly fabricated this crap out of nothing. Tell women they deserve to get something for nothing, when it's already available , in many forms, for little cost they'll buy into the story that they deserve it.

Why ?

No reason. Just because you say so.

And then we have mob rule. Give us free stuff, or else.

Sorry, not gonna happen.

---