The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[unofan]

Some-not many. Some would object to birth control if it's being used to undertake an unhealthy lifestyle. Other would applaud it.

Oh and this from Reuters.
Reuters Top News********✔ @Reuters
Follow
#BREAKING: White House will consider whether president can act on his own to mitigate effect of Supreme Court contraception ruling
12:49 PM - 30 Jun 2014

When will he ever learn?

Considering the very thing SCOTUS is telling him to do was originally done as an administrative regulation, what is there to learn? Do you second guess every regulation made by your state's board of education as executive overreach? No? Then why hold the president to some impossible standard of never creating administrative regulations?

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

They can, and they do. The Usual Suspects have been running on "these gol'durned activist judges!!!1!!" for 30 years. Then they immediately plunged into their own radical judicial activism as soon as they had the keys. They are originalist when it suits them and activist when it suits them. And although they are hypocritical, at the end of the day they're doing exactly what Louis Brandeis said a SCOTUS justice not only should but can't avoid doing. So for Scalia and his henchmen, bad process but good (for them and weirdly, by the principle that elections have consequences, us) result.

As with science or economics, 99% of the people who yell about the law are 99% ignorant and can easily be whipped into a frenzy. By the goose/gander principle, it was inevitable that this strategy would boomerang against Movement Conservatism. The reaction that buries them is going to be every bit as idiotic and dishonest as the flag-waving, genuflecting in favor of them was.

It's been going on for a long time on both sides. Don't pretend the Dems and their nonsense about protecting Social Security against the boogeyman and all, which has been around for decades, is only in response to the bad guy GOP.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I wasn't trolling, just being logical. The only reason to have sex is to produce children. He doesn't have lots of kids, so it must follow that he isn't having sex. Why is it OK to discuss women's sexual activity but not Bob's?

You keep making all sorts of assumptions about my private life. You are clueless about my life, to put it mildly. Nothing better to do with your day?

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob doesn't get references from movies after the 1950's.

So, after googling, I guess you're referring to some Ron Burgundy guy. I've heard of him, but can't say I know much about him or some quote he made somewhere. Hardly an obvious reference, if a person realizes that not everyone watches all the same TV, movies, etc. as they do. But, tunnel vision seems epidemic these days.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here's an excellent article that points out the fallacy of Alito's argument.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-liberty.html

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It's been going on for a long time on both sides. Don't pretend the Dems and their nonsense about protecting Social Security against the boogeyman and all, which has been around for decades, is only in response to the bad guy GOP.

The posturing does indeed go back a long way. A long, long way. A long, long, long way.

The Social Security third rail is a bad argument for you, though, since Paul Ryan eventually showed up and proved there was a boogeyman. But yes, each side has their anti-vax screeds where you know the guy making the "principled stand" is either lying or brain dead.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I wasn't trolling, just being logical. The only reason to have sex is to produce children. He doesn't have lots of kids, so it must follow that he isn't having sex. Why is it OK to discuss women's sexual activity but not Bob's?

This is not specific to any poster, but asking questions like this is what's killing social conservatism in politics. Abortion is a good example and so is contraception. For you young 'uns out there, it used to be that Republicans could rail against abortion but as long as their stance stayed somewhat vague on the details they basically had a free issue in their favor. Now that's no longer possible, and you start getting Todd Akins and Richard Murdochs. Or you get people who don't think contraception should be legal. Saying "I stand for family values" is a good sound bite, but once you get asked about specifics it all falls apart. Moderate and the hard righties come after you. Go hard right and you look like a Neanderthal to 70% of the country.

This isn't due to some brilliant left/Democratic strategy mind you, but more of how omnipresent media coverage is now that the lamestream media is no longer the only game in town. But for me, I think its a good thing when somebody says contraception should be up to your boss because God is against it, but then they worship a politican (Bush II) who's been married for decades but only has two kids who happen to be twins. Either he's been practicing the very think they're against or he's been taking a lot of cold showers.

[ericredaxe]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm not "legal savvy" enough... but i wonder if a woman will in turn bring a suit claiming they have been perscribed the pill for reasons other than contraception... and how would that go?

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The posturing does indeed go back a long way.

The Social Security third rail is a bad argument for you, though, since Paul Ryan eventually showed up and proved there was a boogeyman. But yes, each side has their anti-vax screeds where you know the guy making the "principled stand" is either lying or brain dead.

So some candidate in the 70s or 80s moaning about he GOP supposedly gutting Social Security is justified by a current GOP rep putting out a plan to do some reforms? And a plan that everyone knew was going nowhere? That's a ridiculous argument, but, such is the nonsense people put out there to justify what they or those they support do in the political arena.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm not "legal savvy" enough... but i wonder if a woman will in turn bring a suit claiming they have been perscribed the pill for reasons other than contraception... and how would that go?

Shouldn't matter. The ruling says I have rights of religious conscience that I can exercise through my closely-held, for-profit corporation. If I claim my faith says I can hold my breath over The Pill, that's that. My employee can have any reason for needing it; they can go suck it.

I am hopeful that right now, some nice Muslim-owned family business is preparing to hoist these guys by their own petard so high we won't even be able to see their butts through the clouds.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This is not specific to any poster, but asking questions like this is what's killing social conservatism in politics. Abortion is a good example and so is contraception. For you young 'uns out there, it used to be that Republicans could rail against abortion but as long as their stance stayed somewhat vague on the details they basically had a free issue in their favor. Now that's no longer possible, and you start getting Todd Akins and Richard Murdochs. Or you get people who don't think contraception should be legal. Saying "I stand for family values" is a good sound bite, but once you get asked about specifics it all falls apart. Moderate and the hard righties come after you. Go hard right and you look like a Neanderthal to 70% of the country.

This isn't due to some brilliant left/Democratic strategy mind you, but more of how omnipresent media coverage is now that the lamestream media is no longer the only game in town. But for me, I think its a good thing when somebody says contraception should be up to your boss because God is against it, but then they worship a politican (Bush II) who's been married for decades but only has two kids who happen to be twins. Either he's been practicing the very think they're against or he's been taking a lot of cold showers.

When will a liberal admit that your boss isn't making any decision for you? The misinformation campaign on this is reaching epic proportions. But, some of the sheeple will I'm sure fall for it.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

When will a liberal admit that your boss isn't making any decision for you? The misinformation campaign on this is reaching epic proportions. But, some of the sheeple will I'm sure fall for it.

Oh, yes they are. They decide what health insurance I do or do not receive. It's not a directed decision. It's an economic one that leaves me with little choice.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

So, after googling, I guess you're referring to some Ron Burgundy guy. I've heard of him, but can't say I know much about him or some quote he made somewhere. Hardly an obvious reference, if a person realizes that not everyone watches all the same TV, movies, etc. as they do. But, tunnel vision seems epidemic these days.

Bob, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a movie that earned roughly $500MM at the box offices in 2004, according to IMDB.com. The whole "Stay Classy, San Diego" line was the character's sign-off phrase for closing the news reports, which ends up becoming a big joke within the movie. It's hardly an obscure reference.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I like where Bob is heading though.

1) Hobby Lobby can tailor its health care package according to its owners' religious whims.

2) Hobby Lobby employees have a right to health care but can't force their employer to include it.

3) Hence, a Single Payer fallback is required to protect Hobby Lobby's sacred religious rights.

Are you there, God? It's me, Universal Nationalized Health Care.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm not "legal savvy" enough... but i wonder if a woman will in turn bring a suit claiming they have been perscribed the pill for reasons other than contraception... and how would that go?

I'm waiting for a woman to sue their employer over covering Viagra but not birth control.