No.
Casually granted.
Heh, well, there’s a much larger thread just over there in which that issue is being analyzed.
Well, amend the constitution to clarify the issue. “Congress shall make no law compelling a corporation to behave in a manner its equity-holders feel runs counter to their religious beliefs, whatever they are this week.”
Okey-dokey.
Its hard for the layman to grasp these wonders. We are instructed that the case is so clearly cut and dried, so incontrovertible, the wonder is that the minority has the temerity to pretend otherwise. Their questions were all answered, we are assured. And yet they persist in contradicting legal minds like Scalia and Alito: intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic…
Of course he didn’t mean for all people just the very rich, Jesus even said the poor would also always be with us, I believe his intention was to put people in more importance than things and place. In our culture we say a noun is a person , place or thing, but our importance seems to be things, place, then people. Of course things are needed and can be a good thing, but it is because of people they gain the way to help others have a good life and a healthy happy one. There is pleasure even joy in seeing happiness in others.
The Idea of not killing another is of course is also a way of self preservation as the Golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.Plain common sense. I think Jesus’s quote quote at least to me meant like his last command to his follower’s; I leave you one commandment;"That you love one another’ meaning wish and do good to others.
Then all your sperm that do not cause a conception is killing a human Life?
It doesn’t challenge your statement. It affirmed your statement and added a few carrots to this stone soup discussion.
It doesn’t appear that Ginsburg believes this is a constitutional issue. It does appear that Ginsburg believes this was a wrong decision, and based on the fact that the courts have legislated from the bench before, she sees no reason why they couldn’t do so again. Breyer and Kagan agree with Ginsburg but they aren’t the majority.
JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting. We agree with JUSTICE GINSBURG that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits. We need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Accordingly, we join all but Part III–C–1 of JUSTICE GINSBURG’s dissenting opinion.
Breyer and Kagan made it clear that this Hobby Lobby ruling does not prevent other plaintiffs from bring claims under RFRA of 1993.
The other claims will be addressed based on their own merit.
If your key words are conception and human life, then the answer would be no. For example, you couldn’t impregnate a blue dress simply by ejaculating on it.
Of course we can. Were you out sick for the entire balance of powers discussion in Civics class, not just the Marbury v. Madison part?
If the legislature dislikes a court’s ruling on a matter of statute, they can change the statute. If they dislike a court’s ruling on a matter of the Constitution, they can (with help) amend the Constitution.
It is quite extraordinary that someone could get a law degree in the US and not grasp something that most middle schoolers can grasp.
Did you actually read his post? Because “we can’t” referred to “elect their opponents next time.” Your civics class did you a disservice if you were taught that federal judges can be elected.
Now, no one who knows anything about you expects you to admit an error, so let me fire up a tune while you begin your dance to avoid doing so.
No, he obviously meant we’re *stuck *with a federal judge’s decision, schmuck.
The fact that you can’t find any despite more strenuous efforts than you ever give an actual post, combined with your general superficiality and silly and lazy both-sides-do-it-ism being so frequently pointed out, really frustrates you, doesn’t it? There’s a cure for that, but there’s no reason to hope you’ll ever make use of it.
And what are we to make of this:
Sure – but as I said, we still can’t un-elect the judges. And even if we amend the constitution thusly, a vigorously intentioned interpretation could scuttle it.
I suppose we could amend the constitution to remove lifetime tenure for judges.
The minority’s position is: using the plain text of the law produces a result so bad that we’re sure Congress didn’t intend it.
As always, Canada is way ahead of you. Mandatory retirement from the SCC at 75.
That will most likely change after annexation.
Yeah, when we absorb the U.S., their higher rates of obesity and diabetes might lower the overall life expectancy.
I see my time away from the board hasn’t resulted in any less misrepresentations from you.
That’s a perfectly fair one-sentence summary of what the minority position says.
But, of course, it’s irrelevant, since the minority position does not create the precedent anyway.