It is currently Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:37 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13442
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Seacrest wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
No, it changed because what the law required was found to never have been constitutional.
The right did exist though. The right has been taken away. There really is no other way to look at it. If you want to argue the right was not Constitutional then go ahead. The court agreed. However, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. The rights of a corporation were found to be more important than the rights of the employees.
Seacrest wrote:
So, why is the law not paying for my medication?
I don't know what this question means.


Actually there is. They tried to make a right, and our government worked the way it's supposed to.

The right didn't pass muster legally. It happens all of the time. At an increasingly alarming rate though, for an administration run by someone that claims to have been a constitutional scholar.

The right didn't pass muster legally. It happens all the time. At an increasingly alarming rate for a branch that is supposed to be politically impartial. Clearly that's not the case though.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The SCOTUS doesn't change laws.
Classify it however you want. Obamacare is immediately changed based on the ruling today.
Seacrest wrote:
I honestly don't think you understand how this worked.
You wouldn't be concentrating on weak semantical arguments if you actually believed that.


Honestly, you don't seem to grasp how the legal system works in this country.

The Legislative branch passed a law.

The Executive Branch added a legal clause, in this case birth control, and claimed it was constitutional.

The Judicial Branch said, "No, it is not."

Like it or not, that is how it is supposed to work in this country.

A law is not correct just because a POTUS says so. Thank God.
This is how I know you are struggling. I never said it was correct. I just said it was changed. It is. The law today is different than it was yesterday.

Changed, overturned, cancelled, reversed. Pick whatever term you think is the most accurate. It still doesn't change the fact that a right was granted and now it is gone.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33874
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
My mom worked work hobby lobby. She was fired and now I think hobby lobby sucks. Anyway, it was my understanding that they'd pay for birth control pills when medically necessary. I don't know if any plans have ever been responsible for condoms and sponges. Hobby lobby did not want to pay for morning after pills, iuds, and certain hormonal devices.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
No, it changed because what the law required was found to never have been constitutional.
The right did exist though. The right has been taken away. There really is no other way to look at it. If you want to argue the right was not Constitutional then go ahead. The court agreed. However, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. The rights of a corporation were found to be more important than the rights of the employees.
Seacrest wrote:
So, why is the law not paying for my medication?
I don't know what this question means.


Actually there is. They tried to make a right, and our government worked the way it's supposed to.

The right didn't pass muster legally. It happens all of the time. At an increasingly alarming rate though, for an administration run by someone that claims to have been a constitutional scholar.

The right didn't pass muster legally. It happens all the time. At an increasingly alarming rate for a branch that is supposed to be politically impartial. Clearly that's not the case though.


Your opinion has little basis in fact.


The nine members of the Supreme Court have unanimously ruled against the positions taken by the administration over a dozen times since January 2012.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
So reading the BRick and Seacrest thing I come away with the idea that no one actually lost access to birth control, i.e. it isn't banned outright. The only thing that was lost was the act of having someone else pay for it.
The religious rights of a corporation were considered more important than the rights of an individual.

I don't know why it always goes to "birth control was not banned".


It's very similar to how some folks (especially on the East Coast) like to change the point of contention entirely when they realize that their position is indefensible.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
Don Tiny wrote:
It's very similar to how some folks (especially on the East Coast) like to change the point of contention entirely when they realize that their position is indefensible.
:lol: Was that a shot at me, leash, stoneroses, or Tall Midget?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
It's very similar to how some folks (especially on the East Coast) like to change the point of contention entirely when they realize that their position is indefensible.
:lol: Was that a shot at me, leash, stoneroses, or Tall Midget?


Yes. And Seacrest. And me. Pretty much everyone except Midget (I don't recall him doing that). Or SHARK. Same person essentially. j/k

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
In that case, I'd recommend making that point at the time of the discussion, rather than months later when none of us will even remember what we supposedly did.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40829
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
SomeGuy wrote:
So reading the BRick and Seacrest thing I come away with the idea that no one actually lost access to birth control, i.e. it isn't banned outright. The only thing that was lost was the act of having someone else pay for it.

YES/NO


:lol:

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13442
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Seacrest - do you believe that the individual beliefs (both political and religious) of the members of the SCOTUS don't affect their rulings? I'm not saying that's the basis of every case they preside over but certainly we see the 5:4 breakdown more frequently than one would expect in a non-biased judicial decision.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40829
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Seacrest - do you believe that the individual beliefs (both political and religious) of the members of the SCOTUS don't affect their rulings? I'm not saying that's the basis of every case they preside over but certainly we see the 5:4 breakdown more frequently than one would expect in a non-biased judicial decision.


I won't speak for Seacrest but I have liked the last few ones being unanimous rather than partisan. I think they try hard but they do have their thoughts. One example related to this health care actually was Big Chief Roberts went against type to keep Obamacare alive at all.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Seacrest - do you believe that the individual beliefs (both political and religious) of the members of the SCOTUS don't affect their rulings? I'm not saying that's the basis of every case they preside over but certainly we see the 5:4 breakdown more frequently than one would expect in a non-biased judicial decision.



You alleged that the court is politically partisan.

What makes you say that?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13442
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Seacrest wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Seacrest - do you believe that the individual beliefs (both political and religious) of the members of the SCOTUS don't affect their rulings? I'm not saying that's the basis of every case they preside over but certainly we see the 5:4 breakdown more frequently than one would expect in a non-biased judicial decision.



You alleged that the court is politically partisan.

What makes you say that?

You didn't answer my question.
To answer yours - Beyond the often predictable 5:4 splits along party lines (obviously this applies to both sides) I would offer up the fact that any open seat for the SCOTUS is bitterly argued and often timed relative to the party in the White House. If they are impartial, why does the next nominee matter so much? Why is Kennedy labelled a swing vote? Do you seriously question that?

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:05 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13442
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
seacrest wrote:
Your opinion has little basis in fact.


The nine members of the Supreme Court have unanimously ruled against the positions taken by the administration over a dozen times since January 2012.
I would assume you know that the SCOTUS presides over 75 cases per year so the remarkable number of unanimious decisions which you believe discredits my previous post is really not so remarkable.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:12 pm 
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Do they cover abortions?


Is abortion birth control?

Actually, the only methods of BC that the Green family were opposed to were ones they considered "abortive". That's what the whole case was about.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
So reading the BRick and Seacrest thing I come away with the idea that no one actually lost access to birth control, i.e. it isn't banned outright. The only thing that was lost was the act of having someone else pay for it.
The religious rights of a corporation were considered more important than the rights of an individual.

I don't know why it always goes to "birth control was not banned".


The religious rights of the privately held corporation were considered more important than the rights of an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
KDdidit wrote:
Will they pay me to pull out and skeet skeet skeet on her breasts?


To hell with that.

For the record, SomeGuy loves birth control. The pill, the IUD, the Norplant, whatever the case may be. They have allowed SomeGuy to not have to wear a rubber and to be able to let his fly as hell juice flow freely for many, many jubilant years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Image

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Chus wrote:
Image


You're really good at posting pictures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
SomeGuy wrote:
The religious rights of the privately held corporation were considered more important than the rights of an individual.
Does that make a difference?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
The religious rights of the privately held corporation were considered more important than the rights of an individual.
Does that make a difference?


Just trying to be accurate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Chus wrote:
Image


You don't FUCK with Big Scrapbook!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
seacrest wrote:
Your opinion has little basis in fact.


The nine members of the Supreme Court have unanimously ruled against the positions taken by the administration over a dozen times since January 2012.
I would assume you know that the SCOTUS presides over 75 cases per year so the remarkable number of unanimious decisions which you believe discredits my previous post is really not so remarkable.


Unanimous decisions are quite relevant when all 13 of them were directly against cases brought by the POTUS.

It shows that no matter whom you consider partisan, even the current nominees of the POTUS find decisions made by his administration to be without an understanding of the Constitution.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:28 pm 
Seacrest wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
seacrest wrote:
Your opinion has little basis in fact.


The nine members of the Supreme Court have unanimously ruled against the positions taken by the administration over a dozen times since January 2012.
I would assume you know that the SCOTUS presides over 75 cases per year so the remarkable number of unanimious decisions which you believe discredits my previous post is really not so remarkable.


Unanimous decisions are quite relevant when all 13 of them were directly against cases brought by the POTUS.

It shows that no matter whom you consider partisan, even the current nominees of the POTUS find decisions made by his administration to be without an understanding of the Constitution.

You're not very familiar with Poltifact are you?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
SomeGuy wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Will they pay me to pull out and skeet skeet skeet on her breasts?


To hell with that.

For the record, SomeGuy loves birth control. The pill, the IUD, the Norplant, whatever the case may be. They have allowed SomeGuy to not have to wear a rubber and to be able to let his fly as hell juice flow freely for many, many jubilant years.


They ruled today that you have to pay for that. Still.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
SomeGuy wrote:
Chus wrote:
Image


You're really good at posting pictures.


This is probably the first time you have said anything nice about me. I'm very disappointed.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13442
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Seacrest wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
seacrest wrote:
Your opinion has little basis in fact.


The nine members of the Supreme Court have unanimously ruled against the positions taken by the administration over a dozen times since January 2012.
I would assume you know that the SCOTUS presides over 75 cases per year so the remarkable number of unanimious decisions which you believe discredits my previous post is really not so remarkable.


Unanimous decisions are quite relevant when all 13 of them were directly against cases brought by the POTUS.

It shows that no matter whom you consider partisan, even the current nominees of the POTUS find decisions made by his administration to be without an understanding of the Constitution.
I'm sure the "administration" brings many cases which are legally dubious. That said, you still didn't answer my question. A very simple one really.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Seacrest - do you believe that the individual beliefs (both political and religious) of the members of the SCOTUS don't affect their rulings? I'm not saying that's the basis of every case they preside over but certainly we see the 5:4 breakdown more frequently than one would expect in a non-biased judicial decision.



You alleged that the court is politically partisan.

What makes you say that?

You didn't answer my question.
To answer yours - Beyond the often predictable 5:4 splits along party lines (obviously this applies to both sides) I would offer up the fact that any open seat for the SCOTUS is bitterly argued and often timed relative to the party in the White House. If they are impartial, why does the next nominee matter so much? Why is Kennedy labelled a swing vote? Do you seriously question that?


By your theory, Kennedy would be a Republican political vote. And not a swing vote.

I think that the court comes down on different sides due to judicial philosophies, not political ones.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Seacrest wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
seacrest wrote:
Your opinion has little basis in fact.


The nine members of the Supreme Court have unanimously ruled against the positions taken by the administration over a dozen times since January 2012.
I would assume you know that the SCOTUS presides over 75 cases per year so the remarkable number of unanimious decisions which you believe discredits my previous post is really not so remarkable.


Unanimous decisions are quite relevant when all 13 of them were directly against cases brought by the POTUS.

It shows that no matter whom you consider partisan, even the current nominees of the POTUS find decisions made by his administration to be without an understanding of the Constitution.

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
I'm sure the "administration" brings many cases which are legally dubious. That said, you still didn't answer my question. A very simple one really.


So are you saying that the current POTUS brings many legally dubious cases before the court for purely political reasons?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Zippy-The-Pinhead and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group