Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

SCOTUS 7-2 Expansive Decision For Little Sisters of The Poor

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Zorro, Jul 8, 2020.

Page 1 of 3
  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,537
    Likes Received:
    52,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Title revised to fit formatting.
    ​
    SCOTUS Expands Religious-Liberty And Ministerial-Exception Protections In 7-2 Decisions On Little Sisters, Discrimination Claims.

    [​IMG]
    7-2 the court upheld the free-exercise of religious liberty after the tireless Little Sisters of the Poor stood up against the unjust HHS contraception mandate. Clarence Thomas was given the honor of writing the super majority decision, while RBG and Sonia Sotomayor came to the wrong decision.​
    So these States picked the very fight they lost.

    Thomas, with his characteristic grasp of the core Liberty and Freedom issues smacked RBG and the self-described "Wise Latina With Broad Life Experience" for attempting to rewrite the ObamaCare statute in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine that secures our Individual Freedom and Liberty:
    HRSA had exempted Little Sisters of The Poor from the Unjust Mandate and the Statue clearly gave them this discretion.
    The ungrounded dissenters tried to get away with unconstitutional mind-reading, which "just happened" to align with their own consequentialist desires.
    Justice Thomas reminds the dissenters of the principle of Stare Decisis and that they made up their point.
    Nice that they finally got called out for their fabrication.

    Obama made the requirement up. This was never a statutory requirement.

    Our Freedom and Liberty are secured by the Separation of Powers that is in our foundation documents and consistently reaffirmed in case law.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    Zorro, Jul 8, 2020
    #1
    drluggit, RodB, LogNDog and 2 others like this.
  2. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,537
    Likes Received:
    52,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our Great Justice Thomas further argues that the imposition on religious liberty is very plain in this instance, and the regulation should have been subject to RFRA:
    The Majority could not ignore the absurdity of applying a contraception mandate on a group of nuns:
    A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!
    No one claimed that this is the issue under review.
    Unsupported Catholic Slander at one time was quite popular with oppressor groups, rather than reviving it, perhaps you would consider refraining from it in order to show your respect for the rights and dignity of others.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    Zorro, Jul 8, 2020
    #2
    US Conservative and Labouroflove like this.
  3. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    7-2...DANG....Obama's getting smacked down by the Courts even years after he's out of offce.
     
    struth, Jul 8, 2020
    #3
  4. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,814
    Likes Received:
    26,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow. To my knowledge this is the first time the SCOTUS issued a ruling on FullRetardCare that didn't involve re-writing or ignoring the language in the law.

    Somewhere Antonin Scalia is smiling.

    Beyond that, I agree that the contraceptive mandate was a violation of the Little Sisters' fundamental rights, and full disclosure: I'm "pro-Choice".
     
    Talon, Jul 8, 2020
    #4
    drluggit, US Conservative and Zorro like this.
  5. nra37922

    nra37922 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    13,118
    Likes Received:
    8,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    GREAT Ruling.
     
    nra37922, Jul 8, 2020
    #5
  6. Booman

    Booman Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2020
    Messages:
    3,161
    Likes Received:
    2,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Surprising considering he;'s some sort of constitutional scholar and overall deity.
     
    Booman, Jul 8, 2020
    #6
    US Conservative, roorooroo and Gatewood like this.
  7. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,537
    Likes Received:
    52,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of us are. The extremists claim that "pro-choice" means all for slaughtering perfectly viable children up to birth if not immediately after, nearly no one is actually for that.
     
    Zorro, Jul 8, 2020
    #7
    US Conservative likes this.
  8. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,537
    Likes Received:
    52,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In yet another wonderful decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot second-guess the employment decisions of religious schools. In a 7-2 decision, the Court upheld the right of two Roman Catholic parochial schools in Los Angeles to fire two unsatisfactory fifth-grade teachers.
    Ruling For Liberty And Freedom:
    Justice Samuel Alito wrote in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020).
    Alito added. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, which Gorsuch joined.

    Poor Justice Sonia Sotomayor and RBG missed the boat, again.

    Religious freedom firms hailed the decision.
    John Bursch, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said in a statement. ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
    As well they should!
     
    Zorro, Jul 8, 2020
    #8
    US Conservative and roorooroo like this.
  9. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,537
    Likes Received:
    52,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zorro, Jul 8, 2020
    #9
    US Conservative likes this.
  10. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's that sound? Just the soothing noise of one more reeking piece of Obama's presidential legacy getting . . . flushed.
     
    Gatewood, Jul 8, 2020
    #10
    US Conservative and Zorro like this.
  11. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes . . . or at least according to his groupies, whom never bothered vetting their sacred and utterly holy Anointed One before they commenced worshiping him as a living political god on Earth. Now that's gonna leave a mark!
     
    Gatewood, Jul 8, 2020
    #11
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    42,246
    Likes Received:
    33,203
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tying insurance to your employer is absurd.
     
    cd8ed, Jul 8, 2020
    #12
    The Centrist, The Mello Guy and Polydectes like this.
  13. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great decision by the supreme court. If there are statues to Justice Thomas standing anywhere I'd put an overnight security watch on them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    lemmiwinx, Jul 8, 2020
    #13
    US Conservative and Zorro like this.
  14. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,864
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So a state is not allowed to force a religious organization to adhere to something that goes against their beliefs. Seems odd this was ever up for discussion considering the First Amendment.
     
    Polydectes, Jul 8, 2020
    #14
    US Conservative and Zorro like this.
  15. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everything in the Constitution is situational and provisional in the eyes of the political Left's leadership depending on the waxing and waning of both their political fortunes and how much farther hard Left they have managed to march during any given decade.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    Gatewood, Jul 8, 2020
    #15
    Talon and Polydectes like this.
  16. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    110,179
    Likes Received:
    37,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Letting someone else’s religious views determine what YOUR insurance can cover for YOU is even more absurd.
     
    The Mello Guy, Jul 8, 2020
    #16
    cd8ed likes this.
  17. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    110,179
    Likes Received:
    37,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No religious doctrine discusses what someone else’s health insurance can cover.
     
    The Mello Guy, Jul 8, 2020
    #17
    fiddlerdave and cd8ed like this.
  18. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    42,246
    Likes Received:
    33,203
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The same people that believe this also believe their version of religion should be allowed to dictate law, marriage, adoption, housing, education, employment and purchasing ability of others so it isn’t surprising.

    But only their religious views, other religions should have no say in anything...

    Complete arrogance and narcissism.
     
    cd8ed, Jul 8, 2020
    #18
  19. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,864
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So seek health insurance elsewhere.
     
    Polydectes, Jul 8, 2020
    #19
  20. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    110,179
    Likes Received:
    37,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Until they say I can only spend money my boss pays me, on things his religion approves
     
    The Mello Guy, Jul 9, 2020
    #20
  21. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Outstanding decision and an important reminder how far leftists will go to subvert our Constitutional rights.

    Sotomayor and Ginsberg should be ashamed.
     
    US Conservative, Jul 9, 2020
    #21
  22. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,864
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So when did this company secede from the United States?
     
    Polydectes, Jul 9, 2020
    #22
    US Conservative likes this.
  23. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    true no religion is saying you can’t go buy whatever health insurance you want on your own. Just don’t go get a job at a religious institution and ask them to
     
    struth, Jul 9, 2020
    #23
  24. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,864
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    get insurance from someone else your employer can't tell you you can't have insurance from someone else.
     
    Polydectes, Jul 9, 2020
    #24
  25. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,537
    Likes Received:
    52,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ????

    SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN TWO MAJOR CASES
    [​IMG]
    SCOTUS released two fabulous decisions preserving religious freedom. The First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

    In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Trump administration was completely and totally correct to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections. A clearly jubilant Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion.

    Both cases were 7-2

    [​IMG]​

    The entire episode has been a lot of Nun-sense.
     
    Zorro, Jul 9, 2020
    #25
    Polydectes and US Conservative like this.
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page