Liberal Forum

Technocrat » 22 Jul 2014 3:11 pm » wrote:It is interesting to watch Richclem worship the Supreme Court. WHenever they disagree with his view and rule opposite to what he thinks OUGHT to have been the ruling, he goes off on how it's all a big liberal conspiracy of activist judges. When they agree, of course, they're rational minds who could never possibly be wrong.

Richclem has tied himself up into a pretzel with all this backtracking. Which goes back to the original point that the only thing which matters is if something does or doesn't conform to his preconception.

It is also worth noting that the court's decision in Citizens United is fundamentally antithetical to views of the Founders, as they did not consider corporations or businesses in their time to be legal people with any rights whatsoever. So if we are consistent with the originalist interpretative view that we ought to interpret current events in light of past views, the court is objectively wrong. Of course, RIchclem only supports "Originalism" in much the same way Antonine Scalia and conservative justices do: that is, they only use it when it's convenient while dumping the framework when they come across a contradiction of their goal.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 3:03 pm » wrote:By the way, Justice Ginsberg's opinion has been heralded as the voice of reason...

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 3:03 pm » wrote: Which has nothing to do with your penchant for supporting every one of your claims by citing right wing opinion.

By the way, Justice Ginsberg's opinion has been heralded as the voice of reason, which will prevail when the voice of favoritism finally goes silent.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 3:28 pm » wrote:Clemmy resides in a very small box with a peep hole - call it a glory hole, if you wish. From this peephole he views the world. He doesn't like what he sees so he places a mirror in front of the peephole so that everything he sees ends up a reflection of his nether regions.

Understanding the true nature of the Great White Clam occurs after reading about 5 of his posts.

No one is disillusioned. No one hangs around or engages the Clam hoping to gain some broader insight. He's a dick sticking out of a **** hole which decent people recognize as a dick sticking out of a **** hole.
But he's our dick sticking out of a **** hole.

golfboy » 22 Jul 2014 3:46 pm » wrote: By whom? The Moonbats trying to get her to step down now, so they can appoint another moonbat to replace her?

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:03 pm » wrote: By those who embrace reason over rhetoric and talking points.

You know, those who pose a threat to your piddily paycheck.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 3:58 pm » wrote: I'm always pleased when the liberal-left shows not only its idiocy, but it's deeply ugly character.

I've received more compliments for my thoughts and sources than I can remember, from thoughtful, intelligent, informed members.

How many have you received and from whom?

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 4:06 pm » wrote: Cite her, snicker, "reasoning" on Hobby Lobby decision.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:15 pm » wrote: I would have approved of the Hobby Lobby decision if they'd taken the fight a step further by going for a ruling against mandatory employer coverage.

I'm way ahead of you, child.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 4:24 pm » wrote: Except that Ginsberg supported mandatory employer coverage, so she's less thoughtful than you claim.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:03 pm » wrote: By those who embrace reason over rhetoric and talking points.
You know, those who pose a threat to your piddily paycheck.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:38 pm » wrote: Except that the issue over the constitutionaliity of mandatory employer coverage was never in contention during the Hobby Lobby ruling. Her dissenting opinion had to do with the religious rights of employers superseding the rights of women.

As mandatory employer coverage was not at issue, she had no basis for dissent or support and voiced none in her opinion

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:15 pm » wrote: I would have approved of the Hobby Lobby decision if they'd taken the fight a step further by going for a ruling against mandatory employer coverage.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:38 pm » wrote:
Except that the issue over the constitutionaliity of mandatory employer coverage was never in contention during the Hobby Lobby ruling.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 4:59 pm » wrote: Which is an obvious falsehood. No one was preventing women from buying birth control. No women's rights were being violated.

The issue was over whether individuals running small corporations could be coerced into buying something for employees, that grossly violated their religious beliefs.

Thanks for making my point.
I was referring to when that first came before the court.

It's the first time in US history that Americans must buy a product or service by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

That's a stunning expansion of federal power.

Cedarswamp » 22 Jul 2014 5:01 pm » wrote: Can't be challenged until it's been implemented.....you can't take a perceived future violation of your rights to the supreme court.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:10 pm » wrote:
Yet Hobby Lobby challenged it on a religious objection to covering abortifacients, despite the fact that they were not yet under any coverage obligation at all.

From my perspective, if they were going to object to an aspect of it that had not yet been implemented, why couldn't they have objected to the whole of it?

golfboy » 22 Jul 2014 5:00 pm » wrote: Why? That wasn't being challenged in the case the S.C. heard. You want them to step outside the case and rule on issues not being challenged now?

golfboy » 22 Jul 2014 5:13 pm » wrote: Yes, Hobby Lobby was under obligation to do so, and contrary to your claims, they did not base their objection on a 1st amendment argument.
They successfully argued the 1993 Democrat RFRA law.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear who it was that called Ginsburg the "voice of reason". You still got nothing?

Yes, Hobby Lobby was under obligation to do so