Two unanimous decisions today, SCOTUS ruled Obama's LRB appointments were unconstitutional. Apparently they all agreed Congress determines when it is in recess.

On another front, they unanimously agreed that Massachusetts'' 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics was unconstitutional. Apparently, all 3 female justices and the female plaintiff are waging a war on women.

46208


Right calls?

let's read women their rights, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to remain celebrate, if you fall pregnent and want an abortion, one will not be provided for you

Steve ,if you examine the recess apt case you see it is a mixed bag where the 'living breathing constitution crowd really came out on top. Yes SCOTUS made a unanimous vote against the specific recess apt. In this case, the court concluded that the recess appointments at issue are invalid because the recess was not “of sufficient length”

However ,on the broader question about POTUS power under the appointment clause ,the originalists were the minority .
Art 2 Sec 2 reads ....

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. It doesn't say during a recess.
What is the recess ? There is no doubt that “the Recess” referred only to the period between formal legislative sessions ;and that recess appointments could only happen when vacancies occurred in the recess .

But in a 5-4 decision that Justice Beyer wrote ,the libs on the court (joined by Kennedy ) decided that a recess occurs WHENEVER the Senate is out for an undetermined length of time. The ruling states, that presidents have the authority to fill any existing vacancy during any recess ; during a session of Congress or in between sessions , so long as the recess is “of sufficient length.”(whatever that means) .

As Scalia wrote in dissent ,the majority wrote an "adverse-possession theory of executive authority"into their interpretation .And that undermines the Senate 'Advise and Consent' Power .

Hi Tom,

Clever isn't it? "A" is understood to refer to a non-specific article, but this doesn't exclude the possibility that it exists on a continuum. On other other had "the" refers to definite article so it probably doesn't exist on a continuum.

Pages of debate surrounding that decision don't you think?

Please, no Scalia's originalist interpretation.

Please, no Scalia's originalist interpretation.
too bad . out of all the justices on SCOTUS ,his are more often correct.

You mean his politics are more correct. In the end well all know it comes down to their politics.

nope . Originalism is not politics it's the proper way to interpret the Constitution.

It all boiles down to the simple basic fact... the President doesn't get to make the decision if the congress are on recess or not... THEY, and they alone make that decision.

Well of course. For a minute there I thought political factions might exist inside SCOTUS. You know... the origionalists and the "living breathing" mob. It is good to know there is only one mod dabbling in politics. Thanks Tom,I will certainly sleep better tonight.

I begin to wonder is there actually anyone in charge

Obama thinks he and he alone comands everyone... apparently be was stoned during his Civics classes and never learned one of the basic concepts our government is based upon. Namely Coequal branches of government.

I begin to wonder is there actually anyone in charge

There isn't supposed to be anyone in charge, it's a group effort with separated powers even though the emperor and some of his congressional minions think he can act unilaterally.

With all the checks and balances how do you actually get anything done? I know the problem arises here too but we have learned the art of compromise and negotiation. lessons anyone?

Most times nothing getting done is far better than "Something" getting done when its what only ONE individual wants that is being rammed down everyone's throats.

Senates controlled by both parties have been doing this "in session" trick to presidents of the opposite party forever. Harry Reid did it to Bush if I remember correctly. But since the nuclear option, a simple vote gets the NRLB judges their jobs.

Now on the Mass abortion clinic protest laws I find it hilarious the same court that affords itself a wide buffer for prohibiting public displays/protests doesn't do the same for clinics that are known to be targets and victims of violence.

Odd since far more violence takes place inside an abortion clinic than ever happens outside them.;

I haven't seen anyone dismembered outside of one yet. But its a regular event inside of them.

You can't compromise when one side says "I won" and then proceeds to shut out the other side, ram unwanted legislation down our throats, changes the filibuster rules and deems every Republican initiative DOA.

But speaking of the constitution, Dems are proposing a 28th anti-Koch" amendment.

Dems struggle to show anti-Koch amendment is 'reasonable' | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/dems-struggle-to-show-anti-koch-amendment-is-reasonable/article/2550250?custom_click=rss)


While much of Washington grapples with international crises, chronic economic troubles, and upcoming midterm elections, Senate Democrats are steadily pushing forward with what they hope will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The proposed amendment would give Congress (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress) authority to regulate every dollar raised, and every dollar spent, by every federal campaign (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/campaigns)and candidate in the country. It would give state legislatures the power to do the same with state races.
Framed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/harry-reid) as a response to campaign spending by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers (http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/koch-brothers), the proposed amendment, written by Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet and co-sponsored by 42 other Senate Democrats, would vastly increase the power of Congress to control elections and political speech.
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter! (http://washingtonexaminer.com/dems-struggle-to-show-anti-koch-amendment-is-reasonable/article/2550250?custom_click=rss#)


The problem is, Democrats aren't quite sure exactly what the amendment should say. In a move that received virtually no attention, they recently re-wrote the measure — and in the process revealed its fatal flaw.
This is the heart of the amendment as originally written by Udall and Bennet:
To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including through setting limits on --
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office; and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

There are literally no limits to congressional power in those words. In the name of "political equality for all," Democrats proposed to change the Constitution to allow lawmakers to impose any restriction they want on campaign fundraising (http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/campaign-finance) and spending -- in other words, on campaigning itself.
Republicans characterized the Udall-Bennet amendment as a clear infringement of First Amendment (http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/first-amendment) free-speech rights, as well as a particularly naked power-grab by Congress. Democrats responded that the proposed measure was in fact a reasonable response to the "problem" of money in politics, represented in their view by the Kochs.
"We need to make sure that there are reasonable, commonsense limitations in place to prevent wealthy special interests from tarnishing our democratic process," Democratic Sen. Durbin (http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/-durbin), D-Ill., said in a June 18 meeting of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Um, no. If you want a "Reasonable" amendment let's do term limits for Congress.

Or kill the Citizens United decision.

You might not be able to kill it, but putting names to the money adds a degree of transparency that might be informative to the electorate.

THE recess is only the period between sessions. Here is some backround.
Originally Congress ended it's session in December , and could begin as late as March . That was a long time to wait to wait to fill important positions. So the recess appointment was created to temporarily fill the position.

It was not designed to undermine the power of the Senate as it has been used by various Presidents in the late 20th -early 21st century.
Again ... if so fundamental a change is needed then an amendment to the constitution would be the prescribed remedy... not executive and judicial fiat .

With all the checks and balances how do you actually get anything done? I know the problem arises here too but we have learned the art of compromise and negotiation. lessons anyone?
When they can skirt the law there is no need for compromise . The beauty of the Senate appointment power was that the President had to appoint someone that would be acceptable . So the appointment itself was the compromise.

putting names to the money adds a degree of transparency

Names like Steyer and Soros?

The senate can change its own rules since in modern times the whole definition of recess has changed. Good luck on a constitutional amendment since its easier just to send a freshman senator to bang a gavel every other day than to get the required vote for an amendment.

With modern technology and tele conferencing why do they have to be in the same place, and why do we stand in the rain to vote? Stupid humans.

The problem is, Democrats aren't quite sure exactly what the amendment should say.
That's because besides wanting to deny the Koch bros their constitutional right of free speech ;they want to preserve those same rights to their donors like Warren Buffett ,Jon Stryker,Paul Egerman,George Soros and the multitude of public sector unions.

What the SCOTUS Decision Ending Obama’s Recess Appointment Power Means | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/180430/supreme-court-ends-presidents-recess-appointment-power?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20%28NEW%29%20-%20Headline%20Nation%20Feed%2020140626&newsletter=email_nation#)


One area where this was extremely problematic was the National Labor Relations Board—three members had their five-year terms expire in 2012, and Senate Republicans filibustered Obama's replacements. With three empty seats, the NLRB would not have a quorum to function, and the practical effect would be that US labor law would no longer be enforced. (It's not hard to see this as the GOP's goal here).
The White House didn't want this to happen, and Obama contemplated and ultimately made “recess appointments” to the three seats.

Tal... if you can find a way to attach a fan to that... you could create a windstorm from the spin (or a LOT of free electricity if you hook up a generator). Sicne Harry Reid changed teh rules makign it impossible for the minority to block an appointment.

WHen we take back the Senate and the White House....all we have to do is keep the rules the way they are and the Democrats can't block anything then.

It doesn't matter what Obama wants, there are constitutional checks and balances. The president does not get to determine when the Senate is in recess.

"The recess is only the period between sessions"

Can also be written written as:

A recess is only the period between sessions.

The founders clearly meant "the " recesss as a specific period between Congressional sessions . They take weekends ,holidays ,vacations ,and time off campaigning during sessions . In Beyer's world a recess appointment could occur during ANY of this instances as long as they are of an undefined period of time.
For what it's worth ,I think an amendment should eliminate recess appointments entirely . It was designed for a time when it took weeks to travel the country ,and there were months between sessions. That is not the case anymore .
BUT if there is a change ,it should come from an amendment and not from an arbitrary decision by POTUS backed by activist unelected ,appointed for life justices .
I'm sure the emperor would prefer that the Senate had no oversight of his appointments .

They can vote for or against, and things have changed dramatically since the horse and buggy that formed the founders views of a recess. Like I said, the nuclear options made the issue moot.

Obama Recess Appointments Case - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-recess-appointments-case-supreme-court-nlrb-2014-6)


The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/10/will-the-supreme-court-help-shut-down-dc.html) that the case had the potential to bring Washington even more paralysis and dysfunction. That was before, however, the Senate changed its rules to allow most presidential nominees to be confirmed by majority vote (http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-nuclear-option-harry-reid-filibuster-judges-rules-changes-2013-11).

The Dems will rue the day they initiated the nuclear option.

Like you guys rue it NOW?

look ;the emperor bemoans the fact that the House won't bow to his wishes and pass his agenda . Too bad . He calls them a 'do nothing Congress ' when in fact they've passed a lot of legislation that sits on Harry Reid's desk collecting dust. But ;let's say this Congress was in fact doing nothing but playing bubble burst on their phones all day long . That still does not give him the authority to act unconstitutionally outside of his defined powers . If he wants his appointments passed without delay then nominate candidates that are acceptable to the whole Senate .If he wants an agenda passed then propose one that is acceptable to both houses of Congress.

What's wrong with having a vote and a simple majority? When you guys take the senate don't the same rules apply?

"The Founders clearly meant "the recess as a specific period between Congressional session."

Yes Tom, I know and I haven't disputed that. I am pointing out that people have devoted chapters in grammar books exclusively on the usage of "a" and "the" in the English language.

This is why people become Constitutional lawyers, and as you point out, some retire to SCOTUS and make further judgements on the meaning of words.

Seems like your stuck with it.

Sandra Fluke is in mourning today...

46215

The companies in the cases are 'closely held corporations' owned and controlled by members of a single family and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs . SCOTUS did not extend it to publicly held corporations ,suggesting that it may revist the issue if a public corporation gets standing .
SCOTUS also said that this is a limted case concerning onlythe contraceptive mandate ,and that SCOTUS would reject broad religious claims ie. discrimination against gay employees under 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act'(RFRA) .

The case also only revolves around four of the most popular types of contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby already covers many other forms. There are still other cases pending in the lower courts that have yet to be decided.

btw ,Hobby Lobby would've never sued if this was about contraception ,as Huffpo suggests . It was the abortion pill they could not abide to.

Yup, but that didn’t stop Ginsburg from having a stroke in his dissent.


In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

There will be much similar wailing and gnashing of teeth today.

Abortion pills do not cause abortions, they prevent fertilization as a matter of science. You can BELIEVE what you want.

Abortion pills do not cause abortions, they prevent fertilization as a matter of science. You can BELIEVE what you want.

Who said they did? That was not their argument.

They were challenging being forced to pay for abortifacients


The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.

Naturally, libs are reacting as expected – they want to burn Hobby Lobby to the ground. I'm guessing these same people support gun control, and I have no clue how taking away a woman's livelihood is better than free contraceptives.

'Fu*k you:' Left-wingers want to 'burn down' Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win | Twitchy (http://twitchy.com/2014/06/30/fuk-you-left-wingers-want-to-burn-down-hobby-lobby-after-scotus-win/)

P.S. Do you moonbats not understand that probably a lot of women work for Hobby Lobby, Mardel and Chik-Fil-A BECAUSE of their owner's morals and not in spite of them?

Do you moonbats not understand that probably a lot of women work for Hobby Lobby, Mardel and Chik-Fil-A BECAUSE of their owner’s morals and not in spite of them?Nope, the employees don't care, it's just a job.

Nope, the employees don't care, it's just a job.

So no one works in a Christian book store because it's a Christian book store? Ba ha ha!

They were challenging being forced to pay for abortifacients

None of the contraceptives they object to is an abortifacient.

These last few supreme court decisions were really wrong. The buffer zone around abortion clinics should be maintained for safety reasons. What if some nut with a gun or knife gets too close? It has nothing to do with free speech. The Hobby Lobby decision is also wrong because it gives religious nuts the right to impose their views on things that are none of their business. The decision about Obama's recess appointments is pretty hypocritical. I remember George W. Bush used a recess appointment to put a racist judge named Charles Pickering on a federal court and I don't think it was challenged in court.

The left prefers tearing little unborn babies to bits... since many of them got their jollies as kids by torturing animals.

Republican and righties never have abortions or use contraception? Yeah RIGHT!!

Come on Tal, you’re telling me the Supreme Court doesn’t know what an abortifacient is? That was a direct quote from the opinion, as is this:


Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate.


I get it though, you libs don’t believe Christians should be able to operate their privately held businesses in accordance with their beliefs. Too bad, in this case the court says otherwise.

Republican and righties never have abortions or use contraception? Yeah RIGHT!!

That straw man argument again. It doesn't matter If they do or not, and again HL was not arguing to exempt itself from all contraceptive coverage, just the 4 methods that work after fertilization. Get over it, you can’t force us to murder babies.

Not nearly as many Tal, not nearly as many.

None of the contraceptives they object to is an abortifacient. What you have is a couple inconclusive studies suggesting that the morning after pill does not prevent fertilized eggs from implanting ;but instead preventing eggs release .And if the egg is not released ,it can't be fertilized. Nice theory ;but hardly conclusive and there are many that dispute that . As a matter of fact ,the FDA has not been convinced of this . Teva has petitioned that the labelling of the morning after pill be changed based on the study and the FDA to date has refused to do so.

Either way ;it is not important to the ruling because if Hobby Lobby had objected to covering ANY contraceptive on religious grounds ,SCOTUS found they had a constitutional right to deny their employees the coverage .

These last few supreme court decisions were really wrong. The buffer zone around abortion clinics should be maintained for safety reasons. What if some nut with a gun or knife gets too close? It has nothing to do with free speech. The Hobby Lobby decision is also wrong because it gives religious nuts the right to impose their views on things that are none of their business. The decision about Obama's recess appointments is pretty hypocritical. I remember George W. Bush used a recess appointment to put a racist judge named Charles Pickering on a federal court and I don't think it was challenged in court.

WHy not? Freedom of speech after all. One form of protest isn't any different than any other is. Or more entitled.

There are plenty of aetheist anti-Christian nuts on the left... do you condone applying your same standards to them as well? Based on the mass shootings over recent years... there is ample proof the crowd using the Abortion Clinic bears a far greater risk to the public in general than the anti-abortion protestors do.

And as far as recess appointments... there is NOTHING hypocritical... because no other president has acted like he is some self appointed emperor when there wasn't an actual recess. Meaning they ALL did it while an actuall recess was in place. Obama however isn't as smart as the loaf he pinches off every moring in the toilet... or he would have understood as much and saved himself and his fragile ego from embarassment.

98% of females use contraceptives, so you have no facts and your opinion is based on feelings and a lot of objections. Less than 2 million is the estimate for abortions so the number is and cannot be as high as you think in the first place

Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973 (http://www.numberofabortions.com/)

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States)


The rate has dropped significantly from its all-time high in 1981, when there were roughly 30 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. The overall number of abortions also fell 13 percent from 2008 to nearly 1.1 million in 2011." In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) also reported a decline in abortion rates.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Somashekhar-49)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Moon-50)[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Bassett-51)[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Jayson-52)

98% of females use contraceptives,

Which why there was no need for this mandate in the first place, but it's irrelevant to the case.

99% of females don't MURDER their own unborn children...

Condoms are cheap... buy them yourself. If you want to play adult games... assume the responsibility and the cost of playing them yourself. That's what Hobby Lobby and many others want.

Modern more effective contraceptives take many forms, not just latex.

Most of which Hobby Lobby did not challenge. Pick one and be happy.

P.S. The FDA approved the sale of generic EC over-the counter with no age restrictions in March. You don't need a prescription, you don't need coverage, you don't need to prove how old you are, so what's the problem?

The costs. That's always been the issue for many. Some more than others.

The costs are only higher for those with out of control libidos... Like having a car... if you want one, expect to pay all the costs associated... or buy a bus pass.

Concerned about Cost? (http://ec.princeton.edu/locator/concerned-about-cost.html)

The costs are paid for by somebody, one way or another. Accidents happen.

The costs are paid for by somebody, one way or another. Accidents happen.

Coitus by accident? In an active and even kinky adulthood, I have never gotten laid by accident, nor have I ever heard of it happening. Having sex through ignorance, yes, in which case birth control is never used - accident, no.

Wanking or diddling is free...

Anything else the parties playing are responsible for paying the costs. If they can't afford a condom... how are they going to afford their next meal?

Ignorance may be no excuse, but accidents happen, so do mistakes. Us humans are subject to strong intense feelings of fear and lust, and have accidents, and make mistakes often with consequences, as a result.

If we were perfect there would be no debate about any of our actions. SCOTUS is made up of humans and as well intentioned as humans are, there can be accidents, mistakes, and unwanted consequences.

And its every persons responsibility to deal with it or keep their pants on.

People are expected to control themselves when they are subject to strong intense feelings when they need to beat the crap out of another person that did them wrong or even kill them (and that is a far stronger urge to suppress in some circumstances), or they want that thing they can't afford to pay for...

Yet they they don't expect to get a free ride on those either.

The costs? You mean the thousands of dollars it cost Sandra Fluke, who didn’t know you could get it (and still can) for $9 down the street? What is it with you libs that you can’t hold anyone (except Bush, Cheney, Republicans in general) accountable for themselves? Nobody owes women free contraceptives.

And I repeat, contraception usage was “virtually universal” before the mandate, so cost didn’t bother them before.

The slut extraordinaire Sandra Fluke was in a school that cost $40,000 a year to attend (WITHOUT room and board or books)... and yet she couldn't afford protection for her weekend gangbangs? THat was her problem... she could afford it.

First of all your claim that it cost $9 down the street (Target Pharmacy) was for insurance bearers with a prescription from a doctor. And second universal availability is DIRECTLY tied to COSTS.

No doctor, no insurance, no availability unless you got enough loot.

Um, no. That’s the prescription price, period. And as I said, HL only challenged emergency contraception, sold over the counter in generic form with no age restrictions. And again, contraception usage was “virtually universal” before the mandate, which makes it a cure in search of a disease. You’re batting zero on arguments today, Tal.

46217

You need a prescription for all oral contraceptives at WalMart (or anywhere else), don't believe me, call and ask.

You are sorely misinformed of the facts. Everything on your list requires a prescription!!

Us humans are subject to strong intense feelings of fear and lust, and have accidents, and make mistakes often with consequences, as a result.



Are you arguing that You should have to pay for my mistakes? Wonderful! I'll get an itemized list up this weekend.

Are you arguing that You should have to pay for my mistakes? Wonderful! I'll get an itemized list up this weekend.

I'll make one up too... I'm sure I can find lots of stuff to put on it.

The Hobby Lobby decision shows that birth control should be available over the counter without a prescription, then religious busybodies wouldn't be able to force their stupid views on people.

Condoms are already... there would be far fewer cases of Herpes, HPV, and AIDS if they would take the time to use them.

Which reading the many, MANY posts here... apparently even if they had the Pill, they can't be bothered to take them every day... takes too much time apparently... much less waste any of their precious time putting on condoms... particularly since most of them will be done 3 or 4 minutes later if it takes them that long.

Such decisions as contraception should be guided by a doctor for proper safe use. Not religious busybodies.

Condoms don't need a doctors guidance... but then... judging by the "am I pregnant" threads, maybe someone should explain to them somehow they don't work if you put them on your finger, or leave them in your pocket. Apparently a lot of them aren't intelligent enough to figure it out themselves.

As in the US many year ago, some were/are NOT as educated as others on the facts of human sexuality a they should be. Some here still have not evolved or been informed of the facts.

Always interesting to read the debates... much to learn about the people involved, their opinions, views, beliefs, etc, as well as the array of news, or sometimes not so much news, pieces often presented to support a view.

I did just call Walmart to find out... $9 for birth control pills, with or without insurance.

Having read similar debates on other sites, I know one item that comes up is the question of other uses for birth control pills besides contraception, such as regulating periods or relieving extremely painful periods... important to note that regular birth control pills were not in question, not to mention that there are well known supplements that can also be used for those situations, with fewer side effects as well.

Other concerns were cases of rape, broken condoms, missed birth control pills, or getting caught up in the heat of the moment and using nothing. One solution would be that specific doses of regular birth control pills (varies depending on the brand) can also be used as emergency contraception.

There are many hot topics... where the decisions made, or not made, will make some people happy, while angering others. At least in this situation, there are ample options for those who were not happy with the decision.

what is amazing is where these debates lead, always to the baser parts of human nature

I'm one who's pretty tired of this late June ritual of waiting breathlessly for these unelected oligarchs to make narrow decisions on our liberty . Nothing was won today except that we lost a little less religious liberty than we thought .

[why do you have to wait until June or is it summer madness?

because SCOTUS traditionally waits until summer recess before they make major rulings.

The emperor will make an executive order to skirt SCOTUS . After all ,the contraceptive mandate was one of his decrees. A small part of it was whittled away and the bulk of the nation still has to comply to his edict.

I see they need to shine some light on their findings as if the dark halls of the courts lack illumination

I see they need to shine some light on their findings as if the dark halls of the courts lack illumination Once Roberts made law by rewriting Obamacare ,then it was inevidible that they'd have to jump hoops and twist like a pretzel to dissect each part of the law that gets challenged. In the end ,the law will be more or less the construct of SCOTUS ;the unelected branch.

So no one works in a Christian book store because it's a Christian book store?You just changed the argument from an arts and crafts store to a christian book store. Why did you feel the need to do that?

Why do you feel the need to be wrong? I specifically listed 3 faith-based businesses, one of which is Mardel, owned by the Hobby Lobby guys.


Do you moonbats not understand that probably a lot of women work for Hobby Lobby, Mardel and Chik-Fil-A BECAUSE of their owner’s morals and not in spite of them?

Scotus suggests the same accommodation for religious organizations can be made for employees of companies like Hobby Lobby, but I think a companies religious freedom stops at the religious freedom of the employees, and many more companies will start claiming religious freedom affecting even more employees.

I don't think insurance companies are as ready to be accommodating as the government or scotus. Covering some birth control, and not others is a sham to begin with.

So no one works in a Christian book store because it's a Christian book store?

Karma why do you continually show your arrogance and ignorance in these matters? I once began a Christian Book store to be a Christian Book store and worked there voluntarily something I would not have done in an ordinary book store. Faith is important, as you have no faith you have no idea. I have seen and done inexplicble things done in faith and without faith it would not have been possible

People of faith have a particular view and scripturally they are a pecular people in the eyes of people like you

but I think a companies religious freedom stops at the religious freedom of the employees

Been listening to Mimi Pelosi, eh? So let's put that to the test. A pharmacist says his religious beliefs won't allow him to dispense abortifacients. What now?

Karma why do you continually show your arrogance and ignorance in these matters?Because you both are wrong. I was referring to people getting employment with arts and crafts stores and restaurants. I'm certain the job market isn't that slanted towards the job seekers in that they can leisurely research the background of all owners. Steve then changes the argument to only Christian book stores to try to salvage his point.

So you know more than 9 Supreme Court Justices who have heard all the arguments, saw the evidence, and a Majority sided with.

A true socialist mindset...believing the workers have domain over the actual business owners who built the business and did all the investment to make it work.

If they don't like it...they can go down the street and work for someone else that does offer it.

Obamacare was never voted on....it was rammed through with trickery and deceit. Forced upon a population where the vast majority want nothing to do with it.

Because you both are wrong. I was referring to people getting employment with arts and crafts stores and restaurants. I'm certain the job market isn't that slanted towards the job seekers in that they can leisurely research the background of all owners. Steve then changes the argument to only Christian book stores to try to salvage his point.

It wasn't your point it was mine. The facts don't disappear because the page changes. "Do you moonbats not understand that probably a lot of women work for Hobby Lobby, Mardel and Chik-Fil-A BECAUSE of their owner's morals and not in spite of them?"

You live in a bubble if you can't get what's obvious.


At Hobby Lobby (http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/), we value our customers and employees and are committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.



We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.

Hobby Lobby is THE place to shop with everyday Super Selections and Super Savings! Store hours are Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and all Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday.

Our other affiliated companies headquartered in Oklahoma City include Mardel (http://www.mardel.com/) and Hemispheres (http://www.hemispheres-us.com/).


About Mardel
(http://www.mardel.com/about/)
Mardel Christian & Education is a faith-based company dedicated to renewing minds and transforming lives through the products we sell and the ministries we support. To this end, we provide a large selection of Bibles, books, movies, gifts, music, kid products, apparel, church and educational supplies, and homeschool curriculum.

We offer quality products at the best prices on Mardel.com and across our 35 stores located in the central region of the United States. Our products share truth, teach knowledge, offer encouragement, inspire worship, and bring joy – fulfilling the vision of Mardel to make a difference and give hope.

Furthering our mission, we faithfully give 10% of our net profits to help print Bibles translated by Wycliffe Bible Translators. Wycliffe Bible Translators is a ministry dedicated to translating the Bible into the language of every people group around the World.

We are a resource center equipping the whole person – specializing in the provision of all your spiritual and intellectual needs.


You already know about Chik-Fil-A, those gay-hating closed on Sundays guys. Now man up and stop misrepresenting my posts please.

Scotus suggests the same accommodation for religious organizations can be made for employees of companies like Hobby Lobby, but I think a companies religious freedom stops at the religious freedom of the employees, and many more companies will start claiming religious freedom affecting even more employees.

I don't think insurance companies are as ready to be accommodating as the government or scotus. Covering some birth control, and not others is a sham to begin with.
They skirted the larger 1st amendment issue in favor of a "narrow" ruling about Obamacare and RFRA . Congress can remedy this by amending either RFRA or Obamacare . More likely the emperor or his flunkie at HHS will make another decree from on high.

talk about a storm in a teacup

Congress will do SQUAT! They have done nothing about any of the SCOTUS rulings so in a vacuum, the president has no choice but to act.

Yup, he'll just make us pay for them. The hysterics are just that, hysterics.


Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381637/hobby-lobby-actually-lavishes-contraception-coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock). It includes access (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/ucm313215.htm), copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:




Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

(This new woman at Hobby Lobby cannot use male condoms or a vasectomy, at least not directly. However, if she chose either contraceptive method, in conjunction with her husband, she would have access to it.)Further, not only would she have access to these medicines and devices, but Hobby Lobby would fund them. That’s right: while White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that it “jeopardizes the health of women,” Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives for its female employees!In the Left’s fantasy world, the militant Christians at Hobby Lobby police single female employees to assure that they have not engaged in sinful, pre-marital sex. As for married women, Hobby Lobby deprives them of birth control so that each can deliver a new baby every nine months, for God’s glory, just like in the Old Testament.Liberals are living in a cartoon of their own making.Again, Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for birth-control pills, vaginal rings, contraceptive patches, and other items to help female employees plan their pregnancies. The Left’s arguments to the contrary are — surprise, surprise — lies.What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:

Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
Copper Intra-Uterine Device
IUD with progestin

Rather than simply prevent sperm and ova from uniting, Hobby Lobby’s owners believe that these medications either kill human beings when they are fertilized eggs or prevent them from implanting themselves in utero, whereupon they die.Hobby Lobby does not prevent its female employees from using any of these four types of contraceptives. However, since they believe these innovations kill babies, they simply require that any employees who want to use them buy them with their own money.The Left behaves as if Hobby Lobby were forcing their female employees to wear burqas. But Hobby Lobby’s policy is no different than, say, walking into the cafeteria at Yeshiva University and demanding a bacon cheeseburger.“I am sorry,” the cafeteria manager replies. “We keep kosher. If you want a chicken sandwich or some brisket, we can help. Indeed, our prices are subsidized. So, we will help you buy those items. But if you want to mix milk and meat and bite into a pork product, please purchase a bacon cheeseburger at the restaurant across the street. When you are done, please come back to work.”

the president has no choice but to act.

Bullsh*t. There never was a crisis and it doesn’t work that way, we don’t have an imperial presidency, you don’t get to do whatever you want just because you’re a petulant loser who didn’t get his way with Congress. If Hobby Lobby employees want to kill their babies they can pay for it themselves. Otherwise, they can enjoy the HL funded contraceptives they’re provided.

P.S. You didn’t answer my last question.

Steve,

I don't doubt that's what their mission statement says, I never disagreed there. Where I disagree is you saying that employees seek out employment there BECAUSE of those mission statements. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

Hobby lobby isn't selling a product here they are limiting choices based on belief, that has no basis in science. They know better than a doctor what's best for a patient and call it a benefit?

Stopping an egg from being fertilized is NOT abortion. And none of their business. But effective birth control methods eliminate the need for abortions. Ignoring the scientific facts is what makes the religious right WRONG. What we got is good enough no need for anything better, is WRONG!

The boss telling a woman what her health choices should be is WRONG! The boss having more rights than workers is WRONG! Beliefs got nothing to do with it. Corporations are not people.

don't doubt that's what their mission statement says, I never disagreed there. Where I disagree is you saying that employees seek out employment there BECAUSE of those mission statements. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

I don’t disagree that for some it’s just a job, but you’d be a fool to think a company’s values don’t play into people’s decisions on employment. There’s a Mardel half a mile from my work, most of the employees obviously see it as part of their ministry, not just a job, so the feminist overlords need to just butt out. They knew what they were getting into when they took the job.

Stopping an egg from being fertilized is NOT abortion.

OK, are you not paying any attention? Hobby Lobby furnishes 16 methods to prevent fertilization. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/scotus-decisions-795280-10.html#post3664821) What's the problem?

Still waiting on an answer to this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/scotus-decisions-795280-10.html#post3664788).

Congress will do SQUAT! They have done nothing about any of the SCOTUS rulings so in a vacuum, the president has no choice but to act.

It is the Congress that was dominated by libs that voted for Obamacare . Even they did not include any contraception mandate . Why ? Because they would not survive reelection if they put that into the law . The mandate is the result of a bureaucratic putsh backed by the emperor . The President has NO constituional authority to make law . How many times does he have to be judicially smacked down before he gets it ?

He gets it, he doesn’t care.

As the United States becomes more and more culturally pluralistic we will see more disagreement in all areas of society — including over what the federal government deems “essential health benefits.” Here, as elsewhere, promoting decentralized and individualized decision-making can tamp down conflict and respect everyone’s freedom to live according to their principles. An employer-provided system can pit employers and employees against each other; a fully nationalized system can likewise ignite culture wars over taxpayer funding for this or that objectionable health care benefit.
Hobby Lobby Ruling Shows Deeper Flaw in US Health Care - The American Interest (http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-ruling-shows-deeper-flaw-in-us-health-care/)

BTW .. RFRA was passed in the Robert Byrd and Tom Foley 103rd Congress and was introduced into legislation by Chuck the schmuck Schumer. Bubba signed it into law.

Fear not lefties, apparently the emperor can "borrow the power (http://m.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-scheiner/sen-durbin-obama-will-borrow-power-solve-immigration)" from Congress to fix things according to Turban Durbin.

Two unanimous decisions today, SCOTUS ruled Obama's LRB appointments were unconstitutional. Apparently they all agreed Congress determines when it is in recess.

On another front, they unanimously agreed that Massachusetts'' 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics was unconstitutional. Apparently, all 3 female justices and the female plaintiff are waging a war on women.

Right calls?

I answered this already, but for the record, and simple majority vote to fill the board and judge vacancies makes it a moot argument. As for the buffer zone, the stupid judges should afford citizen the same buffer zone that they have around the Supreme Court building don't you think?



OK, are you not paying any attention? Hobby Lobby furnishes 16 methods to prevent fertilization. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/scotus-decisions-795280-10.html#post3664821) What's the problem?

They are the same freaking thing and to allow some and not others is a stupid objection. Hobby Lobby furnishes nothing, health care providers do, and while the newer options maybe a bit more expensive, they are tailored to give patients more options depending on what the doctors recommend after testing.

Religious hypocrisy based on ignorance. Like banning Bayer aspirin for Walmart Brand. The claim of abortions is as dumb and untrue as it gets. What's so STUPID is that contraceptives of all kinds actually prevent abortions, and treat a myriad of female health problems beside just birth control.

You guys aren't paying attention!

The claim of abortions is as dumb and untrue as it gets. and that is based on a single study that Teva submitted to the FDA to change the labeling . Like it or not , the owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious belief that life begins at conception . The government contends that a pregnancy is “the period of time from implantation until delivery.”. So if a contraceptive is preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus then it is causing an abortion according to the owner's religious beliefs . You can say it is a disputed contention ,and even though there are many physicians and researchers who stand firm on the view that pregnancy begins at the moment of conception, in the end that is irrelevant because it's the deeply held religious beliefs of the owners that matter .
Alito said if the government has a "compelling interest " in making sure their employees have access then the government should pay for it.

SINGLE PAYER!! Medicare for all and screw the private insurance companies, and the religious JUNK SCIENCE crowd!!

PROBLEM SOLVED :D Move along,nothing else to see here!

No Tal, you're moving the goalposts. Hobby Lobby pays to prevent fertilization, get over it. EC is not the same thing and you know it. There would be no "emergency" if there was no fertilization.

This is what you haven't answered:


Tal: but I think a companies religious freedom stops at the religious freedom of the employees

So let's put that to the test. A pharmacist says his religious beliefs won't allow him to dispense abortifacients. What now?

There is a good article in "The Guardian" today titled "The Hobby Lobby ruling proves men of the law still can't get over "immoral" women having sex. That pretty much sums up the real intent of the ruling. Busybodies interfering with things that are none of their business and hiding behind so-called "religious liberty". The hypocrisy of right-wing nuts makes me really mad. Rush Limbaugh was married 3 times and had no children, so he either used some form of birth control, or was impotent or secretly gay which has been rumored. I'm pretty disappointed with Anthony Kennedy, he used to be the sensible, middle-of-the road justice, but lately he has been siding with the other four idiots. Antonin Scalia is a good example of why there should be mandatory retirement for Supreme Court judges. He has turned into the embarrassing uncle that you dread having over at Christmas. In Canada, Supreme Court judges must retire at 75.

No Tal, you're moving the goalposts. Hobby Lobby pays to prevent fertilization, get over it. EC is not the same thing and you know it. There would be no "emergency" if there was no fertilization.

This is what you haven't answered:



So let's put that to the test. A pharmacist says his religious beliefs won't allow him to dispense abortifacients. What now?

Stopping fertilization is a better outcome than a killing a half formed baby. And that BC/EC does the same thing as a condom, or spermicide, it BLOCK fertilization in a more reliable way. That's just the science dude and really believing or a deeply held belief is a personal thing. There was a time that it was a belief that black people were inferior to white people and the earth was flat, so beliefs can change and evolve can't they?

Let the boss and the pharmacist work out their problems, its between them. No different than a worker in a right to work state who gets fired because the boss said so. Why is the pharmacist so special? It's the bosses business that he built and controls right? That's what you and Tom always say.


There would be no "emergency" if there was no fertilization.

If she was smart and had a doctor who guided her through the process of BC, then their would be no emergency, but nothing is 100% effective. Isn't that up to the woman to decide? Oh I see, you have a right to make women abstinent. No you don't, its NONE of your business.

I like what Earl said, and agree with the age limit for SCOTUS!!!

Dude, I'd be interested in this science that says preventing fertilization is the same thing as EC. I'm still interested in my religious rights for employees question. I know answering it puts you in a bind, you'd have to take both sides or otherwise contradict yourself.

SINGLE PAYER!! Medicare for all and screw the private insurance companies, and the religious JUNK SCIENCE crowd!!

PROBLEM SOLVED :D Move along,nothing else to see here!

even better..
a system in which individuals purchase health insurance within a private, competitive market would allow everyone to choose and fund only those benefits they want—and would bring down costs in the meantime. Instead of fighting each other over contraception coverage, we should spend time thinking how to make a system like that viable.

Tom reversionism will not solve the problem, you have just described the system you had and it didn't work, millions could not afford coverage and so changes were made and if what you have doesn't solve the problem then more change is needed and taking the private, for profit, insurers out of the equation might be the solution

I'm really revisionist then because I'd like to go back to the days when the patient made deals with the doctors . Trust me ;we'd all be better off .

have you actually ever tried to make a deal with a doctor? mine ignored me and sent me a bill

Doctors, nurses, and facilities. We need a LOT more, and throw in some home care professionals to boot.


Dude, I'd be interested in this science that says preventing fertilization is the same thing as EC. I'm still interested in my religious rights for employees question. I know answering it puts you in a bind, you'd have to take both sides or otherwise contradict yourself.

The only difference I see is the timing, long term, versus short term. Study the science for yourself and let me know. Its still evolving. As far as employee/boss relationships, it can work if they both WANT it to. Both their fortunes are tied together.

I'd like to go back to the days when the patient made deals with the doctors .

It's already happening. There are many physicians who do not process any insurance. Look for "Concierge Health Care" in your area.

that's because they have been raised in this semi-nanny state /nanny state system you think is so great. Services that are competitive and not covered (like cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery )have seen a steady reduction in pricing . More and more doctors in the US are dumping insured patients and Government assisted Medicare patients and are opting instead to become direct primary care physicians . Under direct primary care, patients pay a monthly fee sometimes less than $100 as a retainer for unlimited access to primary care services (which for most people is more than 80% of their medical expenses. Insurance is reserved for the services that are more catastrophic in nature.

and you think this differs from my situation, how? We pay a tax levy to cover at least part of the cost of that primary care and in some instances the whole of the cost is covered, elective surgery such as cosmetic surgery is at the cost of the consumer unless covered by an insurer. Where this differs from your system is that the system is government regulated and the patient is given a guide in the form of the benefit as to what the services should cost, a doctor who charges more does so knowing that the patient can take their business elsewhere. So you could say we have a "single payer" system but in fact we have a federal system. For one visit to a doctor I can pay as little as nothing and probably not more than $20 directly. The tax impact is 2% above $16,000 income if you are not privately insured so a low income person can have very little actual medical cost about 60% of doctors are in the system meaning they bill the government not the patient

the simple answer is more options and more competititon for the services. One size fits all doesn't work .

The only difference I see is the timing, long term, versus short term. Study the science for yourself and let me know. Its still evolving. As far as employee/boss relationships, it can work if they both WANT it to. Both their fortunes are tied together.

You science people crack me up. Global warming, which predicts nothing right, is allegedly “settled science”. But the basics of human reproduction is “evolving”? Pre-fertilization = no baby. Post fertilization = baby. That’s settled science.

Good to see you believe if an employee goes to work for Hobby Lobby they accept the terms.

the simple answer is more options and more competititon for the services. One size fits all doesn't work .

Because all men and post-menopausal women don't need EC, fertility treatments and maternity coverage?

the simple answer is more options and more competititon for the services. One size fits all doesn't work .

You don't get it, this is perfect competition, all the doctors are in business for themselves, they make the decision to be in the system or not, but the patient knows they are not going to argue with an insurer about what is necessary. What has been taken out of the system is the shyster insurers. The patient makes the decision which doctor to use and how much they will pay for service, but the poor get service without cost and they don't have to pleed for it. I cannot see how you can say one size fits all, because there are endless options but certainty. You see you have been brainwashed into thinking overpriced service is good service. You say you can have primary care for $100 a month. For $130 a month I have all the care I could possibly want or need, now please tell me again how your system is better, even if I earn $100,000 it won't cost more unless I'm privately insured. I hear you can pay $10,000 a year for cover how is that better?

Because all men and post-menopausal women don't need EC, fertility treatments and maternity coverage?

What part of minimum standard for insurance policies is it you don't understand? What part of you don't need it, and don't use it, YOU DON'T PAY FOR IT that you cannot grasp?

So Doctors and Hospitals are working for free now since nobody pays fior anything.

I suspect 99% of the doctors to walk away from their practices , very, very soon.

So Doctors and Hospitals are working for free now since nobody pays fior anything.Who said no one pays for anything?


I suspect 99% of the doctors to walk away from their practices , very, very soon.You guys said that 4 years ago.

What part of you don't need it, and don't use it, YOU DON'T PAY FOR IT that you cannot grasp?

Wow, Tal. It so doesn’t work that way. You pay for the coverage whether you use it or not.

I cannot see how you can say one size fits all, because there are endless options but certainty. You see you have been brainwashed into thinking overpriced service is good service.
you misread my comments if you think I favor one size fits all.

Wow, Tal. It so doesn't work that way. You pay for the coverage whether you use it or not.

So are you saying there should be more flexibility in what an insurance covers, and offers? Interesting if that's your premise, but we have already seen those cut rate insurance policies, and many still have them under the grandfather clause. Are you not forgetting that there is a 30% immediate savings in premium costs because of the tax subsidies over those grandfathered policies?

I don't know if you have done an actual cost/benefit analysis or if you are basing your opinion on flawed data. I mean do you have evidence that it indeed is more costly for health insurance for a minimum comprehensive policy, than one just tailored for your own needs. You may have a case for single people, both young and old but families certainly not.

Who said no one pays for anything?

Tal did...


You guys said that 4 years ago.

And its coming true, I know quite a few that have shut down, or will be shutting down... many doctors have left their practices... MANY are settign up Concierge Clinics where you pay for the right to go there and pay for any procedures needed... They are outside the reach or control of Obamacare.

Even more are refusing to accept Obamacare patients just like many refuse to accept Medicaid or Medicare patients. They don't get a fair reimbursement from any of them.

And today its all been proven to be true.

Wow, Tal. It so doesn’t work that way. You pay for the coverage whether you use it or not.

See this is the camel's nose under the tent play. Once they see they can get away with forcing religious employers to pay for employee abortion inducing drugs ,then it doesn't take much to take it to the next step.... forcing them to pay for employee abortions.

Tal did

He said this:

What part of you don't need it, and don't use it, YOU DON'T PAY FOR IT that you cannot grasp?
Which you extrapolated to this:

So Doctors and Hospitals are working for free now since nobody pays fior anything.


Is that it?

You are a smart guy Smoothy my friend but there is never a situation where nobody pays as the very nature of insurance is you pay a regular premium. And lets not misunderstand that concierge and clinics are limited to the very basic function of primary care, and beyond that if you need a specialist then that's a whole new ball game to pay for.

Indeed many doctors and patients go outside the regular NETWORKS of medical care and have for decades, no changes there and it's always been a personal choice for doctors and patients, and Obamacare didn't change that.

So what are you squawking about? The biggest effect of Obamacare was how insurance companies conduct business. Doctors and patients can still decide how best they can make money, or save money. You would have known that if you looked before you hollered. Or didn't ignore the most obvious benefit to rural and local hospital costs we all were struggling under. Some local politicians (governors/state legislatures) are still ignoring their own state costs while they, like you holler, instead of doing the math.

You righties may be educated, but are lousy at math, AND science.

Exactly my Point Tal... you are forcing people to pay for things they will never need or never use. Particularly things they don't want when it applies to Obamacare.

Despite your claims about who can't do math. Obama and you lefties argued all along Obamacare would save everyone AT LEAST $2,500 a year... fact is it costs most people at LEAST that much MORE than they were paying BEFORE Obamacare.

Whose math is worse?

So when the services are required and they are then forced into bankruptcy that's a good system? I think if that were the case I would avoid visiting the doctor at all costs (pun intended).

Why would you require someone to buy a Lincoln Blackwood when all they want or need is a Forge Ranger? Oh Right... President Poo Pile decrees everyone WILL drive a Lincoln Blackwood if they want one or not... can afford it or not.

Obamacare as well as Medicaid and Medicare forces doctors to render services at compensation levels below what the cost of service is.

The only ones still hollering are the politicians in Red States up for re-election. The debate is OVER and we have moved to implementation.

So are you saying...

No, I'm saying even if "you don't need it, and don't use it", YOU STILL PAY FOR IT if it's covered.

The only ones still hollering are the politicians in Red States up for re-election. The debate is OVER and we have moved to implementation.


THe next President who will be a Republican can toss it assidecompletely by an exacutive order even if congress and the Senate won't repeal it. Obamas been doing that for most of his 6.5 years in office with many laws... and the next president PARTICULARLY if he is a Republican... can do it too.

When will you learn to not count on the outcome of the next election to change your luck? It hasn't worked for you so far. That's either wishful thinking, or false hope. You have to do much more than holler about everything.

by an exacutive order?? Fascist dictatorial emperor!!!

THe Democrats have proven they are completely fine with Executive orders... unless they are hypocritical fools.. they will be fine with a Republican president doing EXACTLY the same thing.

If they aren't... then they can just shut up until HE has been able to do exactly the same for two terms.

Otherwise why are the Democrats preventing an Impeachment and Jailtime from happening RIGHT NOW over it? He can always be sent to jail after he leaves office....if he doesn't flee home to Kenya.

they will be fine with a Republican president doing EXACTLY the same thing.Why? They are no better or aim for no higher standard? I think it's because they are proven to be incredible liars that enjoy the company of young boys.

What higher standard... if Obama can do it... so can any other president...

What is it you were always told as a child? Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it?


Well the Democrats lowered the bar... about as low as it can be lowered, since an earthworm can no longer crawl under it... anything a Republican will do will likely BE a HIGHER STANDARD than anything that happened under Obama.

And if Obama was allowed to do it... then precident is made than nothing can be done to stop a Republican from doing it too.

All the presidents have done the same as Obama and more. That's a pretty selective memory you have there.

So basically you always aim for the lowest common denominator. I've noticed that from the neo-conservatives here.

Tal... your selective memory is kicking in again... NO AMerican president has EVER pulled the stunts Obama has...

Name one documented incident of any Republican president publicly threatening a Democrat congress to do what he wants or he's going to do it on his own anyway?

NK... anything a Republican president will do from now on is not the loewst commoin denominator... Obama already set that standard in the dirt. Anything a Republican would do now would be setting a higher standard than has existed in at least the previous two election cycles.

You can look up the history of executive orders for yourself.

The only ones still hollering are the politicians in Red States up for re-election. The debate is OVER and we have moved to implementation.


see my comment on the ACA op .

Tal... YOU made the claim, so you must have some memory of it happening before. I'm the one that said it has never happened before ever ( A president threatening congress with if they don't do what he demands they do ..he will do it on his own by executive order, while he throws another temper tantrum like a 2 year old not having their way) . And certainly not in my lifetime.

Nixon tried an imperial Presidency and he was forced to resign. Start calling the emperor Milhouse.

I didn't make a claim, I stated a fact, smoothy and Tom its still early for the ACA implementation.

You both live in the world of false hope if you think Obama will be impeached, resign, or be SUED!!

you said "The debate is OVER ". I say it's as over as your 'settled science' .

So Tal... you claim it's a fact a Republican, or even another Democrat President has made that threat before... since things like that in our lifetimes would have been printed, or caught on video or audio... it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a link to even one instance by someone OTHER than Obama.

I personally think your Messiah has become completely unhinged based on his eratic behaviour every time the SCOTUS beach Slaps him for overstepping his authority in recent weeks. He probibly goes home and slaps Moochele around or crys like a baby in his office.

you really thinks he is worried if his advisers are any good they would have told it it was a possible outcome so it isn't a surprise, your whole system is designed to check power so that's the way it works