Hobby Lobby Wins !: Where Do We Go from Here?

Christianity Today ^ | 06/30/2014 | Ed Stetzer

[PghBaldy]

In other related news, there are now EWTN ( U.S. District Court ruled against them 17 June) & Little Sisters of the Poor (had stay, than an appeals ruling,), who are still waiting for some justice.

http://www.becketfund.org/littlesisters/

[Terry L Smith]

Quick! Get a bigger hammer!! Humpty Dumpty’s shell is cracking!!!

[matginzac]

Just what I was thinking...
Four of the five did NOT see the Constitutionality of this decision and that is a very close call...
And we risk EVERYTHING in the next national election...

[all the best]

“Religions liberty is foundational to the US, obama, kapish?”

LIBERTY is foundational to the US. Once you start dividing liberty you end up with less and less. Why should anybody have to cite their religious beliefs to be free? I am a Christian.

[mrmeyer]

..."the BSA caved completely on their own...the BSA committed suicide."

Yes they did.

[yorkiemom]

so, who really thinks this will put a dent in Obama’s “borrowing of authority” and “acting on his own”?

He is like an angry 3 year old and will retaliate. he's already shown he has no respect for the SC.

[OneWingedShark]

I held my nose and voted for Romney only for and because I believe that he would at least appoint Conservative justices, but we will never know if he would have.

Why would you believe that? Romney de facto instituted homosexual marriage in MA; he also has a history of appointing liberal judges who engage in judicial activism.

This should give some second thoughts to those who insist that a president has to be “pure” during the elections.”

Nobody I know who refused to vote Romney did it because of purity — they did so because he was unacceptable, and would have voted for several good candidates.
IOW, just because there are candidates that are unacceptable does not mean that the only acceptable candidates are perfect.

[yorkiemom]

CW-II, of course, because the Obamadorks and associated low IQ minions will not give up. May as well get it over with earlier rather than later.

Agreed. All we're doing is shuffling deck chairs. We need to just start over, with the Constitution as written and as intended.

I propose we let the libs have the coasts and we take the middle of the country. That's how it is lined up now anyway. And we will NOT lend them money or bail them out when they go broke. And our borders will be secure so they can't get into our country without screening and approval and a need for a skill they possess. NO free handouts on our side!

[OneWingedShark]

Agreed. All we're doing is shuffling deck chairs. We need to just start over, with the Constitution as written and as intended.

I don't know… if you're talking about unamended, I don't think that would be a good idea with the Federal-Supremacy/State-Subjugation ideas that are currently embedded in the general population's thought, as the Bill of Rights are amendments.

If you're talking about the Constitution + Amendments, then I would say there are things that need changed:

1. Repeal/repudiate the 14th Amendment — incorporation is a bad thing, overall; plus the inability to question the validity of the national debt is killer.
2. Repeal of the 16th Amendment — this would, in theory, cripple the imposition of progressive, variable-rate income tax.
3. Repeal of the 17th Amendment — the composition of the Senate being selected by popular vote, instead of assigned by their state, means the States-as-institutions are not represented.
4. Replacement of Amendment 12 — the method for preventing election-deadlock is too complex, simply make it so a senator leaving the floor surrenders his vote in subsequent rounds for that particular election. (Perhaps also prohibit the bringing of food [and tv, or internet] during the election rounds, so as to encourage them to get it done.)
5. We need the addition of an amendment restricting the incurring debt.
6. We likely need an amendment to restrict [income] tax to a uniform flat-rate.

[Synthesist]

My fellow conservative FReepers,

The U.S. Supreme Court made history today. I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!

This is a MAJOR DEFEAT for the abortion industry and liberals who have tried to argue that life only begins at birth.

[yorkiemom]

Wow, you put way more thought into this than I did!

I just meant as written, not as interpreted or misinterpreted by activist judges. As one of the Founding Fathers said (Franklin?), when there is a question of their intent, look at their writings from the time. I’m sure no judge has ever done that.

Amendments - now we open a whole new discussion here;) One I would have to give considerable thought to.

[yorkiemom]

Hey, how about starting a CWII ping list? Or one about rebuilding?

I see this topic getting lots of traction these days.

[GeronL]

and the GOPE will confirm the next one almost unanimously too

[OneWingedShark]

Hey, how about starting a CWII ping list? Or one about rebuilding?

Hm, maybe.
There are several ways I could swing such a list:

1. the is this the spark? method, where I assume there would be a lot of overlap w/ Null and Void's Nutjob Conspiracy-Theory list.
2. looking for articles of the survival/tactics sort.
3. looking at civil-unrest articles.
4. maximum paranoia.

I honestly don't know what direction I would steer the list, were I to create it.

I see this topic getting lots of traction these days.

Same here.
Though one of the bad/difficult things is that a lot of people have different notions of the line [which must not be crossed] to trigger their resistance. The government could use this to great advantage by picking those off with more sensitive 'lines' than others. (I suspect the way they'd do this would be a preponderance of isolated incidents, much like no-knock/wrong-house police raids; followed by a false-flag event and security measures.)

[Persevero]

No one is mentioning the severability clause lately. What about it? Anyone know? If one part of this horrible “law” is thrown out, it’s all thrown out? Right?

[OneWingedShark]

No one is mentioning the severability clause lately. What about it? Anyone know? If one part of this horrible “law” is thrown out, it’s all thrown out? Right?

At this point I think they're more concerned about the appearance of legitimacy, rather than actually conforming to either the spirit or letter of the law. In other words, don't scratch the surface.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This was a regulation that got shot down, so it didn’t really touch the pea packer (Obamacare).

[American Constitutionalist]

Can I use this Supreme Court decision to not pay any fees or fines from Obamacare and be forced to apply for Obamacare because it would violate my religious beliefs ?

[American Constitutionalist]

Or you can not be persecuted for your long held religious beliefs or lose my right to practice my religious beliefs because " others " oppose what you believe in, or find it as " hate speech ".
Besides ? how can it be " Hate speech " if it is a supposed protected right of a person in this country who practices their religion that was well established in this country well before this country was formed ?

[yorkiemom]

The survival/tactics list would overlap with Kartographer’s prepping list too.

No doubt, like Hitler and Stalin the first to go would be done to set an example. So all would just quietly be led to the slaughter.... like concentration camps and gulags.

That makes your list all the more important ;)