Supreme Court: Yes, (some) corporations can pray--and you'll all pay

Los Angeles Times ^ | June 30, 2014 | by Michael Hiltzik

[Amendment10]

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regardless of today's win for patriots at the Supreme Court, let's not forget the following. Regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate public healthcare purposes.

In other words, the Hobby Lobby case should never have happened.

[Argus]

The woman looks like a senescent chimpanzee.

[Tzimisce]

The 1st Amendment of the US prohibits the Congress from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

And what did the Congress just do?

[Delta Dawn]

Oh, Oh, Oh, can I play this game as well?

Ginsburg's question is apt: What's next?

After the individual mandate of Obamacare: WHAT'S NEXT?

[RetiredTexasVet]

Nothing worse than a Progressive scorned.

[RetiredTexasVet]

Excellent b!tch slap of the LA Slimes.

[Kansas58]

unfortunately, severability wont come up because the birth control mandate was not in the original Obamacare legislation.

[SECURE AMERICA]

the conservative Supreme Court majority that upheld corporations’ religious objections to birth control

Okay you dropped the ball right there and nothing else you say has meaning. You failed in honesty so we can not believe anything else you say.
The objection was NOT to birth control, it was them being forced to pay for it. Any women can still get all the birth control she can swallow. She just must be willing to pay for it herself. So you lose the argument because you resorted to disortion as usual....

[publius911]

Supreme Court: Yes, (some) corporations can pray--and you'll all pay

Hiltzik, Hiltzik, Hiltzik...

We are all paying now.
And we (working, net-taxpaying Americans) will all be paying forever, no matter how the chairs on the Obamacare Titanic are rearranged.

[lastchance]

Such stupid should burn.

[IronJack]

Ginsburg's powerful intellect

Have you read her dissent? It's leftist garbage, not respectable jurisprudence. She condemns the majority decision as opening the door to establishment of religion, all the while ignoring the fact that forcing a business to act against its religious principles does IN FACT contravene the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

And the rest of her diatribe is equally fallacious. It's a stunning example of poor reasoning, which I guess is why it's held in such high esteem by the dolts at the LA Tombs.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Well played sir!

[Albion Wilde]

If the LA Times is upset with a SCOTUS decision, liberty prevailed.

Now THAT should be a tagline!!

[Rusty0604]

“intellect”... is that what they call it?

[GeronL]

In polite company. Like the vapors.

[Impy]

The LA times isn’t fit to line birdcages.

[tophat9000]

Funny.. if the state told a women.

You must get an abortion, you must be sterilized, you must use birth control.

That would interfere with her right to chose

But the left thinks it can tell the same women..

You must pay for another women abortion, you must pay for another woman's sterilization, you must pay for another women birth control.

[Intolerant in NJ]

She also observes that the majority's answer to allowing business owners to opt out of covering their employees' legitimate health needs is that "the general public can pick up the tab."...Got news for you, Ruth - who do you think is "picking up the tab" for all these rebates/subsidies that are going to reduce premiums in the attempt to make the general public believe they're getting cheap medical insurance - hint: it's the general public......

[skeeter]

Ginsburg's powerful intellect breathing down his neck as he tried to find a path to upholding the Hobby Lobby parties' attack on women's rights without expanding corporate "personhood" too much.

I wonder if even the left believes their own overheated rhetoric.

Forcing employers to violate their religious faith and pay for something the government could easily provide women itself becomes an 'attack on women'.

And tens of thousands see no problem with this line of reasoning.