Posted on 07/07/2014 1:43:27 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Democrats will take up legislation in the “coming weeks” to address last month’s Supreme Court decision that allowed some employers with religious objections to opt out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
Democrats on Capitol Hill have overwhelmingly criticized the high court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case and are working to craft a response that would restore the coverage, though no specifics have yet been outlined.
“We’re going to do something about the Hobby Lobby legislation,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday as he ticked off the Senate’s to-do list over the next several weeks.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I believe that the paradigm of original sin is, in fact, an accurate one. As scripture points out, God made man upright, but men have “gone after many schemes.” So now, salvation is needed. People might debate HOW it is worked, but it is a big mistake to deny that it is needed.
Yup, bitter clingers to a religion of irreligion.
When is the last time they passed a budget?
Under Bush
Fock you Harry, you worthless fascist.
I don’t believe in the Bible.
I do think the Supreme Court ruled correctly: the Government can NOT force its (non) religion on us. Nor can they deny someone the right to practice their religion.
I don’t think your God has anything to do with the evil men are doing right now.
I think men can do evil things completely on their own.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 1600 Days Without a Budget
September 15th, 2013
http://www.redstate.com/diary/alanjoelny/2013/09/15/1600-pennsylvania-avenue-and-1600-days-without-a-budget/
Of course they are. No wannabe dictator can let a slight of his all powerful authority go unpunished.
Sore loser.
I expect the Senate to try to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It will pass with democrat votes, but he House will reject it.
The Supreme Court has already, for all practical purposes, rejected the First Amendment as it applies to religion.
“Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
Per SCALIA:
“It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.”
Nothing like having a conservative on the court write an opinion that stripped the meaning of the First Amendment right out of it. According to Scalia, as long as the law doesn’t TARGET religious practice, it can prohibit the religious practice, even if there is no compelling need (such as would be served with human sacrifice, for example).
Per Scalia:
“(a) Although a State would be “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.”
According to Scalia, the requirement to provide abortion-causing drugs and devices at employer expense IS acceptable under the First Amendment. It is only the HHS RULING that cannot stand up under the RFRA - a law passed by Congress in response to Scalia’s opinion.
You know MG, you have just opened yourself up to a charge of animal abuse.
In consigning a starter kit of fire ants to live within the Reid abode, who knows what horrors these ants may be ultimately faced with?
The best of Che CD’s.
Naked posters of Nancy Pelosi.
If housed within the bedroom, these ants may be faced with the ultimate degredation of having to view Harry in his pink panties. Oh the horror.
I recommend that you contact FedEx and have your shipment returned to you posthaste.
Make the Koch brothers pay for everyone’s abortion pills?
Reminder: Hobby Lobby Provides Coverage for 16 Types of Contraception
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3174342/posts
Regulations have the force of law and ACA is nothing but tons of implementing regulations, all provided for by the ACA legislation.
He could always do what they did with Obamacare....Take a House bill, gut the language, replace it with what he wants, and rename it. Who is going to stop him? This Congress? Hah! Oh, and pass the bill on Christmas Eve......
No they don't. Congress can pass laws over which the Supreme Court can have no Jurisdiction.
I would like to see if any cameras captured Satan standing next to Reid patting him on the back.
Certainly a few of his demons might be visible in some of the photos when he said this.
How un-American can you get?
Answer: Harry Reid
Dirty Tricks Harry will figure it out. *sigh*
You'd think that someone with one foot on a banana peel and one foot getting hot sticking out over the fiery abyss, he might back off on being so utterly evil.
Does he think that the devil is going to reward him for all of his foul deeds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.