Posted on 03/24/2016 2:09:47 PM PDT by Nachum
In oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked an attorney representing East Texas Baptist University, Southern Nazarene University, Geneva College and the Little Sisters of the Poor whether the United States government would ever be able to function if it could not demand that people do things that those people believe will cause their souls to “be damned in some way.”
“Because every believer that’s ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that my soul will be damned in some way,” said Sotomayor. “I’m not naysaying that that is a very substantial perceived personal burden by them. But if that’s always going to be substantial, how will we ever have a government that functions? How will we ever have anything that the government can demand people do in objecting…that won’t be a problem?”
The case—Zubik v. Burwell—is looking at the question of whether the Obama administration can force Catholic and Protestant non-profit institutions to cooperate in a government regulatory scheme that would use the health-care plans of those institutions to deliver coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
so is Sotomayer advocating draft registration of Amish?
So it has come down to that? That question speaks volumes. Let her ponder it a while and let’s see what answer she comes up with.
Impeach them all at once. One set of charges, one trial, clean house.
Freedom of religion requires the state to carefully parse its authority to avoid threatening the moral foundation of the citizens. Her argument is false. Not every, or even most, cases involve moral challenges. When they do it is the responsibility of the government to insure its laws do not subject a preponderance of citizens to infringement upon their religious beliefs.
Her argument is very simple. Religion cannot be allowed to interfere with the authority of the state. That is a direct assault on the Constitution. Impeachment and removal are perfectly appropriate and necessary in Sotomeyer’s case.
Gee. We simply functioned for 225 years with exactly the type of government that she asks about.
It doesn’t surprise me that she got her law school indoctrination at an Ivy League school. Whatever the Ivy League law schools are teaching about the Constitution, it is evidently not the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
Justice Sotomayer's misguided question as to why the federal government cannot make people do things if they believe that it will damn them to hell completely overlooks that states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions decided by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices. I wouldn’t be suprised if Sotomayer and her colleagues have never seen these excerpts.
With respect to the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach as evidenced by unconstitutional federal healthcare programs, Obama’s and possibly Trump's.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices who are clueless about the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
Justice Sotomayor: How Can Gov’t Function If It Can’t Make People Do Things They Believe Will Damn Their Souls?
That's the implication of her argument, you're right. But she doesn't even claim to make an argument - she denies it, in fact, by affirming a "perceived personal burden." That, in turn, has to be itself implied as referring to religious belief protected by the 1st Amendment. And then underneath it all is her fundamental implication that the government is superior to the people in all cases, and that that position is in fact the very purpose of government itself.
So much for "We the People."
I've read a lot of twisted legal arguments. I can confidently say, however, that her "question" is THE most twisted legal "argument" I've ever read. And because it's from a USSC Justice, it's all the more shocking.
America is in a LOT of trouble.
Even fairly sophisticated commentators seem not to realize the damaging legal theory that is taught and practiced as a monopoly in law schools and the legal system.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg have no business as Justices.
Sotomayor shouldn’t even be a judge.
The “Wise Latina” needs to be swinging at the end of a rope right beside her partner in crime, the hag Ginsberg.
She went on: ".... There may come a time when we need to demand everyone renounce Christ, pledge to serve Satan, and wear the Mark of the Beast. If we don't force people to act against their beliefs NOW, how will we be able to when it really counts?"
Her bad logic will trip her up badly.
Counter arguments can include “Should the government be permitted to reject the idea of “conscientious objection” to war, and force people like Quakers, Orthodox Jews, and Seventh Day Adventists to carry weapons and brutally murder the enemies of our government in wartime?”
And really hit home with the argument, that “Should the government, in an effort to close the border with Mexico, be able to order CBP agents to fire machine guns at illegal border crossers, despite the religious beliefs of these agents that to do so would be damnable murder? Certainly that would interfere with the function of government.”
Its all corporate law, every shred of it. And the thing people miss about corporations is that the government owns them absolutely - even private ones. They pay to be allowed to be created, they pay to stay alive, they are completely subservient to government power, and the government says when they die.
Now take all that and "incorporate" human beings. That's what "the law" is today. And from that position, Sotomayor can convert the religion of human beings into the "perceived personal burden" of incorporated human properties owned by the government, and literally like a slave owner (NOT a metaphor), ask why she should allow it.
That's what's actually being discussed here, and all the Justices know it, and all the lawyers know it.
The only people who DON'T know it are those 300 million the government considers it's incorporated property.
I am woefully concerned that America is now doomed. I trust the American people miraculously WAKE UP this election cycle and perform a 180 right away. Yep, a good ‘ol revival on a National level.
My precious Lord God Almighty, please forgive us our sins and heal our land. Strike down these progressive socialist in their tracks before they insult You and Your people any further. They mock You, Your Word and Your people daily and are attempting to take us all to hell in a hand basket with them. I have tried to get through to a few of them on a personal level, You know who I’m talking about - without much success so in my hour of weakness and despair, I turn solely to You. As I believe only You can heal their seared hearts and twisted minds now. In Jesus Name I pray, Amen
Oh, and please Lord, give me the physical and mental strength to see Your Work in real time before my time in this world is over. My family & I give You thanks and praise in advance !
Perhaps, Madam Justice, the government should re-think what it demands of its citizens.
Agreed, too stupid to live.
Sotomayor knows as much about the Constitution as does Obama — NADA. Neither Obama nor Sotomayor are complying with their oath of office.
I was thinking the exact same thing!
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.