Skip to comments.
USA Today to Obama admin: leave Little Sisters alone
cna ^
| January 14, 2014
Posted on 01/18/2014 2:58:58 PM PST by NYer
Edited on 01/18/2014 3:37:59 PM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1
posted on
01/18/2014 2:58:58 PM PST
by
NYer
To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...
2
posted on
01/18/2014 2:59:20 PM PST
by
NYer
("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
To: NYer
A more meaningful compromise would let employers either include or exclude anti-fertility drugs or surgery in their health insurance plans, as they choose.
3
posted on
01/18/2014 3:02:38 PM PST
by
Tax-chick
(Tell the mad chameleon he's not welcome anymore.)
To: NYer
there is a good reason to go after someone who can’t fight back
LEGAL PRECIDENT
If they win in court they can cite this legal precident against anyone else who tries to make the same argument
4
posted on
01/18/2014 3:03:28 PM PST
by
Mr. K
(If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
To: NYer
A big surprise! A very pleasant surprise!
5
posted on
01/18/2014 3:03:41 PM PST
by
livius
To: Mr. K
there is a good reason to go after someone who cant fight back
LEGAL PRECEDENT
If they win in court they can cite this legal precident against anyone else who tries to make the same argument I despise precedent; it is nothing less than the judiciary playing the children's game of telephone with the citizen's legal rights.
6
posted on
01/18/2014 3:05:49 PM PST
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: NYer; mlizzy; Arthur McGowan; mc5cents; RichInOC; Prince of Space; JoeFromSidney; TNMountainMan; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
7
posted on
01/18/2014 3:10:30 PM PST
by
narses
(... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
To: NYer
“Surprise” doesn’t begin to cover my reaction. “Stunned” or “shocked” perhaps. I’m sure the USA Today editors don’t care for, much less agree with, the Little Sisters. They just recognize the damaging impact of the image of the govt coming down on a group of ultimate do-gooders.
8
posted on
01/18/2014 3:13:28 PM PST
by
EDINVA
( m)
To: NYer
Even a member of the MSM has more respect for nuns than Obama.
9
posted on
01/18/2014 3:13:42 PM PST
by
CorporateStepsister
(I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
To: NYer
Welp. Looks like Obama will be revealing lots of horrible things about all the employees, and the IRS and EPA will be shutting them down.
Do not annoy the King.
10
posted on
01/18/2014 3:16:16 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
To: NYer
This thing is turning into a cluster of a cluster. Doesn’t all of these exemptions just nullify the entire premise of the BS ACA? Sorry Moderators but WTF?
11
posted on
01/18/2014 3:17:24 PM PST
by
poobear
(Socialism in the minds of the elites, is a con-game for the serfs, nothing more.)
To: NYer
No surprise here.
These editorials calling for restraint on the part of the Obama Administration know damn well that there is likely to be a terrible political backlash against Obamacare and its supporters in Congress as cases like this get public exposure.
Who the 'eff goes out and looks to impose millions of dollars in fines and penalties against the Little Sisters of the Poor?
12
posted on
01/18/2014 3:18:34 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
To: Alberta's Child; NYer
Obama and his henchmen will ignore USA Today. Their view is that all opponents must be crushed if they refuse to become submissive slaves.
13
posted on
01/18/2014 3:30:59 PM PST
by
GreyFriar
(Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
To: Lazamataz
Disregard the king, so he can be put in his place.
14
posted on
01/18/2014 3:34:57 PM PST
by
Biggirl
(“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
To: GreyFriar
15
posted on
01/18/2014 3:35:39 PM PST
by
Biggirl
(“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
To: NYer
Tell USA to shut up. The optics of Bam bullying the sisters is so bad I want to let him just keep it up. He looks so small and petty. Just the way he really is.
16
posted on
01/18/2014 4:13:29 PM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: OneWingedShark; Mr. K
Well, actually, that's not how it works.
Courts of original jurisdiction cannot set precedent. Even the old "law of the case rule" has mostly been abolished.
Only appellate courts can set precedent, and then only within their jurisdiction (e.g. the 5th circuit, or the state of Alabama). Only the Supreme Court can set precedent for the whole country.
But precedent is the bedrock of the entire legal system - going back to the days of the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. And if you despise legal precedent, what on earth are you going to set up in its place?
17
posted on
01/18/2014 4:22:04 PM PST
by
AnAmericanMother
(Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
To: Georgia Girl 2
Tell USA to shut up. The optics of Bam bullying the sisters is so bad I want to let him just keep it up. He looks so small and petty. Just the way he really is. I absolutely agree.
It is apparent from the tone of this article that USAT is trying to help Obama . . . "Shut up, you're making yourself look bad." The constitutional issue to them is just a throwaway, their major concern is the optics for Obama.
18
posted on
01/18/2014 4:23:32 PM PST
by
AnAmericanMother
(Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
To: NYer
Surprise, ping!SHOCK, ping!
To: AnAmericanMother
The problem with “precedent” as it is practiced is that it is so often nothing but a device by which the courts rewrite the Constitution.
I remember during the Lewinsky scandal how often the Screaming Faces would talk against doing something or other as specified in the Constitution on the grounds of “no precedent.” IOW, it hadn’t been done before. Which is irrelevant.
Watch for people to attack an Article V Convention of States on the grounds of “no precedent.”
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson