March 25, 2014

Reviewing The Legal Arguments In The Contraception Mandate Cases
— Gabriel Malor

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the Supreme Court will today hear the contraception mandate cases, popularly styled Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. Politically, these cases hit a bunch of fraught notes on sex, power, religion, and free speech. I covered that, with emphasis on the lies leftists will tell, yesterday. Legally, however, these cases also raise important questions, and I want to cover that today.

As I've written before, these cases won't bring down Obamacare. But they will determine how government will interact with religious individuals for decades to come. Here are the most important legal questions the Supreme Court will have to consider today.
1. Who has religious rights?

This is the "sweet spot" of the contraception mandate cases. For the government to win, they have to convince the Supreme Court of two things. First, it will have to successfully argue that for-profit corporations have no religious rights of their own that are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA", pronounced riff-ra.) Second, the government has to prevail on the theory that the religious rights of owners of for-profit corporations are unprotected by RFRA in the operation of their corporations.

If the government can demonstrate these two things, the case is over without getting into any weighing of the burden on religious liberty and whether the contraception mandate is a "compelling interest," "narrowly tailored," as RFRA requires. As I discuss below, once we get to RFRA's balancing test, all signs point to a win for Hobby Lobby. So let's dig into the

Briefly, the government argues that for-profit businesses cannot exercise religion because, well, because they say so. The government's brief argues that a business is not a "person," and RFRA's language only extends to persons. It also argues that business owners give up religious protections by choosing to enter into commercial activity.

The businesses argue that, while RFRA does refer to persons, the term person is defined by statute to include "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." They also note that many corporations are operated for religious purposes, including the hundreds of non-profit corporations that the Obama administration agreed to exempt from the contraception mandate. And, most notably, Supreme Court precedent has recognized that religious rights are implicated when businesses are forced to comply with laws.

The back-up argument for the businesses (and, I believe the one that will prevail) is that even if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood do not have protected religious rights, their owners obviously do. Suggesting that owners and operators who are forced to act in violation of their religious consciences are simply out of luck because they chose to organize in the corporate form is unlikely to convince a majority of justices because RFRA does not protect (or exempt) certain corporate forms. It protects religious freedom, which is the same for the business owners whether they choose to incorporate as a for-profit or as a non-profit.

2. Does the contraception mandate substantially burden businesses?

This is the first part of RFRA's test for balancing religious freedom against laws. As I said above, once the businesses get over the hurdle of showing they have a protected religious right, it's smooth sailing.

The government argues that the contraception mandate is not a substantial burden because the businesses' (or their owners') religious beliefs are "too attenuated" from the harm they complain of. In plain English, the government thinks that because the businesses object to contraceptives (in Conestoga Wood's case) and abortifacients (in Hobby Lobby's case), and the decision to purchase contraceptives and abortifacients is being made by employees at some later date and place removed from the businesses, the businesses' objection is irrational.

The government simply misstates the businesses' and owners' objection. Yes, for religious reasons they oppose the use of contraception. They also oppose covering it in their health care plans and it is this very coverage that the government is now mandating. That is the burden and it is indisputably substantial, since failure to provide the objectionable coverage will result in crippling fines. The government's attempt to distract the court with claims that the businesses solely object to the use of contraception requires the high court to simply disregard the actual stated objection of the businesses.

3. Does the government have a compelling interest in these businesses providing contraception coverage?

Here again, the facts are all on the businesses' side. As I noted yesterday, the vast majority of employees in the United States had contraception coverage before the mandate, and still do. A relatively tiny number of employees would lack this coverage if the businesses win here. More importantly, the Obama administration already exempted as many as 190 million people from the mandate, by allowing non-profits and those with "grandfathered" plans to continue to operate, in perpetuity, free of the mandate. There is simply no way the government can argue that, after providing millions of exceptions, its interest is compelling. The government has already conclusively demonstrated that it is, at best, an optional interest.

4. What about constitutional protection?

I've suggested throughout this post that the case will turn on the application of RFRA. The reason for that is because RFRA provides more religious protection from federal statute than the First Amendment's free exercise clause. It's possible the Supreme Court could rule on First Amendment grounds, but unlikely. The only way the justices get to the First Amendment question (which, to its credit Conestoga Wood briefed) is if they decide to undo decades of First Amendment jurisprudence in a case where they don't have to. That is why this case is not about constitutional corporate "personhood" a la Citizens United, despite what you may have read in the papers or heard on TV.

I will conclude with a prediction based only on their briefs (and this comes before argument): the businesses will win. There is a key difference between a political argument and a legal argument that the government seems to have forgotten here. To win in politics, you take the other side's worst argument and hammer that. To win in a legal argument, however, you must take the other side's best argument and tear it down. Here, the government's brief doesn't directly address the businesses' arguments, preferring instead to take a rambling trip through concepts like piercing the corporate veil, "attenuation," and ERISA lawsuits. By contrast, the businesses focus directly on the question at issue: does RFRA protect them. It's a telling difference.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:59 AM | Comments (316)
Post contains 1101 words, total size 7 kb.

1 I'm reposting (and rephrasing) my question from earlier post as it is more appropriate here. Gabe and other commenters smarter than me: How is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applicable? I don't see how the RFRA can be applicable to a subsequent federal law. Any subsequent Congress could have repealed the RFRA. So shouldn't any law that violates or potentially violates the RFRA be seen as an explicit or implicit repeal of the RFRA at least with respect to that law. I just don't see how that law is applicable to the question at hand. To be sure, I am against the contraception mandate, and think it should be thrown out on first amendment grounds, not under the RFRA.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:03 AM (gmeXX)

2 I'm about to issue another sternly worded message at The Hague.

Posted by: King Putt at March 25, 2014 07:04 AM (Aif/5)

3 Nice run down Gabe. Thanks.

Posted by: Eff The GOP at March 25, 2014 07:04 AM (Cs2tJ)

4 Very well done Gabe.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:04 AM (da5Wo)

5 What the law says and what the     court says are    irrelevant, if enough people refuse to comply.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 25, 2014 07:04 AM (osZ/6)

6 Good people at Hobby Lobby. They once went way beyond ordinary customer service for me. They showed me that they value their customers. I'm rooting for them.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 07:05 AM (7ObY1)

7 It's a TAX!!!!!

Posted by: The Piss-Yellow Coward John Roberts at March 25, 2014 07:06 AM (VjL9S)

8 "First, it will have to successfully argue that for-profit corporations have no religious rights of their own ..."

... this is a slippery slope for Progressives.  Once they have no religious rights, then it only follows that corporations have no moral obligations to ... anybody, including LBGT, except those mandated by law.

It also means that Tim Cook will have to go back to ROI as the only objective for Apple management.

Posted by: Steve Jobs at March 25, 2014 07:06 AM (e8kgV)

9 So the government case is built upon jury-rigged notions of strawmen.  May the government's litigators get scorched.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 07:07 AM (sLR/I)

10 Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 11:03 AM (gmeXX) Typically speaking, a later law that is designed to replace a previous law will have language in it expressly stating that. If you simply have two contradictory laws? That I'm not sure of.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:07 AM (da5Wo)

11 Who will protect us from the government that is protecting us?

Posted by: t-bird at March 25, 2014 07:07 AM (FcR7P)

12 On one hand we have these arguments, on the other we have the administration of Barak "I Won" Obama. They'll lose.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at March 25, 2014 07:08 AM (DFq09)

13 Gabe's coverage makes perfect sense. But I thought the non Constitutionality of Obamacare was a no brainer and the Supreme Court sure surprised me on that one.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 07:08 AM (A98Xu)

14 Thanks, Gabe, for summarizing the legal arguments for us. I'm very interested in religious liberty, but I also think that NO ONE, regardless of their religious convictions, should be forced to buy birth control or abortions for others.

Posted by: Mindy at March 25, 2014 07:08 AM (Ew9Pv)

15 They should have incorporated as an entity which identifies itself as transgender. Untouchable!

Posted by: t-bird at March 25, 2014 07:09 AM (FcR7P)

16 Weasel Zippers ‏@weaselzippers Global Warming Alarmist President Travels To Belgium With 900-Strong Entourage, 45 Vehicles, 3 Cargo PlanesÂ… http://shar.es/Bo9EH

Posted by: Fone Bone at March 25, 2014 07:10 AM (ZPrif)

17 But I thought the non Constitutionality of Obamacare was a no brainer and the Supreme Court sure surprised me on that one.

Yeah. But they had to completely ignore the 9th amendment to do it.

Posted by: Jimi Hendrix at March 25, 2014 07:10 AM (e8kgV)

18 SH....here's some insight.... When two federal statutes appear to conflict, the courts generally engage in what is called an “implied repeal” analysis. The first step in such an analysis is to look for some way in which to reconcile the apparently conflicting requirements. Only if the conflicting provisions cannot be reconciled do courts reach the second step of the analysis, in which they look to see whether the later statute repealed the prior statute (to the extent of the conflict) by implication. In making such a determination, the courts look to the later statute and its legislative history, to see if there is evidence as to whether Congress intended to leave the prior statute in place or whether it intended the later statute to supersede the prior statute, to the extent of the conflict between the two. It is not a foregone conclusion that a later statute will repeal inconsistent provisions of a prior statute. Rather, there are cases in which the courts have held prior, more specific statutes not to be impliedly repealed by later, more general statutes. http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/pvc48.htm Third paragraph down.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:10 AM (da5Wo)

19 Typically speaking, a later law that is designed to replace a previous law will have language in it expressly stating that. --- Is this just the case where we have two laws that collide with one another. My position would be that the latter one should control at least with respect to its limited subject. Kind of like having two contracts that collide, if the latter one is more narrow, it should control.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:11 AM (gmeXX)

20 -"The businesses argue that, while RFRA does refer to persons, the term person is defined by statute to include "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." Gabe - nice write up - as to the statute - which statute claims this? RFRA or other cases, precedence, etc? As you mentioned - if persons is understood and expanded to corps, companies, etc - the ruling will favor Hobby/Conestoga right then and there, with a "stern" dissension from one SCOTUS member

Posted by: Odie1941 at March 25, 2014 07:11 AM (iS2i7)

21 I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst. That's just how I'm forced to roll with the SC these days.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at March 25, 2014 07:12 AM (U7Ivf)

22 So, the case boils down to... is a Right, a RIGHT? or can the Government decide WHO gets which RIGHTS?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 25, 2014 07:12 AM (84gbM)

23 Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 11:10 AM (da5Wo) ---- Thanks. I knew there had to be something out there on this. I'll look into it more. I'm not convinced the RFRA will save them. I'm hopeful the 1st A will.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:13 AM (gmeXX)

24 *rocks in corner* Can't sleep. Lemon test will eat me.
*rocks in corner. Wait, ERISA suits? ERISA? Why the hell would the various and sundry ERISA clusterfuckerries be dragged into this other than because reasons?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 07:13 AM (VtjlW)

25 I don't see how the RFRA can be applicable to a subsequent federal law. Any subsequent Congress could have repealed the RFRA. So shouldn't any law that violates or potentially violates the RFRA be seen as an explicit or implicit repeal of the RFRA at least with respect to that law.
==========
I've never heard of the implied repeal theory.

Laws have to be specifically repealed.

In practice, that means specific code sections must be either deleted by specific language or rewritten.

All the laws are supposed to work together--even the ones that contradict other laws.

One thing that I haven't heard, but I think it's on the table with this crazy court, is that they could potentially find RFRA as unconstitutional.
In fact, suppose HL wins, I can almost guarantee the dissent will call for such.
Hell, the Piss-Yellow Coward John Roberts may actually find RFRA unconstitutional. For the same reasoning DOMA was struck down.

Posted by: RoyalOil at March 25, 2014 07:13 AM (VjL9S)

26 To win in a legal argument, however, you must take the other side's best arguments and tear that down. Here, the government's brief doesn't directly address the businesses' arguments, preferring instead to take a rambling trip through concepts like piercing the corporate veil, "attenuation," and ERISA lawsuits. By contrast, the businesses focus directly on the question at issue: does RFRA protect them. It's a telling difference.

Typically, this type of rambling argument is only made in one of two instances:

(1) the attorney sucks; or

(2) the attorney knows it has no argument and is putting forth what it can.

I doubt the attorneys working this case are stupid, so #2 is most likely.  An old legal saying is that if you don't have the facts, argue the law, if you don't have the law, argue the facts, if you have neither - know the judge.  A codicil to this is if you have none of that, throw a lot of stuff out there in the hopes that misdirection with confuse the court and allow you to steal a win. Which, believe it or not, actually works sometimes.  there are a ton of not too bright judges out there (or judges that don't care about the facts or the law, but have a political agenda).

Here, the gov't knows that no matter what arguments are made, 4 of the 9 justices are going to vote with the gov't.  They don't need facts or legal reasoning to win those votes, as those votes will be made purely on political agenda.

So, the Gov't's argument is merely a hail marry pass attempt to confuse Roberts or Kennedy (or at the very least, give Roberts or Kennedy something to use to side with the 4 liberal justices).  That's why it's a hodge-podge of non-relevant argument.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at March 25, 2014 07:14 AM (sOx93)

27 This will be 5-4. Depending on what side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 25, 2014 07:14 AM (659DL)

28 Posted by: RoyalOil at March 25, 2014 11:13 AM (VjL9S) See comment 17

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:14 AM (da5Wo)

29 Laws have to be specifically repealed. ---- I don't think that is true per se. I think they should be, but I think laws can be repealed in many ways, including by failure to enforce.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:15 AM (gmeXX)

30 I've never heard of the implied repeal theory. Laws have to be specifically repealed. Not entirely accurate. Two words: "Not withstanding..."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 25, 2014 07:16 AM (659DL)

31 Its a tax

Posted by: Dred Pirate Roberts at March 25, 2014 07:16 AM (T2V/1)

32 I'm very interested in religious liberty, but I also think that NO ONE, regardless of their religious convictions, should be forced to buy birth control or abortions for others.


But a wise scholar named John Conyers has made a finely-reasoned argument for the proposition that Sandy Fluke is entitled to contraception paid for by you under the Good N Plenty Clause.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2014 07:17 AM (sl+zA)

33 I have no faith in our legal system or the judiciary.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 07:18 AM (ZPrif)

34

"The Spreme Court will rule today..."

Saaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, weren't they the ones that said a tax isn't a tax when its a fine and is collected, by get this, the IRS?

Posted by: Gmac at March 25, 2014 07:18 AM (4pjhs)

35 AlextheChick, I think the government's lawyers are reaching for straw to build yet more strawmen.

The Pharaoh needs to cut off straw deliveries to them.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 07:18 AM (sLR/I)

36

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 11:11 AM (gmeXX)

 

What BCochran linked to is what I recall of the doctrine from law school.  The more specific statute would generally prevail over the more general statute, providing there is no other  language that would provide otherwise.

 

The analysis can leave us with a legal mess, but that is the fault of the legislature and their legislative research bureau - they should have searched out all other statutes and made sure that everything would mesh together.

 

 

Of course with ObamaCare's history that was impossible to do, so these sorts of problems will crop up from now until the time this thing is finally put down.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 07:18 AM (hLRSq)

37 It doesn't matter what the law says


It doesn't matter what the Constitution says



All that matters is what 5 black robed SOBs say.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 25, 2014 07:19 AM (T2V/1)

38 Thanks for the great recap, Gabe.

It seems like a slam dunk to me, too, as a layman who believes in reasonableness, but John Roberts....I hope his handlers let him do right on this.

I also think this is all about abortion and appeasing the abortion goons. "Hey, we're fighting for you but we lost. Next time."

Posted by: PJ at March 25, 2014 07:19 AM (ZWaLo)

39 33 "The Spreme Court will rule today..." Saaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, weren't they the ones that said a tax isn't a tax when its a fine and is collected, by get this, the IRS? Posted by: Gmac at March 25, 2014 11:18 AM (4pjhs) No, SCOTUS said it was a tax. It was the federal government and the people that enacted it that were constantly screaming it wasn't a tax.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:20 AM (da5Wo)

40 BCochran1981. That was a good quick summary. I'm surprised this isn't discussed more. Maybe I don't fully understand it. But if Roberts can find Obamacare ok under the taxing power, I'm not sure why he couldn't use the "implied repeal" theory to block the application of the RFRA. Frankly, from a constitutional standpoint, I actually think it is more correct because Congress does have the power to change its laws and I don't think it has to (or even necessarily should have to) specifically state it is repealing a law. Again, I think the issue should turn on the 1st A. Am I missing something else? Is the contraceptive mandate an executive branch implementation or is it in the law? I thought it was in the law. If it were an executive branch implementation, then the RFRA would and should be applicable - to me.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:20 AM (gmeXX)

41 33 "The Spreme Court will rule today..." Saaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, weren't they the ones that said a tax isn't a tax when its a fine and is collected, by get this, the IRS? Posted by: Gmac at March 25, 2014 11:18 AM (4pjhs) Best idea ever! Give a highly corruptible agency more power. Thanks John!

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 07:20 AM (A98Xu)

42 Thanks very much for an excellent analysis, Gabe.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2014 07:20 AM (XyM/Y)

43 13 I'm very interested in religious liberty, but I also think that NO ONE, regardless of their religious convictions, should be forced to buy birth control or abortions for others. Posted by: Mindy at March 25, 2014 11:08 AM (Ew9Pv) --------------------------- AMEN. I have a couple of friends, one agnostic and one a staunch atheist, who are STRONGLY opposed to abortion. In fact, I met them at a pro-life meeting. What about them?

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 07:20 AM (dfYL9)

44 @17
Huh.
Learn something new.
So they will rewrite the law to make it fit.

If they get past step one, that the two laws contradict, that should be the end of it--rule the later law as a violation of due process and send it all back to the legislature.

Quit fucking writing laws and making shit up.

Posted by: RoyalOil at March 25, 2014 07:20 AM (VjL9S)

45 Does a Muslim-owned for-profit company have to provide Obamacare coverage for its non-Muslim employees, even though the owners' religion expressly forbids them from purchasing insurance? It would be interesting to see how the Obama administration deals with THAT little academic exercise....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) at March 25, 2014 07:21 AM (PZ6/M)

46 This admin doens't give a rat's ass about the law. Wind, lose, or draw they will weasel a way around it.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 07:21 AM (t3UFN)

47 They should have incorporated as an entity which identifies itself as transgender. Untouchable! Trannies R Us, Inc.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 07:21 AM (0HooB)

48 44 Does a Muslim-owned for-profit company have to provide Obamacare coverage for its non-Muslim employees, even though the owners' religion expressly forbids them from purchasing insurance? Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) at March 25, 2014 11:21 AM (PZ6/M) That would be an outstanding question from the bench.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:22 AM (da5Wo)

49 "I don't see how the RFRA can be applicable to a subsequent federal law. Any subsequent Congress could have repealed the RFRA. So shouldn't any law that violates or potentially violates the RFRA be seen as an explicit or implicit repeal of the RFRA at least with respect to that law." They could have included language in the ACA declaring the RFRA not applicable to the new law. They didn't. It's impossible (well, it should be) to consider the existence of the ACA "implies" that the RFRA statute is suddenly moot.

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at March 25, 2014 07:23 AM (4Kbgm)

50 The Constitution is whatever five of us say it is.

Posted by: Harry Blackmun at March 25, 2014 07:23 AM (dfYL9)

51 What BCochran linked to is what I recall of the doctrine from law school. The more specific statute would generally prevail over the more general statute, providing there is no other language that would provide otherwise. The analysis can leave us with a legal mess, but that is the fault of the legislature and their legislative research bureau - they should have searched out all other statutes and made sure that everything would mesh together. --- Agreed. Have you seen any of the major commentators discuss this (Volkh, Bench Memos, Popehat)? I haven't.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:23 AM (gmeXX)

52 Muslims, IIRC, are explicitly exempt from Obamacide.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at March 25, 2014 07:23 AM (V70Uh)

53 No, this won't bring down Zerocare, but it will administer a sucking chest wound.

Posted by: maddogg at March 25, 2014 07:23 AM (xWW96)

54 They will NOT rule on this case today.  It will be months before we know the outcome.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 25, 2014 07:24 AM (T2V/1)

55 Typically speaking, a later law that is designed to replace a previous law will have language in it expressly stating that. If you simply have two contradictory laws? That I'm not sure of. 2nd Amendment - "Shall not be infringed" vs. NFA '34 & GCA '68?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 07:24 AM (uVkIH)

56 They could have included language in the ACA declaring the RFRA not applicable to the new law. They didn't. It's impossible (well, it should be) to consider the existence of the ACA "implies" that the RFRA statute is suddenly moot. -- That is a good counter. I don't know if I fully buy it, but it is a reasonable counter.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:25 AM (gmeXX)

57 DOMA and RFRA, both signed into law by Bill Clinton. I would expect to hear that in a news report.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at March 25, 2014 07:25 AM (i2Lsf)

58 Does a Muslim-owned for-profit company have to provide Obamacare coverage for its non-Muslim employees infidels, even though the owners' religion expressly forbids them from purchasing insurance? Fixed for accuracy......

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 07:26 AM (uVkIH)

59 55 They could have included language in the ACA declaring the RFRA not applicable to the new law. They didn't. It's impossible (well, it should be) to consider the existence of the ACA "implies" that the RFRA statute is suddenly moot. -- That is a good counter. I don't know if I fully buy it, but it is a reasonable counter. Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 11:25 AM (gmeXX) My understanding is that they would have to argue that an express purpose of the ACA was to render moot and replace the RFRA. I don't think that argument passes the "straight face test."

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:26 AM (da5Wo)

60 One thing that I haven't heard, but I think it's on the table with this crazy court, is that they could potentially find RFRA as unconstitutional. In fact, suppose HL wins, I can almost guarantee the dissent will call for such. Hell, the Piss-Yellow Coward John Roberts may actually find RFRA unconstitutional. For the same reasoning DOMA was struck down. Posted by: RoyalOil This could be more likely than not. RFRA to me appears to be some kind of political legislative add-on to do what the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment was always supposed to do. Once the Bill of Rights gets totally eviscerated (and we are on that road), then these sorts of legislative protections to prevent abuses, such as the excrable Kelo decision, will appear and then be slapped down. The Supreme Court will not be mocked! He said, mockingly.

Posted by: Bossy Conservative riding Orca at March 25, 2014 07:29 AM (RFeQD)

61 Ok, Ed Whelan has addressed this before: In response to my series of posts arguing that the HHS contraception mandate clearly violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a couple of readers have raised the question whether the Obamacare legislation overrides RFRA in this regard. That’s a sensible question, as it was certainly within the power of Congress to do so. The answer to the question, however, is clear: The Obamacare legislation does not displace RFRA’s protections for those employers who have religious objections to providing health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients. RFRA itself provides that a later-enacted federal law is subject to RFRA (as are regulatory implementations of that law) “unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.” In other words, RFRA bolsters the already-robust presumption against implied repeal by stating that any repeal or override of its protections must be explicit. There is nothing in the Obamacare legislation that explicitly overrides RFRA. (Nor is there anything that impliedly does so with respect to the HHS contraception mandate.) _____ I'm still not completely sold because he is using the original act to bind the later one. I guess we will see how the court rules.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:29 AM (gmeXX)

62 BC Good to see that lawyering school come into play here at the AoSHQ. My gut feeling is that since our country is the slippery slope to hell. The SC will find against Hobby Lobby and the rest. They could have destroyed Obama Care and chose not to. Oh we have to look good at the cocktail parties don't we John? They wont destroy any facet of it now.

Posted by: Misanthopic Humanitarian at March 25, 2014 07:29 AM (HVff2)

63 You people have swallowed a lot of shit already. What's one more turd?

Posted by: SCOTUS at March 25, 2014 07:29 AM (oFCZn)

64 "Does the government have a compelling interest in these businesses providing contraception coverage?"

I tend to regard all such "compelling interest" questions as handwaving pettifogging crap with no actual logical foundation.

Rather, the first question which has to be asked is, "From which enumerated Constitutional power does the federal government propose to be telling a private business what it must or must not do?"

No, the "Good And Plenty" clause isn't it. Neither is interstate commerce, thanks.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 25, 2014 07:29 AM (noWW6)

65 I have no faith in our legal system or the judiciary. Sadly, I don't either. Given the recent history of rulings by SCOTUS, I have very little faith that they'll reach any decision that will result in upholding any part of the Constitution as it's written. The best way to invalidate it to just ignore it and do what you want.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 07:29 AM (0HooB)

66 Correct me if I am wrong, but Muslims and Amish are exempt from the health insurance because of their religious beliefs on the concept of insurance.  And the ACA depends upon the IRS regulations to define those groups as exempt.

What a briar patch.  What a pretzel of convolution.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 07:30 AM (sLR/I)

67

I'm scratching my head over  the "a corporation isn't a person" thing.

 

Isn't this the same government that is going after Toyota with criminal charges? 

 

How  can a corporation be held criminally (and other ways) liable for things it does that the governement  doesn't like, then be told  it has no rights as part of constitutional protections? 

 

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe my question makes no sense, but that's what I see when I read this.  Government having it the way they want, when they want it,  with no logical reasoning  to justify it. 

Posted by: BurtTC at March 25, 2014 07:30 AM (TOk1P)

68 The best way to invalidate it to just ignore it and do what you want. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at March 25, 2014 11:29 AM (0HooB) Easier said than done my friend in the box.

Posted by: Misanthopic Humanitarian at March 25, 2014 07:31 AM (HVff2)

69 For those interested on the implied repeal theory (and it may just be me), Dorf on Law also addressed it, here is his conclusion: Accordingly, the answer to the question that titles this post--Did the ACA partially repeal RFRA?--is no. Congress could have partially repealed RFRA in the ACA. Congress also could have delegated to HHS (or some other agency) the power to partially repeal RFRA. But it appears to have done neither, and so the Supreme Court will need to construe RFRA in Hobby Lobby.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:31 AM (gmeXX)

70 What is Constitution, fair and just. We'll get the opposite.

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 07:32 AM (fWAjv)

71 Constitutional

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 07:32 AM (fWAjv)

72 My understanding is that they would have to argue that an express purpose of the ACA was to render moot and replace the RFRA. ------------------------------ You talk like a lawyer and your shit's all retarded.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 07:33 AM (CJjw5)

73 To be fair, it's not like anyone in this administration every actually practiced law or were good at it if they did. So you can't really expect them to understand even the most basic principles of arguing a case, like tearing down your opponent's strongest argument. Heck, wasn't it Sotomayor who admitted she wasn't a very good student, and only got as far as she did academically because of affirmative action? So, yeah... none of them are exactly what you'd call the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Posted by: elaine at March 25, 2014 07:34 AM (GNZ0/)

74 I know this is a stretch.....and it's very unlike pessimistic me.... but I think there is a small (okay, tiny) chance that Sotomayor's vote could be shaky on this particular issue. She would never cast the deciding vote against Beloved Leader's holy law, mind you, but if it does go 5-4, she might make it 6-3. It depends on how far removed she is (or is not) from her Catholic, Latina roots.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 07:34 AM (dfYL9)

75 Crazy footage shows what itÂ’s like to skydive off 1 World Trade Center


Four men were arrested Monday and accused of skydiving (or base jumping, if you prefer) off of 1 World Trade Center in September, an act condemned by the New York police commissioner and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Posted by: Unabomber at March 25, 2014 07:34 AM (e8kgV)

76

Correct me if I am wrong, but Muslims and Amish are exempt from the health insurance because of their religious beliefs on the concept of insurance. And the ACA depends upon the IRS regulations to define those groups as exempt.

 

It's because of the epic beards.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 07:34 AM (DrWcr)

77 Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 11:32 AM (fWAjv)

OT....thanks for the link to the chocolate chip cookie shot-glass hack!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 07:34 AM (QFxY5)

78 The same court that discovered the penaltax will find will now discover optional-mandate.

They will rule that the mandate is optional because they don't have to comply with it if they pay the tax. Therefore, the mandate does not burden religion at all.
Same reasoning they used to uphold Obaaamacare.

Posted by: RoyalOil at March 25, 2014 07:35 AM (VjL9S)

79 "They could have destroyed Obama Care and chose not to. Oh we have to look good at the cocktail parties don't we John?"

John Roberts wasn't worried about looking good at cocktail parties.

He was worried about having his illegally adopted small children taken away.

Don't think for a moment that the Chicago crew would hesistate to level just such a threat.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 25, 2014 07:35 AM (noWW6)

80 My understanding is that they would have to argue that an express purpose of the ACA was to render moot and replace the RFRA.

I don't think that argument passes the "straight face test."

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 11:26 AM (da5Wo)

 

I don't think so either.  The two statutes deal with different things and only tangentially does ACA come into contact with the RFRA.  The ACA could continue onward without the contraception provision whereas excepting it from the RFRA would be a question of a more general statute overruling the more specific statute.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 07:35 AM (hLRSq)

81 You talk like a lawyer and your shit's all retarded. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 11:33 AM (CJjw5) And you grew up clinging to Satan's Ball Sack. So we're pretty much even.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:35 AM (da5Wo)

82 I wasn't "clinging." I was stuck. It's a very humid ballsack.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 07:37 AM (CJjw5)

83 Concerning ACA repealing RFRA - is there an issue with only the Senate passing ACA - and bypassing the House? Additionally, if mandate exemptions are made by the Executive branch (on ongoing legal question that has yet to be legally challenged) - isn't that ripe for concern? What's to stop Obama from simply overriding RFRA via a mandate, via ACA "rule making as we go along?"

Posted by: Odie1941 at March 25, 2014 07:37 AM (iS2i7)

84 81 I wasn't "clinging." I was stuck. It's a very humid ballsack. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 11:37 AM (CJjw5) Then why are there burns on your hands in the shape of pubic hair? Clinging.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:38 AM (da5Wo)

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:39 AM (da5Wo)

86 What's to stop Obama from simply overriding RFRA via a mandate, via ACA "rule making as we go along?" ---- Nothing is stopping him, but the Court shouldn't allow him to get away with it. A new congressional act can override a previous congressional act, but an executive agency should not have this power.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 07:39 AM (gmeXX)

87 81 I wasn't "clinging." I was stuck. It's a very humid ballsack.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 11:37 AM (CJjw5)

 

*pours Gold Bond medicated powder through USB port*

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 07:39 AM (DrWcr)

88 HA!!!!! Victory is mine!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:39 AM (da5Wo)

89 And BCochran skates the edge of the Barrel.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 07:39 AM (sLR/I)

90 87 HA!!!!! Victory is mine!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 11:39 AM (da5Wo)

 

*eyes BC hungrily*

Next time.

Posted by: The Barrel at March 25, 2014 07:40 AM (DrWcr)

91 BCochran1981. That was a good quick summary. I'm surprised this isn't discussed more. Maybe I don't fully understand it. But if Roberts can find Obamacare ok under the taxing power, I'm not sure why he couldn't use the "implied repeal" theory to block the application of the RFRA. Frankly, from a constitutional standpoint, I actually think it is more correct because Congress does have the power to change its laws and I don't think it has to (or even necessarily should have to) specifically state it is repealing a law. Again, I think the issue should turn on the 1st A. Am I missing something else? Is the contraceptive mandate an executive branch implementation or is it in the law? I thought it was in the law. If it were an executive branch implementation, then the RFRA would and should be applicable - to me. Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 11:20 AM (gmeXX) Incredibly quick and dirty and before anyone bitches and tries to point out but but but what about this, again, this is an incredibly basic explanation of a complex topic: Implied repeal only comes up when there is an explicit conflict. The point of the RFRA is, pretty much, the not withstanding point. RFRA was passed in order to attempt to codify the ridiculous mess of 1A jurisprudence so that the Federal Courts now have a nice statute to cite to say Not withstanding the provisions of 99 USC 12348972390847.199(a)[ 1 ] {zzzz} as implemented via 99 CFR 123897129.2394k, the RFRA provides that the religious freedom of the subjects of alextopia to take peyote shall not be infringed. This allows the Federal Courts to avoid getting into 1A jurisprudence because everyone hates that and the precedents cannot be reconciled. RFRA would be completely toothless should any subsequent legislation be found to repeal it merely because the law contains language that may implicate religious liberties. Courts highly disfavor implied repeal arguments and, as noted above, all attempts are made to find some way to harmonize the conflict. If not, then implied repeal is addressed via looking at the legislative history. If you are to that point, you are looking at a very very slim chance of winning the case.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 07:40 AM (VtjlW)

92 Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 11:18 AM (hLRSq) So, what I'm gathering from this, is that a parlimetary trick was used to implicitly (by accident even) repeal RFRA, at a time when it would be highly unlikely you could repeal it directly. And given "It's a Tax!" Roberts (or "A dog barking because you tell it to is probable cause") I get the feeling precisely 0 of our rights are protected.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 07:40 AM (HDwDg)

93

I can count the total number of people that I trust in the entire federal government on my fingers.

 

It is well past time that the productive members of society stop patiently waiting for our betters to follow logic or the constitution.  It is time for us to stop  complying with our persecutors.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 25, 2014 07:40 AM (osZ/6)

94 "...Muslims and Amish are exempt from the health insurance because of their religious beliefs on the concept of insurance. And the ACA depends upon the IRS regulations to define those groups as exempt. " Wait a minute, what? I had missed that part of the colossal shit pile that is Obamacare.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 07:41 AM (A98Xu)

95 I get the feeling precisely 0 of our rights are protected.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 11:40 AM (HDwDg)

 

You have exactly as many rights as I say you have.

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 25, 2014 07:41 AM (DrWcr)

96 Four men were arrested Monday and accused of skydiving (or base jumping, if you prefer) off of 1 World Trade Center in September, an act condemned by the New York police commissioner and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We missed an opportunity to go skeet shooting? Damn.

Posted by: The LAPD at March 25, 2014 07:41 AM (SY2Kh)

97 I have no faith in our legal system or the judiciary. Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 11:18 AM (ZPrif) ________________ This^^^^..... We are no longer a country governed by laws. Teh JEF is not constrained by any law.... even ones he's signed.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 25, 2014 07:41 AM (32Ze2)

98 The Guvmint has no compelling interest therefor this case should be decided in favor of Hobby Lobby. Hahahahaha...just kidding. With our corrupt legal system today the "Supremes" will decide what is best for the Guvmint and to hell with whether or not this intrudes on our freedom of anything. The whole SlappyCare scheme is illegal but no Court and certainly not the "Supremes" will say so.

Posted by: IrishEd at March 25, 2014 07:41 AM (D0NZx)

99 We missed an opportunity to go skeet shooting? Damn.

Posted by: The LAPD at March 25, 2014 11:41 AM (SY2Kh)

 

Like you'd actually hit the target...

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 07:42 AM (DrWcr)

100

Posted by: Odie1941 at March 25, 2014 11:37 AM (iS2i7)

 

IIRC, the House did pass the Senate version of the ACA and then the Senate passed the version the House just passed under the reconciliation rules in order to by-pass any filibuster.  This left a statute that had not undergone any conference committee to iron out problems and contradictions (in other words, no editing and no final draft, just a very early draft version was passed).  This rush without following the procedures - and there is a reason for those procedures - has been the source of many of ObamaCare's problems.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 07:42 AM (hLRSq)

Posted by: backhoe at March 25, 2014 07:42 AM (ULH4o)

102 So, what I'm gathering from this, is that a parlimetary trick was used to implicitly (by accident even) repeal RFRA, at a time when it would be highly unlikely you could repeal it directly. And given "It's a Tax!" Roberts (or "A dog barking because you tell it to is probable cause") I get the feeling precisely 0 of our rights are protected. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 11:40 AM (HDwDg) Go back to what AtC and I have both said. There is no repeal.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:44 AM (da5Wo)

103 All I know is that William Wallace was crying out explicitly for government-provided contraception when he screamed "FREEDOM" prior to being drawn and quartered.

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at March 25, 2014 07:44 AM (GpU8f)

104 The Left wants to take over Catholic hospitals and clinics. You just can't have so many medical providers that are against abortion, sex changes, and euthanasia. They are going to do it the way they took over adoption services in Massachusetts. Force compliance with practices that go against doctrine --- make all med students perform abortions to get a degree, make all hospitals perform sex changes, etc., etc. Then wait for the Catholic institution to close. This is a first step.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 07:44 AM (dfYL9)

105 The arrogance of the politically powerful is demonstrated in this response by Democratic State Senator Josh Miller and an unidentified compatriot (added — apparently a photographer accompanying Miller) to a question regarding the pending legislation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo98fDcFbtc#t=102

Posted by: Unabomber at March 25, 2014 07:45 AM (e8kgV)

106 Easier said than done my friend in the box. Well, we saw some strange interpretin' in the OCare decision, or at least, I sure did. It's a tax? Really? That has to be one of the most insane rulings ever. I can't find one thing in the Constitution that gives them the power to do anything like that. What we have, IMO, is a group of postmodern people who merely refuse to accept any rules or restrictions. They think there's no such concept of "No," and no limit to what they can do to control us. There's no line anywhere, no document or law saying they're prohibited from doing anything, no sign saying, "Stop. You have no right to do this" despite the plain wording of the bedrock of our laws, the Constitution. There's also this myth that one needs a JD to properly understand the law (no offense to the many lawyer Morons), but I'm of the opinion that if we're going to be a nation of laws, they must be clear, unambiguous, and apply to everyone equally. They must be easy for a layman such as myself to understand. If not, then we'll get jerked around like crazy by people contradicting their interpretation of laws, which is already starting to happen.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 07:45 AM (0HooB)

107 I love this bit from Michelle Obama, talking to the Chinese about how racist the United States was: "Many decades ago, there were actually laws in America that allowed discrimination against black people like me, who are a minority in the United States. But over time, ordinary citizens decided that those laws were unfair. So they held peaceful protests and marches. They called on government officials to change those laws, and they voted to elect new officials who shared their views," she said. "And slowly but surely, America changed. We got rid of those unjust laws. And today, just 50 years later, my husband and I are President and First Lady of the United States. And that is really the story of America –- how over the course of our short history, through so many trials and struggles, we have become more equal, more inclusive, and more free." You're in CHINA, dipshit. Do you have any concept of how insular and racist Asian cultures are? They're looking at you like a fucking zoo exhibit. Ask them why they keep calling you "hakgwei." It's not a compliment.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 07:45 AM (CJjw5)

108 What would happen if millions of people told the IRS to piss off because they "converted" to Islam? Would the government require "proof" of conversion in order to be deemed worthy of the Obamacare exemption? I mean, if some middle schooler in California is feeling a little gender confused and decides to identify as a female, and nobody can question that because HATER!, why can't a non-muslim say they are one for the purposes of the health care exemption? I'm sure my logic is all effed up, but it bothers me that the government has in fact said a practice of one religion means those followers can avoid paying a fine, but other religions can't.

Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 07:45 AM (659DL)

109 Do muslims have to buy car insurance?

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 07:45 AM (A98Xu)

110 Nice brief, here, Maet from a fellow lawyer (only a dirt lawyer, alas).  I hadn't realized the 1st A. argument was sort of secondary (supremes probably won't touch it since they can rule more narrowly under RFRA).  I forgot about the peyote case.  Interesting.

Posted by: hmitchell3rd at March 25, 2014 07:45 AM (3YCXd)

111 Insomniac ?Actually, "Monkey Butt powder" is pretty good stuff.... So is Boudreaux's Butt Paste. Serious. Actual product.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 07:46 AM (uVkIH)

112

Posted by: BurtTC at March 25, 2014 11:30 AM (TOk1P)


Great question on personhood of corporations and criminal liability. I guess the answer is "whenever we feel like it."

Posted by: PJ at March 25, 2014 07:46 AM (ZWaLo)

113

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 11:40 AM (HDwDg)

 

As AtC commented, by repealing the RFRA this way the Supremes would be back to all of the old First Amendment cases, and the Lemon test, and all of the rest of that utter mess.  Not something they and their clerks would look forward to.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 07:46 AM (hLRSq)

114 Makes me remember why I hate lawyers

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 07:46 AM (t3UFN)

115 Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 11:44 AM (da5Wo) right well AtC's post hit whiel I was typing, and I guess I just misunderstood that giant section of law book you posted. Which makes sense, it's a law book. I'm fairly certain those things are instruments of Cthulu. (Also they're insanely expensive).

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 07:47 AM (HDwDg)

116 What we have, IMO, is a group of postmodern people who merely refuse to accept any rules or restrictions. They think there's no such concept of "No," and no limit to what they can do to control us. There's no line anywhere, no document or law saying they're prohibited from doing anything, no sign saying, "Stop. You have no right to do this" despite the plain wording of the bedrock of our laws, the Constitution. They didn't get enough ass whuppins growing up.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 07:48 AM (uVkIH)

117 So is Boudreaux's Butt Paste.
Serious. Actual product.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 11:46 AM (uVkIH)

 

Yup, I'm familiar with it.  It was recommended by a pediatrician for my kids when they were still in diapers.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 07:48 AM (DrWcr)

118 There's also this myth that one needs a JD to properly understand the law (no offense to the many lawyer Morons), but I'm of the opinion that if we're going to be a nation of laws, they must be clear, unambiguous, and apply to everyone equally. They must be easy for a layman such as myself to understand. If not, then we'll get jerked around like crazy by people contradicting their interpretation of laws, which is already starting to happen. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (0HooB) As one trained in the evil arts, having completed the ritual sacrifices and received the blessing of the Master Dragon in the form of a certificate...I completely agree with you. But that horse left the barn long long ago.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:48 AM (da5Wo)

119 EoJ.  Exactly.  China is the Middle Kingdom.  All others come to visit them.

But we got some leftist provincial rubes at 1600.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 07:48 AM (sLR/I)

120 Which makes sense, it's a law book. I'm fairly certain those things are instruments of Cthulu. (Also they're insanely expensive).

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 11:47 AM (HDwDg)

 

They're also known to cause insanity upon reading.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 07:49 AM (DrWcr)

121 THE HAGUE - World leaders called on Tuesday for countries to minimise their stocks of highly enriched nuclear fuel to help prevent al-Qaeda-style militants from obtaining atomic bombs, at the end of a two-day summit overshadowed by the crisis in Ukraine. Holding a third nuclear security summit since 2010, leaders from 53 countries - including US President Barack Obama - said much headway had been made in the past four years. But they also made clear that many challenges remained and stressed the need for increased international cooperation to make sure highly enriched uranium (HEU), plutonium and other radioactive substances did not fall into the wrong hands. "We encourage States to minimize their stocks of HEU and to keep their stockpile of separated plutonium to the minimum level, both as consistent with national requirements," said the communique, which went further in this respect than the previous summit, in Seoul in 2012. (Reuters) ?????? But pay no never mind to Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea? Great stratigery

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 07:50 AM (t3UFN)

122 It's because of the epic beards. Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 11:34 AM (DrWcr) My vote for thread winner. And to you BB I agree with your post @105. Basically the left has been and always will be the ends justifies the means. To your point on a tax, how the hell can you have a tax that exempts this union, that religion, that set of workers etc? Roberts fucked up big time with his 5th vote. And the sad thing as human beings we hate to admit we are wrong. And he was wrong. And he will not admit it. Watch and see the 5-4 against Hobby Lobby.

Posted by: Misanthopic Humanitarian at March 25, 2014 07:50 AM (HVff2)

123 But a wise scholar named John Conyers has made a finely-reasoned argument for the proposition that Sandy Fluke is entitled to contraception paid for by you under the Good N Plenty Clause.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2014 11:17 AM (sl+zA)


In the wise words of Chief Justice Berger, "Look at the booty on that penumbra!"

Posted by: joncelli at March 25, 2014 07:50 AM (RD7QR)

124 John Roberts is a stuttering clusterfuck of a Judas Iscariot.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 07:51 AM (7ObY1)

125 I thought Epic Beards opened for ZZ Top at Le Grange in 92?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 07:51 AM (sLR/I)

126 IIRC, the House did pass the Senate version of the ACA and then the Senate passed the version the House just passed under the reconciliation rules in order to by-pass any filibuster. This left a statute that had not undergone any conference committee to iron out problems and contradictions (in other words, no editing and no final draft, just a very early draft version was passed). This rush without following the procedures - and there is a reason for those procedures - has been the source of many of ObamaCare's problems. Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 11:42 AM (hLRSq) IIRC, portions of the ACA were not even typed up yet when the Senate voted the last time. You want to know the true impetus behind RTFBYMFMF? To make sure that the bill is not vaporware.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 07:52 AM (VtjlW)

127 What would happen if millions of people told the IRS to piss off because they "converted" to Islam? Fap fap fap fap

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 25, 2014 07:53 AM (SY2Kh)

128 Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 11:49 AM (DrWcr) Right...hence "instrument of Cthulu"

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 07:53 AM (HDwDg)

129 And that is really the story of America Shorter Mooch: America was a hateful, rayciss place right up to the minute that my husband received the Democrat nomination. And America's story is, in so many ways, really the story of Barack Obama. And me. Now GET IN MY BELLY!

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 07:53 AM (7ObY1)

130 108 Do muslims have to buy car insurance?

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (A98Xu)


Depends on whether they're making an IED.

Posted by: joncelli at March 25, 2014 07:53 AM (RD7QR)

131 108--- Do muslims have to buy car insurance? Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (A98Xu) -------------------- Damned good question. I suppose it depends on the state. We have some Dunkers (Amish-types, their term) down the road from us and they do NOT buy car insurance. They pay the uninsured motorist fee.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 07:53 AM (dfYL9)

132 "What we have, IMO, is a group of postmodern people who merely refuse to accept any rules or restrictions. They think there's no such concept of 'No,' and no limit to what they can do to control us."

Perhaps a bit more accurately, they _certainly_ do accept the concept of 'No', as they will tell you 'No' all the damn time when you propose to do something they dislike.

Can you make up your own mind as to what kind of light bulb you install? "No."

Rather, it's when 'No' might be applied to curb their own appetites that they suddenly start dynamically redefining terminology in such a handwaving, hairsplitting way that eventually no-means-yes.

Rather in the same vein that "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Posted by: torquewrench at March 25, 2014 07:54 AM (noWW6)

133 There's also this myth that one needs a JD to properly understand the law (no offense to the many lawyer Morons), but I'm of the opinion that if we're going to be a nation of laws, they must be clear, unambiguous, and apply to everyone equally. They must be easy for a layman such as myself to understand. If not, then we'll get jerked around like crazy by people contradicting their interpretation of laws, which is already starting to happen. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (0HooB) Look. That's just reasonable and common sense and logical and proper. BURN THE HERETIC! Or as I told a client this morning, if people were reasonable and got along and did what they said they would do, I'd have to get a different job.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 07:54 AM (VtjlW)

134 You want to know the true impetus behind RTFBYMFMF? To make sure that the bill is not vaporware.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 11:52 AM (VtjlW)

 

And that the version they are voting on isn't the one written on "My Little Pony" stationary and covered in coffee stains and smeared strikeouts.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Buy Four Outrages, get a Rightous Indignation Free! at March 25, 2014 07:55 AM (hLRSq)

135 Ask them why they keep calling you "hakgwei."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (CJjw5)

Are you serious? Did they?

That is the best news I have heard in weeks.

Fuck it...even if they didn't, just lie and say they did.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 07:56 AM (QFxY5)

136 I'd have to get a different job...without whips and chains and raptors....

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 11:54 AM (VtjlW)

Just tidying up a bit.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 07:57 AM (QFxY5)

137 If we can't use government funding to produce enough dead babies to power our buildings the terrorists will have won.

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 25, 2014 07:58 AM (78TbK)

138 Media wetting themselves at Obama calling Russia a "regional power". So tough! So masculine! What a burn!

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 07:58 AM (ZPrif)

139 I saw Boudreaux's Butt Paste open for the Butthole Surfers in San Angelo in '96.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 25, 2014 07:58 AM (32Ze2)

140 Michelle's mother's breath when she yells in you face, oh God!

Posted by: Sum Ting Wong at March 25, 2014 07:58 AM (Aif/5)

141

; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal">9Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 11:03 AM (gmeXX)


Typically speaking, a later law that is designed to replace a previous law will have language in it expressly stating that.

If you simply have two contradictory laws? That I'm not sure of.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk

The laws would not have to be contradictory, the mandate would only apply to those without a religious objection to it.  They are only contradictory if objectors could be forced to comply notwithstanding their religious beliefs.   My understanding is the contraception mandate could still stand for everyone else.

Posted by: dirks strewn at March 25, 2014 07:59 AM (kfcYC)

142 Many will talk of title to the crown. What right had Caesar to the empire? Might first made right and laws were most just When like the Draco's they were writ in blood.

Posted by: Zombie Marlowe at March 25, 2014 07:59 AM (dfYL9)

143

Do muslims have to buy car insurance?
Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (A98Xu)

 

Yes, and they have to get a separate rider for bomb damage.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 07:59 AM (DrWcr)

144 137 Media wetting themselves at Obama calling Russia a "regional power". So tough! So masculine! What a burn! Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 11:58 AM (ZPrif) Also completely factually incorrect! Hooray!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 07:59 AM (da5Wo)

145 Retweeted by Jim Hoft Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro Nothing stops dictators with nuclear weapons quite like passive-aggressive insults.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 07:59 AM (ZPrif)

146 I see Obama is embarrassing usÂ…again.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 07:59 AM (A98Xu)

147 if we're going to be a nation of laws, they must be clear, unambiguous, and apply to everyone equally.
***
See here is where you and the governing class disagree. They do NOT want us to be a nation of laws, but instead a nation were the political leadership can do as it wishes...

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (78TbK)

148 According to the SC already , corporations are people if you consider their campaign finance rulings.

Posted by: Human Nature at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (I3+56)

149 Ask them why they keep calling you "hakgwei." Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (CJjw5) Copy, Search Google for hakgwei....wait a minute, this is the HQ. Translation?

Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (659DL)

150 Are you serious? Did they? --------------------------------- It doesn't say, but it doesn't have to. The Chinese call ALL non-Chinese some form of devil. White devil. Black devil. Eastern devil (Japanese) Western devil (Europeans)

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (CJjw5)

151 Seems to me the corporate rights issue of the RFRA has long been decided.  Are there any RFRA cases NOT involving corporations?

And does the RFRA make any distinction between "for-profit" and "non-profit" corporations?

Posted by: Roscoe at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (Xv7f/)

152 142 Do muslims have to buy car insurance? Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 11:45 AM (A98Xu) Yes, and they have to get a separate rider for bomb damage. Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 11:59 AM (DrWcr) The deductible is a bitch.......

Posted by: Misanthopic Humanitarian at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (HVff2)

153 John Nolte ‏@NolteNC When Obama calls Russia "regional power" CNN is all "We get it, O, good one!" If R had said, GAFFE! GAFFE! GAFFE! or COWBOY! COWBOY! COWBOY!

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (ZPrif)

154

We went to war against the primary military power   in the world over a tea tax. 

 

Now, we worry about       the impact of        how    a few judges will rule on our ability to practise our religions.

 

 

How far we have fallen.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 25, 2014 08:00 AM (osZ/6)

155 Translation? Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 12:00 PM (659DL) ----------------------------- Literally, "black devil." See above.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 08:01 AM (CJjw5)

156 Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia: "Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan," said Obama. Hey idiot, they are all connected. I guess you missed the part where Russia is supporting Iran/Syria/ North Korea??? Fuckin idiot

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:01 AM (t3UFN)

157 155 Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia:



"Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan," said Obama.


Hey idiot, they are all connected. I guess you missed the part where Russia is supporting Iran/Syria/ North Korea??? Fuckin idiot

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 12:01 PM (t3UFN)


Fundamentally. Unserious.

Posted by: joncelli at March 25, 2014 08:02 AM (RD7QR)

158 But that horse left the barn long long ago. Yeah, I know. Some things are right, just, fair, and comport with common sense. And some things aren't.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 08:02 AM (0HooB)

159 Greg Pollowitz ‏@GPollowitz 9m Dear President Columbia and Harvard Law Review: a country with ICBMs, by definition, is not a "regional" power.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:02 AM (A98Xu)

160 Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 12:01 PM (t3UFN) Amazed he didn't say that AGW sea level increase in Manhattan was his chief concern!

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (o3MSL)

161 155 Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia: So he had to take 100's of people ,multiple vehicles and 3 cargo planes to deliver that slop?

Posted by: Hello it's me Donna and I know nuthink! at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (9+ccr)

162 Translation?

Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 12:00 PM (659DL)

Black ghost or Black devil.

And it is unambiguously pejorative.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (QFxY5)

163
This is so silly, of course they have the right to a religious exemption, in fact religious exemptions were already given to Amish and muzzies.

Or is it just Christians that can be discriminated against?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (0Kobm)

164 OT....thanks for the link to the chocolate chip cookie shot-glass hack! Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 11:34 AM (QFxY5) You're welcome. Did you try it out?

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (fWAjv)

165 Nevergiveup.  He does not want to connect the dots because it would invalidate his egotistical and unfounded concept of how awesome he is.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (sLR/I)

166 If Obama was actually concerned about nukes in NYC he would be a border control advocate. So Obama, STFU.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (A98Xu)

167 You go way now! You been here four howa!

Posted by: Chinese Restaraunt Owner Yelling at Whorf and her Spawn at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (32Ze2)

168 154 Translation? Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 12:00 PM (659DL) ----------------------------- Literally, "black devil." See above. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 12:01 PM (CJjw5) I've seen "black ghost" as well.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 08:03 AM (da5Wo)

169

146 -

 

Yep.  The people have been conditioned to view these matters  exactly the opposite to what was intended.

 

Once upon a time, people did what they pleased, unless and until it was made explicitly clear their actions were illegal.  Now, people are programmed to think they need government permission before they do anything. 

Posted by: BurtTC at March 25, 2014 08:04 AM (TOk1P)

170 158 Greg Pollowitz ‏@GPollowitz 9m
Dear President Columbia and Harvard Law Review: a country with ICBMs, by definition, is not a "regional" power.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 12:02 PM (A98Xu)


It is a good way to get under their skin, though. The Russians really, really liked being a superpower.

Posted by: joncelli at March 25, 2014 08:04 AM (RD7QR)

171 Charles Sykes ‏@SykesCharlie CVS refuses to sell tobacco products: NATIONAL HEROES; Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for abortion drugs: ENEMY OF THE STATE.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 08:04 AM (ZPrif)

172 Or is it just Christians that can be discriminated against?  Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 25, 2014 12:03 PM (0Kobm)

Winner, winner!!!

Posted by: Sean Bannion, Rabid Anti-Dentite [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 25, 2014 08:04 AM (JpC1K)

173 how over the course of our short history, through so many trials and struggles, we have become more equal, more inclusive, and more free."

Over the course of my lifetime I have become substantially less free.

I spend about as much time working for Lord Obama as serfs did for their overlords. Political activism against the ruling party will bring me the attention of the federal bureaucracy. The government even now determines what light bulbs I can use.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:04 AM (78TbK)

174 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 12:00 PM (CJjw5)

I was hoping that it was recorded, so the White House would have to gyrate and whirl and bullshit to make it a wonderful accolade heaped on the wookie's ample ass.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 08:05 AM (QFxY5)

175 We have some Dunkers (Amish-types, their term) down the road from us and they do NOT buy car insurance. They pay the uninsured motorist fee. Is a horse and buggy considered a car?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 08:05 AM (uVkIH)

176 Here's a lighter-hearted story. http://tinyurl.com/kkoxzuc Mom returns home to find her white trash babysitter has tattooed her children against their will. Younger than 13 children. Responding in white trash fashion, the kids' parents called the cops. While they were waiting, they decided to attempt to remove the tattoos with a hot razor blade, scarring the kids even worse. Now all three of these pieces of shit are in jail. We need more chlorine to the gene pool, STAT.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 08:05 AM (CJjw5)

177 Posted by: BurtTC at March 25, 2014 12:04 PM (TOk1P) Getting sued by DoJ and audited by IRS tends to make citizens worry about government permission for almost anything they do!

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 25, 2014 08:06 AM (o3MSL)

178 You're welcome. Did you try it out?

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 12:03 PM (fWAjv)

Not yet, but I have some cookie dough all ready. I need a better pan though....if I use  a muffin tin they'll be more like cups!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 08:06 AM (QFxY5)

179 "It is a good way to get under their skin, though." Yes, "getting under their skin" is a serious national security policy.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:07 AM (A98Xu)

180 We went to war against the primary military power in the world over a tea tax.
***
I've seen estimates that the tea tax would have been the equivalent of about a 1% sales tax.

Now I pay over 50% of my income in taxes...not an unusual scenario for members of the productive class...remember its not just the amount you see when you file your taxes you also pay sales, excise, gas, etc etc etc taxes and pay for all the regulations and such the government forces business to pass on to you as additional costs.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:07 AM (78TbK)

181 "Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan," said Obama. For somebody who was taught that racism is inherent in everything everywhere, and who constantly cites it to explain things that are not connected, to not see how these two national security issues ARE connected is mind boggling. Read your F'ing PDB you amateur!

Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 08:07 AM (659DL)

182 "Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia." --------------------- Translation: You media guys need to change the subject away from Russia because that whole scene makes me look like the wimpy little a--hole I really am.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 08:07 AM (dfYL9)

183 I was hoping that it was recorded, so the White House would have to gyrate and whirl and bullshit to make it a wonderful accolade heaped on the wookie's ample ass. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 12:05 PM (QFxY5) "No matter where we go in this world, there are those that hate. I personally have experienced it right here in the United States. As have so many of my African American brothers and sisters. This just emphasizes even more greatly how we need to work with the Chinese on improving relations and human rights."

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 08:07 AM (da5Wo)

184 Rick Warren made a simple, compelling case in the Washington Post that a non-lawyer person like myself can understand: http://tinyurl.com/nsx9uu4

"Does our Constitution guarantee the freedom of religion, or does it merely allow a more limited freedom to worship? The difference is profound. Worship is an event. Religion is a way of life.

Specifically, does the First Amendment guarantee believers of all faiths the freedom to practice their ethics, educate their children and operate family businesses based on their religious beliefs, moral convictions and freedom of conscience? Do Americans have the freedom to place our beliefs and ethics at the center of our business practices — or must we ignore them when we form a company?"

* * *

No one is forced to work for Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby employees aren't forced to use the company-provided health plan, or to supplement it w/visits to the local Planned Parenthood for som cheap contraceptives.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2014 08:07 AM (udjuE)

185 Or is it just Christians that can be discriminated against
***
The left sees Christianity as a restriction on their right to rule so it has to go...

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:08 AM (78TbK)

186 Media wetting themselves at Obama calling Russia a "regional power". So tough! So masculine! What a burn! Posted by: Costanza ---------------------- I'm sure that class of comment was effective back at Harvard, where thought and deed were coincident. In the real world? Just a catty comment by a Beta male.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 25, 2014 08:08 AM (aDwsi)

187

169 -

 

Change the tense of your verb "liked." 

 

Russians   really  are liking/Russians  will  once again   like being...

Posted by: BurtTC at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (TOk1P)

188 David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Russia is a "regional power." Casual mention of "nukes in Manhattan." Hobby Lobby is Public Enemy #1. #sleeptightAmerica

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (ZPrif)

189 Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2014 12:07 PM (udjuE) Excellent.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (A98Xu)

190 Not yet, but I have some cookie dough all ready. I need a better pan though....if I use a muffin tin they'll be more like cups! Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 12:06 PM (QFxY5) Are you going to glaze them or go without?

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (fWAjv)

191 Knockout Attack In Philly: Gang of Black Girls Smash White College StudentÂ’s Teeth In With A BrickÂ… As Allen West notes, now that the attackers race has been identified, will it matter to the media now? IÂ’m guessing no. The below article from the Daily Mail makes no mention of race. Weasel Zippers: Worse race relations I can every remember and guess who I blame

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (t3UFN)

192 "Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia."
***
Translation: No one is going to vote against Democrat Senators because I gave Vlad the Ukraine.

And he is unfortunately right.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (78TbK)

193 Rather in the same vein that "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." It was right about the time that phrase was uttered by BJ Cliton that I knew our days of being a great nation were numbered. I don't have the words to properly describe the insanity of that sentence.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (0HooB)

194 "Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia." ---- I seem to recall candidate Obama saying that Presidents need the ability to deal with multiple crises in response to John McCain racing back to DC during the financial crisis.

Posted by: SH at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (gmeXX)

195 178 "It is a good way to get under their skin, though."

Yes, "getting under their skin" is a serious national security policy.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 12:07 PM (A98Xu)


It's the most we can expect from Bambi. He's got all the skills of a college professor at being bitchy. Foreign policy, not so much.

Posted by: joncelli at March 25, 2014 08:09 AM (RD7QR)

196 We need more chlorine to the gene pool, STAT. We need to start adding copper & lead. Chlorine isn't cutting it anymore.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 08:10 AM (uVkIH)

197 175 Here's a lighter-hearted story. http://tinyurl.com/kkoxzuc Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 12:05 PM (CJjw5) *jumps up and down* Not Florida! Not Florida!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 08:10 AM (da5Wo)

198 "Many decades ago, there were actually laws in America that allowed discrimination against black people like me" 
 
Wow. We really had laws that discriminated against black ingrates that hated their country despite being richly rewarded by it? Who knew?

Were there also laws discriminating against blacks with asses the size of Connecticut?


Posted by: West at March 25, 2014 08:10 AM (1Rgee)

199
*jumps up and down*

Not Florida! Not Florida!

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 12:10 PM (da5Wo)

 

Heh.  I was just thinking the exact same thing!

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2014 08:10 AM (DrWcr)

200 Media wetting themselves at Obama calling Russia a "regional power". So tough! So masculine! What a burn!
___
Tanks and bombs may break my bones...maybe...but names will never hurt me.

My friend Barry, perhaps we should settle our differences over some nice hot tea?

Posted by: Vlad Putin at March 25, 2014 08:11 AM (78TbK)

201 It's the most we can expect from Bambi. He's got all the skills of a college professor at being bitchy. Foreign policy, not so much. Posted by: joncelli at March 25, 2014 12:09 PM (RD7QR) True, and as Iowahawk hash tagged:#sleeptightAmerica

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:11 AM (A98Xu)

202 174 Is a horse and buggy considered a car? Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 12:05 PM (uVkIH) -------------------- No! But these families do use cars. Black and drab cars.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 08:11 AM (dfYL9)

203 So the muzzies and Amish can have religious beliefs, but not the rest of us?

Posted by: seamrog at March 25, 2014 08:11 AM (vZlV9)

204 @ 18 SH at March 25, 2014 11:11 AM (gmeXX)


Is this just the case where we have two laws that collide with one another.

-------


I believe that in this case, however, we do not have two laws colliding.  I beileve that the contraception and abortificent mandates are the product of the whims of Obama and Sebelius, not the black, gray, or any other color letter of the law that passed.

Those two agents of the federal government should most certainly be subject to existing law.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at March 25, 2014 08:12 AM (zePEG)

205 >>edia wetting themselves at Obama calling Russia a "regional power". So tough! So masculine! What a burn!

Obviously they haven't been paying attention to what Iranian leaders regularly say about Obama and Kerry.  No such subtleties as "regional power."

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2014 08:12 AM (udjuE)

206 In the real world? Just a catty comment by a Beta male. Omega oe Theta male.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 08:13 AM (uVkIH)

207 *jumps up and down* Not Florida! Not Florida! ----------------------------------- I know. I used to cringe every time a national news story came out of Louisiana. Like when the campus of LSU was terrorized by a "Serial Snuggler." http://tinyurl.com/nxop42e

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 08:13 AM (CJjw5)

208 So the muzzies and Amish can have religious beliefs, but not the rest of us?

Primitive earth-worship is OK.  Shit, it's in Common Core.

Posted by: HR at March 25, 2014 08:14 AM (ZKzrr)

209 "No matter where we go in this world, there are those that hate. I personally have experienced it right here in the United States when I look in the mirror     Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 12:07 PM (da5Wo)

Fixed for accuracy.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 25, 2014 08:14 AM (JpC1K)

210 So can anyone explain how all this amounts to more than a wet fart in the environment of an Executive that refuses to faithfully execute the law?

Posted by: bonhomme at March 25, 2014 08:14 AM (EjHEW)

211 202 So the muzzies and Amish can have religious beliefs, but not the rest of us? Yea. Verily.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:14 AM (7ObY1)

212 Here's the rule: Everybody gets to have their religious beliefs. But some people have *legitimate*, *compelling* religious beliefs. Those get protection. The normal, everyday, religious beliefs are just superstitious bs, so obviously those don't get protection. It's all in the manual.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 08:15 AM (ZPrif)

213 My friend Barry, perhaps we should settle our differences over some nice hot tea? I'll supply the 'teabag', of course...

Posted by: Vlad at March 25, 2014 08:15 AM (FcR7P)

214 A Polonium teabag of course.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 08:15 AM (sLR/I)

215 He's got all the skills of a college professor at being bitchy. Foreign policy, not so much. ----------------- Yes. For Foreign policy experience, we have Joe Biden. I mean, that's why he was on the ticket,right?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 25, 2014 08:16 AM (aDwsi)

216 If Russia is a regional power, they sure are kicking some super power ass

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:16 AM (t3UFN)

217 *jumps up and down*  Not Florida! Not Florida!   Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 12:10 PM (da5Wo)

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Or, more appropriately, a blind, dysfunctional, redneck squirrel.

Jus' sayin'

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (JpC1K)

218 So, for example, if you have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, that's neither legitimate nor compelling. On the other hand, if you have a religious belief that anyone who draws a cartoon of Muhammad should be beheaded by an angry mob -- that is super legitimate and very compelling.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (ZPrif)

219 Never has America had a First Lady like the BLOATUS. Hateful, sneering, scowling, ungrateful, America-hating witch to her stinking, rotten core.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (7ObY1)

220 I just changed my name to Khalid Mohammed Mohammed Hussien Mohammed. I am now exempt from the ACA!

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (32Ze2)

221 I know. I used to cringe every time a national news story came out of Louisiana. Like when the campus of LSU was terrorized by a "Serial Snuggler." http://tinyurl.com/nxop42e Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 12:13 PM (CJjw5) Dude, there's a guy down at UF that's pissing on people. The fuck? http://tinyurl.com/mwk6j9g

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (da5Wo)

222 You are being way too logical. SCOTUS is mostly concerned with their own vanity and existence. The original intent of the law is a distant third. Roberts proved that with the Obamacare decision.

There will no doubt be lots of new legal gymnastics and inventive "reasoning" by the justices to cover their ideological asses.

We will indeed see them perform circus feats as they try to split the owner from the business and define new themes around Mr. Obama's "you didn't build that meme". Corporations will now become akin to public property in the Soviet Union. Communalism will rule the day. That's the only way you get to a dissection of the two.

Posted by: Marcus T. SCOTUS Suckw Sweaty Donkey Balls at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (GGCsk)

223 My friend Barry, perhaps we should settle our differences over some nice hot tea? I'll supply the 'teabag', of course... Posted by: Vlad Vlad, quit playing with the help.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (uVkIH)

224 All religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:17 AM (7ObY1)

225 I'll supply the 'teabag', of course... Posted by: Vlad at March 25, 2014 12:15 PM (FcR7P) LOL Vlad would have that pussy Obama crying in about 30 seconds.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:18 AM (A98Xu)

226 Are we going to have  a separate post about the passive-aggressive bedwetter in the Hague       using snarky comments in place of an actual foreign policy, or do  we all just point and laugh from    here?

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 25, 2014 08:18 AM (osZ/6)

227 A Polonium teabag of course.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 12:15 PM (sLR/I)


----


"Ive always wanted to travel to Polonia."

----  Moar Stupid Shit our President Said.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 25, 2014 08:18 AM (nELVU)

228 TFGCare is unconstitutional but Judge Roberts rewrote it! Who knows what SCOTUS will do? I hope Hobby Lobby wins.

Posted by: Carol at March 25, 2014 08:18 AM (gjOCp)

229 Polonia, one of the 57 states in the United States.  Shares a border with Peruvia.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 08:19 AM (sLR/I)

230 A Polonium teabag of course. Ignore glowing. Is what you Americans call "boutique tea," made in small batches for special guest such as yourself.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 08:19 AM (0HooB)

231 Pissing on Gators fans? That's a crime?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 08:19 AM (CJjw5)

232 184 The left sees Christianity as a restriction on their right to rule so it has to go... Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 12:08 PM (78TbK) ----------------------- They are right about that too. The whole concept of the limited state rests on the prophetic tradition of Judaism and the derivative Christian doctrine of the "two swords." Render unto Caesar some things --- but other things only to God. The leftist god of the State is a very jealous god. That biblical God has got to go.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 08:20 AM (dfYL9)

233 Heh.  Heh heh heh.
http://is.gd/kW66qd

Posted by: HR at March 25, 2014 08:20 AM (ZKzrr)

234 Nice shot Obama took at Romney.

Condensed he basically said this is not about geopolitics and a return to the Soviet Union. Russia had to take Crimea by force. And that wasn't nice. So everybody is mad. Not like the old days.

Keep digging buddy.

Posted by: Marcus T. SCOTUS Sucks Sweaty Donkey Balls at March 25, 2014 08:20 AM (GGCsk)

235 @55

They could have included language in the ACA declaring the RFRA not applicable to the new law. They didn't. It's impossible (well, it should be) to consider the existence of the ACA "implies" that the RFRA statute is suddenly moot.

--

The ACA empowered the Sec HHS to issue proclamations respecting the requirements for insurance plans.  It seems unlikely that this grant included the authority to issue proclamations that conflict with other statutes.

Else the Sec HHS could proclaim that, for over-the-top example, old white men were no longer permitted to have medical insurance of any type.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at March 25, 2014 08:21 AM (zePEG)

236 Haha, from the PeoplesCube: In a stunning act of defiance, Obama courageously unfriends Putin on Faceboook.

Posted by: Mainah at March 25, 2014 08:22 AM (659DL)

237 More News on the shooting in Norfolk: NORFOLK, VA. — A civilian suspect approached a destroyer docked at the world's largest naval base late Monday, disarmed a petty officer on watch and fatally shot a sailor, according to the Navy. Navy security forces then killed the suspect, who was authorized to be at Naval Station Norfolk and did not bring his own weapon on base, according to the Navy's statement. No other fatalities or injuries were reported. The male sailor was shot about 11:20 p.m. on the USS Mahan, a guided-missile destroyer, base spokeswoman Terri Davis said Tuesday. She said she couldn't say whether the suspect had permission to be onboard.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:22 AM (t3UFN)

238 215 If Russia is a regional power, they sure are kicking some super power ass Blatantly and instantaneously stolen.

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at March 25, 2014 08:22 AM (GpU8f)

239 230 Pissing on Gators fans? That's a crime? Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 12:19 PM (CJjw5) Absolutely. Although I still don't understand why the big deal was made about the LSU fan getting teabagged. I mean, it's LSU. That nutsack was probably the cleanest thing that guy has ever had on his face.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 08:22 AM (da5Wo)

240 Christianity and Judaism are not religions. They are right wing pressure groups secretly funded by the Koch brothers. Also, racist and war on women.

Posted by: Your favorite network news babbling idiot at March 25, 2014 08:23 AM (1mtKP)

241 Heh. Heh heh heh.
http://is.gd/kW66qd

Posted by: HR at March 25, 2014 12:20 PM (ZKzrr)


-----


Heh.... just watching PETA froth to and fro about the moth would be worth it alone.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 25, 2014 08:23 AM (nELVU)

242 That nutsack was probably the cleanest thing that guy has ever had on his face. ------------------------------- That's why we fry all our food. Even the salad.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 08:23 AM (CJjw5)

243 “My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens. And it’s not always easy, but we wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.” ------ They would have had a mental breakdown long ago if they were subjected to the shit Bush was.

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 08:23 AM (fWAjv)

244 Black and drab cars. Posted by: Margarita ----------------- * ponders LS2 powered rat rod in flat black *

Posted by: Amish Youth at March 25, 2014 08:23 AM (aDwsi)

245 "No matter where we go in this world, there are those that hate. I personally have experienced it right here in the United States when I look in the mirror Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 12:07 PM (da5Wo)

Fixed for accuracy.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 25, 2014 12:14 PM (JpC1K)


"No matter where we go in this world, there are those that hate. I personally have experienced it right here in the United States when barak was voted in with 98% of my "African American brothers and sisters" because the other dude was white"


Fixed for greater accuracy


   

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at March 25, 2014 08:25 AM (FMbng)

246 That's why we fry all our food. Even the salad. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 25, 2014 12:23 PM (CJjw5) I'm assuming all the hot sauce is to try and get the taste out of your mouth.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 25, 2014 08:25 AM (da5Wo)

247 OT but kinda funny. Well, if you thing sowing a wrath of destruction is funny. I got fired today because I told my boss he's a douche. There's more to it, but it just boils down to that. So the question is: Is honesty really the best policy? It was fun. actually it was a hoot. He had no shit "fear" in his eyes. And I was all "you're such a pussy."

Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 08:25 AM (x3YFz)

248 #6 If on contraception, then on conception as well. Tit, tat. What record of Roberts' transnational adoption tax payment on conception?

Posted by: Irish adoption agency at March 25, 2014 08:25 AM (/vO0r)

249 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2014 12:03 PM (QFxY5) Da Fuq? And I have to walk on eggshells just to note that there is a...shall we say consensus...that Chinese Post-docs are more likely to "fudge" data and/or plagiarize less I get my ass handed to me by a freaking administration stooge. Oh and by "consensus" I mean documented research. And by "fudge" I pretty much mean make up. But I'm not allowed to note that at all, nope. (FWIW, I've anecdotally confirmed this across multiple groups in different fields that are only related via deer camp, where it's acceptable to discuss these things far from the PC oversight. But they can call me all sorts of things behind my back? Again: Da Fuq?

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 08:26 AM (HDwDg)

250 242 “My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens. And it’s not always easy, but we wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.” That entitled twat making that statement is a perfect example of not being self aware.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:26 AM (A98Xu)

251 So, Bill O'Bloviate is making noises about retirement. Who would you like to see take his place in FNC's prime time lineup? I'm not looking for "Megyn Kelly" or "Sean Hannity." I mean someone who's not in the current prime time lineup Not who would take BillO's exact time slot, just who would you like to see in the lineup? What fresh face?

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:27 AM (7ObY1)

252 I got fired today because I told my boss he's a douche. There's more to it, but it just boils down to that. So the question is: Is honesty really the best policy? It was fun. actually it was a hoot. He had no shit "fear" in his eyes. And I was all "you're such a pussy." Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:25 PM (x3YFz) As I was building my own Dental Office I worked for this guy who had a mini-dental center. I told him the same thing one day--although I think I told him to fuck off or something like that. Felt great

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:27 AM (t3UFN)

253 Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:25 PM (x3YFz) Shit T9. Sorry to hear that. But if you're gonna go, go like that.

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 08:27 AM (fWAjv)

254 Additionally, the Chinese probably think that Mooch displays all the IQ and erudition of a honey wagon.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 25, 2014 08:27 AM (kXoT0)

255 Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:25 PM (x3YFz)

----

You're now free to pursue you're artistic talents. 

Welcome to the dark side.   We have free shit.

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at March 25, 2014 08:27 AM (nELVU)

256

Let's face it - what it all boils down to is this: if these religious wackos don't want to buy the rest of us rubbers and abortions, then they need to be shut down because they're violating the Constitutional Mandate For The Separation Of Church And State.

 

So there.

Posted by: Typical Social Liberal at March 25, 2014 08:27 AM (YYJjz)

257 So, Bill O'Bloviate is making noises about retirement. Who would you like to see take his place in FNC's prime time lineup? Since I hate O'duche bag, road kill would be fine with me

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:28 AM (t3UFN)

258 Fried Salad and Hot Sauce Isn't that an old blues tune? Maybe by Blind Sonny Boy Lemon Wolf Belly?

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:28 AM (7ObY1)

259 The whole concept of the limited state rests on the prophetic tradition of Judaism and the derivative Christian doctrine of the "two swords." Render unto Caesar some things --- but other things only to God.
***
A central part of the American experiment in a free society was that power was divided among many independent organizations and groups.

Religion provided one completely separate source of political power from the state and was, for example, a driving force in abolitionism. 

Interestingly it wasn't the most important check on the federal government originally...that was the states.

But with the federal government having reduced the states to provinces, taken control of the economy, the media, and the educational system, and conflated politics into basically two identical political parties, religion does now stand as just about the last bulwark against an unlimited state.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:29 AM (78TbK)

260 Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 12:26 PM (A98Xu) Hold on let me run that though my "Mooch Translator machine" *beep boop beep beep* "The US tradition of free speech makes it harder for me to implement my plans. And makes me sad. I hate it."

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 08:29 AM (HDwDg)

261 I'm assuming all the hot sauce is to try and get the taste out of your mouth. Posted by: BC -------------- Which reminds me. Today is the 147th anniversary of the birth in Parma, Italy, of one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century, Arturo Toscanini. Obligatory pithy quote: "I smoked my first cigarette and kissed my first woman on the same day. I have never had time for tobacco since." Okay, another one: "After I die I am coming back to earth as the doorkeeper of a bordello. And I won't let a one of you in!"

Posted by: Amish Youth at March 25, 2014 08:30 AM (aDwsi)

262 “I mean there have been a lot of studies on the right? There are a lot of studies that show - literally - you’re more likely to be beamed up into a UFO or struck by lightning than find in-person voter fraud.” (autoplay video of MSDNC's Joy Reid) http://tinyurl.com/n9hyd7m

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 08:30 AM (fWAjv)

263 Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 12:29 PM (78TbK) Someone's either been reading Wiker's book or.... Well it's possible Wiker's thesis isn't all that novel too I suppose .

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 08:30 AM (HDwDg)

264 I actually blame it all on Obama. Years ago, I wouldn't have outright just gone Al Pacino on everyone. I really need to go fishin'

Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 08:30 AM (x3YFz)

265 248 --- My son is currently working on his PhD in chemistry. Throughout undergad and now grad school he has run into very few cheaters. But they were all..... never mind. They were NOT black or Latino. There! That's okay to say.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 08:31 AM (dfYL9)

266 I really could use a good steak and some butter laden potatoes right now

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:31 AM (t3UFN)

267 *pushes cold beer through T9's USB port* Welcome to the Funemployment Club! And, nice exit, BTW.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at March 25, 2014 08:32 AM (0HooB)

268 Have they banned the word c*nt yet? When Michelle opens her gaping burrito hole she makes me want to use that word.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:32 AM (A98Xu)

269 * ponders LS2 powered rat rod in flat black * Posted by: Amish Youth Shetland ponies & buckboards.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 08:32 AM (uVkIH)

270 TRAINED APES ON TOBOGGANS!!! nominated next winter Olympic Event caught Drudge's headline and just couldn't resist... Rumsfeld, racissssss soundbite snark embraces himself within the US failure: "And WE have so mismanaged the situation." http://tinyurl.com/mboo6fm BTW, Rumsfeld's criticism applies to State Dept. Hillary, Kerry and even Susan Rice as well as where the buck stops in the OO on POTUS Obama. "Rumsfeld: U.S. Ties with Karzai 'Gone Downhill Like a Toboggan' Under Obama" By Susan Jones, CNS News, March 25, 2014 - 6:17 AM "Our relationship with Karzai and with Afghanistan was absolutely first-rate in the Bush administration," Rumsfeld told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren on Monday. "It has gone down hill like a toboggan ever since the Obama administration came in." The Obama administration has failed to get Karzai to sign an agreement that would allow some U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014, when combat ends. Noting that the U.S. has status of forces agreements with more than a hundred countries, Rumsfeld said, "A TRAINED APE can get a status of forces agreement. It does not take a genius. And we have so mismanaged that relationship." ~So, in contrast to trained apes aka GOP neocons, our State Dept. and Foreign Policy since Bush left are by untrained apes with the same missing status of forces agreement with Afghanistan after this year of 2014 that Bush, Rumsfeld and Condi Rice themselves failed to achieve. Pot meet Kettle.

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 25, 2014 08:32 AM (/vO0r)

271 You're now free to pursue you're artistic talents. Welcome to the dark side. We have free shit. Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at March 25, 2014 12:27 PM (nELVU) Naw. I think I'll build a nation. Just need a landmass and some lumber.

Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 08:32 AM (x3YFz)

272 They would have had a mental breakdown long ago if they were subjected to the shit Bush was.
***
So on the one hand the press says that Barry is too smart for his own good, that he cares too much, and that he is too pragmatic.

On the other hand the press called Bush an idiot evil genius who when not snorting coke off hookers personally ordering the torture of innocent goat herders and operating a hurricane machine to kill black people.

Yep, the press is real hard on Barry.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:32 AM (78TbK)

273 Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 12:31 PM (dfYL9) Yeah, I know. Like I said, documented. And yet, I have to talk in whispers to my boss as we discuss how to teach the responsible conduct of research class Yeah think about that. We're not allowed to use information to inform our teaching. Well I suppose we can, but it seems to be frowned upon.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 08:33 AM (HDwDg)

274

If you like your birth control, we'll pay for your birth control.

Posted by: President Obama at March 25, 2014 08:33 AM (sWgE+)

275 My son is currently working on his PhD in chemistry. Throughout undergad and now grad school he has run into very few cheaters. But they were all..... never mind. They were NOT black or Latino. There! That's okay to say. Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 12:31 PM (dfYL9) My friend's sons- twins- are doing post PhD Chemistry out at a very famous CA University and they say fudging results is pretty common especially amongst the opposite sex. Just saying

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:33 AM (t3UFN)

276 "I smoked my first cigarette and kissed my first woman on the same day. I have never had time for tobacco since." Okay, another one: "After I die I am coming back to earth as the doorkeeper of a bordello. And I won't let a one of you in!" spoken like a true Italiano. Love it.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:34 AM (7ObY1)

277 *couriers to Nevergiveup some mid-rats and bug juice*

Funding cuts.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 08:35 AM (sLR/I)

278 *couriers to Nevergiveup some mid-rats and bug juice* Funding cuts. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 12:35 PM (sLR/I) Yeah i hear ya.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 25, 2014 08:36 AM (t3UFN)

279 Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:25 PM (x3YFz)

Sorry, tangonine.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 25, 2014 08:36 AM (kXoT0)

280 Someone's either been reading Wiker's book or....
Well it's possible Wiker's thesis isn't all that novel too I suppose
***
Wiker? Sorry, not familiar with the author.

I think this is a pretty traditional view of what made America different...and successful...at least until the rise of the progressive movement. The latter of course, as Woodrow Wilson consistently noted, found distributed power to be an impediment to the progressive need to remake society.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:36 AM (78TbK)

281 Have they banned the word c*nt yet? -------------- AoSHQ Style Book. Locally, the term 'scrunt' may be used without repercussion..., when applied to Liberals/Lefties/Democrats/Socialist/Communists/Bureaucrats. Example usage: "Lois Lerner is a despicable scrunt ."

Posted by: Amish Youth at March 25, 2014 08:37 AM (aDwsi)

282 So, in contrast to trained apes aka GOP neocons, our State Dept. and Foreign Policy since Bush left are by untrained apes with the same missing status of forces agreement with Afghanistan after this year of 2014 that Bush, Rumsfeld and Condi Rice themselves failed to achieve. Pot meet Kettle. Posted by: panzernashorn at March 25, 2014 12:32 PM (/vO0r) so 6 years later it's still Bush's fault. Really? Look, speedy, you want to understand the stupidity that is State, Ream M. Stanton Evan's book: Blacklisted By History. It's about McCarthy, but it delves into the vile shitfuckery that is the commie movement in the US. And it's sourced.

Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 08:38 AM (x3YFz)

283 Thank you, Amish Youth.

Posted by: Seems legit at March 25, 2014 08:38 AM (A98Xu)

284 T9 - Well..., crap.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 25, 2014 08:39 AM (aDwsi)

285 From Drudge: RUMSFELD: 'A Trained Ape' Could Manage War Better Than Obama... Cue the outrageous outrage.

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:39 AM (7ObY1)

286 Naw. I think I'll build a nation. Just need a landmass and some lumber.

Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:32 PM (x3YFz)



Might there be a mead hall in those plans?

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at March 25, 2014 08:40 AM (FMbng)

287 @269 - Listening to Rumsfeld on Afghanistan is like listening to McNamara on Vietnam. We had great relations with Diem, too. As I've said before: if you're still fighting a little war after ten years, the situation in-theater doesn't matter. You've lost.

Posted by: JEM at March 25, 2014 08:40 AM (o+SC1)

288 RUMSFELD: 'A Trained Ape' Could Manage War Better Than Obama...

Cue the outrageous outrage.
***
...wouldn't that actually be the opposite of a racial slur though?

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:41 AM (78TbK)

289 You cansay that Barack Obama is a Petulant Cunt.

Posted by: garrett at March 25, 2014 08:41 AM (f5E0O)

290 Nood

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2014 08:41 AM (uVkIH)

291

Question:  Why is it necessary for this to get to this level?  Is the plain text of the First Amendment that difficult to read?

 

We are unmoored from our founding law.  Big trouble coming.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 25, 2014 08:41 AM (tVTLU)

292 Cue the outrageous outrage. Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 12:39 PM (7ObY1) Do. Not. Apologize!!

Posted by: RWC at March 25, 2014 08:41 AM (fWAjv)

293 RUMSFELD: 'A Trained Ape' Could Manage War Better Than Obama... Cue the outrageous outrage. ---------------------------------- Chris Matthews probably being deafened by the 'Dog Whistle'. I, myself, would have simply referred to the administration collectively as a group of foreign policy pygmies.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 25, 2014 08:42 AM (aDwsi)

294 ...wouldn't that actually be the opposite of a racial slur though? Yeah, but these are people who excoriate FNC for using the word "homosexual" IN A STORY ABOUT HOW THE WORD "HOMOSEXUAL" IS FALLING OUT OF DISUSE!

Posted by: Citizen X at March 25, 2014 08:42 AM (7ObY1)

295 We had great relations with Diem, too.
___
Sorry about that. I guess I just acted like I had a hole in my head when I made that decision.

And you know I have learned for real that assassination of political leaders is in fact not fun and games.

Posted by: JFK at March 25, 2014 08:42 AM (78TbK)

296 Mike, mental midgets.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 08:42 AM (sLR/I)

297 I, myself, would have simply referred to the administration collectively as a group of foreign policy pygmies.
***
I'd keep it simple.

You elect an incompetent community organizer to run America's foreign policy, you get an incompetent community organizer running America's foreign policy.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 08:44 AM (78TbK)

298 274--- "especially amongst the opposite sex." Now, that is interesting. Son ---he's just 1st year grad school --- hasn't run into that particular difference yet. I have to think that extreme pressure to succeed, fear of failure/losing face plays a big part in the Asian behavior. As for women, might it be that they are in over their heads? I know there is a huge push to get women in advanced science, so I assume there is affirmative action of some sort. That puts an almost intolerable burden on the individual trying to perform to standard.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 25, 2014 08:44 AM (dfYL9)

299

Having read Gabe's post I believe I have been educated.  Schooled.  Taken to the board and made to write it up and down.  I know shit, now!

 

Thanks Gabe.

Posted by: MTF at March 25, 2014 08:45 AM (LISuA)

300 Posted by: 18-1 at March 25, 2014 12:36 PM (78TbK) Ben Wiker just released a book called "Worshipping the state" in which he describes this idea in depth. He goes all the way back to just post-Roman empire to describe his point, and then carries forward to how Machiavelli and Spinoza and company sough to place the church under state (and in a sense make "state" the new church.) That's all the farther I've gotten.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 08:45 AM (HDwDg)

301 My friend's sons- twins- are doing post PhD Chemistry out at a very famous CA University and they say fudging results is pretty common especially amongst the opposite sex. Just saying

I had an interesting chat with a chemistry wizard once.  His contention was that chemistry, like cooking, has a whole lot of fudge factor in it.  With super-touchy chemical reactions tiny environmental factors can have a huge effect on the finished result.  Like what cleaning product residue is on your glassware.  Or the exhalations of the prodigious smoker conducting the experiment. 

He told me about one guy who worked on a project for a year basically running the same experiment over and over again for testing.  By the end he could make these beautiful flaky crystals that were the basis of his project.  But that was after a year of knowing exactly when to do what.  So if someone else tried five times to reproduce his work, it might be easy to brush off the result and say, "Must be fudged."

Not to say people don't fudge their work.  I'm sure plenty do.  It seems sometimes like most people do.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 25, 2014 08:45 AM (qKrH5)

302 panzernashorn, are you trying to be stupid on purpose? SOFAs are negotiated at the end of a war, not in the middle of one.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 25, 2014 08:46 AM (ZPrif)

303 Carbon footprint left by Obama's downhill administration? Obama's contribution to Bush's "Karzai" suicidal Rules of Engagement? It's for Mo Earth. Despite starting more wars than he can count (not enough fingers), Barry cut military spending, replacing military vehicles with toboggans to ride the dunes 'cause we're speeding downhill over cliffs, anyway. Penny saved is a penny usurped for his personal pleasures. Next, magic carpets to replace the F-22.

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 25, 2014 08:46 AM (/vO0r)

304 Xtianist dominionist influence in the American legal system must be eliminated. Some reich-winger's choice of imaginary friend should not allow them immunity from the laws that are intended to create a better society.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at March 25, 2014 08:46 AM (eAUyf)

305 Naw. I think I'll build a nation. Just need a landmass and some lumber. Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:32 PM (x3YFz) __________________ I will let you have the underside of Guam after it tips over. Just make sure you don't put too much shit on your side. Good Luck

Posted by: Hank Johnson at March 25, 2014 08:48 AM (32Ze2)

306 Didn't this administration start off by alienating Karzai?  With a special envoy who started to criticize the Afghan government.  Try to call into question its legitimacy with allegations of corruption and vote fraud?

So I can understand why Karzai is miffed, he was the first to get sold down the river by this administration.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 25, 2014 08:48 AM (sLR/I)

307 Look, speedy, you want to understand the stupidity that is State, Ream M. Stanton Evan's book: Blacklisted By History. It's about McCarthy, but it delves into the vile shitfuckery that is the commie movement in the US.

And it's sourced.

Posted by: tangonine at March 25, 2014 12:38 PM (x3YFz)


So is Ann Coulter's book, Treason, on the same subject.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 25, 2014 08:50 AM (kXoT0)

308 Not to say people don't fudge their work. I'm sure plenty do. It seems sometimes like most people do. Posted by: bonhomme at March 25, 2014 12:45 PM (qKrH5) Bother Bayer and Amgen have had huge trouble reproducing seminal experiments in fields related to their drugs. IIRC both were able to replicate less than half of them (less than 30%?). In any case, not good for science, not good at all.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 25, 2014 08:54 AM (HDwDg)

309 Bother Bayer and Amgen have had huge trouble reproducing seminal experiments in fields related to their drugs.

IIRC both were able to replicate less than half of them (less than 30%?).

In any case, not good for science, not good at all.

I've heard about that.  It's funny the "evil corporate drones" are the ones doing cleaner science than the "pure children of light" in the academies.  I'm sure it's the "publish or perish" culture and nothing else.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 25, 2014 08:56 AM (qKrH5)

310 Costanza Defense SPrif trying to be rude on purpose 301. Bush's Afghan war early victory was one such occasion Rumsfelt could have negotiated for the permanent US Military presence that he propagandized in the US for when Bush first invaded Afghanistan. Even after the Muslim terrorists returned to Afghanistan after Bush focused US (coalition) military engagements in removing Saddam Hussein, by the time Bush's second term was wrapping up, he had negotiated with Karzai terms for the US to remain a presence in AFghanistan until year X -- being this year 2014. Had staying longer or staying perpetually been the Bush agenda upon departure from office as Rumsfeld reasserts, matching his administration's propaganda when the war began -- to make in Afghanistan/Iraq permanent US Military installations positioned in the ME in order to offset Iran -- the Bush administration could as easily have arranged his SOFA to stay permanently with conferencing for Afghan government concerns on regular cycles. Rather, Bush forfeited what he initially asserted as absolutely necessary for US Security because Bush LOST the confidence of more Americans than not. Bush arranged his SOFA temporary status with renewals required by Karzai (or whoever removed Karzai from power). "Our relationship with Karzai and with Afghanistan was absolutely first-rate in the Bush administration." Then explain, Mr. Rumsfeld, why more than one journalist in the region applauded the shoes thrown at President Bush. What began quick and sweet went sour sooner than later. And so you don't misunderstand, moron Costanza, Obama is no better than Hillary, the two cut from the same mold -- set apart by their ability to obstruct justice far better than most trained apes.

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 25, 2014 09:05 AM (/vO0r)

311 Are only corporate employers subject to the contraception mandate? I had thought all employers were, whether corporate or not. I understand that non-profit corporate employers are not subject to it, but what about non-corporate employers? If it's all employers, why is the focus only on corporate employers?

Posted by: JohnJ at March 25, 2014 09:12 AM (TF/YA)

312 Gabe makes a compelling case. Which is meaningless because John Roberts.

Posted by: gm at March 25, 2014 09:14 AM (/kBoL)

313 >>>RFRA would be completely toothless should any subsequent legislation be found to repeal it merely because the law contains language that may implicate religious liberties. Courts highly disfavor implied repeal arguments and, as noted above, all attempts are made to find some way to harmonize the conflict. If not, then implied repeal is addressed via looking at the legislative history. If you are to that point, you are looking at a very very slim chance of winning the case. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at March 25, 2014 11:40 AM (VtjlW)>>> What you say is true. My rebuttal: John Roberts.

Posted by: gm at March 25, 2014 09:17 AM (/kBoL)

314 Politico indicates that the Justices seemed a bit skeptical of the Administration's position.

Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at March 25, 2014 09:32 AM (e8kgV)

315 A pair of potentially catastrophic cases will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. These cases are brought by privately held, for-profit corporations that are arguing their religious convictions should preclude them from offering employees the health insurance required by law. Specifically, these private employers donÂ’t want to allow their employeesÂ’ insurance to cover some forms of birth control because, contrary to medicaland scientific evidence, they believe some birth control causes abortions.

Corporations are not people. Corporations cannot have religious views. If religious rights are extended to corporations, it puts us on a slippery slope where any private company could argue that religious beliefs prevent it from offering vital employee protections.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 25, 2014 09:37 AM (e8kgV)

316 225?

I've been pointing & laughing & turning away for the longest time. We are being "led" by a clown car circus.

All I can do is look out for myself and a few dear to me. The rest of Ø-Merica. Hell with 'em....

Posted by: backhoe at March 25, 2014 10:09 AM (ULH4o)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
268kb generated in CPU 0.0562, elapsed 0.3033 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2648 seconds, 444 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 16893
  • Files: 170
  • Bytes: 362.8M
  • CPU Time: 13:47
  • Queries: 421623

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0