Is this the Worst Supreme Court in History?

originally posted by: CB328

Corporations still can't give a bazillion dollars to candidate.

They can give a bazillion dollars to political groups that spend it on campaign advertising. I don't believe that corporations should be allowed to donate any money to the political system, they already have so much influence over it.

So taxation without representation? Surely you would agree that if you were taxed and regulated that you would have the right to have a say in the political arena, yes?

Would you say the same thing about labor unions, or would that "be different?"

a reply to: Bassago

The Hobby Lobby decision was a little ridiculous. I see it was a way of forcing women who already pay for health insurance to pay extra for birth control.

Birth control is essential to health care.

I do admit, I am ignorant to the ways of the Supreme Court. Obviously to them, a corporation is more important than the individual.

Truly the US has become a government for the corporation, by the corporation set up to exploit the common citizen.

2 of the 8 justices were appointed by Bush, and 2 we're appointed by Obama during his terms.

So I can't see how you can call it Bush's supreme court.......

Is everything still Bush's fault?

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

So true, that was the leading Headline on Yahoo News the other day - Obama's Presidency but Bush's World. If that isn't a clear case of continuing to try to milk the whole "Blame Bush" meme ... then I don't know what is.

a reply to: CB328

As far as Citizens United, I believe that a mroe liberal court would have voted the same way and democrats would have been hailing it as a victory. BOTH parties benefit from this. And Harry Reid can kiss it if he thinks Republican donors give more than Democrat donors.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

More than likely a paid troll then. Should be banned.

a reply to: jrod

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

The Hobby Lobby decision was a little ridiculous. I see it was a way of forcing women who already pay for health insurance to pay extra for birth control.

HHS already has a plan up and operating where neither the women or the taxpayers would have to pay anything extra. The Court suggested that HHS could include the Hobby Lobby women in that plan, or they could come up with another one.

Birth control is essential to health care.

Even if it was, (which I'm granting only to prevent thread drift), Hobby Lobby already covers 16 of the 20 birth control methods and will continue to do so. I haven't seen any argue that IUDs, and the morning after pill are essential to health care (unless "health care" has an amzingly wide definition).

I do admit, I am ignorant to the ways of the Supreme Court. Obviously to them, a corporation is more important than the individual.

The Court never even hinted that, let alone made it obvious. As the Court noted, a corporation can't do anything at all. A corporation is a collection of individuals. People write the checks, prepare the policies, talk with insurance agents, etc. In this case, every single person with ownership in Hobby Lobby believed their religious freedom was being burdened.

Besides, what right was HHS comparing to religious freedom? The right to have your abortifacients paid for by your employer? I'm sorry, but I can't help but chuckle.

Truly the US has become a government for the corporation, by the corporation set up to exploit the common citizen.

Please explain exactly how Hobby Lobby workers are exploited by this decision?

a reply to: charles1952

It is not so much Hobby Lobby I am concerned about. It is the precedent it sets. Now other corporations and health plans have already followed step.

This ruling is much bigger than Hobby Lobby.

That question deserves no answer. I could care less about Hobby Lobby, they will continue to fail.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: charles1952

It is not so much Hobby Lobby I am concerned about. It is the precedent it sets. Now other corporations and health plans have already followed step.

This ruling is much bigger than Hobby Lobby.

That question deserves no answer. I could care less about Hobby Lobby, they will continue to fail.

You are correct--this ruling is much, much more than hobby lobby, it is about the overreach of government and the unconstitutionality of the federal government mandating healthcare (or anything else for that matter.)

a reply to: Metallicus

I definitely agree but lets lay off the OP and give everyone the right to learn. I try to keep emotion out of these posts and look at it it from a "matter of fact" type perspective. S&F to Charles for showing the proof is in the pudding.

a reply to: jrod

Dear jrod,

Thank you for a good and thoughtful response, I appreciate it. Now we can talk.

I COMPLETELY AGREE that other corporations and health plans are trying to use this decision to change their coverages, but I wonder how far the precedent goes.

The Court relied on the existence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to make their case. Democrats are calling for the amendment or repeal of RFRA. If that happens, then any precedence will "Poof" into air.

RFRA also applies only to religious issues. If a corporation said, we don't want to follow the law on labeling are trucks moving in interstate commerce, because we think such labeling is the Mark of the Beast, I'd have no doubt that the Court would merely laugh at them.

The Court wouldn't have even heard this case if it didn't see a substantial burden on religious freedom. (And a few other requirements.) Off the top of my head, I only see a couple of areas where this might pop up again. Actually, now that I think about it further, I really don't know of other areas where it might apply.

The baker and photographer, and the gays? I don't think it would pass the "substantial burden" test. Bringing in Muslims to teach in synagogues, because you can't discriminate because of religion? That's already been dealt with.

If this decision is a "slippery slope," I'd be very cautious about it. I think, though, that I'm going to need your help in figuring out to where the slope might lead.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: CB328

you mean the two appointed by bush? and the one every one seems to dislike was appointed by Regan not either of the bushes (scalia)

en.wikipedia.org... two by Regan scalia and kennedy ,two by bush 1(one retired David Souter and Clarence Tomas) two by Clinton (Ginsberg,breyer) bush the second appointed two as i stated earlier (roberts and alto) then two appointed by obama (Sotomayor, Kagan) so how exactly is it the bush the 2nds "stacked deck" that is the problem seems on average each president has gotten two choices each for going all the way back to Regan. nixon and eisenhower break the trend and each got 3 and four appointees respectively

if you have a problem with a sitting member of the supreme court you could always try to impeach them(write your reps)....but as the house decides(house impeaches senate presides ) that i dont see that happening kind of like how some on the right would love to impeach obama but cant because while the house may file the senate will never convict. but good luck with such endeavors as they have only tried to impeach one in history and that failed miserably


also of note(while i personally dont believe corporations are people) they have the best reccord of any challenged law each time its challenged corporate person-hood is stated as viable and the law by the supreme's going all the way back to 1864ish santa clara(city or county) vs the rail road where this all got started,corporate person-hood has been established for good or bad in the supreme court since before any of us were born

en.wikipedia.org...

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[2] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

so it goes way farther then citizenes united that was the final nail so to speak

a reply to: CB328

I disagree. Just because we might not always agree with their decisions, it doesn't mean that they are the worst in modern history. They have not been very receptive toward Obama's agenda, true. In fact, they have unanimously ruled against this administration 13 times since 2012. That's a lot, and being that two of the sitting justices were appointed by Obama himself, it's quite telling.

I might be inclined to agree that they are the worst because they decided that Obamacare was a tax, despite the administration specifically claiming it was not a tax, and was therefor constitutional. But... They are where the buck stops (not that Andrew Jackson listened). I disagree with Obamacare, but the high courts have spoken. It is what it is.

This is one of the best Supreme Court in history due to those hearings mention but in my opinion it's still to extreme leftist for this country.