Your “boikot” suggestion gave me an idea: BOYCOTT!
That’ll larn 'em.
1 Like
“… Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan responded to the brief ruling with a 16-page dissent that criticized the court for backtracking on its Hobby Lobby decision …”
Response from Fellating Five on the SCOTUS:
“We had our fingers crossed.”
1 Like
So if my beliefs tell me that I don’t want my taxes going towards Pentagon contractors the SCOTUS will back me up. Right?
2 Likes
Scientifically-illiterate religious fanatics and their lackeys on the SCOTUS and in the media are not promoting “fetal personhood” – they’re attempting to make the notion of “zygotic personhood” – and in some cases, “ovular personhood” – become the foundation of their anti-abortion/anti-birth control cause.
1 Like
I think the female justices on the court have had enough of the catholic 5’s legal buffoonery.
2 Likes
Them and most of a nation!
1 Like
God told me I didn’t have to pay taxes or drive the speed limit!
Also I’m Muslim, so I don’t want my employees using any of the salary I pay them to purchase any pork products. It’s OK if they have a ham sandwich, but they have to prove they didn’t use any of the money I paid them to buy it!
Seriously, where the hell does this end? Religion is imaginary. We can’t give exceptions to the law based on whatever somebody wants to make up on any given day.
2 Likes
You’d have to impeach and try them. Not gonna happen.
The Dems didn’t nominate them. You’re making the argument that the Dems are responsible for the Iraq war because they didn’t fight hard enough against it.
The term for hearing cases via certiorari has ended. The Supreme Court has other duties, though, such as hearing motions for emergency injunctions, stays of execution, etc; they’re never out of session for those things.
The conservatives on the court have really put their foot in it this time. Sotomayor, with great humorous effect, includes in the appendix a copy of the simple one-page form that a non-profit has to fill out for the exemption. We all suffer such two-minute form-filling inconveniences in our daily lives, but this may be the first time such an administrative “burden” has risen to a Supreme Court case. I particularly liked her Quaker conscription analogy, whereby the Quaker continues to object after getting the exemption, because his privilege now means somebody else has to serve in his place.
Decision and expansion, are the best arguments I can imagine food single-payer health insurance.
Health insurance is part of employees total compensation package. It has absolutely nothing to do with God. It has to do with money. However, some employers have decided they don’t like the way society is going: they don’t like women’s rights, don’t like LGBT rights, they don’t like my minority right, they don’t like any rights for anyone who doesn’t look exactly like them. I also suspect but haven’t seen it yet, that employers want to cut benefit simply to save money.
What the court has done in this case in the long run is to legalize the wage discrimination. Me!n will get paid more than women. That’s illegal under US law, or at least it was.
Thank you very much. The theocons responsible for this decision or outgassing in the streets, congratulating themselves. That will lead, and probably quite soon, to single-payer. Decoupling health insurance from employment will be the smartest move we ever make. It also is the civilized thing to do.
1 Like
Hilarious.
Excellent point. Religion is the cover: what the Supremes have managed to do is legalize sex discrimination in terms of wages. If you consider the health insurance is a part of the employees total benefits package, it’s part of their wages. They want to pay women less than men That’s not legal, but they found yet another way around.
“Three female justices dissent.”
You guys just don’t, absolutely don’t, will never get it.
Conservatives have been very busy re-defining religious freedom as meaning “my right to restrict the freedom of others.”
These objections to taking a simple step that allows employees access to contraception their employers disapprove of and will not be paying for makes it perfectly clear; it’s about control, not freedom. Their objection is to what employees who don’t share their religious views might choose to do. They refuse to sign because they want to make it more difficult for others who believe differently to make a choice, in their private lives, that is consistent with their own beliefs rather than those of their employer.
1 Like
Since the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have blocked the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force instead of voting for it like Hillary, Biden, Reid, Kerry, Landrieu and 25 others did, then yeah I would say they also share the blame for getting us into the Iraq War or does their party affiliation trump their actions?
Who says you can’t pay women less than men? The law says you can’t deny her a job because she is a woman, but it says nothing about compensation. The only requirement is they are paid at least the minimum wage.
Also, by their own logic, allowing employees to purchase these contraceptives out of their cash earnings “violates their religious beliefs” too. There’s no moral difference between which form of compensation employees use to pay for them – it is still compensation provided by the employer. The only difference is that by forcing the employee to purchase this form of care separately, either through additional insurance or out of their paycheck, they are making them pay an economic penalty for not sharing their employer’s religious beliefs and, compared to others, diminishing their overall compensation.
So let’s trade the employer mandate for a good public option. That will allow a gradual transition to single payer.