Print Friendly and PDF
hobby-lobby1

by Matt Barber

Developing…

From TownHall.com:

In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly named Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby). The case was the strongest legal challenge to Obamacare since 2012.

Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, and Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

Continue Reading at Barbwire.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Tags

 
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Sleeping Bear

    Barrys agenda is falling apart. He may have to start martial law before 2016. That what happens when you can’t lead.

    • Bill

      I think Teddy Roosevelt said it best, “Bully, Bully”!

  • http://blaze.com/ mathchopper

    I don’t understand of what is the big deal? If our alien African species-in-chief sees no need to obey our Constitution with no consequences, what would be his need to obey our SCOTUS?

  • dotsconnectors

    In July 2013 a Gallop Poll found that 68% of Americans favored
    a National Referendum on key issues, with only 23% opposed.

    In March 1912, Teddy Roosevelt gave a speech titled “The
    Right of the People to Rule” campaigning for a National Referendum to validate
    or overturn Supreme Court Decisions.

    Should a National Referendum, to validate or
    overturn Supreme Court decisions, be considered for making it accountable to
    the people?

    • Robert L Nipper

      How nebulous can you get? “In July 2013 a Gallup Poll found that 68% of Americans favored a National referendum on (key issues)” ???? What key issues??? And, perhaps you had better go back and learn a little more about the Supreme Court of the United States. Their function isn’t to bow to the will of the people willy nilly. They exist to rule, as a final decision-maker, based upon the Constitution…not because Al Sharpton, Obama, or Pelosi have said something isn’t just. Your suggestion slaps of Communist rhetoric. We already have a Marxist Muslim Alien posing as President, using his “Executive powers” way beyond what was intended. Let’s not change the format of the three branches each holding the other two accountable.

      • Reddkl

        So I take from your post, that the judicial branch should rule your every day life. Didn’t the judicial branch just tell the executive branch what to do last week? Don’t forget, corporations are people too. Not the Supreme Courts best decision, IMO.

        • Robert L Nipper

          No, the Supreme Court should not rule our lives. The Constitution is set up to be the Law of the Land. I am concerned when I hear four Liberal judges say the Constitution is antiquated and no longer relevant. The purple lipped Marxist has said that. We have a dude with a”pen and a phone” doing a miraculous job of attempting to control every aspect of our lives through his abuse of executive orders.

          • Reddkl

            How about the abuse of job responsibility by Congress? Every one of them should be fired.

          • Robert L Nipper

            So I take it by your post that the Executive Branch should rule your every day life? Congress, specifically the house, is doing their best to obstruct Obama from doing even more damage than he already is. Thank God they are slowing down things and not going along with everything he wants to do. He is the one violating the Constitution over and over…not Congress.

          • Reddkl

            I’m sure everything submitted to Congress is a violation of the Constitution. You may think they are doing a good job, but the majority of the public does not. We’ll see what will happen in November.

          • Robert L Nipper

            “Everything submitted to Congress is a violation of the Constitution”??? I thought I was conversing with a lucid person…I guess I was wrong. Congress is the legislative body….not the Executive Branch. We have a pseudo-President that feels his job is to create laws (in the form of rules and regulations) through Gastapo tactics from the EPA, DEA, DOE, BLM and many other corrupt departments of his regime. It’s all about control….boy. We wiill see what happens in November. I hope as many RINOS are voted out of office along with every Democrat we can rid ourselves of. See you in November!

          • Reddkl

            Didn’t you just defend Congresses lack of working to “. . . is doing their best to obstruct Obama from doing even more damage. . .”? Ergo, every proposal must be a violation of the constitution. I’m just using logic. I don’t believe it and feel congress (the house specifically) has done nothing but obstruct even the most docile of proposals. You eliminate RINOS and democrats in November, so that leaves independents and tea party people. I haven’t seen the tea party doing so well of late, but let’s wait and see what happens.

        • tunemaker59

          Excuse me but corporations ARE people. They are a group of people acting as a legal entity. So are unions. So are churches. Temples. Non-profits. They all have constitutional rights. Take them away and you will have chaos. The first amendment is no joke. We need to take it seriously if we want to hold our diversity together. Anyone who speaks out against the 1st A., in my opinion, is not very American at all.

          • Reddkl

            Freedom of Speech involves the responsibility of what is said. Try yelling “bomb” in an airport or “fire” in a theater. Is that unAmerican? No. Is it stupid? Yes. Misinterpretation of the freedom of speech is a HUGE problem in this country. I’ve never seen people mistake what was said more than in the past 10 years. Nowhere in that amendment does it say you’re responsible and should suffer the consequences of what you said. It was written LONG before people had the ability to spew trash on the internet.

          • tunemaker59

            Precisely why we have a court system. I doubt if anyone yells “fire” in a crowded theatre that they won’t be held libel or even held for criminal intent. GM right now faces a ton of lawsuits, not necessarily for free speech abuses but, nonetheless, are held accountable for their actions. The constitution is a statement of principals, not a detailed instruction book. The court’s interpretations fill in the blanks. You are correct, I believe, when you say that ” (the) Misinterpretation of the freedom of speech is a HUGE problem in this country.” I would change it slightly to say “the understanding of the 1st ammendment and how it applied is a HUGE problem in this country.”

          • Reddkl

            Our court system is good at honoring the first amendment that they issue gag orders all the time. Lawyers have people sign gag orders all the time after negotiated settlements. Newspapers and media have reporters gagged “exclusive on FOX. . .” – Entertainment gags actors about plot lines. Employees sign non-disclosure clauses. The list of free speech goes on and on. I understand the first amendment perfectly. I am also aware of its abuses.

          • tunemaker59

            No, you do NOT understand the 1st ammendment perfectly!! The examples you site are not protected under the 1st ammendment!! The GOVERNMENT shall not censor speech. It says nothing about corporations, private agreements, court orders, etc. None of that falls under the 1st ammendment. Non-disclosure clauses are something BOTH parties to an agreement sign. If you don’t agree, don’t sign! Actors and plot lines have nothing to do with the 1st ammendment. ????

          • Reddkl

            Thanks for your opinion. The government does, in fact, sensor speech. Good bye and good luck because I’m done with the subject. It would’ve been nice had you something to offer in the discussion.

      • dotsconnectors

        Do you believe 5 -4 Supreme Court decisions are more likely based on political views of the Justices than on legal

        A 2012 CBS/NYT poll asked: In general, do you think the current US Supreme Court Justices decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal or political views, or do you think they sometimes let their own personal or political views influence their decisions?
        Do you believe post 1999 US Supreme Court 5 to 4 decisions are more likely based on political views of the Justices than on legal analysis?

        Poll Responses: 45 votes

        * 5 to 4 SCOTUS decisions, since 1999, are not more likely based on political views
        0% from 0 votes

        * Post 1999 SCOTUS 5-4 decisions are more likely based on political views and it concerns me
        98% from 44 votes

        * These SCOTUS 5-4 decisions are more likely based on political views, I am not concerned
        2% from 1 votes

        * I do not have an opinion regarding 5 to 4 by SCOTUS decisions since 1999
        0% from 0 votes

        • Robert L Nipper

          Do you remember Obama’s first State of the Union address? He more or less said the Supreme Court is irrelevant. He has proven he will do what he wants despite the other two branches of government anyway. So, this powerful poll of 45 votes/people should bring down the Supreme Court and let Obama run rimshod with his abuse of executive power? Did the New York Times or CBS even walk outside to get responses or did they just walk around in their office complexes asking their employees? Polls are contrived and meant to sway public opinion. Conservatives and Liberals both utilize the technique. Some of us are smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors. Evidently you are not.

        • tunemaker59

          I have no faith in a poll that asks the questions the way that this poll asks questions. Sample size: 44 votes??? Are you kidding? We should scrutinize polls alot more carefully than the way you attempt.

          • dotsconnectors

            Yes, I was kidding. The NYT /CBS nationwide poll is based on telephone interviews with 976 adults conducted May 31 through June 3, 2012 on landlines and cellphones and has a margin-of-sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

      • Jeff Brodhead

        Let’s also not apply more authority to the court, by capitalizing “supreme”. The written, Constitution of the United States of America refers to it as the “supreme Court”. It is most supreme of the (federal) courts, but still a servant to the People, bound to the [U.S.] Constitution – not as a guide, but as a command!

        I abbreviate: sCOTUS

        Don’t forget that the States are sovereign nations, which have delegated certain powers to the United States. As the states fail to restrain [and even conspire with] the United States, the system is already failed; the balance of powers is already out of control.

        The People, each of us a sovereign creation which has only delegated certain, specified powers to the states (and both vicariously AND by investment of blood, sweat and tears, the United States) through the constitutions, have allowed a long series of violations to set “precedence” and have allowed those “precedences” to take on “life” and the weight of “law” – even being held “supreme” to the [U.S.] Constitution and to the People…

        The United States and all the “several states” combined, have no authority to take the unalienable rights of even one of us… only we can (individually) surrender our rights.

        IMO

    • tunemaker59

      We are a constitutional republic, not a populist democracy. Although democracy is what we like to brag about, it is the constitutional republic, based on the principals of the freedom of the individual, that actually hold our entire experiment together. If we had referendums, we would be a Banana Republic. George Clooney would be president. Woody Harrelson would be vice. In this celebrety worship culture we live in, populism would be our downfall. Scotus is the only institution that saves us from, well, us.

      • dotsconnectors

        Since 1946 public skepticism in certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions has increased more than 75% (American Enterprise Institute “Public Opinion on the Supreme Court, 1937-2012”, at: goo.gl/IXjZF9

        The following text is from the next to the last paragraph of highlights of that study:

        Americans believe that the justices bring their personal views to their decisions. In 1946, 43 percent said the court decided many questions based on politics. In a late May/early June 2012 CBS News/New York Times poll, 76 percent said the court decides cases based on personal and political views, not legal analysis.

      • dotsconnectors

        So Democracy is not to blame for U.S. Capitalism’s poor economic performance over the last 13 1/2 years versus most Socialist and Communist countries, but rather our republican form of government?

  • bcamota

    It is so sad that those 4 Liberal Justices voted for death and not for life. They should be impeached and replaced by the will of Americans.

    • dotsconnectors

      How do we know what the will of the people is with those Justices being elected by the vote of “We the People”?

      • bcamota

        Excellent question and not easy to answer. But if you go house to house, you will find that the will of the majority of Americans is based on Christianity. And Christianity is based on God’s will. Those 4 Justices were selected and appointed by Democrat Presidents. Most Democrat Politicians are Liberals and they like to rule based on Liberalism. Liberalism is inspired by the rule of Communism and Socialism. They are above the law!

        • dotsconnectors

          President Reagan famous advice was “Trust but Verify”. If
          all those Christians, the majority voted against those Democratic Presidential
          candidates how on earth did they get elected President? Isn’t their election,
          some form of verification?

          Also, how is it that most Socialist and Communists
          counties are running rings around our Capitalist Republic, economically?

  • xoxozo

    WHY…WHY…WHY…. is EVERYONE not telling the complete story???? Employees can STILL get ALL TWENTY (20) forms of birth control. The ONLY thing this did is to NOT FORCE Hobby Lobby to PAY for FOUR (4) types.
    Employees can STILL get them, it’s just that HHS will have to find another way to cover the cost.
    Now we ALL know that the Gov’t has NO problem with subsides so DON”T HAVE A COW… All will be able to express their sexual appetite and then throw away the problem child…

    • tunemaker59

      You are absolutely right. And the stupid federal liberals will fork over other people’s money to pay for even the most promiscuous of women’s birth control.

  • Dodie1990

    Well, religious conservatives say they are not against birth control,just freedom of choice. It appears that they are against all forms of birth control which they can now deny any and all forms to anyone they wish.

    • tunemaker59

      You comment is false. Please re-read the decision. Thank you.

  • Docs357

    It’s a red letter day fir pro life Patriots

    • Reddkl

      You mean pro-birth, don’t you? After they’re born, you want nothing to do with them. It’s cheaper to pay for birth control than to support an unwanted child for 18 years.

      • Typical Sheep

        Cheaper to murder them in the womb. Not yet legal to kill ‘em after they are born…not yet, anyway…

        • Reddkl

          Birth control prevents pregnancy. I hope you’re not implying that prevention is murder. If that’s the case, then men murder millions of children long before a woman does.

  • Carol

    Congrats Hobby Lobby and thank you for the fight. Another blow against BO and his party’s dictatorship. And of course, what does he come out and say……………he blames the GOP for his causing of the surge or ILLEGALS and announces that on the 4th he will make citizens of non citizen vets. He is not showing any respect for the true Americans that fought to defend America but showing that non citizens mean more to him than citizens. He is completely missing the point of (probably) why non citizens entered the military……….could it have been for a pay check, housing and food, followed by healthcare and educational expenses and vet housing loans?
    BO isa very sick, demented choice for a leader. He sees things backwards. He keeps ALL Americans shut out from the War Memorial but then allows the democrats to have ILLEGALS at the memorial and now invited ILLEGALS to share a 4th of July at the WH to make them citizens. The White House is the PEOPLES HOUSE not the ILLEGALS house, how dare he? One more slap in our faces and more abuse to real Americans!

    • Ryan Ettien

      Carol,

      I think the operative word you used is VETS, who have earned their citizenship by serving in the Armed Forces of The United States. It is you who has missed the point. Maybe these non-citizens (although they are citizens now, aren’t they) joined the military to serve, pay respects, and earn their place in this society. As a decorated American combat veteran, I find your comments vapid, insipid, and wholly lacking in any true understanding of what has made this Republic great! Yet I, just as the “ILLEGAL” Armed Forces VETERANS you so readily denigrate, swore an oath to protect you, as well as your childlike beliefs. A little gratitude might be in order, as many of these ILLEGAL men and women have risked life and limb to provide you with a safe homeland where you can voice your ridiculous opinions. Some have even died for it.

      SGT Ryan Ettien
      US ARMY

      • Carol

        What does the word ILLEGAL mean? I am not saying that some have done it for the wrong reason, Do NOT confuse the reasons. Does Fort Hood ring a bell? We as a NATION now more than ever need to be watchful as to our actions. What happened at the Boston Marathon?
        You have the right to disagree with me but until proven otherwise you do not have the right to say I am wrong. BO is wrong! He is wrong regarding the WILL of WE THE PEOPLE. He calls the GOP names and blames them for representing the majority of the American people. No amnesty, enforce the laws and deport ALL ILLEGALS because they are harming our economy. You have blind faith that ALL non citizen vets have great intentions, I pray you are correct!

        • Ryan Ettien

          Carol,

          Yes Carol, what does illegal mean? How are the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines being sworn in as American citizens on July 4th “non citizen vets”, as you call them? And how are they ILLEGAL? They have met the conditions and standards for citizenship as proscribed by both United States Code, and military regulations. They have served their new country honorably, and this makes them not just LEGAL, but United States Citizens.

          MAJ Hasan, the 1st Fort Hood shooter was an American citizen, born in Arlington, VA. Ivan Lopez, the 2nd shooter, was born in Puerto Rico, also an American citizen. The Tsanraev brothers in Boston were here on permanent resident status. That means they were here legally, and had been for some time.

          So you are wrong Carol, and I do have the right to tell you that. And I will do so. Especially when you slander the honorable service of my brothers and sisters in arms. Regardless of their countries of origin.

          • Carol

            IF “they” are already citizens than why the swearing in ceremony????? LOL

          • Ryan Ettien

            Carol,

            In deed…LOL…Lost Outlook on Life.

  • c69101

    1 . 20. 2017 !!!

  • Clare L. Logue

    iT’S GREAT, THAT RELIGIOUS VALUES STILL CAN WIN…. NOW THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR….. UNBELIEVEABLE WHAT WE NOW HAVE TO FIGHT FOR??????

  • Ryan Ettien

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

    “Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.”

    It appears as though Hobby Lobby, this weeks flavored defender of American constitutional rights, has been playing both ends against its bank account. Imagine that? Soooo, who thinks Hobby Lobby actually gives a damn about you and your rights?

    • Typical Sheep

      Are you crazy? Perhaps they do need to rethink their 401K investments (have no idea what I am supporting…blood diamonds?) but this was a landmark victory for freedom which our forefathers fought for (now we fight for the Saudi’s in order to prop up the petrodollar…we ARE trading freedom for Sharia…

 
 

Copyright © 2014 Liberty Alliance. All Rights Reserved
Proudly built by WPDevelopers.