|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 7, 2014 13:39:38 GMT -6
Ive noticed a pattern. Every time a judge or SCOTUS makes a ruling that one party seems to endorse members of the oller party call them evil activist judges. I wonder why? Works that way wit da otter 2 branches as well.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 7, 2014 13:46:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 7, 2014 13:46:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 7, 2014 13:59:24 GMT -6
Works that way wit da otter 2 branches as well. you voted to put sara palin within a heartbeat of the US Presidency.
|
|
|
Post by The Resistance on Jul 7, 2014 14:04:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 7, 2014 15:18:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by #70 on Jul 7, 2014 17:53:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Jul 7, 2014 19:45:16 GMT -6
Right? Fucking annoying cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Slick on Jul 7, 2014 21:11:09 GMT -6
Try paying attention - Frank Booth will fuck anything that moves.
|
|
|
Post by #70 on Jul 7, 2014 21:15:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 7, 2014 21:22:30 GMT -6
Only read the first one and presume rest is a bunch of similar drivel to that. The guys who wrote that nonsense are a bunch of fucking idiots. The scope is abundantly clear - you have to be a very closely held corporation with commonality of religious beliefs among ownership. In fact, the court said "The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs." The other companies that those geniuses named would not pass the test set forth in the Hobby Lobby case. He names Cargo (presumably Cargill - gee I wonder why that fuck isn't practicing law), Koch, Dell and PwC. The first 3 of those all have PE money in them. Once PE money is in, you're not "closely held" for purposes of Hobby Lobby. PwC has nearly 10,000 partners. That ain't "closely held" for purposes of Hobby Lobby, either. These guys have spent too much time in the leftist echo chamber. It's interesting that you're engaged in this line of argument given your prior dissertations on the unwieldy expansion of interstate commerce. It's also ironic that you mentioned ERISA earlier. Now that's some fantastic fuckin expanded application if there ever was. You can keep trying to pull rank on me, but consider this: I argued 20 fuckin years ago that fagits were gonna be able to get hitched via equal protection and due process. How'd that prediction work out? I'm right about this too. If these corporate entities can cut costs by finding religion, you can bet your sweet ass they will, and why wouldn't they. Long Dong Silver and the boys have given the go signal loud and clear. And trust me counselor, the "sincerity" of these profitable religious beliefs won't be a high bar to clear.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 8, 2014 7:21:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 8, 2014 7:44:25 GMT -6
Only read the first one and presume rest is a bunch of similar drivel to that. The guys who wrote that nonsense are a bunch of fucking idiots. The scope is abundantly clear - you have to be a very closely held corporation with commonality of religious beliefs among ownership. In fact, the court said "The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs." The other companies that those geniuses named would not pass the test set forth in the Hobby Lobby case. He names Cargo (presumably Cargill - gee I wonder why that fuck isn't practicing law), Koch, Dell and PwC. The first 3 of those all have PE money in them. Once PE money is in, you're not "closely held" for purposes of Hobby Lobby. PwC has nearly 10,000 partners. That ain't "closely held" for purposes of Hobby Lobby, either. These guys have spent too much time in the leftist echo chamber. It's interesting that you're engaged in this line of argument given your prior dissertations on the unwieldy expansion of interstate commerce. It's also ironic that you mentioned ERISA earlier. Now that's some fantastic fuckin expanded application if there ever was. You can keep trying to pull rank on me, but consider this: I argued 20 fuckin years ago that fagits were gonna be able to get hitched via equal protection and due process. How'd that prediction work out? I'm right about this too. If these corporate entities can cut costs by finding religion, you can bet your sweet ass they will, and why wouldn't they. Long Dong Silver and the boys have given the go signal loud and clear. And trust me counselor, the "sincerity" of these profitable religious beliefs won't be a high bar to clear. Cut costs? Do you have any idea what it will cost to litigate shit like this? Liek I said above, this is a $50k issue. Now rather than linking to some dipshit law prof slacktivists, please give me examples of federal laws (RFRA only applies to federal laws) that could be overturned via religious exemption. The religious right has pretty much two pet issues that they have been beating on for years - gays and abortion. To my knowledge, there is no federal business regulation related to gays, but if the Civil Rights Act is amended to cover them, I would suspect a federal challenge to laws that compelled varying degrees of participation in gay weddings. Perhaps survivor benefits for pension plans could be argued as well but the number of gay folks who have a pension backed by a very closely held corp can prolly be counted on one hand - hell the number of pensioners in those very closely held corps alone can prolly be counted on one hand. On the abortion front, there is this abortofacient (not contraceptive bince these drugs don't prevent conception) case. There has been action in this space for over 10 years ever bince morning after pills started rolling out and it will continue. Of course, there are Jehovah Witnesses who may argue that to the extent any of them own a very closely held corp or LLC, the health insurance mandate or perhaps certain portions thereof should be waived, but I've known some JWs over the years and I have no doubt in the sincerity of their opposition to medicine in general so you might want to avoid working for one. I doubt that JWs own any appreciable number of very closely held for profit entities (non-profits and religious entities are already exempted). Of course, if Dubya 2.0 becomes president again, litigating these matters (irregardless of the presence of this case) would not be necessary because he would just waive a bunch of shit in the law like Soetoro has done, but so long as there is a Dem running the show, any company looking to exercise a religious exemption is gonna be on the hook for 7 figures of litigation expenses. I'd be shocked if anyone could point to one example where the cost of strict compliance with a federal law that infringes on some nut's religion would be less than the cost of litigation.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 8, 2014 9:43:49 GMT -6
Scumbag thread
|
|