Today's Judge Narragansett moment? Hobby Lobby at Supreme Court?
I know that today was supposed to be the day of the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court. This is an important case for Gulch citizens regardless of their views on Christianity because
1) the religious freedom rights in the Constitution include those to practice no religion at all;
2) it shows just how far government will go in its persecution of citizens (i.e. Gulchers are likely next. This is no different than what happened to Rearden.);
3) the government and particularly the Supreme Court might be "forced" to confront its contradictions regarding nObamaCare;
4) a loss in this case could be easily compared to AS's Anti-Life chapter; and
5) this is one of the more important structural pillars in the Constitution.
A loss in this case is likely to undermine any moral authority that the looters have left to enforce any law. The distinction between right and wrong may get so blurred that normally good people will have no reason anymore to trust in the rule of law. This could be a major acceleration of the destruction of the US. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
What news have you heard?
What opinions do you have?
I saw some threads from before I arrived in the Gulch from LetsShrug and Khalling.
1) the religious freedom rights in the Constitution include those to practice no religion at all;
2) it shows just how far government will go in its persecution of citizens (i.e. Gulchers are likely next. This is no different than what happened to Rearden.);
3) the government and particularly the Supreme Court might be "forced" to confront its contradictions regarding nObamaCare;
4) a loss in this case could be easily compared to AS's Anti-Life chapter; and
5) this is one of the more important structural pillars in the Constitution.
A loss in this case is likely to undermine any moral authority that the looters have left to enforce any law. The distinction between right and wrong may get so blurred that normally good people will have no reason anymore to trust in the rule of law. This could be a major acceleration of the destruction of the US. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
What news have you heard?
What opinions do you have?
I saw some threads from before I arrived in the Gulch from LetsShrug and Khalling.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I believe that is the wrong argument overall. The argument should have been that government cannot dictate religious belief, regardless of what that belief is. Thus, this mandate has the potential of violating existing and future religious belief and therefore is prima facie unconstitutional.
2. The CU decision codified non-union entities with the same rights that unions have had for decades. Unions have supported socialists and now that anti-socialists have similar rights, they feel threatened.
That's not to say that I believe that Objectivism is incompatible with religious belief, but AR certainly espoused that thought.
In general, what we term "healthcare insurance" long ago stopped being insurance for most of us. It turned into pre-paid healthcare, generally at a low and fixed cost for the receiver. This encouraged over use by the covered individual. The explosion of lawsuits over just about anything encouraged defensive medical practices which resulted in more tests and procedures than needed. Couple that with onerous processes for medicine and medical product certifications/approvals and the entire system has been "engineered" to drive up costs.
The only way to reduce the costs is to unwind government interference, allow competition, and initiate "loser pays" to tortious lawsuits. IMHO.
However, the requirement to also provide anything other than honest pay for an honest days work is in my opinion unconstitutional, but also immoral on the part of our government.
Insurance pools can be created in a free market manner that would benefit every worker that desires to join such a group and pay for it with pretax dollars just like companies do now. If this were done in such a manner, then each employee could choose his insurance company and what coverage they desired.
These legal requirements were instituted by corrupt politicians in order to gain control over the private business structures for the sole purpose of being able to extract political contributions at the least and outright bribes at the worst.
Solutions for these types of problems are simple if we returned to true free market principles. Ask any honest economist.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Posted by airfredd22 0 minutes ago
Re: Boborobdos,
There are many misunderstandings of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Below is a partial clarification of that ruling as published in Wikipedia that can be found at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un......
In short, Supreme Court ruling of Citizen United The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
There are many misunderstandings of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Below is a partial clarification of that ruling as published in Wikipedia that can be found at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Un...
In short, Supreme Court ruling of Citizen United The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Your statement, "One cannot have any faith whatsoever if one is a strict objectivist.," is the most absurd I've ever read.
I am an admirer of Ayn Rand, her books and her philosophy. I am also an objectivist who has great faith in Christianity. They are not mutually exclusive. I realize that opinion is anecdotal and not empirical, but I suspect that there are many Christians that are also objectivist.
Ayn Rand never belittled Christianity or people of faith or any other faith. she stated that she did not believe but respected people that did. Respect is the word that needs to be included in any debate on these subjects.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Judge N had something called "integrity", a quality sorely lacking with THIS Supreme Court.
countries with national healthcare. NO THANKS.
Load more comments...