Today's Judge Narragansett moment? Hobby Lobby at Supreme Court?

Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 11 months ago to News
97 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually hospitals and doctors are can still be self employed. They as individuals can either take a patient (as they do with Medicare) or not. That is NOT nationalized medicine.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually one should be able to choose the provider and they should be paid from a single payer. Unfortunately Obama had to compromise to get anything through because the insurance fat cats lobbied so hard and bought the Republican party.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Before Obamacare if someone had a preexisting condition they were locked into where they were or face horrific insurance charges if they could find it. Thus they were pretty much screwed if that employer called the shots differently. That's not "choice."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Corporations should NOT have any say in health matters. They indenture employees with health insurance so employees really can't move on. In issues before Obamacare they couldn't move on because if they and a "preexisting" condition they couldn't afford to live.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Certainly, humanity has faults, but we're still here, so we must be doing something right. Perhaps that right is just multiplying like rabbits, but, either way, we're alive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The correct terminology for single payer should be single provider. What a disaster that would be! If you like your health care, you can keep it... Yeah, right!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, but having faith in humanity is certainly illogical. Humanity has a proven track record of failure.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 10 months ago
    What should also be recognized is that this is an "All-In" gamble (Texas Hold 'Em style) from Hobby Lobby. The fees for non-compliance have been racking up for a couple of years to the tune of millions of dollars per day. If they lose, they will likely go out of business entirely.

    I have to congratulate them on having the guts to draw a line in the sand and not back down from the challenge, and I hope they win - not only because I agree with their position but because a loss here spells the death-knell for the First Amendment and the Constitution as a whole. As soon as government interests are more important than an individuals' ability to pursue happiness according to the dictates of their own conscience, we are looking at the downfall of our Nation. And that is not hyperbole, I'm afraid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 11 years, 10 months ago
    it appears to me that this whole mess derives from people thinking that (1) businesses are utilities in the U.S. culture, and (2) people have rights given to them by government. whether you're a photographer or a baker or a hobby gear seller, it's your choice to serve me as a customer, else I can serve myself !
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 10 months ago
    The framing by the left is a joke. Their expressed position is that somehow Hobby Lobby is denying women their "Right" to birth control. When the crux of the matter is that they have no ability to stop a women from getting birth control and the issue is whether they should be forced to pay for it. Nonsense...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    None of us is playing doctor here. In fact, we are trying to allow people to choose their own free will.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the absence of the Government looters telling them what to do I would say that they are not deciding..."….what form of contraception is best for any given patient" They are deciding what they...hobby lobby...will pay for with their own money. The employees of hobby lobby can go work somewhere else or buy their own contraception if they don’t like it. None of these employees are in bonded servitude. They can leave if they don’t like it. How in the hell the constitution gives an employee the right to demand of hobby lobby contraception I cannot understand except in the context of the fact that we are no longer a free people governed by the rule of law. We are a group of individuals ruled by a mob.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please be intellectually honest and don't use the term "single payer." It is an euphemism for nationalized healthcare. The later word is not in favor due to failures everywhere that it was implemented; somehow, by changing the name, it is now better?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think that Rand refuted "any faith". She refuted faith in the supernatural, e.g., god that controls the universe. You can still have faith in humanity, maybe...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am a little confused here as well. Ayn Rand did espouse Atheist views but individual views like hers do not impose anything on other individuals. Only governments and criminals [interesting juxtaposition! ]are usually able to do that because they have force.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One cannot have any faith whatsoever if one is a strict objectivist. On that all can agree. According to Rand's logic, atheism is expected. I'm not even sure agnosticism is permissible, even though if one uses Rand's logic, it should be the default position because one cannot with absolute certainty prove the existence of a creator or not in this life. Moreover, as I have argued previously, one can be non-contradictory in the Randish sense and Christian if one is willing to accept the fairly sizable burden of accepting Jesus as lord AND the possibility that one's anticipated eternal rewards may not actually happen. Consequently I am more tolerant of differing positions on the issue of religious freedom or lack thereof than Rand was. Other than that, the objectivist philosophy as presented by Rand is entirely reasonable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only point I would disagree with this comes with regard to freedom of religion or no religion. Objectivism is highly restrictive on this point. Other than that, objectivism could work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed a loss here is a major step toward the end of the Constitution. That was what I meant at the start of the post with regard to a structural pillar in item 5.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo