Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

You might see it that way, as usual, by skimming the surface of things and avoiding the underlying principles. Jim doesn't have the same approach to the Constitution as I do. He is more accepting than I to the bending of its principles, especially in matters of charity. I think he once alluded to being influenced more by his Catholicism. He also, being a good soldier, accepts with finality what SCOTUS decides. I don't believe those decisions must stand if they are faulty. Again, you revert to the tactic of ridicule when you have nothing substantial to say. It becomes you, or you become it . . . either way, it works.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops! . . . back at ya.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops!

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Constitutional argument about what?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

"Oops."

Hobby Lobby is before the Supreme Court right now, their case hasn't been decided yet. You "oops" seems a wee bit premature.

The ACA was declared constitutional. Obama accomplished this, by convincing the Court that it is a "tax", despite telling us repeatedly that it is not a tax. Gotta like that consietency. Say one thing to one audience, say the exact opposite to anotheraudience, and hope that no one notices.

Spence, as I have said, I like the idea of Obamacare, so don't for one second think you nailed me in a gotcha! moment. No one gets to decide whether they will be born healthy or born sick, therefore it seems just to me, that we all share in some kind of shared risk pool of some sort. But, as always, we need to do it within the confines of the constitution.

The Supreme Court may well rule against HL. That doesn't mean HL was wrong. The Supreme Court is not infallible. They upheld slavery not all that long ago, and more recently, some of your ilk refused to accept the Court's decision regarding the 2000 election.

Spence, for all your posts on this thread, for all your insults, I see you continue to cowardly dodge the only issue that matters - why is HL wrong when they say that their constitutional rights are being violated? What's the matter, The Huffington Post hasn't told you how to respond to that point yet, so you just lob insults while you're waiting?

Why can't you answer the only question that matters on this issue? Can't you show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty?