Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[PaulS]

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

The Constitution was not meant to be an abstruse legal document which only lawyers and judges could understand or "know about." It was meant to be the basic governmental blueprint for how the nation, comprised of the unified States, was to be governed. And it intentionally imposed upon the central government prescribed duties to which it was supposed to be limited. The purpose was to guarantee, if followed, that the individual, YOU, had sovereign, unalienable rights which could not be trampled as had been done by the oppressive governments of the past.

I don't have some great secretive knowledge about the Constitution that you do not have access to with a little effort. That knowledge should have been taught to all of us in our formative education. Unfortunately, that is not done well, and what is done and the way it is done is too "boring" for young minds more interested in games and gonads.

But to be disinterested in your mature years as to how your government is supposed to operate, especially how it impacts your freedom to aspire and achieve your goals, and especially in light of the differences you have with others who may wish to impose their versions on you . . . to lack interest in understanding that very basic governmental foundation of the society you live in is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Not only to yourself, but to the rest of society, your children, your neighbors, your countrymen, who all depend on each other to protect our rights as individuals, or families, or groups of whatever kind.

Without the understanding of the Constitution, we fall victim to the prescriptions of the "experts" who wish to herd us into their version of how we should lead our lives. We, as a people, though we may have disagreements on personal issues, must either stand together in protecting those basic rights granted to us by our Constitution, or lose them. If we accept the government's power to deny someone else a fundamental right because we don't agree with that person's use of his right, then we must accept government's power to deny ourselves the same fundamental right. To be so blind as to think that it won't do so because we and the government happen to agree on the issue, regardless of the right, is an invitation for future government to deny our right on grounds of difference of opinion.

The Constitution is not a prescription to govern by opinion. It is a fundamental law which guarantees individuals the right to have personal opinions and to act on them so long as they don't deny others the same. It is a restriction against government by opinion, and it is the foundation for the rule of law.

It is not difficult for you, if you wish, to come to an understanding of the Constitution, and what it means for you personally, and for society in general. You can easily "know" what I do about it, if you wish. I was disinterested when I was young and when life was too interesting to be "bored" with what didn't seem to be important. I have lived long enough to understand that what is more important than my personal pleasures, per se, is my freedoms to pursue them.
And it was not difficult to learn about and understand the Constitution. I would recommend Hillsdale's free online courses on the Constitution as an easy and enjoyable start.

I happen to like you, Paul, and I think that if a person like you who believes in a moral basis for your life were to come to an understanding of the moral and legal foundation of our society, it would benefit not only you, but the rest of us as well. I would be glad to stand with you and say, as Voltaire was reputed to say "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thanks ..... any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

seems like it most often ends with someone running out of talking points and dodges and resulting to insults after being asked a few simple question to help clarify his belief on what is truly at the heart of the debate which might help come to some common understanding...one can declare "normalized reality", but if you don't define what normal is, reality is what to make up as you go along and see fit....the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all, and continue to argue about Constitutional issues without explaining whether or not you believe the Constitution applies them is to "debate" without any purpose avoiding what is at the heart of the debate ...and then we complain that the country is divided

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all,

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

I have no certainty that the case will go the way that it clearly should. I just don't understand why it's not 9-0 in favor of HL. I do think they will win 5-4, but I am no means certain of it. And even a 5-4 victory for HL means that there are 4 Supreme Court justices who don't have even a basic understanding of the Constitution.

Do you know when a decision is expected?