Obama to issue Executive Order overturning SCOTUS

[Care4all]

None of them are abortificants,

You lost that argument. The court ruled that the religious views of people cannot be denied, even if the left is convinced they should be.

they prevent pregnancy from happening, BUT hobby Lobby believes they are, so that's all that matters, THEY BELIEVE they are abortificants and against their religious beliefs,( even though in reality, they are not).

Then the reality is that;

1.) This ruling has zero impact on a woman's ability to get contraceptives
2.) It has zero impact on the availability of abortificants.
3.) It has zero impact on abortion.

All it does is confirm the 1st Amendment rights of people to object to being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs.

Uncensored, many right leaning and left leaning posters are not arguing or debating the Supreme Court decision in this thread of yours...that's not what your thread was about, when you started it?

What they are arguing with you on, is your synopsis and title in your thread or the op link's presumption, that The Statement from the White House/President you are hanging your hat on as meaning, the president will overturn the HL Supreme court decision via executive order....

and THIS is simply not the case and CAN NOT be surmised as you and other right wing sites have done....

Mitigate the end results of the ruling, IS NOT and DOES NOT mean that the President via executive order is going to reverse the SC ruling, it means he is going to follow through on the ruling, not REVERSE it.

so when people are calling you a liar in this thread, (they probably should be saying you are mistaken instead of saying you are lying, because lying is intentional, and I think you actually believed that the president was going to reverse the SC decision...), they are basically saying to you, that you are WRONG on this.... in your interpretation of the President's statement to mean the President is going to reverse the SC decision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, many right leaning and left leaning posters are not arguing or debating the Supreme Court decision in this thread of yours...that's not what your thread was about, when you started it?

That's true, the thread was started due to the white house statement ;

"WILL CONSIDER WHETHER PRESIDENT CAN ACT ON HIS OWN TO MITIGATE EFFECT OF SUPREME COURT RULING"

What they are arguing with you on, is your synopsis and title in your thread or the op link's presumption, that The Statement from the White House/President you are hanging your hat on as meaning, the president will overturn the HL Supreme court decision via executive order....

I gave you the words of the Administration, which is a scofflaw group that has ignored, defied, and broken the law with no regard.

I acknowledge that Obama and his gang of thugs will do nothing - that the statement was red meat to the drooling sycophants of the democratic party - nothing more. Still, the statement is what the statement is, a claim that Obama would find a way to defy the court.

and THIS is simply not the case and CAN NOT be surmised as you and other right wing sites have done....

My "right wing sites" like MSNBC?

Mitigate the end results of the ruling, IS NOT and DOES NOT mean that the President via executive order is going to reverse the SC ruling, it means he is going to follow through on the ruling, not REVERSE it.

so when people are calling you a liar in this thread, (they probably should be saying you are mistaken instead of saying you are lying, because lying is intentional, and I think you actually believed that the president was going to reverse the SC decision...), they are basically saying to you, that you are WRONG on this.... in your interpretation of the President's statement to mean the President is going to reverse the SC decision.

The trial balloon did not go the way the Obama regime hopes, yet the statement remains fact - verified and repeatedly cited.

 

[jillian]

The reversal of the SCOTUS ruling is known as a "reversal" among the sentient.

Obama believes himself dictator, unconstrained by any law.

Only SCOTUS can "reverse" SCOTUS.

You must not be among the sentient.


A legal executive order is not a "reversal".

Obama's press secretary is the one who released the statement.

Law only has bearing on those who obey the law, which leaves Obama out.

he did not say they are "REVERSING THE DECISION" of the Supreme Court.

but I wonder if you wackadoodles will whine when some muslim employer imposes sharia law in its employees.

 

[hadit]

{

The court's 5-4 decision means the Obama administration must find alternative ways of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

The executive branch will also consider whether the president can act on his own to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court ruling, the White House said.
}

White House: Will work to make sure women affected by ruling will have access to contraception.

Interesting to note that the ruling doesn't deny any woman access to any contraceptive.

 

[daws101]

While the President and Congress can't directly change an unfavorable decision, they may circumvent the decision by passing legislation that addresses the constitutional challenge while still accomplishing their goal. Congress also has the right to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases under their appellate jurisdiction (called jurisdiction stripping) to reduce the possibility of certain controversies being declared unconstitutional in the future. Neither of these actions would overturn or change the Court's decision; they are simply political maneuvers used to check the federal judiciary.


If the President and Congress are unhappy with a US Supreme Court decision how can they change it

 

[Peach]

None of them are abortificants,

You lost that argument. The court ruled that the religious views of people cannot be denied, even if the left is convinced they should be.

they prevent pregnancy from happening, BUT hobby Lobby believes they are, so that's all that matters, THEY BELIEVE they are abortificants and against their religious beliefs,( even though in reality, they are not).

Then the reality is that;

1.) This ruling has zero impact on a woman's ability to get contraceptives
2.) It has zero impact on the availability of abortificants.
3.) It has zero impact on abortion.

All it does is confirm the 1st Amendment rights of people to object to being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs.

Uncensored, many right leaning and left leaning posters are not arguing or debating the Supreme Court decision in this thread of yours...that's not what your thread was about, when you started it?

What they are arguing with you on, is your synopsis and title in your thread or the op link's presumption, that The Statement from the White House/President you are hanging your hat on as meaning, the president will overturn the HL Supreme court decision via executive order....

and THIS is simply not the case and CAN NOT be surmised as you and other right wing sites have done....

Mitigate the end results of the ruling, IS NOT and DOES NOT mean that the President via executive order is going to reverse the SC ruling, it means he is going to follow through on the ruling, not REVERSE it.

so when people are calling you a liar in this thread, (they probably should be saying you are mistaken instead of saying you are lying, because lying is intentional, and I think you actually believed that the president was going to reverse the SC decision...), they are basically saying to you, that you are WRONG on this.... in your interpretation of the President's statement to mean the President is going to reverse the SC decision.

This issue continues to divide, and any mitigation cannot include VALID religious objections by employers.

 

[daws101]

You lost that argument. The court ruled that the religious views of people cannot be denied, even if the left is convinced they should be.

Then the reality is that;

1.) This ruling has zero impact on a woman's ability to get contraceptives
2.) It has zero impact on the availability of abortificants.
3.) It has zero impact on abortion.

All it does is confirm the 1st Amendment rights of people to object to being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs.

Uncensored, many right leaning and left leaning posters are not arguing or debating the Supreme Court decision in this thread of yours...that's not what your thread was about, when you started it?

What they are arguing with you on, is your synopsis and title in your thread or the op link's presumption, that The Statement from the White House/President you are hanging your hat on as meaning, the president will overturn the HL Supreme court decision via executive order....

and THIS is simply not the case and CAN NOT be surmised as you and other right wing sites have done....

Mitigate the end results of the ruling, IS NOT and DOES NOT mean that the President via executive order is going to reverse the SC ruling, it means he is going to follow through on the ruling, not REVERSE it.

so when people are calling you a liar in this thread, (they probably should be saying you are mistaken instead of saying you are lying, because lying is intentional, and I think you actually believed that the president was going to reverse the SC decision...), they are basically saying to you, that you are WRONG on this.... in your interpretation of the President's statement to mean the President is going to reverse the SC decision.

This issue continues to divide, and any mitigation cannot include VALID religious objections by employers.

the definition of valid is not strong enough

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of them are abortificants,

You lost that argument. The court ruled that the religious views of people cannot be denied, even if the left is convinced they should be.

they prevent pregnancy from happening, BUT hobby Lobby believes they are, so that's all that matters, THEY BELIEVE they are abortificants and against their religious beliefs,( even though in reality, they are not).

Then the reality is that;

1.) This ruling has zero impact on a woman's ability to get contraceptives
2.) It has zero impact on the availability of abortificants.
3.) It has zero impact on abortion.

All it does is confirm the 1st Amendment rights of people to object to being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs.

In fact the ruling does nothing of the sort: only a very select and very tiny group will be granted this exemption.

And when the FDS reclassifies these drugs as contraceptives only, the businesses will lose their exemptions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored has already said Muslim groups have the right to employ shari'a law in their businesses and the employees must accept it.

 

[daws101]

None of them are abortificants,

You lost that argument. The court ruled that the religious views of people cannot be denied, even if the left is convinced they should be.

they prevent pregnancy from happening, BUT hobby Lobby believes they are, so that's all that matters, THEY BELIEVE they are abortificants and against their religious beliefs,( even though in reality, they are not).

Then the reality is that;

1.) This ruling has zero impact on a woman's ability to get contraceptives
2.) It has zero impact on the availability of abortificants.
3.) It has zero impact on abortion.

All it does is confirm the 1st Amendment rights of people to object to being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs.

In fact the ruling does nothing of the sort: only a very select and very tiny group will be granted this exemption.

And when the FDS reclassifies these drugs as contraceptives only, the businesses will lose their exemptions.

you don't think "they" will try some other way to keep the exemptions?

 

[Uncensored2008]

he did not say they are "REVERSING THE DECISION" of the Supreme Court.

but I wonder if you wackadoodles will whine when some muslim employer imposes sharia law in its employees.

It's a bummer you didn't take an introductory law class.......

Not being coerced into paying for a procedure has no bearing on "Sharia law."

 

[daws101]

Uncensored has already said Muslim groups have the right to employ shari'a law in their businesses and the employees must accept it.

it would be ironic if he had to work for one of them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting to note that the ruling doesn't deny any woman access to any contraceptive.

The ruling protects the 1st amendment rights of the employer to not be FORCED to purchase services that infringe their religious views.

The Obama administration and the democrats launched a full scale assault on the 1st Amendment - they lost.

 

[Uncensored2008]

While the President and Congress can't directly change an unfavorable decision, they may circumvent the decision by passing legislation that addresses the constitutional challenge while still accomplishing their goal. Congress also has the right to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases under their appellate jurisdiction (called jurisdiction stripping) to reduce the possibility of certain controversies being declared unconstitutional in the future. Neither of these actions would overturn or change the Court's decision; they are simply political maneuvers used to check the federal judiciary.


If the President and Congress are unhappy with a US Supreme Court decision how can they change it

Congress passing laws is a far different proposition than Obama using EO's to circumvent the ruling.

Even you must be bright enough to grasp this, duhs....

 

[daws101]

While the President and Congress can't directly change an unfavorable decision, they may circumvent the decision by passing legislation that addresses the constitutional challenge while still accomplishing their goal. Congress also has the right to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases under their appellate jurisdiction (called jurisdiction stripping) to reduce the possibility of certain controversies being declared unconstitutional in the future. Neither of these actions would overturn or change the Court's decision; they are simply political maneuvers used to check the federal judiciary.


If the President and Congress are unhappy with a US Supreme Court decision how can they change it

Congress passing laws is a far different proposition than Obama using EO's to circumvent the ruling.

Even you must be bright enough to grasp this, duhs....

eo's trump and no it's no different.

 

[Peach]

Uncensored, many right leaning and left leaning posters are not arguing or debating the Supreme Court decision in this thread of yours...that's not what your thread was about, when you started it?

What they are arguing with you on, is your synopsis and title in your thread or the op link's presumption, that The Statement from the White House/President you are hanging your hat on as meaning, the president will overturn the HL Supreme court decision via executive order....

and THIS is simply not the case and CAN NOT be surmised as you and other right wing sites have done....

Mitigate the end results of the ruling, IS NOT and DOES NOT mean that the President via executive order is going to reverse the SC ruling, it means he is going to follow through on the ruling, not REVERSE it.

so when people are calling you a liar in this thread, (they probably should be saying you are mistaken instead of saying you are lying, because lying is intentional, and I think you actually believed that the president was going to reverse the SC decision...), they are basically saying to you, that you are WRONG on this.... in your interpretation of the President's statement to mean the President is going to reverse the SC decision.

This issue continues to divide, and any mitigation cannot include VALID religious objections by employers.

the definition of valid is not strong enough

Or as yet determined.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored has already said Muslim groups have the right to employ shari'a law in their businesses and the employees must accept it.

it would be ironic if he had to work for one of them.

You do grasp that Jakematters is a complete liar and nothing he posts can be trusted, don't you?

Sharia would impose upon employees certain requirements that violate the rights of employees. It is a proactive issue.

Not including abortificants in the things the company pays for compels no beliefs or actions on the employee, It has no bearing at all on the rights of the employee, who is perfectly free to purchase the abortificants and use them with no repercussion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

eo's trump and no it's no different.

It would be had you ever read the United States Constitution.

Hint; the executive does not have the authority to create law.

 

[daws101]

This issue continues to divide, and any mitigation cannot include VALID religious objections by employers.

the definition of valid is not strong enough

Or as yet determined.

so true...wonder if a non bias, objective definition can be reached. Things being the way they are?