Sandra Fluke's Testimony - Here it is. Watch so you will not look like such a fool~

[Mr. Shaman]

I got banned from the Hannity forum for calling Fluke a dyke.

I could be they know something (else)......

....more-about-you.....

....that got you thrown-out.


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Oh please. Spare me. From Catholic Charities they admit that nearly 70% of ALL their funding come from the government. 28 states already had the same exact law in place with 8 states requiring the church also cover contraception. Where did Obama get this "law"? From the fucking Republicans.

Remember when they screamed he should be involved in Libya. Then they screamed when he did.

Remember when they screamed he hadn't got Bin Laden, then the fuckers tried to take credit when he did.

Remember when Republicans screamed that Obama should close Gitmo and then screamed when he started the proceedings.

Remember when Republicans screamed that we should get out of Iraq and then screamed when Obama began drawing down.

They want the first black president to fail. If Obama said he was against eating babies, Republicans would insist they should be on the menu.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” ~Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, (R-Ky.), October 2010

WAAAAAAAAAA. and we all know all the Democrats were on Bush's side to make him a TWO TERM President.

Uh, yeah......how insightful.......

 

[Si modo]

I'm wondering where I said it was inappropriate.

That seems to be your implication. If it's not, then I'm confused. Are you saying that she should not have gone to Georgetown? I'm not sure what, exactly, your objection is here.

Actually, I am saying that the administration should respect the First Amendment. It's a higher law than Obamacare.

First of all, Congress passes laws, not the President. Second, the first amendment isn't being violated by the law. The only violation of the first amendment would be for religious entities to be given a magical exception to the law. The health care law is a law of general applicability, that does not have anything to do with any inherently religious activities. How can it be a violation of the first amendment?

I've never implied, explicitly or otherwise, that Fluke can't say what she said. As a fan of the First Amendment, I never would.

Secondly, the First Amendment protects religious organizations from being told what to believe, how to believe, and how to practice that belief by the government. It also protects the government from influence by religions. The Constitution, of which the First Amendment is a part, is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Obamacare is not. Thus, when Obamacare attempts to dictate to a religious organization what their beliefs and practices of those beliefs must be, the Constitution, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, will trump anything else.

And, it has several times on this topic, confirmed and affirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[Dot Com]

Nino put it well: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/207948-justice-scalia-does-not-agree.html

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

 

[Zander]

Here is a synopsis of the testimony....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

OK. Here's the link.

Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube

It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.

Right wingers don't care about the truth. They still insist women in Iraq are now free have happy. You can tell by the expression on their faces. See?

The veil of American Liberation descends upon Iraqi Women - University graduation ceremony

You, and so many like you, need to get out more. Most need to leave the country awhile and see how it is for life out there across the fruited plains of the planet.

I'd suggest IRAN.....for the PRO-WAR "conservatives"!!!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6JPosCyCho]Iranian Youth Ditch Oppressive Islam - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmQjqEHnLFg]Iran: Undercover fashion in Iran - YouTube[/ame]
*
​

 

[Inthemiddle]

Secondly, the First Amendment protects religious organizations from being told what to believe, how to believe, and how to practice that belief by the government. It also protects the government from influence by religions. The Constitution, of which the First Amendment is a part, is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Obamacare is not. Thus, when Obamacare attempts to dictate to a religious organization what their beliefs and practices of those beliefs must be, the Constitution, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, will trump anything else.

The health care law does not tell religious organizations what to believe or what to practice. The law deals with health care, and making it accessible to all Americans. It doesn't tell people they have to believe in anything. It doesn't tell the church what to preach. It doesn't require anyone to pray, or not to pray, or to only pray in a certain way.

And, it has several times on this topic, confirmed and affirmed by the SCOTUS.

Over a century of Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly affirmed that a general law that deals with inherently non-religious activity does not infringe upon the first amendment, even when applied directly to religious organizations that might claim an objection on religious grounds. In Smith, Justice Scalia flatly rejected the idea that first amendment protections call for special exceptions to a law that is constitutional when applied to non-religious applications. As he notes:

It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

He goes on to cite an earlier case by the SCOTUS:

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

Religious organizations are free to preach to their followers that birth control is a sin. They are free to strongly encourage people to not use birth control. But their first amendment protections do not shield them from responsibility to abide by a law that regulates participation in health care commerce, simply because they have a religious objection about certain types of health care, or whether individuals will follow the organizations teachings.

 

[Si modo]

Secondly, the First Amendment protects religious organizations from being told what to believe, how to believe, and how to practice that belief by the government. It also protects the government from influence by religions. The Constitution, of which the First Amendment is a part, is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Obamacare is not. Thus, when Obamacare attempts to dictate to a religious organization what their beliefs and practices of those beliefs must be, the Constitution, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, will trump anything else.

The health care law does not tell religious organizations what to believe or what to practice.

....

Sure it does. The Church is vehemently opposed to BC because of their beliefs. Obamacare requires that they provide HC insurance which includes BC - that is against the beliefs of the Church.

 

[oreo]

anyone care what some 30 year old professional college student has to say?

my gawd, like she is an EXPERT on something

what a JOKE

Really.. 30 and just starting Law School? Did you read what her undergrad degrees are in?

Yeah.....how much-more satisfying & fulfilling her Life would be....if she'd pursued a more-traditional track....

That cartoon is great. I am a fiscal conservative woman--& I'll tell you I was offended by Limbaugh's comments--just as much as I am offended by male comments coming from the left regarding conservative women. They're UGLY--their male ego's get the best of them--& they attack women--who have different points of view. It's totally unacceptable.

But I think in this Limbaugh instance where now 12 advertisers have pulled the plug--along with one radio station--is not just this instance. I have turned on Limbaugh over the last several months--and have immediately had to turn him off again--because he was going way over the top in his comments.

So I think for these sponsors--this comment was just the straw that broke the camels back with them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sure it does. The Church is vehemently opposed to BC because of their beliefs. Obamacare requires that they provide HC insurance which includes BC - that is against the beliefs of the Church.

The church is still free to believe that birth control is a sin. They are free to teach that. They are free to pray, to make the sign of the cross, or not. And individuals remain free to either use birth control or not. But the position you are taking would require that the first amendment be seen as an absolute right that creates a carte blanche for a person or organization to claim exception from any law whatsoever, by merely claiming religious scruples. That is not what the first amendment is about, it's not what the founders intended, it's not what the courts have ever recognized as being the nature of religious freedom. What you are looking for is, in fact, NOT part of the constitution.

 

[Si modo]

Sure it does. The Church is vehemently opposed to BC because of their beliefs. Obamacare requires that they provide HC insurance which includes BC - that is against the beliefs of the Church.

The church is still free to believe that birth control is a sin. They are free to teach that. They are free to pray, to make the sign of the cross, or not. And individuals remain free to either use birth control or not. But the position you are taking would require that the first amendment be seen as an absolute right that creates a carte blanche for a person or organization to claim exception from any law whatsoever, by merely claiming religious scruples. That is not what the first amendment is about, it's not what the founders intended, it's not what the courts have ever recognized as being the nature of religious freedom. What you are looking for is, in fact, NOT part of the constitution.

And, the Church is free to PRACTICE that belief.

So says the First Amendment an so affirms the SCOTUS.

 

[PredFan]

OK. Here's the link.

Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube

It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.

Right wingers don't care about the truth. They still insist women in Iraq are now free have happy. You can tell by the expression on their faces. See?

The veil of American Liberation descends upon Iraqi Women - University graduation ceremony

We went to war in Iraq so that women wouldn't have to cover up?

That's a new one on me.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And, the Church is free to PRACTICE that belief.

So says the First Amendment an so affirms the SCOTUS.

Again, the first amendment does not create a carte blanche by which claims of religious practice can excuse anything whatsoever, or shield individuals or organizations from applicability from the law. And THAT is what the SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed. Did you read Scalia's opinion in Smith that I linked?

 

[Si modo]

And, the Church is free to PRACTICE that belief.

So says the First Amendment an so affirms the SCOTUS.

Again, the first amendment does not create a carte blanche by which claims of religious practice can excuse anything whatsoever, or shield individuals or organizations from applicability from the law. And THAT is what the SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed. Did you read Scalia's opinion in Smith that I linked?

Funny thing is, I wasn't the one who said anything about carte blanche. You did.

However, the First Amendment trumps Obamacare as the higher law.

I would think everyone would know that after completing their 8th grade civics lessons.

I've read Scalia's and several other opinions on this. There can be no law concerning a neutral issue that prohibits a religious organization or person from practicing their religious beliefs.

The Smith case was NOT about a neutral law. I suggest you read it and the citations therein.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Funny thing is, I wasn't the one who said anything about carte blanche. You did.

What you're advocating comes down to making the first amendment a carte blanche. Please don't play word games here. Tomato/tomato, the rose will still prick you hand and draw blood.

However, the First Amendment trumps Obamacare as the higher law.

Yes, we have already established that fact. However, what you are talking about is NOT part of the first amendment.

I've read Scalia's and several other opinions on this. There can be no law concerning a neutral issue that prohibits a religious organization or person from practicing their religious beliefs.

The Smith case was NOT about a neutral law. I suggest you read it and the citations therein.

Uh, yes it was about a neutral law. And that is why the appeal was lost. Smith tried to claim an exception to a neutral law, based on religious freedom. His arguments were rejected by the court.

 

[Si modo]

Funny thing is, I wasn't the one who said anything about carte blanche. You did.

What you're advocating comes down to making the first amendment a carte blanche. Please don't play word games here. Tomato/tomato, the rose will still prick you hand and draw blood.

However, the First Amendment trumps Obamacare as the higher law.

Yes, we have already established that fact. However, what you are talking about is NOT part of the first amendment.

I've read Scalia's and several other opinions on this. There can be no law concerning a neutral issue that prohibits a religious organization or person from practicing their religious beliefs.

The Smith case was NOT about a neutral law. I suggest you read it and the citations therein.

Uh, yes it was about a neutral law. And that is why the appeal was lost. Smith tried to claim an exception to a neutral law, based on religious freedom. His arguments were rejected by the court.

Oh? So now the First Amendment is NOT about the free practice of religion.

And, my bad, I meant THIS is not a neutral law.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Oh? So now the First Amendment is NOT about the free practice of religion.

You're trying to present a false dichotomy. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religious practice. But right is not absolute. You're trying to posit that unless that right is absolute, it does not exist. And that is simply a false dichotomy.

As I've said, there is case law going back more than a century that affirms what I have been saying, and rejects the proposals you are making. In Reynolds the court was very clear:

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

The problem with your argument is that the founders never intended "exercise" of religion to be taken to mean that anything could be called an "exercise" of religious belief, and become entirely immune from the law. The first amendment shields religious organizations from government intrusion only in regards to those activities that are inherently religious. Health insurance is not an inherently religious activity, anymore than taxation is an inherently religious activity (to use Scalia's example in Smith).

And, my bad, I meant THIS is not a neutral law.

How is it NOT neutral? It is a law of general applicability, that deals with health care accessibility, and nothing more.

 

[Si modo]

Oh? So now the First Amendment is NOT about the free practice of religion.

You're trying to present a false dichotomy. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religious practice. But right is not absolute. You're trying to posit that unless that right is absolute, it does not exist. And that is simply a false dichotomy.

As I've said, there is case law going back more than a century that affirms what I have been saying, and rejects the proposals you are making. In Reynolds the court was very clear:

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

The problem with your argument is that the founders never intended "exercise" of religion to be taken to mean that anything could be called an "exercise" of religious belief, and become entirely immune from the law. The first amendment shields religious organizations from government intrusion only in regards to those activities that are inherently religious. Health insurance is not an inherently religious activity, anymore than taxation is an inherently religious activity (to use Scalia's example in Smith).

And, my bad, I meant THIS is not a neutral law.

How is it NOT neutral? It is a law of general applicability, that deals with health care accessibility, and nothing more.

Actually, the Bill of Rights are absolute when another law that is NOT an inherent right infringes on it. Being supreme and all that.

 

[The T]

Oh? So now the First Amendment is NOT about the free practice of religion.

You're trying to present a false dichotomy. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religious practice. But right is not absolute. You're trying to posit that unless that right is absolute, it does not exist. And that is simply a false dichotomy.

As I've said, there is case law going back more than a century that affirms what I have been saying, and rejects the proposals you are making. In Reynolds the court was very clear:

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

The problem with your argument is that the founders never intended "exercise" of religion to be taken to mean that anything could be called an "exercise" of religious belief, and become entirely immune from the law. The first amendment shields religious organizations from government intrusion only in regards to those activities that are inherently religious. Health insurance is not an inherently religious activity, anymore than taxation is an inherently religious activity (to use Scalia's example in Smith).

And, my bad, I meant THIS is not a neutral law.

How is it NOT neutral? It is a law of general applicability, that deals with health care accessibility, and nothing more.

Actually, the Bill of Rights are absolute when another law that is NOT an inherent right infringes on it. Being supreme and all that.

I am sure there are a plethora of 'laws' out there that infringe on the BOR...it's just the laws haven't been challanged, and accepted as normal. This is where tyranny gets a foothold, and Liberty begins to dwindle.

 

[Si modo]

You're trying to present a false dichotomy. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religious practice. But right is not absolute. You're trying to posit that unless that right is absolute, it does not exist. And that is simply a false dichotomy.

As I've said, there is case law going back more than a century that affirms what I have been saying, and rejects the proposals you are making. In Reynolds the court was very clear:

This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

The problem with your argument is that the founders never intended "exercise" of religion to be taken to mean that anything could be called an "exercise" of religious belief, and become entirely immune from the law. The first amendment shields religious organizations from government intrusion only in regards to those activities that are inherently religious. Health insurance is not an inherently religious activity, anymore than taxation is an inherently religious activity (to use Scalia's example in Smith).



How is it NOT neutral? It is a law of general applicability, that deals with health care accessibility, and nothing more.

Actually, the Bill of Rights are absolute when another law that is NOT an inherent right infringes on it. Being supreme and all that.

I am sure there are a plethora of 'laws' out there that infringe on the BOR...it's just the laws haven't been challanged, and accepted as normal. This is where tyranny gets a foothold, and Liberty begins to dwindle.

This one WILL be challenged and the Church has the means and power to do so.

And, when the SCOTUS rules that a POTUS' pet law is unconstitutional, I can't imagine that is a positive. I hope the briefs are already written and ready to be filed with the SCOTUS.