SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[garbon]

It is so weird how grumbler constantly whines about how much this board and all its members suck (except JR) and are total wastes of time.  Yet he keeps coming back.  Deep down in his black black heart he must actually love us 

[grumbler]

It is so weird how grumbler constantly whines about how much this board and all its members suck (except JR) and are total wastes of time.  Yet he keeps coming back.  Deep down in his black black heart he must actually love us 

  Yes, I constantly "whine" about that.  Why, you can probably find one post in which I jokingly said that there are "no smart people here."  That's practically the definition of constantly.  Because, of course, if one isn't smart, one must "suck" and be a "total [waste] of time." 

[OttoVonBismarck]

What if it isn't a choice?

Being smart is almost never a choice.  I'd bet someone like cRazy cAnuck would choose to be smart, if only that were possible.

We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.

[grumbler]

We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.

  You can all agree that the sun rises in the West, too. 

[Jacob]

We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.

  You can all agree that the sun rises in the West, too.

I hope you don't teach your students that!

[grumbler]

We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.

  You can all agree that the sun rises in the West, too.

I hope you don't teach your students that!

Of course I teach that Otto and his ilk can agree that the sun rises in the west! 

Silly people can agree on all kinds of stuff, like the sun rising in the west, Jesus riding dinosaurs, no smart person teaches children for a living... and my students need to know that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Smart people tend to have careers that require being smart in order to be successful at them.

[Caliga]

Can we get back to how Cal slandered our fine community? 

What part upsets you?  My assertion about anti-Semites running rampant?  On that point... look at all the Euros around here.  QED.

[Syt]

But I like Jews.

[Valmy]

Can we get back to how Cal slandered our fine community? 

What part upsets you?  My assertion about anti-Semites running rampant?  On that point... look at all the Euros around here.  QED.

That we have anything but the highest respect for Spicey and his people!

[derspiess]

That we have anything but the highest respect for Spicey and his people!

[Grey Fox]

DerNazis?

[jimmy olsen]

For good or ill, the court remains consistent on this issue

http://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-throws-obamacare-contraception-ruling-141350982.html

U.S. top court throws out Obamacare contraception ruling

Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived religious objections by Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee to the Obamacare requirement for contraception coverage, throwing out a lower court decision favoring President Barack Obama's administration.

The justices asked the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision that backed the Obama administration in light of the Supreme Court's June 2014 ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

Obama's healthcare law, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.

Various challengers, including family-owned companies and religious affiliated nonprofits that oppose abortion and sometimes the use of contraceptives, say the requirement infringes on their religious beliefs.

The high court threw out a June 2014 appeals court ruling that went in favor of the government. In March, the court took a similar approach in a case concerning the University of Notre Dame.

The appeals court rulings in both cases pre-dated the Supreme Court's June 2014 ruling that family-owned Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could seek exemptions on religious grounds from the contraception provision of the 2010 healthcare law.

Courts that have ruled on the issue since the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision have all decided in favor of the government, finding the government's compromise does not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Religious rights are protected under a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The case is Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-701.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)