New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
Of all the cases SCOTUS hears or COULD hear, she places utmost importance on whether or not a corporation can remain free of paying the birth control expense of it's employees.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,647 Posts
Her Hobby Lobby dissent was hilarious. She's 81 and certifiably insane and senile. She needs to be removed from the bench immediately. Ugly ass old *****.

We don't let 10 year olds to be judges but we let old people to be Gods and make the most important decisions for 315 million people? There should be some kind of an age cut off to be a judge: 65 or 70.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
perhaps her ego will be her demise. if we are fortunate enough to get a non leftist (socialist) (meaning either a conservative or libertarian) as a president after this obamination (abomination) and she can no longer sit, we may get a stronger advantage on the scotus. (wishful thinking, i know).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
hobby lobby had nothing to do with birth control. it was a case about forcing private corporations to pay for the abortion pill.

abortion and birth control are different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
There are a few others that I love reading about ... Nice SCOTUS case I briefly read about, on which lawyers should be paid first, when ect. when after corporate lawsuits. Don't remember the the specifics but my dam stomach turned that this is considered a priority over a slew of real issues.

Of all the cases SCOTUS hears or COULD hear, she places utmost importance on whether or not a corporation can remain free of paying the birth control expense of it's employees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
in a bankruptcy case, lawyers and accountants get paid first. it has to work that way or else the process cannot move forward....

Anyway, who decides on whether a Supreme should be recused from a specific case? One of the new lesbian Supremes did not do this for the Obamacare case on which she worked on before being nominated. Wow - that should have been required and absolutely would have changed the outcome of that case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
I read a quote from her that one of her biggest disappointments is that Obamacare wasn't upheld on Commerce Clause grounds. In other words, she believes the federal government has the right, under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the States, to force individuals who are in no way engaged in commerce to carry health insurance. Astonishing how these jackals want the government to have power to do anything to anyone anytime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I thought the Constitution prohibited the government from requiring that you purchase anything, including health insurance. As normal, the opinion on this was EXTREMELY convoluted. ...lets twist this one severely so we can avoid this little problem with the Constitution....

.....bye the way, that judge lied in her confirmation hearing when she said that she believes in the 2nd Amendment. Really? BS!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top