America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

It never ceases to amaze me how a person will so skew an issue to benefit their political agenda.

Take the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby, et al case.

If one were to base their opinion on what is reported by the "mainstream" media one would believe that the SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby is exempt from providing contraceptive services for women. But, if one actually to the time to look at the ruling, the SCOTUS simply ruled that the least restrictive measures should be required when dealing with the ACA as it relates to the religious beliefs of a closely held corporation.

In the end, the SCTOUS simply stated that there are other least restrictive ways for Hobby Lobby et al to provide contraceptive services other than requiring Hobby Lobby et al to provide.



Hobby Lobby is controlled by the Green family, Conestoga another party in this case is owned by the Hahn family. Both of these families hold religious beliefs that life begins at conception. As such they opposed having to provide coverage for what the believe are in essence aborticants.

Before one jumps up and hollers that the methods opposed by the parties isn't an aborticant, one should know that in a brief submitted to the SCOTUS in this case it acknowledged that the methods in question could in fact result in the destruction of an embryo.

In the end, it should be known that the parties involved in this case do in fact provide contraceptive methods in their employer sponsored healthcare plans. The "mainstream" media just chooses to ignore that SMALL fact.




Let the party begin......

I agree partially Robert. They (media) are lazy and largely ignorant, real reporting (watchdogging) is rare. But look at eho pwns and runs the media, their relationship with politics and most importantly the editors/producers (paper/tv).

But to my view they have an agenda and have been employing behavioral news sheparding for years. Incrementallly moving society is how this works.

Enjoy the ride.

The other 800# gorilla is the use of Executive Orders. Every time the issue comes up there is a comparison made between the presidents going back from W to Kennedy or beyond and Obama in the number of times they exercised the power of an Executive Order. I've got neither the time nor the inclination to count such orders nor try to determine the scope of the same. But, it seems Obama has used executive privilege more times than most in terms of circumventing laws as opposed to using them to in a more mundane way. Not sure his use verses others is an apples to apples comparison.

But, I could be wrong.

I would wager my money on "most."

It's really amazing that those who put themselves in the limelight are really ignorant of what it is they speak about. I remember the hoopla over the opinion earlier this year regarding the Voting Rights Act. Whether one agrees or disagrees, if one were to read the opinion there should be little surprise that they ruled the way they did.

One need not be a lawyer to understand most of the rulings. One just needs to have a clear conscience and an open mind. That being said, some rulings seem to defy logic.

If the Congress would actually act on some of the issues instead of stonewallin, Obama wouldn't have to use the executive order. Afterall it is their job. And the left might have some push back against the ex.orders. Obama has used them less than any sitting president since and including Reagan.

No their job is to do the nations business and not sit on their asses and do nothing.

Right......so you want to blame congressional republicans only for that %7 you claim?

If you haven't noticed the public isn't too pleased with the Senate or the Kenyan in Chief either. You can take whatever number you want with the amount of EO's but the scope with which he's used them is far from normal.

At least your wagon is firmly planted.

Ypu cannot find fault with Obama without admitting that Congress has done nothing. Beyween Bush 2 and Reagan, they both got some co-operation from the House and the Senate.

Typical knee jerk response. Quantity means nothing. One would be better served by analyzing the net effect. Stealing $1 one thousand times is in my opinion less significant than stealing $100,000 one time.

That's not to say that it's ok to steal any amount or that Obama has stolen anything. It's just to say one may want to consider the effects of a given set of actions before minimizing them to make their argument.

It's a shame that one bases their position off talking points because for what ever reason they don't research an issue enough to make an educated decision.

Iran-contra was basically a secret executive order with pretty big consequences. Reagan did it as a work around since congress wouldn't go along with it and there was the whole illegal thing. I bet many in here including myself applauded that action.

This is the first president to my knowledge that there has been a concerted effort to oppose his every move no matter ho benign since day 1 to the point of not considering him an American. I wonder why?

Cornwallace bush was opposed from day 1 to an extent also. But that was as much due to the fact he may not have really won the election. No one was accusing him of not being American. But even then he hoodwinked everyone in to supporting a bogus war. At least we know the big O won't be doing that. The GOP would never line up behind him on any issue.

Yeah TW he just chooses to NOT declare war and use drones and illegal arms sales (kinda like IRAN CONTRA!)

Except it wasn't an executive order. Basically it was a law passed by congress....except it wasn't. Basically it was an ice cream truck having a 2 for 1 sale....except it wasn't.




Probably because he's black and America as a whole including all the whites who voted for him are reconsidering the results of the whole "free the slaves" experiment.....or maybe it isn't that at all.

So you're saying Obama is the same quality president as Reagan.

Interesting.

I think you can be guaranteed that both sides are going to disagree with that statement, well done Z. Well done. :)

Victor you're sort of correct, but you strayed a bit. It's not so much that a lay person defined a concept. The ruling is much more precise. It states that in terms of laws with a potential conflict with religious rights it states that in accordance with RRFA laws must use be adopted in the least restrictive way.

The SCOTUS found that contraceptive services could be provided for in a much less restrictive way as agreed by HHS who was charged with writing the regulations. In other words contraception can be provided for as Hobby Lobby and others have done without forcing them to provide a service that HHS said could actually cause an abortion.

At face value one could possibly make that arguement. However, I think its safe to say that abortion is accepted as being in conflict with religious views. Then HHS in their brief against Hobby Lobby stipulated that the 4 methods could cause an abortion.

A whole heartily agree that a huge door was opened. But, that's Obama and the Dem leaderships fault. The used everything upto and including a "nuclear option" to get a controversial law passed. Only a fool would believe anything other than an equal push would be made to undue the ACA.

What's that Newtonian law about equal and opposite reactions?