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 think there is less propoganda and more just plain ignorance. Reading and understanding a SCOTUS case is not easy. Pundits and news people barely read them at all. The only chance to get the "real goods" from the mainstream media is from an in depth review by a SCOTUS specialist (like on PBS).

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.

There is probably some level of truth there. Which is very unfortunate. Unscientific as it is, I based my judgement on the way the "talking heads' have used it as a way argue an agenda.

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.

And I would bet many/most of them have not read the actual Opinion.

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.

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.