Lazy8 wrote: 
Thank you for posting  This .  

I have said all along that there is no right to enter this country unless you are a citizen or as a non citizen, have been granted prior permission that has not been formally revoked. 

This is what sovereignty is all about.

Open borders is the defacto end of sovereignty.  Cannot have it both ways.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Karma takes a long time, and we don't often get the chance to witness it. But I have hope that McConnell or his family will suffer for his hypocrisy. 

 kurtster wrote:

 R_P wrote: 
Hmmm.  Can't tell the difference between keeping out people who have no rights to be here and locking up people who are lawful residents and citizens.  The Japanese Internment, brought to you by the Democratic party that stacked the SCOTUS back in the 30's.  The same party that brought you Jim Crow, Poll Taxes, the KKK and a whole bunch more.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Blame those liberal activist judges!

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Divided we fall....its so sad to me

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
ayup.

 R_P wrote: 




Perhaps those words do not mean what you think they mean:

Civil - courteous and polite

Obedient - complying or willing to comply with orders or requests; submissive to another's will

 Red_Dragon wrote:  

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Just stay civil. Be obedient. That'll fix it.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 

outrage

 aflanigan wrote: 
No, I put it HERE where it really belongs.
 

 aflanigan wrote: 
Yes.

 kurtster wrote: 

FYT. Doesn't this post actually belong HERE?

 kurtster wrote: 
I would agree with this ruling but Justice Kennedy's aside underscores my point.

On the ruling: Hobby Lobby are asshats. Their policies are hypocritical (hardly Christian), and they are fundamentally (hah!) flawed. But they are a private business and as such are free to set their policies within the realm of regulation. I think a better approach for them would just be to not offer health care at all, and if they do to stay the hell out of the patient/doctor stuff, but if they want to be meddling busy bodies then fine. If you don't like that, then don't work there, it's not some big secret.

But to the broader point, the supreme court itself is at a precipice. They are more and more acting as partisan enablers, trying to find anyway to bend the legalese and precedent to fit their pre-defined ruling based on party who appointed. It's become a grudge match to see who can time the appointments and stack the deck the most.  The biggest qualifiers are now length of term and likelihood to bluff their way through the senate. They hold their esteemed position because we respect that office. If they tarnish it too much, then it is likely we will either lose faith in their decisions or simply not value and respect them unless they align with "our(tm)* side's view. That is a real slippery slope we should be looking out for.

 islander wrote: 
So in the spirit of keeping it nice as requested, you disagree with the ruling and especially Justice Kennedy's opinion in particular ?

 kurtster wrote: 
The only thing that would make it worse is if the bureaucracy held lifetime appointments and acted largely along predictable partisan divides...