Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Supreme Court Tells Obama 'No!'

January 20, 2012 by  

Supreme Court Tells Obama 'No!'

Well, what do you know? The Supreme Court not only rebuffed another attack on our Constitution by Barack Obama’s minions, it did so in a unanimous decision.

Here’s what happened in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School v. EEOC. The Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School hired Cheryl Perich as a teacher. Perich had completed religious training and was considered a minister by the school. Perich taught secular subjects and a religion class, led prayers and devotions, and attended chapel with her class.

In 2004, Perich became ill and began the school year on disability leave. Hosanna-Tabor hired someone else to teach her classes. When Perich said she was ready to return to work a month later, the principal in effect said “thanks, but no thanks.” The church tried to persuade her to resign and even offered her some benefits if she’d do so, but she refused and threatened legal action. When the two parties couldn’t reach an agreement, Hosanna-Tabor fired Perich.

Rather than accept the decision, Perich claimed she had been discriminated against and sued for reinstatement and all of the pay she had missed. Rather than cave to her demands, Hosanna-Tabor refused.

That’s when one of the most nefarious agencies of our Big Nanny government got involved. Perich filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying her firing was in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The EEOC filed suit against Hosanna-Tabor, alleging that Perich was fired for threatening legal action.

Had this happened in the regular workplace, I have no doubt what would have happened next. The employer would have caved. In fact, Hosanna-Tabor’s lawyers and insurance company probably would have insisted on reaching a settlement, no matter the cost — in money or in principle.

But Hosanna-Tabor was made of sterner stuff. It contested the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. That’s when the Court surprised many of us by ruling unanimously in favor of Hosanna-Tabor.

In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.

Hooray for the Court! In years past, Justices haven’t always done a very good job of defending the Constitution’s limitation of government. But they got it right this time.

Who knows? Maybe a new day is dawning. We’ll soon find out; in one of the biggest issues to come before it in decades, the Court is expected to rule this term on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. When it does, let’s hope it uses the U.S. Constitution to decide the issue. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

There are other issues I’d like to see the Court rule on, such as the unConstitutional “czars” Obama has appointed. The czars are making and enforcing important national policy without ever facing a Congressional hearing. No “advise and consent” here, no matter what the clear intention of our Founding Fathers was.

I’d also like to see the Court address those “recess” appointments I wrote about last week. There is no question that Obama was openly defiant of the rules, traditions and his own position on the issue when he was a Senator. As William McGurn pointed out in a Wall Street Journal column, “Mr. Obama’s aggressive disregard for any constitutional limit on what he wants to do has come to define his approach across the board.”

Indeed. But even more disgusting are all the liberal hypocrites who lambasted George W. Bush for “shredding” the Constitution when he was President, but pointedly refuse to issue a single word of concern or condemnation when Obama does the very same thing — or worse. Quoting McGurn again:

We now know that the professed concern for the Constitution was fake. We know it was fake because the same Bush claims of executive authority in war that provoked such apoplexy in our pundits, professors and politicos have for the most part been embraced by Mr. Obama—all to the distinct sound of silence.

Happily, those of us who want to restore the Constitution aren’t being silent. There are more of us than ever before; some of us are even in Congress.

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he warned more than 200 years ago:

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

I think many of our opponents can actually hear those chains getting closer sort of like Ebenezer Scrooge when he faced Jacob Marley’s ghost in A Christmas Carol. But be warned: Many creatures are at their most dangerous when they think they’re being cornered.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Supreme Court Tells Obama 'No!'”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Fran Perry

    What does Obama have to do with this junk…The Supreme Court made its ruling..I wish everyone that is republican would get their act together..I know a lady that was on the board of commisioners that turned Democrat..because of all the programs that the republicans were trying to do away with and that includes the program “Planned Parenthood”..just one of them..terrible..so, stop attacking the President who is on a puppet..really keeping both parties from killing one another..and doing very little..really. It is Congress that is the Supreme Ruler of the USA…read my lips..and Obama, is a president that has the respect of the democratic party..and is doing the best anyone could do after Bush messed up things by over-spending…and using up the deficit that was left-over from the Clinton Administration…

    • DumbUp

      Fran what Do you respect Harry and Nancy too ?

    • Vigilant

      “It is Congress that is the Supreme Ruler of the USA…read my lips..and Obama, is a president that has the respect of the democratic party..and is doing the best anyone could do after Bush messed up things by over-spending…and using up the deficit that was left-over from the Clinton Administration…”

      Congress the Supreme Ruler of the USA? Don’t read your lips, read the Constitution!

      “…and using up the deficit that was left-over from the Clinton Administration…” ONLY a democrat could come up with a nonsensical statement like that. How do you use up a deficit?

    • Nadzieja Batki

      We do not have “Congress as Supreme Ruler of the USA”. You do know what country you are living in?

  • CP

    First, I will agree this case has not one thing to do with the Obama administration, regardless how loud some scream it does. Second, the church, rightly, in this case, claimed the lady is an ordained minister primarily because they are the group that ordained her. I am guessing they ordained her because they did not want an unordained person teaching religious classes, but the fact remains that she was ordained. The intention to be able to use the ministerial exception may not have been part of the original plan, but it surely came into play when they decided not to hire her back.

    • Vicki

      CP writes:
      “First, I will agree this case has not one thing to do with the Obama administration, regardless how loud some scream it does.”

      No need to scream. Simple reading will suffice.
      “Leondra R. Kruger, assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, argued the government’s anti-discrimination case. And, to the surprise of many justices, she argued that the First Amendment had limited, if any, application in the case. ”
      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/supremecourtdoctrine.html?start=2

      The assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General is under the United States Department of Justice which is well known to be under the executive branch of our government. That would make it under the current (Obama) administration thus conclusively proving that your statement is correct it has not one thing but MANY things to do with the Obama administration.

  • Tony N

    This may be the most thorough and indepth investigation into the “REAL” life of Barack Hussein Obama, ever conducted.

    You must download this PDF file and read it to conclusion. I’m sure it took many hours to construct and assemble from many sources. I cannot say whether it is all true and correct, but it simply does make sense.

    Please take the time to click on the various links and read them also. most important are: “Terrible Truth” and “Attorney Mario Apuzzo” links.

    Reading and understanding this full report will take some time, but it may answer the many questions we all have, as to….WHO the REAL Barack Hussein Obama IS and WHERE he really came from.

    I would enjoy knowing everyone’s thoughts on this….

    http://www.rense.com/general95/Obama-InvisibleManFinal1.pdf

    • Brad B.

      We don’t need to read some half baked made up story created by a tin foil hat wearing community, but thanks though.

    • DaveH

      As usual the Liberals respond with ridicule and embrace ignorance.
      Ignore them, Tony.

      • Vicki

        Yep. The liberals including the MSM have done noting but demonize and ridicule people who raise questions about Obama’s past. But this will not stop them. WND.com has been covering this situation for years. One of the most resent articles is http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/judge-rejects-obama-demand-to-quash-subpoena/

        Obama must show up with documents for the Judge.

  • Deerinwater

    I fail to see how Obama is directly connected to all of this while you conduct some sort of victory dance.

    But if you do, I guess that all that matters. Whatever blows your dress up.

    My personal feeling is, if you hire yourself out, you server at your employers “pleasure”. If you fail to please, or just can’t not, the contracted agreement is null and void.

    The courts decision is not surprising but I fail to see some political “victory” as only a zealots bias might permit.

    The court system got one right, let us hope it’s not an exception but the rule.

    • kkflash

      Read the article again: “Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.”

      That’s what it has to do with Obama. What it has nothing to do with is George Bush, as your lefty colleagues have tried to spin it.

      • Flashy

        KKF…read the opinion. It does not say the “obama’s Administrations position’.

        but what the heck….it’s not what you were told to think…and gawd forbid you actually have an independent thought…

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “KKF…read the opinion. It does not say the “obama’s Administrations position’.”

        Of course it doesn’t. However the Obama administration is STILL the administration who argued (as stated in the OP) that the First Amendment had limited, if any, application in the case. Since they so argued your continued attempts to hide this fact must be considered to be deliberate intent to mis-inform.

        Btw for people who do want to be informed, the Obama administration presented the argument thru the assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
        http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/supremecourtdoctrine.html?start=2

    • Tom W.

      Then why in the hell are your panties in such a wad for then Deer?!! I’ll tell you why it matters. Because our SCOTUS is sending a pretty plain message to our beloved POTUS that they’re not going to stand idlely by while his majesty and his csars (The Russian word for Ceasar) trample upon one of, if not the most, sacred of our nation’s cherished documents!!!

  • http://www.cacsacgigbags.com Ed Caccavale

    Hey, Boys and Girls…… Haven’t you noticed that everything Mr Ocommie does is for political reasons.
    So, now, in the case in question, the separation of church and state doesn’t suit the the left wing subversives, they cry foul.

    Wake up folks……

    • Alex

      You don’t read well, do you, Mr Cacavile?

    • Vigilant

      Ed, you are 100% correct!

      How ironic that the left, always so bellicose and vengeful when it comes to separation of church and state, suddenly change their tune in this case! Why is that? Because the article is posted on a right wing website?

      My intuition is that, if a left wing site posted an article lauding the decision of the SCOTUS, the lefties here would support it with all their might. What a hoot!

      Their game is clear: to be provocateurs for the sake of it, just because this happens to be a site they don’t like. They are willing to suspend logic, consistency, common sense and intelligence just to argue with Conservatives. They must, in some warped fashion, believe that their activist left wing darlings on the SCOTUS had some terrible brain farts on the day this decision was made.

      And in their convenient cognitive dissonance, they are too stupid to realize that they are arguing against themselves.

      • Flashy

        Actually vig…if you read the comments…the moderates and Progressives are talking about the case and what it may mean….and countering the falsehoods that the current administration had anything of decision making in this case.

        Few on the Right have attempted to do anything but rant about Obama …

      • Vigilant

        Actually, Flashy, I’ve read and continue to read the comments. The difference between you and me is that I read them with comprehension.

        I stand by what I posted.

      • Paula

        You will see what the “right” as you put it, will do in November 2012, It will be a lot louder than ranting and raving.

      • Flashy

        Yeah…you can see that by what is going on in the GOP prmaries. i believe every candidate is complaining of the blatant lies and illegal acts being done.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “and countering the falsehoods that the current administration had anything of decision making in this case. ”

        This is a good example of why flashy has such a low credibility rating on this board. He claims that the (proven by multiple links) assertion that the CURRENT (I.E. Obama) administration was involved in this case is false.
        JUST 1 link beyond the OP quote from Chief Justice Roberts.
        http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
        There it is “Argued October 5, 2011—Decided January 11, 2012″. All during the CURRENT administration.

        Of course Flashy could argue that he did not say that cause what he actually said was “….current administration had anything of decision making in this case. ” which could translate as the current administration is not the Supreme Court nor any of the Judges. Should he have taken that path in defense of his statement we could then argue that he is deliberately trying to confuse the reader since the rest of us have been discussing the argument presented to the Court by the CURRENT (Obama) Administration.

        This, of course would further erode any credibility that flashy might have on these discussions/debates.

    • Paula

      Here is another situation that the separation of church and state does not suit Obama. Ministers are being threatened that if they preach against homosexuality that they could be arrested. Never mind that the bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. Now before you all start calling me names, I believe it is correct to love the sinner and hate the sin.

      • Flashy

        Errr…who is threatening the ministers they could be arrested? I found nothing about that in a quick search. I found several wehre the ministers and organizations themselves are claiming it as a sort of self martyrdom ego boost…but that’s about it.

  • Mike Davidson

    Lets Hope Obamacare is next to GO.

    • Don

      Mike, let’s hope odumbo is next to go !

  • Alex

    You Ron Paulists should REALLY push hard for the old guy to run as a Third Party—-err, Third Rail—Kandidate—the intelligent and hopeful amongst us will sleep easier….

    • DaveH

      Well, Alex, judging from your many previous comments, you certainly don’t fall in the intelligent category.

    • Jim Cumber

      Alex, your rants against Ron Paul tag you as IGNORANT of the US Constitution! You are either an OBAAMAA “Sheeple” or you are drinking the Romney “Lime KOOLAID” or are one of the “Newty” companions of Bohemian Grove. You OBVIOUSLY have never really READ the Constitution, nor the Federalist Papers which were used to EXPLAIN the Constitution to the average “plowboy” on the Colonial Farm of 200+ years ago. But then again, the US “Education” system has DETERIORATED SO BADLY, that your ignorance is AT LEAST understandable, though NOT excusable! “Educational Malpractice” SHOULD BE ranked with Medical malpractice in the Law Books…

      If Ron Paul does NOT become our next POTUS, then God help us ALL! We’ll either become serfs on the Obamanation’s Communist Collective, or there will be a new and bloody American Revolution…take your pick!

  • http://aol.com sean murrey ILLIniois

    Robert get your head out of your rear.

  • DSK

    This case has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama Administration, so why do you pretend it does?

    Telling lies like this is the sure way for you to lose my support.

    • Vigilant

      The chairman, three of four top commissioners and the general counsel of the EEOC are Obama appointees.

      I’m not going to lose any sleep over the loss of your support.

    • DaveH

      The problem is, DSK, that it isn’t a lie. The case was filed to the Supreme Court in 2011.

      • Flashy

        Who appealed the lower court decision dave?

      • DaveH

        You mean the decision that was overturned on March 2, 2010, by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, during the Obama Administration?

      • Flashy

        Yep. you didn’t look DaveH…the appeal from the lower court was filed for argument during the Bush admin when the EEOC was stacked with GOP appointees.

      • DaveH

        You lie, Flashman, as usual:
        http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0065p-06.pdf

        “Perich and the EEOC timely filed notices of appeal on January 30, 2009″.

        You have no credibility, Flashman.

  • http://n/a Scrappy

    Beware the Sound of Silence. Those who embrace Obama’s defiance of the Constitution are those who are the loudest – we, who are silent, hear them. We are not silent because we approve or even misinterpreted as ‘apathy’ – this president and his minions have caused so many issues by trampling on the Constitution and our rights, it’s a case of ‘pick & choose’. I predict the day will come when the Sound of Silence will be a massive roar.

  • Mary

    Remember this is a narrow ruling. It deals with religious freedom. It doesn’t take away all employees’ rights. It also doesn’t address the health care law, which is a big improvement over the previous situation where many went without needed care either because they had no insurance or the insurance company refused to cover them when they got sick.

    • FreedomFighter

      Are you insane? I am very much involved in the health care industry, Obama Care is killing the quality of medical care.

      Unavailable vital drugs replaced with useless substitutes
      Food rules causeing no choice or little choice in diet.
      Shortages of needed supplies

      New procedures that eat away time from medical peronel that should be spent on patients, oh god the new paperwork is insane.

      Obama Care is FORCING many doctors out of business, into early retirement, or leaving the country for there place of birth to practice medicine “the way they want”

      Many of the elderly that had lived thru WWII recognize the changes as those that happened in NAZI Germany just b4 the war, where they killed the infirm, and have literally begged the doctors that when the time comes — PLEASE MAKE IT QUICK

      FOOK Obama Care it is EVIL

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • Alex

        Fook you, too, then, FightFreedom—I thought Bob Livingston said we weren’t supposed to say bad things….Don’t say bad things….

      • Alex

        —-that last bit is a “Buffalo ’66″ reference. Just had to do it…

      • FreedomFighter

        When I see grown men that have served our country begging doctors TO MAKE IT QUICK when the time comes, see them deprived of meds that would prolong life,

        See quality food removed from availability.

        See doctors quiting in disgust

        See nurses ground down with needless paperwork and regulation

        Elderly frightened that NAZI style death awaits them from Obama Care…

        I GET insensed, if the worst thing I do is a bad word, feel it a blessing.

        Praise God, Allways Loyal

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • DaveH

        From Bob’s comment policy “Please don’t stoop to name calling”.
        From Alex’s 7:57 am comment today — “Everything is Obama’s Fault with the Reich Wingers”.

      • Robert Smith

        Show me where the right wingers blame anyone else.

        Rob

      • DaveH

        Sorry, but that comment made no sense to me.

      • DumbUp

        Semper Fi must mean “STUPID”

      • Alex

        When my train would go through Oceanside, I always thought that “Semper Fi” was some weird Gay pick-up line, what with all the little Pendleton jarheads trying to look the same in their matching outfits, cooing “Semper Fi” like a gaggle of giggling girls at a tea party.

      • DaveH

        I should have figured that you were from California. Me too, but I broke free from the Left Coast.

      • libertytrain

        Well Alex, you never appear to be all that swift.

      • mike1127

        Really? You are going to sit at your keyboard and make fun of the very people that risked their lives to let you spout that kind of drivel? Show some respect for your betters. At least they were willing to fight to protect the freedoms enjoyed by whiners like you. That is the most disgusting comment I’ve read in quite some time. If you want to run your mouth about the Marines, do a term first. You have no respect for this country’s service-men and women at all. Remember: without those people calling cadence while running, you would have the freedom to starve to death or be randomly killed by some tin-pot dictator. How dare you say such a thing about our Marines! I’m not one for personal attacks; but you, Alex, can go straight to hell. These people risk all for the likes of you, and this is the thanks you show them? Sick.

      • Flashy

        “Show some respect for your betters.” <—Mike:

        Ummm, they work for us remember? They are not anyone's "betters" … we pay then to take a bullet for us if need be. in return, they receive very expensive toys to play with and lifetime benefits.

      • Alex Frazier

        Why don’t you go tell a group of Marines that. Did you get beat up a lot when you were in grade school? There is something decidedly wrong with you.

      • Flashy

        I have said this in front of and to military folks. They agreed with me. We were also discussing the draft and my position is we should reinstate it. Such gives us a true representative military and rebvents it from becoming a “professional’ force…which soon takes the view it is better than the civilian employers, doesn’t have to listen to civilians, and can do a better job than a civilian govenment.. which soon leads to a situation where a coup d’etat is possible.

        The moment we let the military forget it is not the employee of civilians, that is the point of crossing the ine into very very rosky ground.

        We employ them to take a bullet for us. In return, we give them lifetime benefits. They are not out “betters”. We are their “betters”.

        you have the mindset they are “better’? i suggest you move to someplace where it is viwed as such. there are several military dictatorships in the world you can move to.

      • http://aol Highlander6

        No DUMBUP means STUPID. You obviously have no idea what Americanism is all about, or the true meaning of Freedom, or the price one must pay for it.

      • Flashy

        Interesting it has those effects since it has yet to go into force…

      • Vicki

        That is because normal people can see what will happen and take measures to protect themselves. Unlike politicians who never seem to comprehend the “unintended” consequences of their votes.

      • Sirian

        FF,
        Are you laughing as hard as I am at the “mentally superior” idiots respones? LOL!!! Typical liberal idiots on display for all to see – such clowns. . . :)

      • FreedomFighter

        Makes me cry, such inhumanity.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

  • Alex

    On a truly Spiritually-uplifting note: President Barack Hussein Obama said NO, at least for now, to the ridiculous Keystone Pipeline and the Energy Pigs!!!!

    • Flashy

      The recent legisation passed by Congress gave a ridiculous short 60 day window to study alternatives and impact. He had no choice but to say no to Keystone. in fct, it can now be applied for again and the proper studies conducted.

      • Johnny

        or delay it till after the elections LOL

      • Vigilant

        Wrong again, Flashy. How about a little honesty for a change and admit that the impact study has been under process with the State Dept. FOR THREE YEARS.

      • Flashy

        And was waiting for further comments and clarification from the permit appicants…waiting for almost a year. that and there was strong grass roots opposition. That and the aquifer dangers had yet to be reported on.

        let me ask you this…the pipleine was built. And then burst…maybe via an act of terrorism. The entire aquifer which six (?) states rely on for almost all water is polluted.

        You gonna then say “oops”, sorry.

        And why not build a refinery in the north? Why does it have to go to the Gulf where it can be shipped out (oh wait…it’s for us and our energy needs is the story so it must be true because that’s what we are told to believe)

        Sometimes I wonder about you Vig…other times there is no doubt.

        THINK for crying out loud.

      • Vigilant

        “And was waiting for further comments and clarification from the permit appicants…”

        If you are so purposefully dumb as to not recognize the stalling tactics of EPA and other environmental agencies, you might some day yourself be considered a THINKER. But that’s unlikely.

        I’ll bet you’re a global warming zealot as well, huh?

      • greg

        Ignorance is bliss from the ubber left today or minimally ommision of pertinent details.
        The area in Nebraska in question is already crisscrossed with hydrocarbon carrying pipelines–has been for years. This pipeline did not create a new type of hazard or any hazard that had not already been addressed numerous times with the other existing pipelines.
        Only a fool, ignorant of the excessive EPA overreach would even suggest building a new refinery ‘up north’ or anywhere else within the U.S. Regulation & cost to comply with said regulations is prohibitive.
        flashy, thinking is not your strong suit but you are very good at parroting leftist talking points. Good day.

      • Herbert

        Are you just stupid or a real imbecile

      • DaveH

        Flashman says “The recent legisation passed by Congress gave a ridiculous short 60 day window”. First of all since Flashman’s credibility is close to naught, I am going to have to assume for argument’s sake that he’s correct this time.
        So, Flashman, then you objected to Nancy Pelosi’s statement (about the Health Care Bill) that “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”?

      • Flashy

        I assume i am to take Pelosi’s entire statement in context, and not out of context as that chopped up hyperbole is?

      • DaveH

        Oh?
        And what context was that, Flashman? You probably have several to match your multiple personalities:
        http://www.personalliberty.com/asset-and-wealth-protection/preserving-wealth/what-now/#comment-439910

      • Alex Frazier

        If I were an entrepreneur, there’s no way in hell that I would build anything up north where all the unions would drive up my cost of production with excessive wages. That’s why they need to pipe it to Texas. Americans don’t want $5 a gallon gasoline. And you can be sure that if the gas obtained domestically was $5 a gallon, it would only be a matter of time before someone approached congress and cried that foreign oil was putting people out of work, so a tariff was needed on imported oil.

        Screw the north, and screw their unions.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “I assume i am to take Pelosi’s entire statement in context, and not out of context as that chopped up hyperbole is?”

        Let us watch together Pelosi’s statement and see from her expression what she might have meant.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

        There is her entire sentence. Including the comment about the “fog of”

        Draw your own conclusions. I don’t see a need for it but if flashy does, he can provide a longer segment of her speech for us to enjoy/suffer thru.

      • Herbert

        they have studied this thing from one end to the other for some time now.and every time the can gets kicked down the road.so they put a 60day on it and Obama killed it but in 60days it comes up again.it will take a few years for it to be in operation.the jobs it will make are need now.so Obama needs to stop playing around and get this thing going now.if he is the great wizard he clames to be.why do we have 15% unempolyment.he and he alone has done more harm to the country than any other pres.

    • DumbUp

      Idiot -

    • http://www.motorcarsfinancial.com Brad

      Alex Go F*%# yourself

      • Flashy

        you’d best hope he doesn’t live in the Sotuh…that may be a crime and you may be arrested for encouraging and abetting a criminal act…

      • libertytrain

        Flashman – what State is Sotuh in? I’d never learned about that city. I sure as heck didn’t find it in any of the books you’ve said to have read. No Shakespeare, not even Twain…

      • Flashy

        Pardon…one of my few faults is I make many typo’s. South…

      • libertytrain

        Gosh, there is a place in Africa named Sotuh so I really couldn’t figure out where you were going with that one….. :)

      • Tom W.

        Or Suadi Arabia where they would behead him in the public square! That’s what really upset me about Rosie O’Donnell siding with the Muslims and slamming the Christians. Doesn’t she understand that over in their countries they would bury her up to her triple chin and stone her to death?!! That’d be a lot of digging! Although I do have to admit she does one of the best “The Donald” impersonations that I’ve ever seen!!! Absolutely hilarious!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZui6qeN1ZQ

      • Karolyn

        BRILLIANT! A testimony to your intelligence!

    • mike1127

      Yeah…we have all the jobs, oil, and money we need now without those billions thrown in there, huh?

    • Jim Cumber

      ….And thus kept the USA “chained” to the outrageous oil prices charged by the Muslim World for its energy needs! I seem to recall a quote from an Arab Sheik way back in 1972: “You in the West will be dependent on US for your energy needs for at least the next 30 years, unless you find vast new oil reserves, and our friends, the environmentalists, will PREVENT THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE FINANCING THEM!”

      Now we have a “stealth Muslim, pseudo-POTUS” and self-admitted Communist, who should be IMPEACHED FOR TREASON: “…GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY!” Article III, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution!

    • Doug

      Alex I you sitting in your own pile with the rest of your OWS minions? Now you know why they made food out of people in the movie Sovent green thats about all you are worth but then again you would not meet any dailr requirments! Why don’t you go to North Korea and protest there I hear they love it!

      • Flashy

        typical ruight rant. “We’re screwing this place up and if you don’t like it leave”. Ummmm…if you don’t like people stopping you from bringing us to ruin…why dont you leave instead of insisting they do?

    • DaveH

      TransCanada’s stance on the pipeline denial:
      http://www.transcanada.com/5928.html

  • Flashy

    i would suggest reading the opinion before y’all start blasting the administration attempting ‘to control” religious organziations. The EEOC did not attempt anything but uphold the THEN current law..i.e. this case began back in 2003-2004. So I would advise that if y’all are going to bash an administration for trying to control religious doctrine…it was the Bush/Cheney regime that is the culprit.

    A small fact not mentioned in the right/conservative spin on the decision.

    The SCOTUS made a few distinctions of note in its decision. because the mployee did, in fact, teach a religious class along with other non secular classes, and because the employee was an ordained minister, the court gave its blessing to a church using the “ministerial exception’ as a defense.

    The opinion said that the “ministerial exception” was not “a jurisdictional bar” to all such lawsuits claiming discrimination or harm. It is “a defense on the merits.” Thus, such lawsuits can be filed, and the worker who is suing will make a claim that he or she is the victim of discrimination. At that point the church gets to answer that the case cannot go further because it considers the employee to be a “minister.”

    left unanswered is what consitutes the definition of a “minister” and whether this applies to an organizational policy or if it extends down to a parish by parish determination…i.e. one that claims its decisions in spite of overall demonination doctrine.

    The fact is, the EEOC had no choice but to bring the cfase as the termination was not because the teacher practiced against church doctrine, but because she brought an action which the church stated ‘went against our doctrine of resolving all complaints internally” and tied it to the claim they could, in fact, discriminate because she was an ordained minister.

    So before y’all go off on a knee jerk reaction…read the opinion then ask yourself, is this a good opinion? Say a church which admits gays takes the stance no heterosexual can hold a position in the local congregation? Can the local congregation then claim it was under this ‘ministerial exception’ and thus openly discriminate? or does it have to be in violation of the entire demonination doctrine?

    • Vigilant

      HFlashman, I repeat: the SCOTUS decision was UNANIMOUS. Inserting your left wing talking points is irrelevant. Even Bader-Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayer agreed with it.

      So what’s your point?

      • Flashy

        point being..ya’ll are saying it was an Obama decision to take it to the courts. It was not. i’m not saying i agree or disagre with the SCOTUS decision. i only read the opinion once.

        But to say this was an Obama initiated case is nothing less than a lie.

      • DaveH

        The case was filed to the Supreme Court during the Obama administration. As usual, Flashman, you’re shooting from the hip and missing.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        I don’t recall anyone saying this was an Obama-initiated case, Flashy. What people have claimed is that Obama is RESPONSIBLE for the federal Justice Department’s arguments before the Supreme Court when that court heard the case during Obama’s administration. That, undoubtedly, is a fact. For all your claims of right-wing spin, you’re the one spinning here.

      • Flashy

        Who appealed the ruling from the 6th Circuit?

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Explain why that is relevant in any way.

      • Flashy

        Jazz..because if not appealed, the 6th Court decision would have been binding. The church appealed. The enforcement action was legal in the eyes of the courts, enforcement agencies, police, etc unless and until the SCOTUS said differently.

        The SCOTUS said there was an “ministerial exception” affirmative defense to job discrimination claims which had not yet been recognized by the court system.

        Had the EEOC and petitioner not argued the case, then they would have been recognizing an affirmative defense which had not yet been decided was present.

      • DaveH

        Who appealed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan when they ruled in favor of Hosanna-Tabor, Flashman?
        Only the Liberal Zealots give you any credibility.

  • Alex Frazier

    I for one would like the Supreme Court to hear a firearm carry dispute. Let’s get a ruling once and for all that the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed, just like the Constitution says.

    • Alex

      Only if John Roberts and Anthony Scalia pass away first!

      I have said before that I cheer the death of no one, and would NEVER pray to God to strike anyone dead (like She would listen to ME!!!), but for God’s Mercy I do pray, and God or the Gods might smite those horrible men that we might save ourselves from each other—-God knows we are the ONLY nation on Earth that has THIS bad a problem with angry men and women and their 9MM phallic symbols.

      By the way—what’s with the silence from all of you “activist” court whiners on the subject of Citizens United? Positively THE most activist thing EVER dreamed of by the Supremes. All the Floundering Fathers, the slave owners bent on Genocide must be trying to claw their way from Hell to have the Roberts uber-Activists rethink THAT one!!

      • Flashy

        but…but .. corporations are people too !

      • DaveH

        Dang. And all this time I have been thinking they were manned by robots.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        “but…but .. corporations are people too !”

        No, Flashy. Corporations are PERSONS. There’s a difference.

        All of us on this message board, for example, are NOT persons. We’re people. Go educate yourself.

      • Flashy

        Talk to Mitt..he said it, not me

      • Flashy

        BTW…a corporation is a legal fiction … try running that one thorugh your mind.

      • DaveH

        You have a mind, Flashman? You could have fooled me. I think your ears are bookends to a vacuum.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Flashy: “he said it, not me.”

        Actually, Flashy, you did say it. Just now. Don’t whine when I call you out on your mistakes.

        Flashy: “BTW…a corporation is a legal fiction … try running that one thorugh your mind.”

        Duh. That’s why corporations are PERSONS, not PEOPLE.

        You know not whereof you speak….

      • aubreyfarmer

        Your whole attitude borders on fascism. Just because you don’t like something you think you should have the right to determine whether or not others should retain those rights. This nation “a more perfect Union” is a Republic. In a Republic, sheep like you can’t get together and take away the rights of the individual. You may not like it, but those that had the wisdom to guarantee individual rights in out Constitution were well aware of the threat to liberty freaks like you pose. Where do people like you develop the idea that freedom is only acceptable if that expression of freedom is something you agree with? Either you are the product of liberal indoctrination or have never been exposed to the idea of certain “inalienable rights.” Those rights do not depend on people like you and your acceptance of the existence of those rights. Thank God.

      • DumbUp

        Rather than impose their views in an unwelcome manner, let them hit the road to a place where they will feel better and enjoy their life in a way they select. Maybe the road out of the U.S. needs to have a shovel ready project in place to assist them on their trip outta here -

      • Flashy

        Interesting the usual response is for someone else to move. it’s not like anyone is holding you back DumbUp. Y’all gave us Reagan Bush and Bush. The eras which most of the damages we now suffer from arose.

        perhaops you can’t move because there is no place which will let you screw it up as bad as you have here?

      • Alex Frazier

        aubreyfarmer, your post appears to be a response to me. If it is, I think you need to reread my post. I want the Supreme Court to hear a firearm carry dispute so that we can finally exercise our rights without states like Illinois trying to infringe on them. It seems in states like that that it takes a Supreme Court ruling to enforce the Constitution before the Constitution is enforced.

        If you were addressing someone else, you might want to clarify to whom you were speaking.

      • Alex Frazier

        Nevermind. My mistake. The squares around the posts get confusing sometimes.

      • DaveH

        They can be, but I think the format of this blog is the best I’ve seen so far. Kudos to Bob Livingston and staff.

      • Jim Cumber

        “9mm phallic symbols?” 9mm is rather “wimpy” and not much good beyond about 30 meters. There are larger “phallic symbols” (as you call them), and I am noticing the “expansion” of them, to .45 ACP, 10mm Auto, .44 Magnum (no longer “the biggest handgun in the world, and will blow your head clean off!”), .50 Action Express (think: .45 ACP on Steroids), and the “Grandaddy” of them all (at least as far as pistols are concerned; think .45 Long Colt on Steroids), the .500 Smith & Wesson! I am noticing the citizens purchasing ever larger caliber weapons. The US Citizens are “gearing up” because, as they are admitting, “They do NOT trust their Government, and still remember their Declaration of Independence!” Note to POTUS: REMEMBER YOUR HISTORY, The FIRST AMERICAN REVOLUTION started when Great Britain tried to seize the Colonial Arsenal at Concord – In other words, IT WAS STARTED OVER GUN CONTROL! OVER 3 MILLION GUNS WERE PURCHASED BY AMERICAN CITIZENS DURING THIS LAST CHRISTMAS SEASON! I think the American citizenry just “put a shot over your bow!”

      • Doug

        Oh come now its okay for unions to steal from their workers and give billions to the Demorats thats okay but have a corporation try to protect itself inside our corrupt federal government and thats the straw that broke the camels back. Gee would be because some of them don’t want to make their offerings to the Demorat gods??????????

      • Alex Frazier

        God, as recognized in Judaeo/christian and Muslim faiths, is referred to in the masculine in every known text. God is not a she. God is a he. If you’re a Wiccan and hold to the idea that the moon is a goddess, then at least be specific and refer to her as goddess, not God. Otherwise referring to God as a she is just plain ignorant liberal garbage. If you don’t like the religion as written, pick a different one to practice.

        You are also stepping way out of bounds with your 9MM phallic symbol comment. I’m not an angry man, and guns are not the symbol of anything for me. Guns are a necessary evil to prevent the government from oppressing the people. There isn’t a government in the history of the world that hasn’t oppressed its people, disarmed them, and then dominated them. The same holds true of the Roman Catholic Church as it does of the Nazi Party. No nation of civilians can be tyrannized so long as they are armed.

        That’s why we have the right to keep and bear arms, because, as the Constitution itself explains, a militia is necessary to preserve a free state. The government shall not, therefore, infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

        And if you don’t like the Founding Fathers, whose wisdom made it possible for you to even be so crass and belligerent without going to prison, then move to China where you don’t have the freedom the Founding Fathers’ intelligence gave you. You’re the same kind of puke that would burn an American flag.

        You’re the worst kind of American. The kind that has no patriotism and takes their freedom for granted. You’re a disgrace to this country.

      • DaveH

        Alex is either extremely ignorant or a Progressive Operative. We’ve given him every opportunity to educate himself, but he prefers to remain an ignorant zealot.

    • Johnny

      I would take it a step further. All police agencies are in collusion with big government to take away gun ownership from everyone. If you want proof, take a look at the domestic violence charges being handed out like Christmas candy to everyone involved in an argument whether its a violent or otherwise. My own son was charged with domestic violece when he and his wife got into a food fight, The neighbors called the cops because they were loud. The bottom line is his right to gun ownership was taken away becuase he was charged (Not convicted) of domestic violence. This has to be curtailed. Police powers must be rolled back. We are already in danger of becoming a police state in every state.

      • Alex

        The cops did the right thing. Probably wasn’t the first time they were called out to the trailer.

      • Flashy

        Likely a Red state as well.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Assumptions, assumptions, Alex and Flashy. Aren’t you the hypocrites who constantly whine about other people making assumptions?

      • Flashy

        to quote DaveH…prove us wrong. i’m sure Dave would if Mises had a link about it…

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        When you make a claim, it’s YOUR job to substantiate it.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “to quote DaveH…prove us wrong. i’m sure Dave would if Mises had a link about it…”

        When DaveH has made such a statement to you he had already proven his case. You claimed he was wrong but offered no proof.

        Proving you wrong is very easy since you do not tend to offer any evidence for any of your assertions. So make an assertion ( not an opinion ) and lets see what we can do for you. :) Be prepared to show evidence.

      • DaveH

        Don’t hold your breath while waiting for that event, Vicki.

      • Vicki

        Good plan DaveH :)

      • Doug

        Yes the poor living in trailer parks are the ones voting for conservatives really you two should see about joining up for Darwin awards hope you all become winnners!

      • Alex Frazier

        I can’t wait until they “do the right thing” to you. Maybe if you get violated a few times you might understand what the Constitution is really all about.

  • ddd

    While I agree that Pres Obama’s administration has been shredding the constitution, this case was filed during the Bush Presidency.
    Let’s get it right when we assign blame. Our elected (and unelected) officials want to tell us how to eat, breath and live. It is time to remove them al and start over.

    • Vicki

      The case was filed in the Supreme Court during and arguments provided by the Obama administration. Note that Obama has been in charge of the current administration for almost 3 years now.

      In case you want to read the actual case.
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

  • Alex

    While I agree with previous court decisions that have ruled that churches and church-affiliated schools may discriminate in order to keep their teachers on point with the church’s religious dogma, it is not clear from your story that in this case the teacher had ‘seen the light’ and was now dismissing said dogma—it sounds more like an employee returning from a disability.

    That begs the question: Was the teacher advised that she would not be welcomed back? Did the teacher inform the school that she wished for extended or permanent leave and subsequently change her mind?

    A religious school clearly deserves the right to see that those in its employ who are tasked with teaching and or curriculum planning do so in accordance with the particular religious dogma, but it should not be able to circumvent normal (and very hard won) worker’s rights.

    The argument put forth by the Obama Administration in this case, according to the article, as a First Amendment question is wrong.

    The church leader in the case, though, seems like one of the many Mock-Christians so vocal in our society.

    • Vigilant

      The Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s analysis (that she was not a minister) and concluded that Perich was a minister.

      “Thus, the case proved to be solely about clergy (ordained or not), and the issue was whether Hosanna-Tabor was bound by federal antidiscrimination law with respect to its clergy—including Perich, as she was a “called” teacher. The Court held that a religious organization has a First Amendment-based affirmative defense to discrimination claims by clergy. And, the Court made clear that it meant not only disability discrimination claims, but other discrimination claims as well.”

      http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/12/in-hosanna-tabor-the-supreme-court-embraces

      • Flashy

        And they left undecided what constitues a ‘minister’…

      • Vigilant

        Yeah, that’s really relevant here Flashy. Stick with the subject, Mr. Alinsky.

      • Flashy

        vigh…it is relevant. that’s the next decision out of this issue …. in this case, she was clearly an ordained minister. What if she had not been? Say… a janitor who ‘saw the Light’ and became muslim?

        The Court specifically stated it was not deciding what level or type of employee is covered under this exception defense.

        Try this…a janitor converts to Islam. Can he be fired from the church employment and the church exempt from job discrimination claims? Careful now…read the case first…

      • Vigilant

        “Try this…a janitor converts to Islam. Can he be fired from the church employment and the church exempt from job discrimination claims? Careful now…read the case first…”

        What the Hell is your point? The title of the link I provided was “In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court Embraces a Narrow Ministerial Exception to Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws.”

        Do you comprehend what that says? “…a Narrow Ministerial Exception to Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws.” Of course the janitor would have recourse unless he was remiss in his duties!

        Your amateurish, immature attempt to change the subject, and the condescending manner in which you do that, show you to be a fool.

      • Flashy

        Vig…I am not being amateurish. The Court specifically stated it lft undecided exactly what consitutues a ‘minister’. Itn also said the ruling does not apply to merely “ministers” but to church leadership of doctrine.

        That’s the next important phase of this issue should it arise. how far can a church congregation go in discrimination citing this exception? The Court stated specfifically this is an affirmative defense. So the church says “yes, we discriminated, but we can because of this exception”. What is the breadth of the exception?

        it’s a good question.

    • DaveH

      What about her replacement workers rights, Alex? What about the right of the Congregation to spend their own money in the way they determine it should be spent?
      If Cheryl was a valuable employee, she should have no trouble finding another job. This case, like most others, has resulted in the plaintiff losing money and the defendant losing money, but the lawyers and the Government come away financially fatter and happier. We need to wake up. The PTBs are playing us for fools.
      Read this free online book for some reality:
      http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf

  • CLIFF SECKINGER

    WHAT DID THIS HAVE TO DO WITH OBAMA?

    • Flashy

      Nothing to do about Obama. the case began in 2003-2004. It was the Bush/Cheney administration. But that won’t stop the lies and spin about it.

      • Alex

        Everything is Obama’s Fault with the Reich Wingers—the Italian Cruise Disaster, erectile dysfunction, lumpy Cream of Wheat…

      • Flashy

        Don’t forget the morning traffic jam and the family dog running away…

      • Alex

        …the Black Dahlia Murder, Thomas Kinkaid paintings, the mumps…

      • Flashy

        Danielle Steele novels, Pokemon: The Movie, poison ivy …

      • Tom W.

        Joe Biden’s visable hair plugs, Nancy Pelosi’s sagging boobs, Barney Frank’s spittle problem, and Debbi Wasserman Shutz’s matty hair!

      • Vicki

        Neither the OP nor Chief Justice Roberts blamed Obama. They both pointed to his administration. Of course they did notice that it is Obama’s administration that wrote the argument presented to the court.

      • Flashy

        Who wrote the argument for the decison in the 6th Circuit Vicki?

      • DaveH

        Who appealed the decision in favor of Hosanna-Tabor by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Flashman?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Who wrote the argument for the decison in the 6th Circuit Vicki?”

        In case you are new to this time-line, Flashy, we are discussing an event that occurred in the latter part of 2011 and early part of 2012 in which the current administration wrote an argument and presented said argument to the Supreme Court. In THIS time-line Obama was the leader/head of that administration and had been for 2+ years.

      • DumbUp

        Do you live in Washington D.C. ?

      • DaveH

        Alex is typical of those radicals who want to make our every choice.

      • Don

        If your asking flashy where he lives, he’ll probably say san fran queertico

      • Tom W.

        Yeah he’s one of those old guy’s that has to carry a towel around with him everywhere he goes!

    • mike1127

      As per my earlier post: Obama could have had the EEOC drop the case, but chose not to. I do not care what kind of things you blame on Bush. Obama has been in office long enough now that they are all Obama’s problems. If Obama let it continue on his watch, then that means he owns it, regardless of who started it.

  • burner123

    This is almost an historic ruling. The COURT made a good decision in upholding the Constitution. The Obama administration is responsible for the actions of the justice department. Some need to learn a little about how government is supposed to function. Thank you so kindly.

    • Flashy

      Perhaps learning about the govenrment and courts shoud begin with your own education…

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        What, exactly, do you find lacking in burner123′s education, Flashy? Did he state something that isn’t factually correct? Why don’t you point out exactly what, and then provide sources to validate your claims?

      • Flashy

        Who appealed the case from the 6th Circuit?

        ’nuff said …

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        What does that have to do with burner123?

      • Vicki

        Nothing really. It is just a fact that resulted in the Supreme Court having the opportunity to slap down the current administration.

      • DaveH

        Who appealed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Flashman?

  • skyraider 6

    why not eliminate lifetime appointments and chose better candidates for offices.

    • Jim

      If you actually read in Article 3, appointments to the Judiciary are NOT for a term of life…It’s specified as a term of GOOD BEHAVIOR. That may include “for life,” but should the Judge display “bad behavior” on the Bench, then they are just as “subject for removal” as any other government Officer under Oath of Office.

      • Jim Cumber

        “Removal” as in “IMPEACHMENT”…Which applies to the Judiciary as much as it does to ANY office holder! A VERY “underutilized” portion of our Constitution…

        It has been so “underutilized” for so long that we have, essentially, an ILLEGITIMATE Congress Executive Branch, and MOST of the Judiciary, virtually ALL of whom, EXCEPT Congressman Ron Paul, have VIOLATED THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, and, as such, are technically liable for IMPEACHMENT!…

  • Donald

    The Gov did right! Under its Constitutional obligations, it acted in the behalf of an US citizen against an US Employer. The Supreme Court, Left and Right, IS WRONG. They broke the separation of State and Churh and REASONED THE DECISION ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS! Dangerous!

    • SMsgt Z(ret) Nam 68

      Good post and on the money

      • Flashy

        i agree. And it opened a whole can of worms which will inevitably and without doubt come back and bite the church doctrine exception. the first time a gay or pro abortion minister fires a hetero or pro life employee and claims this exception…the question will then be how loud these same folks will scream against it.

      • Vigilant

        Interesting how you lefties disagree with your own heroes: the activist left wing judges on the SCOTUS. Read the article again: the decision was UNANIMOUS.

      • Flashy

        Citizen’s United anyone?

      • Karolyn

        that will make you realize that we are not total followers of any specific ideology or political bent like most righties.

      • John

        I always lol at people like you, they scream activist judges whenever they rule on something that does not agree with your particular agenda but if the same judge would have ruled in your favor you would be full of praise. Remember, there are NO activist judges…because simply said, the constitution protects anyone even if you not agree with it.

      • Vigilant

        Wake up Johnny, and change your assertion to “they scream activist judges whenever they rule on something that does not comply with the Constitution.”

        There, now it’s a correct statement.

      • DaveH

        You’re kidding, right Karolyn?

    • Vigilant

      Donald, you got it backwards. The attempt of the government to insert itself into religious affairs was the violation of the First Amendment.

      When BOTH the left and right SCOTUS justices agree on something, you can be pretty sure it’s a clear cut case decision.

      • Vigilant

        …and we can all be glad that people like you and SMsgt Z(ret) Nam 68 are not on the Supreme Court.

    • Rcaston

      And once again we have to remind people that THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION…..PERIOD. I defy anyone to find it and post it here. The Supremes got this one wrong. The supposed “wall of separation” exists in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. They were discussing the right for each state to do it’s own thing regarding religion since the colonies (turned states) were formed by different religious sects. The ONLY wall is that the federal government has no right to form an official religion for the nation BUT the states could do exactly that for their state if they wished since each state was predominately of the same religious beliefs. Learn history people. Don’t buy the tripe being taught as history in public schools. Visit wallbuilders.com for more on this subject.

      • dave

        It is you SIR!!! that needs to brush up on his history. The gvt CANNOT tell a church how to run their operation or how or what/whom to worship . Give that constitution another good read.

    • Jim

      Where in the Constitution does it mention a “seperation” of Church & State? Nowhere! The 1st Amendment upholds Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM religion. In this case, the SCOTUS was right in NOT establishing nor disparaging any religion.

      Now if we could just get the Obama administration from openly persecuting Christianity in favor of Islam, we’ll be on the right track.

      • Vigilant

        Jim, you are correct. Rcaston believes he/she is smarter than all nine SCOTUS judges.

      • mike1127

        I truly wish that it had said freedom from religion. We would all be a lot better off. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, if not outright atheists. The most famous ones considered christianity a sick joke more than a religion. Religion has no place in politics at all. Period.

      • Doug

        Next you are going to tell me they were all Masons also. Please provide proof of what you say, no wonder this country is going down the tubes so fast!

      • Forrest Gump

        Okay Jim,
        The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution, but that doesn’t mean the concept is not intended by what is said. It certainly is intended by the words “congress shall not establish any religion” the word establish connotes any type of aid in the founding or organization of said religion or any of its institutions, doesn’t it? At any rate, freedom of religion was one of the founding principals of our country and even before we were a country it was why many people traveled from Europe to found the colonies. Although the word “separation” is not in the constitution in any way reflecting on the government’s behavior toward religion, if they had put it in there I’m almost sure they would have spelled it correctly.

    • DaveH

      Good Grief. Have any of you lefties even read the Constitution? The EEOC is an Unconstitutional Agency. The Federal Government has NO business in the Employment Practices of Companies:
      http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/constitution_en.html

      • DaveH

        For Freedom Lovers, not Big Government zealots:
        The Supreme Court is a Branch of the Federal Government. They were never given the Power in the Constitution to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality. And for good reason — the word Federal in their name. Obviously they would tend to support their own Gang. But they took that Power, and the blindered sheeple bought into the Propaganda which was generated to allow Federal Government to grow beyond all Constitutional bounds.
        Learn your Constitution. It was a contract between the states to establish a LIMITED Central Government which had only those Powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Federal Government has since trampled those restraints:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dwrAFXEEN8

      • Flashy

        OK…who decides disputes based upon rights, freedoms, liberties and powers as provided for in the Constitution?

        errr…. a gun?

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        The people, Flashy … the people. A just and wise State and its officers will interpose themselves between the people and an overreaching federal government, but if your State isn’t just and wise, then the people have to do it themselves.

        And no, guns aren’t the only solution. They are the ultimate solution, one that our Founders explicitly approved of and protected in the Constitution, but guns are by no means the first line of defense (or even offense) against unconstitutional actions by the federal government. You might want to start by educating yourself on the writ (or action, as it’s now called) of quo warranto (teamlawforum.net is a good resource). This is a very powerful tool for the people (or any individual citizen) to use against a government gone mad. And it doesn’t even involve guns. Sheesh, you liberals can be so narrowly gun-focused at times.

      • DaveH

        That’s a non sequitur, Flashman, as usual from you.

      • Flashy

        Hmmmm…so in this case, we have some people saying the church was wrong, some people saying it was right. now…if the SCOTUS doesn’t decide…how does one decide? or take any famous case out there. international Shoe for instance. To settle that, you’d support the two states going to war against one anther to decide which was correct?

        YOU GUYS ARE SO UNTHINKING !

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Flashy wrote: “Hmmmm…so in this case, we have some people saying the church was wrong, some people saying it was right. now…if the SCOTUS doesn’t decide…how does one decide? or take any famous case out there. international Shoe for instance. To settle that, you’d support the two states going to war against one anther to decide which was correct?
        YOU GUYS ARE SO UNTHINKING !”

        You’re the one who’s not thinking, Flashy. I just answered your question, complete with references for your further research, and you clearly didn’t bother to read them and educate yourself. You’re still stuck on war and guns. Why, Flashy? Why are you so stuck on guns as the only way to solve your problems? Is it because you’re so used to insisting that the government use its guns to enforce your will on other people that you can’t seem to imagine any other way of getting what you want, other than using guns?

      • DaveH

        Flashman,
        Do you really think anybody, except possibly ignorant Liberals, buys into your fallacious comments?
        You just like to annoy people, don’t you?
        You have firmly wrested the Troll badge from Eddie.

        And that is what you can expect, people, if you let these sick Progressives get any more power.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        DaveH,

        How do you know he ISN’T eddie?

      • Flashy

        tell you what…go and put forth a “writ (or action, as it’s now called) of quo warranto “. It will have to be answered. And it will be a short hearing in court and the case will proceed. if you’re lucky, the court won’t assess court costs and atty fees for filing a frivilous motion. if you’re lucky …

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      Donald wrote: “The Supreme Court, Left and Right, IS WRONG. They broke the separation of State and Churh [sic] and REASONED THE DECISION ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS! Dangerous!”

      Actually, they did NOT reason the decision on religious grounds. They reasoned the decision on FREEDOM grounds. The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution and doesn’t apply to Constitutional questions. The First Amendment, however (which IS part of the Constitution) guarantees the free exercise of religion. That is where the precedent comes from (the ministerial exception), and by the way, that exception existed long before this particular court ruling. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the Constitution that the federal government has no business infringing on the right of religious groups to choose their own ministers. This ruling applies to ALL churches, regardless of religion, and it will apply equally when a “mainline” denomination fires some religious conservative who somehow ended up on their ministerial staff. So as you see, this decision doesn’t establish a religion in violation of the Constitution. It is a decision in favor of religious liberty for everyone, which is EXACTLY what the Supreme Court should be doing!

      • Tom W.

        Jazzabelle, when I first read your name, I didn’t know what to expect, or to be honest, expected the worse! But you’re right on it girlfriend!!! It was to establish a person’s right to practice any religion they should so choose. The Framers had just defeated King George’s boys and one of the main sticking points was that he wanted EVERYONE to be part of the Church of England. Hence the distain shown towards the Limeys by Kevin Klien’s character in “A Fish Called Wanda”! Great movie!!! It was not intended to take God out of all public discourse! You knocked it outta the park Jazzy! You go Girlfriend!!! I’ve already used this quote once today but here seems like an even more appropriate place.
        “My views are the result of a lifetime of inquiry and reflection and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruption of Christianity, I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.” – Thomas Jefferson
        So take that all you “wall of separation” goofballs!!!

    • DaveH

      Where is the Separation of Church and State given in the Constitution, Donald?

  • http://ihatat.com Nik Bramblett

    You’re CELEBRATING this decision? The school obviously is in violation of the Clinton-era FMLA… if you take a leave because you’re sick, for less than 3 months, then the employer is not required to pay you during that whole leave, but they are required to guarantee that when you are ready to return to work, the same job or a substantially similar one is waiting for you… it’s not even hard to understand. If this had been a “regular” employer, like you say, they’d have just complied with the law and been done with it; if they’d failed to do so, action through EEOC would pretty much be a no-brainer. Because it’s a CHURCH you DEFEND them and do a lot of mental gymnastics to act like it’s the RIGHT decision? C’mon– your readers are not institutions, they’re people… I would challenge any one of them to consider: if had been YOU that this Church/School had so maligned, and the SCOTUS ruled AGAINST you in favor of them, would you be celebrating?

    • kkflash

      You make a good point Nick. This decision does appear to conflict with the FMLA. Do you think that the FMLA might now be challenged as unconstitutional, now that the SCOTUS has unanimously decided it doesn’t apply to religious organizations?

      • John

        There should NEVER be any exception of the law for religious institutions in this country….period. Ttax them and you will see 99% of them disappear because the tax heavens are gone. Mmake them responsible just like every other business and employer and you will have true freedom and equality. We do not need protected status for anyone, not churches, not minorities, nor any other group.

      • Flashy

        john…you are saying what i have said for decades. if there truly is not to be a religious issue … then churches should be treated the same as everyone else, including the payment of taxes.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Yes, Flashy … and then churches will be able to endorse political candidates from the pulpit because they’re not tax-exempt anymore. Good idea….

      • Flashy

        they endorse them now…no difference. Of course, the recent council decision coming out for Santorum has a few accusations of vote rigging etc … but religous leaders wouldn’t do stuff like vote rigging etc would they? i mean…that’s not the way of JC and all that jazz…

      • DaveH

        You’re correct, John, they should be treated like any other organization. That includes getting funding for their schools from the Government.

      • Flashy

        Dave…if they decided not to hold any classes involving religious doctrine, i’d say it would be a good argument to have. But providing funding and having any sort of religious taint to the classes would violate the Establishment Clause

      • DaveH

        Show us where the establishment clause says any such thing, Flashman.
        Come on. Post us a link, Troll.

      • Flashy

        unless you acept that equal funds should be available to all religions whatever they may be … Satanist, Wicca, Krishna, etc…then any funding to one denomination is giving state approval to that over those which do not receive the equal treatment. Egads Dave, you really are out to lunch aren’t you…

      • Forrest Gump

        Flashy, you are about to “if/then” yourself into a deeper hole than you can ever possibly get out of. Your dealing with grown up issues here. Go play…with the rest of the kids.

      • Flashy

        Forrest…i know, you have no counter because you haven’t thought for a long time. Well…think about it. Thought…it is a good thing.

      • DaveH

        As usual, Flashman dances around the issue because he knows he can’t answer my question.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        John wrote: “There should NEVER be any exception of the law for religious institutions in this country….period”

        The precedent that was applied in this case (which existed long before this case, btw) doesn’t apply to religious institutions because they are religious institutions. The precedent only applies to individuals who are ministers, that is, who act in a ministerial capacity. If the plaintiff in this suit had ONLY been teaching secular subjects in a religious school, the precedent would not have applied.

        On a separate subject, John, you need to educate yourself about the meaning of the word “law.” The statutes and regulations that Congress passes have no authority over any private association, including churches, unless the association agrees to be governed by them in exchange for some sort of privilege. Most churches agree to be so governed in exchange for a tax-exempt status. Sadly, most churches don’t realize that they wouldn’t have to pay taxes to begin with if they didn’t incorporate as government-created non-profit corporations (which is voluntary, although few realize it). So your comment that religious institutions shouldn’t be exempt from the law really amounts to an argument that when someone agrees to follow a certain rule, then they should do so. I agree.

      • mike1127

        I could not agree more. Churches are businesses, and should be treated as such. Just look at all that untapped tax revenue sitting there. Since churches want to play in politics and the material world, they should have to pay-to-play just like everyone else.

        Religion: one of the best cons ever perpetrated against the public.

      • Vicki

        Churches are private groups/associations. They are not a business.

      • DaveH

        Federal involvement in Employment decisions is Unconstitutional from the beginning. The Main Law of the Land — The Constitution — gives the Federal Government no such power.

      • Vicki

        We are in agreement about the employment laws. Congress is specifically prohibited from interfering with any association. A business is just a specific case of association. The court decision that we are discussing even mentioned freedom of association and listed some of the “associations” that exist.

        “The right to freedom of association is a right enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike. It follows under the EEOC’s and Perich’s view that the First Amendment analysis should be thesame, whether the association in question is the LutheranChurch, a labor union, or a social club.” Pg 19 of
        http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

        Note that a business would be one of the class of group called “secular”. One could have an interesting time with this ruling in some future case against the EEOC.

    • DaveH

      The Federal Government has no jurisdiction over Religious Schools, Nik.

    • BillyBob117

      Hey bramblett, you are blabbling—-all the SCJ voted against her—so they were all wrong—–she was trying to milk the system and got caught—get over it

    • Fran

      This person was not fired because she was ill, if I am reading it all correctly. She was fired because she was trying to sue the church which is against their principles as it is for many religious organizations. Many people do not sue (for religious reasons).

    • Doug

      Hey Nick have you ever employeed anyone ran a company? Probaly not you know how many people go on FMLA for BS reason or medical leave. Lets see I shove crap down my throat year after year then when I get a sick I can’t understand why. And I don’t do this one in or twice in my employment I do it every other year. No the problem is socialist policies if you had a baby sitter and then she stop showing up because everytime you called her to watch the kids she was sick after about couple times of this would you call her back to watch the kids?

  • shell

    Now on too obama death care. This is a real biggy.

  • FreedomFighter

    We are in a winner take all battle for our very freedom, and we have been for a very long time, a victory yes, the end of battle — no

    JFK secret society speech (our last good President)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj3AECSKmhU

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • DaveH

      Great post, Fighter.

  • T-Texas

    I hope that the Supreme Court understands that We The People will have the last say in the end.I still advocate changing the Constitution where we elect all federal judges and get rid of the activist and good ole boy appointments.

    • PATRIOT 101

      T-Texas,
      BAD IDEA, Going away from the constitution and electing judges by “Popular vote” would be a disaster!
      Just as going away from the constitution to “popular elect” US Senators.
      This is one of the major factors leading to BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

      • DaveH

        Agreed. But the Supreme Court was never given the Power in the Constitution to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality. They simply took that Power, after the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803.

      • Flashy

        Dave…have you read Marbury v Madison and followed the line of reasoning within it? probably not or you wouldn’t have written such a crazed statement.

        You do realize it has been hailed since it was decided as the ultimate case in jurisdictional decision making. Seems it would have been a very controversial case had it been a wrongful decision and reasoning.

        Nice try.

        But let me ask…if not the SCOTUS, who is the final arbiter of what the Constitution is about?

        (Mises say anything about it for you to parrot?)

      • DaveH

        Have you read the decision, Flashman?
        For a guy who claims to read all those things, you aren’t too bright, are you?
        Maybe you could provide a reference to your claim?
        And while you’re at it show us where in the Constitution the Supreme Court is given the final say.
        Do you honestly think you have any credibility on this board, Flashman?

      • Flashy

        DaveH…so who is the final arbiter of a Constitutional dispute? I read Marbury vs Madison. Obviously you haven’t. And Mises has no link for you does it? LOL

        Answer the question Sparky…you can’t can you …

      • DaveH

        Flashman, what you SAY you have read is meaningless to anybody on this board who knows you. You have no credibility.

      • Vicki

        At the very least We the People have the final say. If we, as a jury refuse to indict or convict then the law in question becomes null and void.

        fija.org

      • Flashy

        Vicki…in your example, the jury applied the law to the facts they found of the case. The court instructs as to the law, the jury decides the facts.

      • DaveH
      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Vicki…in your example, the jury applied the law to the facts they found of the case. The court instructs as to the law, the jury decides the facts.”

        The duties of a jury go far beyond that of deciding what part of an argument ts a fact. Should you happen to be interested try actually going to the link I provided (Hint it was not blue as is normal for a link) or the one that DaveH provided.

        “When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is “unconstitutional”),”
        (see “If You Are Called For Jury Duty” in the Jury Guide at the bottom of the page http://fija.org/)

        Note a law can be decided as wrong WITHOUT deciding it violates the Constitution. This is why I have said that the Jury Box is one of the 4 key boxes protecting us and our freedom from the 3000 tyrants 1 mile away as well as from the 1 (535+) tyrant(s) 3000 miles away. :)

      • Sol of Texas

        T-Tex –

        Last time I checked, we elect our state’s supreme court judges in the Lone Star state.

      • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

        The problem with popular vote is that we assume intelligent voters. This is a false assumption. Case in point; Who voted for Obama? – he had no experience in anything at all. He has no educational records, he was an unknown quantity. In point of fact, as it turns out the birth cert that he finally released in April 2011 is a proven forgery, but it also sets the position that Obama is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ according to the Supreme Court of this Nation.
        So should we have citizens electing Federal Judges? Hhmmm…

      • http://N/A Honkyrat

        al metcalf

        Man did you hit that one on the head

    • prepared

      T-Texas,I agree.
      Also audit the Federal reserve regularly.
      Also do a ramdom assay at Fort Kox.

      • Jim Cumber

        ASSAY WHAT? I’d give you long odds that there is NOTHING IN FORT KNOX! The Banksters in the Federal Reserve STOLE IT ALL! “The King is buck naked!”…

      • ctc

        Hey friend.. SAD TO INFORM YOU BUT OBAMA HAS EMPTIED FORT KNOX. HE TOOK HIS PRIVATE ARMY IN THERE TWO YEARS AGO AND TOOK VIRTUALLY EVER GOLD BAR THAT WAS THERE AND ALL THAT WE, AMERICA, HAD THERE IS GONE, GONE, GONE.. GONE.. OBAMA, THE LIAR AND THE THIEF.. YES, THE MUSLIM WHO INTENDED TO DESTROY THIS NATION, ALL OF IT.. EVERY PART OF IT.. THE MONEY AT FT. KNOX IS GONE!!!

      • Robert Smith

        Obama couldn’t have done that.

        After Goldfinger tried and failed they burried it deeper in the ground so radiation wouldn’t contaminate it. ;-)

        Rob

    • kkflash

      It’s a dangerous idea to eliminate one of the checks/balances that the Constitution provides to limit the power of the 3 branches of government. I think it would be better to leave the high court appointments to the executive branch, confirmed by the legislative. I would however, support a term limit to the court appointments. The idea that they are there for life just doesn’t fit with the idea to limit government’s power.

      • mike1127

        ALL political appointments, from Senator to Mayor, should have term limits. No term limits is how we are turning our legislative branch into a hereditary aristocracy. People are winning Seats in the House and Senate based on name-recognition alone (Kennedy, for example), and not on their political merits. Until we get some Representatives that will not be there long enough to be bought out by lobbyists, we are screwed.

        There has to be something wrong when a person will spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays less than half-a-million a year. Someone (lobbyists and fundraisers) are owed some payback for that money, and they buy votes for it. This crooked system will not last much longer. The voters are getting heartily tired of the same-ol’ same-ol’ in D.C. We need some REAL hope and change.

      • Jim Cumber

        As I recall, it was Thomas Jefferson who first bemoaned the lack of yearly term limits for SCOTUS…

      • Vicki

        We have term limits for our Congress. Its called “The Vote”

      • DaveH

        Yep. There is no substitute for educated voters.

  • robert Ferguson

    What does have to do with President Obama. You right wing nuts want every decision and policy tagged to him for political purposes. It was a Supreme Court ruling for God’s sake!

    • Rick

      EEOC isn’t Obama, maybe he ordered them to? If so, not in the article.

      • Robert Smith

        This whole thing started under the BUSH administration. See: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_553

        Rob

      • Vicki

        Hey Robert. The rest of us have noticed that there is a new boss in town. Been there for almost 3 years now. You might want to join us in the present and stop blaming your past for your present poor choices.

      • Kate8

        Lefties like Robert love to justify Obama’s trampling of our Constitution and liberties by throwing up GWB.

        I guess they missed the memo: YES. We conservatives did notice, and we did NOT excuse him for it, and WILL NOT excuse Obama for expanding tyranny (and his own dictatorial powers) to a whole new level at breakneck speed.

        As I’ve said before, unlike those on the Left, the rest of us hold loyalty to our Constitution and our liberty, not party nor politicians.

        Wise up, Leftys. We see you for the snakes you are. You are willing to sacrifice our entire nation just to further an agenda that most of us do not want. That is the very definition of tyranny.

        For everyone else…we DO NOT need government permission to exercise our Constitutional powers. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE CONSTITUTION in the first place: to protect us from government overreach. It is very clear that we are to be governed only by our consent, and no statutes which conflict with that consent carry any validity or obligation on our part.

        We can have all the clever lawyers twisting Constitutional implications (penumbrums) all they want, but that does not make it so. The pronouncements of the insane, no matter how high-ranking, are still insane.

        Yes, the esteemed Court may have gotten it right this time, but who knows about what lies ahead. They may have just thrown us a bone. But who knows. We are right to distrust them.

        To petition the very system intent on enslaving us, expecting that they would “restore” our freedom, is beyond a pipedream. They had ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY to take it in the first place.

        We are ruled by illusion. It doesn’t matter what is true, but only what we believe, and beliefs are easily manipulated.

        People like Robert Smith are glaring examples of this.

      • Robert Smith

        It was the church that forced it to the SCOTUS, not Obama.

        What was Obama supposed to do? Should have he lobbied to deny them their day in court?

        Rob

      • Kate8

        It is good that the church stood up to this administration, demanding that the government honor the Constitution and stay our of its affairs. As I said, the Court got it right…this time.

        Obama had no place stepping in to it at all. He is NOT supreme ruler, and it was beyond his authority to even comment on it.

        I realize that you Robert Smiths out there think Obama gets to decide everything.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “What was Obama supposed to do? Should have he lobbied to deny them their day in court?”

        We are not discussion what Obama’s administration was supposed to do. We are discussing what his administration DID do.

        OP writes:
        “(Chief Justice)Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders. ”

        Now how is it you plan to defend Obamas Administration’s argument? Going to blame Bush again? This should be fun to watch.

      • eddie47d

        I doubt if Obama has anything to do with this decision. Looks more like a knee jerk article to me to stir the pot. The Constitution wasn’t trampled on but I reckon if it makes you feel good……

      • Robert Smith

        Kate posted: “Obama had no place stepping in to it at all.”

        Can you prove he stepped into it?

        What could he have done? Looks to me like it wasn’t his decision. It began under Bush and it took on a life of its own.

        Rob

      • Christin

        Kate8,

        Well said… let the Constitution, common sense, and TRUTH prevail.

      • DevilDoc1

        For Vicki — what’s your beef, the Annoited One is still blaming W for everything from the sun rising to the sun setting… maybe it’s the left that needs to wake

      • http://naver sook young

        Sorry Robert, but since Obama is the president now, anything that happens is his to handle and not President Bush. I remember a sign that was seen on the desk of President Truman that said, “The buck stops here.” Couldn’t the same thing be said about Obama? Quit trying to blame conservatives, republicans, and anything that doesn’t fit your little word, for the way our country is now. It has been gooing on since the Federal Reserve was initialized under President Woodrow Wilson. Gee, can you ever see what is going on around you? Thank you.

        Sook Young
        Wife of the Samurai

        P.S. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        Hey Sook, God bless you and your husband, I can’t wait to meet him! Two weeks probation, he must of been a bad boy!!! In the immortal words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death!!!”

      • http://naver sook young

        He is chomping at the bit to get back to posting. Either he took two weeks off or maybe Bob Livingston would suspend him and another person. I remember something else:

        “In the presence of the mostHoly, undivided Trinity.”

        Treaty of Paris 1783

        Thank you.

        Sook Young
        Wife of the Samurai

        P.S. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • PERFESSER

        Why does every LEFT WINGNUT forget that the BLACK PANTHER CASE was “WON” under Bush and O’Brainless dictated that DOJ drop the case rather than go thru the TURMOIL of PRONOUNCING SENTENCE !! It’s a matter of “WHATEVER O’BRAINLESS WANTS …. O’BRAINLESS TAKES !! ;-(

    • gerryrichard

      uh…you really need to pay attention to the article…

      Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.

      this was the barry administrations take on the issue….now,how does this NOT have to do with this narcissist?

      • fiscalsoundbiteme

        Well said, ignorant idiots surround us all

      • Valerie

        An interesting point of view the lack of civility
        name calling so we we elect similar people to represent us
        can there be a sensible discussion free of name calling?
        is it possible

      • Nadzieja Batki

        If the language on this site hurts your sensitive ears and eyes, why did you come here?

      • Eli Jones

        But Valerie, they are idiots!

      • FreedomFighter

        NDAA Floor Speech Jan 18 2012

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tg69QM1yXQQ#

        RON PAUL 2012

      • Rick

        “the Obama Administration’s argument” was the EEOC argument, that isn’t Obama. Obama is god-awful but the article does not say he ordered them to do this.

      • Rick

        I looked it up, it was the Bush administration in 2005 – not the Obama administration.

      • Karolyn

        Valerie – It is quite common for many posters to revert to using name-calling, extreme personal attacks and even profanity. Some people just can’t get their point across without resorting to inappropriate language lacking in thought.

      • DaveH

        Did you admonish Robert for his lack of civility, the first such act today, Valerie?

      • sonny

        Does the truth hurt, Valerie??

      • eddie47d

        Looks like another case of bashing Obama when it was a private case brought forth to the Supreme Court. Apparently if a person (Perich) has a disability even when they are qualified to do the job they will be dumped to the curb. Even churches sometimes lack compassion.

      • http://aol Thomas

        Well, let’s try this verbage, those of such higher education tend to make non educated comments….How’s that any better? lol lol lol

      • Wyatt

        Reads opinions in discussion and listens as “Simon & Garfunkel’s” song , ‘The sound O Silence’ plays in background .
        Well stated Valerie . Is civil discussion dead in America , Has Barry O destroyed even that ?

      • eddie47d

        Mr Wyatt apparently you don’t listen to what Raggs or WIA use as civilized language. There are plenty who need to clean up their own house before laying it on Obama.

      • ONTIME

        Not anymore and especially in a election year.

        This is a contact sport civility is reserved for the courts and if you view this as harsh you may want to put your fingers in your eyes so you cn’t hear the language or intonation.

      • rafael

        I am an American and do I get respect by this illegal usurper corrupt liar muslim ????? He needs to go back to Geogia and show all required papers to be POTUS; until that time nothing will change: illegal usurper

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “….. ignorant idiots surround us all.”

        This is not a personal attack on an individual as sometimes occurs from both sides this is a general statement. If he had said “Valorie you are an idiot” then you would have an argument but again he did not attack an individual.

      • Randy G

        Remember, when you point the finger of stupidity, you have 3 pointing back at you!

      • Flashy

        “this was the barry administrations take on the issue”

        No..this was the line of argument taken by the Bush administration’s EEOC ruling.

      • Jefferson Thomas

        Who cares? Both are big government statists. Georgey Porgy puddin pie never vetoed a single bill until the last year of his administration, if I remember correctly. Lyndon Baines Johnson had wet dreams about being able to spend as much and have as much governmental control as Georgey.

      • BigBadJohn

        “Who cares? Both are big government statists”

        I agree 100%, a lot of people around here are screaming about the NDAA attacking the Constitution. It was the REPUBLICAN congress that inserted those unconstitutional provisions.

        So who do you vote for, republicans that have been attacking the Constitution at every turn or the democrats that seem to go a along with it.
        Who do you vote for?

      • Jefferson Thomas

        I have been a Libertarian for 20 years. I have voted no on every tax measure that ever came up. No on every measure that gives government more power. This year I will vote for Dr. Ron Paul

      • Vicki

        BigBadJohn says:
        “It was the REPUBLICAN congress that inserted those unconstitutional provisions.”

        Yes they were bad. But who asked them to insert those provisions?
        http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/7/4/glenn_greenwald_obama_had_indefinite_detention_inserted_into_defense_authorization_act/

        Now ask yourself this:

        Congress is composed of 2 houses. The Republicans only barely control 1. The President is a Democrat. The DEMOCRAT President convinced the House to add those provisions. Why?

        The vote in the DEMOCRAT Controlled senate was 87 to 13 (or close) The 13 who voted against the bill were 1/2 of each party and the 13th was independent. That means that most of BOTH parties voted in favor.

        ALL Congress should have voted against the NDAA but didn’t. The DEMOCRAT President should have vetoed the bill but didn’t. The DEMOCRATS had more than enough power to stop this bill. Why the focus on the Republicans?

      • Vicki
      • Kate8

        Well said, Vicki. Always the voice of truth and reason in a sea of clammoring nonsense.

        The ridiculous tantrums and twisting of facts does get old. That is why I rarely come here anymore. This site is being hijacked by more and more victims of mind erosion every day, whose only purpose is to destroy all that is sane and good.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        This is to Kate8. I presume you raised kids, the human variety, and when they became unruly and obnoxious you became exasperated and wanted out of parenthood but nevertheless you stuck it out because you knew their survival and yours depended on your decisions. The same principal works on this site and in politics. Ours and our nation’s survival depends in sticking it out and not giving in to the Leftists/Statists/Utopians.

      • Vicki

        Nadzieja Batki well said.

        Indeed it is one of the reasons I come here to discuss politics. Another is to provide counterpoint to the left. I am not trying to change their minds. I am simply providing other readers with a different point of view and also challenging some of the proof by bald assertion that the left is famous for.

        Sometimes I even see that some of the liberals here actually begin to see how they have been used. So I stay.

      • Tom W.

        Do you know why Lyndon Johnson slept on his stomach?…..
        So Ladybird wouldn’t gget his worm!!! Ha Haaa!

      • DaveH

        For those who seek to understand more fully what is really going on:
        http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf

      • BigBadJohn

        Vicki you honestly believe that smoke screen?

        Obama, used a signing statement to limit the government role :

        Here is a link to the actual statement – please read it for yourself.

        http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/

      • Vicki

        BigBadJohn says:
        “Vicki you honestly believe that smoke screen?

        Obama, used a signing statement to limit the government role :”

        I am pretty sure that not even a new reader would fall for that “smoke screen” BBJ. Lets look for a moment at the power of a “signing statement”

        “Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. ”

        Now unlike liberals I will actually provide a cite:
        http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.php

        Now let us consider for a moment the NEXT President. What power is there in the signing statement of the CURRENT President to bind the actions of the next one?

      • Old Henry

        Yeah Flashy, Shrub was a Constitution-bahsing POS, but at least he was an American citizen shredding our Constitution rather than some foreign national POS.

      • http://Www.twitter.com/antodav Antodav

        Oh, God, here we go again. The last time I checked, Hawaiians are U.S. citizens. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the moon landing was a hoax too? Talk about idiots. Guys like you make the entire liberty movement look bad.

      • granny mae

        Old Henry,
        I’m on your side. There are so many lies connected with Obama that I wouldn’t believe his posting of any birth certificate now. Add to that his travels, (in his own words) that he traveled to Pakistan at a time when the US banned all travel there, then you tell me what passport he used; on top of that his college transcripts say he recieved a grant for college as an exchange student ! Give me a break and throw the bum out !

      • m

        wow! that’s some logic. even if this was true which it is not (they are both citizens) you accept a citizen abrogating the constitution more readily than a foreigner doing it?

      • Flashy

        I sweatr…someone could build a time machine, go back in time and absolutly verify by sending a live TV feed of Pres. Obama’s birth…and ya’ll would still believe some wacked out, faked, fraudulent, insane nutcase saying he was born elsewhere…

        Un frippin’ believable. But yet…you are not asking for the same degree of proof from any of the GOP candidates…even though the same could be said about them, each and every one of them? With the same degree of proof (i.e. made up)?

        Old henry, I flat out guarantee you couldn’t opass muster of being born in the US if you accept what the wild eyed birther maniacs claim as “proof”

      • Jefferson Thomas

        @ Falshy,

        A marxist, big government statist, is a marxist, big government statist. It doesn’t matter if they are from the USA, Kenya, Germany, Italy, or Russia. They need to be marginalized and seen as the criminals they are as they have a criminal mind and they are destroyers of people, property, and Liberty.

        The GOP is barely the breadth of a hair better. I would not voluntarily give any of my time, money, or anything else to any of them with the exception of Dr. Ron Paul.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        I sweatr…someone could build a time machine, go back in time and absolutely verify by sending a live TV feed of Pres. Obama’s birth…and ya’ll would still believe some wacked out, faked, fraudulent, insane nutcase saying he was born elsewhere…”

        Actually you don’t need a time machine. Just get Obama to allow Hawaii to let people inspect the actual birth certificate. Of course he won’t cause Hawaii can’t cause there isn’t one. http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/252833/

        Let us suppose for lack of evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Let us further suppose that the Long Form Birth Certificate released by the WH is a genuine copy. That is all the evidence needed to prove that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was, according to that certificate, a British National. So Obama can not qualify for the special case of Natural Born. Native born? Yes. (assumes the LFBC is not a forged document). Natural born. No.
        http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

        See Supreme Court cases

      • Old Henry

        Antodav:

        It is time to make that loud popping sound. Little Barry went to school in Indonesia as a kid. At that time you had to be a citizen of Indonesia to attend school.

        He is also on record as having visited his birthplace over there back in 2006 with Mooch so they could dedicate a school his father had built. While there Little Barry pledged to send them money to upgrade the school with electricity and indoor plumbing. To date they have not received a dime.

        NO ONE hides their entire life’s records unless…. THERE IS sOMETHING TO HIDE.

        Oh, and be ready for that blindingly bright light.

      • Old Henry

        Exactly granny mae!

      • Buster the Anatolian

        It really does not matter when it started obama obviously agreed with it or he would have ordered the eeoc to drop the case.

      • Robert Smith

        Does he have that authority?

        Would it be right to “drop” it if it was understood that the decision (corectly decided IMO) to guarantee a clear path for the future?

        Being a lawyer himself I think a strong argument could be made that he understood how it would turn out, agreed with it, and let it happen as it did. That locks in what he wanted, that religious organizations can control their organizations wihthout outside meddling.

        Rob

      • Juan

        I agree with you. This prez Obama is such a big narcissist and growing every day that he cannot bear being turned down to his every whim or desire. He needs to go, come next elections.

      • BSG

        When a case goes to the supreme court and one side is a government agency like the corrupt and useless Office of Equal Rights, then its the lawyers within the U.S. Justice Dept that prosecute the case. So it was Obama’s people.
        As for “the buck stopping someplace” I think Obama has shown for three years that for anything that doesn’t elevate his self-esteem, the buck actually stopped with Bush and its all his fault. Leadership???

      • tgeer

        This started under Bush, in 2005, not under Obama.

    • fiscalsoundbiteme

      If you’re that ignorant, no sense in wasting much time trying to educate an idiot! …but in case you’re just not a stupid as you sound, O’Blameya’s regime tried to strong arm that church and IT DID NOT WORK~end of story STUPES

      • Flashy

        FYI…the case began in 2003-2004. Under the Bush administation.

        Now…tell us. how does egg feel when on your face?

      • Eli Jones

        Flashy, provide proof of your post’s statement about the time line. Put up or shut up. Me thinks, you are an Obama propagandist.

      • Rick

        On May 15, 2005, Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC and Perich then filed suit in federal district court alleging that the church had retaliated against Perich – in violation of the ADA – by rescinding her call after it learned that she had a disability and was contemplating legal action
        http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/The-Supreme-Court-Takes-Up-Church-Employment-Disputes-and-the-%E2%80%9CMinisterial-Exception%E2%80%9D.aspx

      • Flashy

        Eli…one only has to read the actual opinion. but then, i’m finding out the TP and right wing masses need to be told what to think. They appear to be sorely klacking in ability to form their own thoughts.

        Yes..there was a study performed showing the further right one is, the more “issues’one has. it also showed the blue states have, in general, a higher IQ and higher education average. Why is that not a surprise.

        Urban theorist Richard Florida nicely summarized this last year in the Atlantic Monthly. I quote stright from his article: “Conservatism, more and more, is the ideology of the economically left behind …. Liberalism … is stronger in richer, better-educated, more-diverse, and, especially, more prosperous places.”

        ’nuff said.

      • DaveH

        To be precise, Flashman said “FYI…the case began in 2003-2004. Under the Bush administation”.
        Rick posted the truth. Flashman shot from the hip, as usual, but he was half-right this time.

      • Flashy

        Actuaqlly DaveH, the case began in 2004 when the church first began the discrimination. BTW…even the Court said it was discrimination, but the minsterial exception was a defense.

      • Old Henry

        From what Chip presented in his article I think the church was at least morally wrong in what they initially did in permanently replacing her. I understand that the church had to have her position covered, but to sumarily replace her?

        Given the fact that they had a female “minister” tells me that they are members of one of the liberal synods. So, it would be typical liberal double-speak: “Do as I say, not as I do”.

      • BigBadJohn

        Here is clue for you: thanks Rick

        “On May 15, 2005, Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. ”

        AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Bush stacked the courts with conservative judges using recess appointments those conservative judges have gutted the all powers of the EEOC. If a company lays you off because you are 55 and make too much – you no longer have a leg to stand on for an age discrimination suit. If you are laid off because you are a woman, you no longer have a leg to stand on. If you are laid off because of a physical handicap, you no longer have a leg to stand on.
        Basically workers rights have been stripped back to third world country status.

      • DaveH

        The EEOC never had that Power in the first place. It is an Unconstitutional Agency created by Progressive Politicians who exceeded their Constitutional Powers.

      • MNIce

        Quite a few people misunderstand the Doctrine of the Call and its application as practiced by the L:C-MS. (I am not a member, but I am familiar with orthodox Lutheran teaching.) There are two primary “ministries”: the preaching ministry (general pastoral call, limited to men) and the teaching ministry (educational call; women may be called to teach children). The LC-MS, so far as I know, while it has many issues regarding its adherence to Scripture in its practices, is not yet so liberal as to call women to the preaching ministry. Ms. Perich had a teaching call.

        According to the Doctrine of the Call, a call can only be terminated for the following reasons: resignation of the called servant, heterodox teaching, manifestly impenitent lifestyle, scandalous behavior that publicly compromises the effectiveness of the ministry, and inability to perform the duties of the call. It is this last cause for which Ms. Perich was removed. It appeared that she probably could not return to her duties for an indefinite time after she requested a leave of absence for health reasons, so the congregation terminated her call and formally called another teacher. However, Ms. Perich recovered and asked to be restored to her position. Now, how could the congregation fulfill her request without violating the call of the permanent replacement teacher? When Ms. Perich took legal action without first appealing to the Synod, she went against the Scriptural injunction against taking fellow Christians to court instead of first having the dispute mediated within the Church. Her continuation of the case via the EEOC demonstrated manifest impenitence in this regard, so she forfeited her ability to serve under a call in any LC-MS congregation (she could have requested to be placed on a Synod call list for another congregation).

        It is not that the congregation lacked compassion, but that Ms. Perich stuck them in a dilemma (recall that they did offer her unearned compensation, and it is common for congregations to provide gifts donated by members for disabled called servants). In hindsight, perhaps they acted too soon in calling a permanent replacement. But sometimes it is necessary to act on incomplete information. The congregation’s first responsibility in this regard was to see that the children were taught. Perhaps they could see no other way to obtain a teacher at the beginning of the school year. Eddie47d’s accusation was thoughtless.

        In view of all of this, the Court had it exactly right. The EEOC had no business getting involved in what was essentially a dispute over the application of a religious doctrine.

        Footnote to those who don’t understand the gender restriction: it is in part for historical reasons, as St. Paul explained in I Timothy 2:14, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Because Adam failed to minister to his wife, but permitted her to succumb to Satan’s deception, the formal preaching ministry became a necessity. “Because Adam blew it, the men have to do it.” The command limiting ecclesiastical authority to men is thus a reminder of mankind’s Fall into Sin. (Many other occupations exist solely because of sin, but the Ministry of the Word is uniquely related to the subject.) This is not the only reason, but it is the easiest to understand for those not well-grounded in or accepting of the Scriptures.

      • The Big Geezer

        The case is NOW! It was just decided. This is Obama’s administration… Bush NO LONGER IS THE PRESIDENT. Obama’s administration made the decision to go to the Supreme Court… get some integrity before posting your idiotic and inaccurate comments.

      • Flashy

        No…the decision to go to the Supreme Court was the petitioner church. Folks…it would be nice if y’all read the frippin’ opinion !

      • Old Henry

        Flashy:

        I think what Geezer was alluding to was that the case was argued in front of the court NOW during Little Barrys’ occupation of our White House, so it was his EEOC that was before the court. It was his EEOC Flashy, not Shrub’s.

        This seems to simply be more of the blame Bush scape goat MO.

      • independent thinker

        Exactly Old Henry. As Buster said above it doesn’t matter when it started obama could have told his eeoc to drop the case but since he did not it is logical to conclude he agreed with the lower courts decision against the church.

      • Flashy

        Ummm…i believe the way it works is the the person appealing the ruling would have to drop the case…it’s their appeal. I may be in error, but I believe that is how it works. The church lost at the 6th Circuit level.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Let’s see how this will play out with the SC saying No to this little boy O. Temper tantrums anyone, or will the punishment be insidious or passive aggressive and more viscious.

      • Flashy

        If they TP masses believe the spin that this was an Obama decision, it will just be another lie the TPers will spread. I’m believing that the Right has no shame nor honor.

      • Proud to be a Believer

        Flashy You comment about the blue states being higher educated etc etc, remember Cuba? and you know the rest of that story.

      • granny mae

        Proud to be a believer,
        All this talk of how smart the people in the blue states are, well I just wonder how many smarts it takes for a blue state like Michigan to get itself into the state it is in today? The economy of that state sucks, and didn’t we have to bail out GM? Oh ya; blue state residents are a lot more intelligent ! LOL !

      • Wyatt

        Well it is already known that the left has no shame nor honor , why should the right be any different ? And thouhg two wrongs never made anything right it seems the only way to stop litte Barry O from turning us into the Communist Utopia he has always dreamed of . Yes , he was a card carrying member of the Communist Party at Harvard and I would guess he still is by his actions .

      • Flashy

        [proud, i was citing an article and the findings. BTW...you do know that when katrina hit, then the heating oil crisis, both Cuba and venezula offered to send aid to the US because the Bush Admin couldn't help out the people?

        Want to place a small wager on which country's health care is amongst the highest in the wordl,,,,even with a blockade?

        i'm no fan of Castro....but when you look at the facts...i believe when Castro is gone and Cuba lightens up, those American Cubans aren't going to be as welcomed there as they would like you to think. Remember, those that got out were Batista supporters...and he wasn't exactly well liked (which was why Castro was able to overthrow the SOB)...

        BTW...remember the kid held in Florida? And the dire predictions of such a terrible life if he waqs given back to his father? ever check up onwhat his life is like now? Ever check up on how many arrests his 'family' here have experienced? yeah....he would have been so much better off here...sitting in jail if he was following his so-called loving relatives example.

        Don't make an assumptioj just because some fanatic says it's true...that it's true.

      • Tom W.

        Sic ‘em granny!!!

      • DaveH

        There goes Flashman again making it a left-right issue, when in fact it’s a Big Government issue. That’s what the Leaders and their Propagandists specialize in, Folks, keeping the left-right paradigm going, when in fact it doesn’t matter whether we lose our Freedom to the Lefties or to the Righties, its still LOST.
        When I think about Flashman’s name-calling, ridicule, condescension, double-speaking, and zealotry, I can only think of one thing — Operative. And this event only bolsters that opinion:
        http://www.personalliberty.com/asset-and-wealth-protection/preserving-wealth/what-now/#comment-439910
        Flashman is a good example of the kind of treatment we will have to endure if we are foolish enough to let these Progressive Liberal Creeps assume any more control of our lives. And they’re in both major parties. Witness the abuse that Ron Paul has to endure from his own Party. The establishment is running scared. They see their highfalutin, power-tripping, party life at the expense of the citizens coming to an end, and they don’t like it one bit. Expect things to get really nasty as an increasing number of people wake up to the goodness and principles of Ron Paul.

      • Old Henry

        Well Nadzieja, I am guessing that since Little Barry has essentially made Congress irrelevant he will soon do the same to the Supreme Court.

        Hell, why do we need all that bureaucracy when he has all those handy Czars on staff?

      • Old Henry

        granny mae:

        In referrence to blue states.

        You know what makes people blue? Lack of oxygen. You know what happens with lack of oxygen? They become brain dead.

      • Tom W.

        They can’t become brain-dead Henry! They’re already there!!! They can’t lose their minds, you can’t lose something you don’t possess! And the funniest thing about it is that they think that they’re intelligent! They’re the ones Nancy was talkin’ to when she said, chopping at the air with her hand, “We’ve gotta pass the bill, so we can see what’s in the bill.” And they were all shaking their heads in perfect unison with her hand chops, “Yes Nancy, Yes…”

      • Tom W.

        PS – When Speaker Pelosi said,“ We have to pass the bill, to see what’s in the bill.“ Now what in the hell kind of sense does that make?! I don’t know if that was the most ignorant or most arrogant, or maybe even both, statement I ever heard uttered by an elected official! The mark of the beast is here!!! Tucked away in the Health Care Bill! Google-HR3200, click on HR 3200 IH PDF, scroll down to sec.2521 National Medical Device Registry, almost the bottom of the page. Mandating the implantation of an RFID chip into every U.S. citizen seeking medical attention within 36 months of implementation of the bill. Read it with your own two eyes! And keep those eyes on the skies, our Savior cometh!!! Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    • Vigilant

      The court suit was brought by the EEOC, composed of a chairman, 4 commissioners and a general counsel. Obama recess-appointed three commissioners and the general counsel.

      Now you know what it had to do with Obama.

      • Flashy

        vig…except it was a Bush era EEOC that brought the case. Did you read the opinion?

      • Rick
      • Vigilant

        Flashy, the EEOC had three years under Obama to decide whether to continue pursuing or dropping tha case on merit. They decided to continue, and at this point they were packed with Obama nominees.

      • granny mae

        Vigilant,
        Thank you, good show. As far as I’m concerned the time has now come to blame Obama for everything from now on, regardless. Bush has had his share and now Obammy is getting his turn. I can see to that ! His whole tennure sucks lemons so from now on it is all his fault for everything, until his sorry butt is out of the White House ! He and all his commie friends, and czars !

      • granny mae

        By the way, if I sound a little over agressive today it is because my arthritus is giving me a lot of pain , so ya’ll will just have to put up with me !

      • Wyatt

        Exactly ! Did anyone bother to read the Article ‘Headline’? The court told OBAMA NO , not Bush . No matter when it began , it ended here on OBasma’s watch . Three years into it and the “Not my fault” line just doesn’t fly anymore . End of Story !

      • Flashy

        Who appealed the decision of the 6th Circuit? IT WAS LAW until the SCOTUS said it wasn’t. So you are stating Obama should not enforce the law…a court decided law?

      • Vigilant

        “Who appealed the decision of the 6th Circuit? IT WAS LAW until the SCOTUS said it wasn’t. So you are stating Obama should not enforce the law…a court decided law?”

        It was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, and a court (SCOTUS) rendered it mute.

        Flashy, like all liberals, loves unconstitutional laws.

      • Flashy

        As Justice Learned Hand once wrote…it’s not unconstitutional until we{SCOTUS} say it is.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “As Justice Learned Hand once wrote…it’s not unconstitutional until we{SCOTUS} say it is.”

        From the moment they say it is unconstitutional, the law becomes null and void from its INCEPTION. http://www.constitution.org/mil/lawnanti.htm

      • Tom W.

        We love ya granny mae, Arthur Itis better leave you alone!!!

      • MNIce

        An elder friend from my childhood said, “Those Ritis boys are all a nasty bunch, but that Arthur is sure the worst of them!”

      • Flashy

        Not exactly Vicki. it’s my understanding that the decision of the lower deciding court (in this case the district court)remains in effect unless the court decision is stayed by a court until all appeals exhausted, waived or the time for appeal lapses.

        It also only applies to the jurisdictional reach of the last court to render a decision.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Not exactly Vicki. it’s my understanding…..
        ….It also only applies to the jurisdictional reach of the last court to render a decision”

        And that would be the Supreme Court. Thus the jurisdictional reach is all of the US. The law becomes Null and Void from it’s inception. See the link above.

      • Wapitiman

        Like it or not…fair or not…the sitting president gets the credit or blame for everything that occurs during his administration.

      • Karolyn

        Plain and simple, that’s BS, and any person who uses his brain would realize that.

      • DaveH

        Really, it doesn’t matter. The fact is that the Federal Government has put it’s nosy nose into too many places where it doesn’t belong. Whether Bush or Obama doesn’t matter.
        Both parties are stuffed with Progressives and we need to get them out and get our Freedom back.

      • Vigilant

        …So you think we’ll stop hearing Bush blamed for everything up to and including Katrina? Or is a person who does that “not using his brain?”

      • Flashy

        And i quote…”GOOD JOB BROWNIE !”

        Now what were you saying about katrina?

      • Vigilant

        Flashy, your abject lack of intelligence is confirmed by your gratuitously vapid statements.

        But we are accustomed to that behavior from the left. When you can’t factually challenge an argument, either insult or play the race card on your opponent. Your very predictability makes for a lack of interest in even addressing such foolishness.

        Grow up, Sonny.

      • granny mae

        Vigilant,

        LOL ! LOL ! LOL ! I love it !

      • eddie47d

        Any President Wapitiman? LOL! What about the previous administration? This story might have been relevant if all the players were honestly discussed or even mentioned in the main article. Now it is only more CaCa bull!

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d seems to have missed the point that the article is discussing the here and now. The past was given to show how we got here. Once we look at the here and now we see that Obama’s Administration (Obama not Bush) submitted and argument to the Supreme Court. This argument was rejected (thus the title) by the Court.

        The OP even mentioned this:
        “Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.”

        The OP did not blame Obama for the argument. He blamed Obama’s administration. Even Roberts blamed the administration. Wasn’t you guys who were all upset with R.Paul just recently over something published in his newsletter years ago? Oh Right. Its only the leaders fault if that leader is not liberal. My Bad.

      • Tom W.

        When did you crawl outta the woodwork?!! Who’s got the RAID?!

      • Flashy

        Vicki…read the opinion. Please point out where the opinion stated anything like what you state it as “this administration” etc. I’ll save you time and effort…it doesn’t.

        have a nice weekend

      • DaveH

        Apparently Flashman doesn’t get paid on the weekends to harass us with his inane comments.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Vicki…read the opinion. Please point out where the opinion stated anything like what you state it as “this administration” etc. I’ll save you time and effort…it doesn’t.”

        Flashy. Read my comment. Please point out where I stated something in the opinion that was NOT in the opinion. I’ll not hold my breath waiting. :)

      • Don

        Right Wapitiman, according to odumbo he won the Iraq war, take credit for one then take credit for all !!

    • CJ

      If you honestly have to ask that, you can’t see what is plainly in front of your face, then you must have your head burried deep. This explains the problem, that applying simple logic is a skill the left is in desperate need of if this country is to be saved.

    • Flashy

      robert..left unmentioned in any of the spins put on by conservatives…the case bagn in 2003-2004. DURING THE FIRST TERM OF BUSH/CHENEY!

      Now how that can be an attempt by Obama is beyond me. but I’m sure there is some wild outlandish nonsensical answer there somewhere. maybe just ignore the facts to spin another lie?

      • Vigilant

        The EEOC had three years under Obama to drop the case if it had no merit. They chose not to do so.

      • Flashy

        LOL … uh huh …. jeesh …

      • Vigilant

        Wake up, Flush, the EEOC BY NATURE is a progressive commission. Started by LBJ, it doesn’t matter who the chief executive is at any time, the EEOC has been at the forefront of affirmative action, a concept that is totally unconstitutional as it is discrimination.

        In this case, the SCOTUS ruled with unanimity and impeccable correctness that the Feds have no business telling religious organizations how to conduct their affairs in this area. Case indeed closed.

      • Flashy

        As much as i believe AA may have run its course and needs revision…it’s not unconsitutional. If you recall, the SCOTUS was the driving force stating AA was required.

      • Old Henry

        Actually the Federal Governmnet has no business telling any employer – church or private – what to do.

      • Vigilant

        Re AA: “…it’s not unconsitutional.”

        Now we have a Constitutional scholar here, we should feel honored!

        Try the “due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

        This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

      • Flashy

        OK Vig..show the case where the SCOTUS said AA is unconstitutional. Do you really want the be shown the case where the SCOTUS ruled it had to be implemented?

        So your point is the SCOTUS mandated something they would say was unconstitutional? And..in the end, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Consitution.

      • Vigilant

        “And..in the end, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Consitution.”

        Dream on, buddy. THE PEOPLE, for whom the Constitution was written, are the final arbiters of that document. A majority of Americans favor scrapping of affirmative action, so regardless of what the SCOTUS does, they are on wrong side of the will of the people if they affirm such highly discrimatory programs.

        And let’s be clear and honest. There’s no such thing as “reverse discrimination,” it’s discrimination pure and simple.

      • Flashy

        Vig….the Constitution was, in large part, written to protect people FROM the People. i know it’s difficult to wrap your mind around that, but it’s true.

      • Vigilant

        Flashy says, “Vig….the Constitution was, in large part, written to protect people FROM the People. i know it’s difficult to wrap your mind around that, but it’s true.”

        Flash, the Constitution was written, in MAJOR part to maximize the freedoms of the individual and to RESTRICT the reach of the Federal Government into the lives of individuals. The primary job of the state constitutions is to protect the people from the people, and to afford state citizens the freedoms to conduct their lives without onerous interferences from the Feds.

      • Flashy

        vig….we both just said the same thing in different language. I would not have put it as “maximizing freedoms”. We all have the same number, but as you stated..the US Const. is a document which tells the government what powers it has, and it has no more than what was given it. it also acts to protect the minjority from the majority. i.e. protects the person from the People…for example, those nutjobs protesting at military funerals or Nazis wanting to march, TPers wanting to protest etc. The majority would say “no”…but the minoirty has rights protected from the majority.

        We say the same thing…

      • kkflash

        Did you even read the article? “Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.” It was the CHIEF JUSTICE who pointed out Obama’s oeverreaching big government, anti-freedom position. It was you who tried to spin the story to have something to do with George Bush. The only connection this has to Bush is that the event precipitating the lawsuit happened to occur during his administration. When are you liberal fools going to stop living in the past and accept the fact that the current administration is trying to trample the Constitution daily. The Supreme Court just forced them to take a giant step backward in that trampling, in a UNANIMOUS decision. That’s right. Sotomayer and Kagan agree that Obama’s minions have overstepped their authority once again.

      • Flashy

        i read the article. More importantly I READ THE FRIPPIN’ OPINION. Did you?

        gawd…the lies y’all will make up and believe. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelieveable.

      • DaveH

        Oh sure you did, Flashman. You didn’t even know that the case was filed with the EEOC in May of 2005 until Rick corrected you.

      • Flashy

        Dave…you can’t even read so why bother. i said it was begun in 2003-2004. The employee filed her complaint in 2005..the discrimination began in 2004. My error was misreading when she took time off which was the actual starting point.

        So…didn’t find anything in Mises to link to today?

      • DaveH

        You’re equivocating, Flashman, as usual. The “Case” begins when it is filed as a “Case”. You’re just doing your usual butt-covering. Can’t you just come clean for once and admit that you were wrong?
        Why not just go all the way with your nonsense and say the case began when Cheryl Perich was hired in 2000?
        The Government didn’t have anything to do with the situation until she filed a complaint with the EEOC.

      • DaveH

        I will repeat Flashman’s comment here — “the case bagn in 2003-2004. DURING THE FIRST TERM OF BUSH/CHENEY”

      • Flashy

        Dave…the issue begins when the issue involved occurs. ie “this case began when petitioner acted …”

      • DaveH

        Where was that quote from, Flashman, and why didn’t you paste the whole quote? References please, you know you have no credibility.

      • Jim Cumber

        This was a prelude to yet another case (whose name eludes me at present) which seeks to make every church in the country COMPLETELY BEHOLDEN to the Federal Government for the appointment of their clergy! SCOTUS got it RIGHT for once! The Federal Government has NO right to impose its will on the selection of clergy of ANY ecclesiastical body! To do so establishes a STATE RELIGION, which is PLAINLY FORBIDDEN by the First Amendment. It would NOT surprise me if the OBAMANATION in the White House would seek to install Muslim Immams to lead every Church in the country, seeing as how there is MORE than enough evidence (for those with enough intelligence and education in Islam to see it) that our pseudo-POTUS is actually a “stealth (or maybe, not-so-stealth) Muslim.” After all, he bowed to the Saudi King, which was an OPEN sign of fealty to the Sunni Muslim monarch, and to RADICAL WAHABISM!

      • NC

        To quote a famous Christian! ” I would rather be governed by a competent Turk(Muslim) than by an incompetent Christian.” We saw first hand how that “imcompetent Christian” thing worked out from 2001-2008.

      • Tom W.

        NC, W only posed as a Christian! The ole’ apple doesn’t fall far from the tree! He was as much a part of the Illuminati as the elder!!!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhxKaf857tE
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVaJhpMonsA

        They do there job well! Just the fact that they keep us battling each other and not focused on the real enemy, them, is proof of that!!! Their signs and symbols are everywhere! WAKE UP AMERICA, SNAP OUT OF IT!!!

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Now how that can be an attempt by Obama is beyond me.”

        Yes.

        Flashy: “But I’m sure there is some wild outlandish nonsensical answer there somewhere.”

        Indeed there probably are a lot of them.

        Flashy: “Maybe just ignore the facts to spin another lie?”

        Which fact were you planning to ignore? The one about who wrote the argument used in the case? An arguement that was rejected by the court. One that was so “wild/outlandish/nonsensical” as to have Chief Justice Roberts label it as “extreme”? Is that one of those pesky little facts you were planning to ignore?

        OP writes:
        “Roberts labeled as “extreme”the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.”

      • Flashy

        Vicki…read the opinion.

      • DaveH

        And where is that, Flashman. The implication of your comment is that you have read the opinion. So, show us the link. Remember, you have no credibility on this board.

      • Vicki

        I did read it Flashy. Did you have any valid point or were you just trying to convince people that I didn’t?

    • http://mozillathunderbird right wing nut

      Did I read what I think you wrote?

      • libertytrain

        I think you did….it was a ruling for God’s sake according to him…

    • gipb

      @ robert ferguson: IT HAS EVERYTHING! Once again and true to form another moron lefty tries the duck’n weave and to shift the blame and responsibility! READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN! And read it again and again for as many times as it TAKES until it cuts through the gray matter in your head and the little dim light finally switches on! Obumer is destroying “our” America and this is an excellent example of abuse of power! How can ANYONE even remotely think that this is ok!?? He is an utter embarrassment to this Country and has proved time and time again by his actions (and lack of) that he has absolutely NO CLUE how to run this Country – only how to dismantle it – and if you (and whoever else) can’t see that then you really are a sad moron!

      • DumbUp

        Sir:

        Well done.

        There are several on this string that are just TOO stupid to see the world outside that small “porthole” they look through.

      • Rick

        It was the Bush administration that filed the suit.

      • The Big Geezer

        and Obama that decided to fight it at the Supreme Court!

      • DaveH

        From the article that Rick linked to:
        “On May 15, 2005, Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC and Perich then filed suit in federal district court alleging that the church had retaliated against Perich – in violation of the ADA – by rescinding her call after it learned that she had a disability and was contemplating legal action. On Oct. 23, 2008, the district court decided against Perich, ruling that since she had been called as a commissioned minister, her firing was subject to the ministerial exception and thus was not within the court’s purview. On March 2, 2010, this decision was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Perich was not covered by the ministerial exception because most of her duties – teaching nonreligious subjects – were secular. The church then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which on March 28, 2011, agreed to hear the case”.

      • Vicki

        Rick says:
        “It was the Bush administration that filed the suit.”

        And it was the Obama administration that wrote the argument presented to the court. It is THAT argument for which the OP wrote the title of the article. Had Obama and/or his administration actually been on the side of the Constitution they could have just said oops. Our bad. But no. They wrote an argument (Bush did not write it. The Bush administration did not write it.) The OBAMA administration wrote it.

      • DaveH

        “On October 23, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hosanna-Tabor”.
        “Perich and the EEOC timely filed notices of appeal on January 30, 2009″. That would be under the Obama Administration.
        http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0065p-06.pdf

      • Alex

        Try to keep in focus, gipb—while Presdient Barack Hussein Obama has been a serious disappointment to the thinking people of the Left, he’s like the rookie closer in a 2-1 game, sent in with the bases loaded and nobody out, thanks to the previous overpaid and bloated starting pitcher, George Bush.

        It was the Bush/Cheney Regime who ignored specific warnings and thus allowed 911 to unfold in the manner which it did, GAVE UP on finding Osama bin Laden when he was in THEIR grasp in Tora Bora, and in order to take the simple minds of people like you off of that FACT, proceeded
        to toss 5000+ of YOUR CHILDREN into a mass grave in Iraq.

        So maybe the closer is a bit rusty and walks in a run—we just need to get him an extra inning…

      • Alex

        By the way—the Bush Crime Family was able to start two wars and KEEP THEM OFF THE BOOKS—out of the budget—until they were shown the door. You want to talk about ruining the country some more, gipj?

      • DaveH

        And that was wrong, Alex, but did we hear you complaining about Obama’s Unconstitutional War in Libya?

      • Flashy

        What war was that? i know that we went in under treaty obligations giving support under our NATO obligations…but i know of no “war” where we committed ground force or lost any American lives…

        Was Croatia and Bosnia a ‘war” ?

      • DaveH

        Any military action is a WAR. Just like any Killing is Killing by any other name or excuse.
        Here is the War Powers Resolution for those who are ignorant enough to believe anything Flashman says:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
        “The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”".

      • Don

        Alex, bush started the war in Iraq with the YES vote from Congress, unlike the POS in office now, or are you to stupid to understand that ?

      • Flashy

        you mdo know that no administyration, from Carter on, has ever said the War powers Act was consitutional. Add to that, Congress has never tried to enforce it. Ever wonder why? probably not since you dont think…

        So the Balkans was a war? How about when Reagan sent the marines to lebanon? Was that a war? you guys are soooo thick sometimes…

      • DaveH

        Flashman,
        Thanks for posting. You are our poster boy for illustration of the adolescent behavior of Liberals.

      • m

        Cheney didn’t “ignore” warnings. He plainly undermined efforts to stop 911 from happening and that is with criminal intent.
        It is enough to know that in july of 2001 the whole NORAD procedure was changed so that they would need go ahead from the president or vice president to intercept any threat (the join cheifs of staff were relieved of that duty). After 911 happened the process was returned back to previous “fast” process.
        There is more than enough circumstantial and witness evidence to indict and convict Cheney of treason.

      • Flashy

        Shall we also mention that in july of that year, bush resumed financial aid to the taliban overturning the ban on aid which Clinton had placed on them…. for harboring terrorists …

      • DaveH

        Oh, and you have evidence to back up your assertions, Flashman?
        You have no credibility, so we need references from you.

      • Flashy

        DaveH..if you are too lazy to look it up to prove the statement in error, don’t expect me to sit and hold your hand.

        Cinton cut off aid to Afghanistan for supporting terrorism. Clinton warned bush about bin Laden. Bush resumed aid to Afghanistan in the summer, bin Laden planned and ordered the 9/11 attacks. Such are the facts.

      • DaveH

        Your words mean nothing, Flashman. References please.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Flashy you made the claim and it was challenged. It is now up to you to PROVE your claim.

      • Wyatt

        When did we start playing baseball ? And Alex , little Barry wasn’t sent in , he asked for the job . That he isn’t up to the task is not the point the voters put him in an office that he was not qualified for and the boob is now in over his head and blaming everybody for his own short coming.
        Actually all Obama has in mind is “How can I destroy America” ? This is his only agenda and has been since he started running for office . His beloved Communism was proved not to work but it seems he never got the memo !

      • John

        And you know that this article is the truth? How? because it is on this site of twists and spin? If you want to see the real truth you will have to go and read the ORIGINAL supreme court paper, because like it or not, all you find here is spin.

      • DaveH

        Rick posted a very good article outlining the history of the case.

      • Flashy

        He did. And it clearly stated…the case was appealed by the church from a 6th Circuit ruling against it. So…had the SCOTUS agreed with the 6th Circuit…would there be this ruckus today? LOL

      • DaveH

        More double-speak from Flashman.

      • Jim Cumber

        Two “thumbs up” on what you said!!! The OBAMANATION is now trying to strip us of our Freedom of Religion, probably (as I implied in my earlier comment), in order to make RADICAL ISLAM into the US “STATE RELIGION,” IN VIOLATION OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT! Stand by for the coming Muslim attempt to offer us “The Sword or the Qu’ran!”…

    • Patriot Missle

      Hey Ferguson,
      Go back & read the article. It has everything to do with OBAMA…Try to read past your blind ignorance & open up your Liberal eyes.

    • DaveH

      Right Wing Nuts? So, here we have the first Liberal post of the day, and it’s a personal attack, as usual.
      We blame Obama, Robert, because HE is the Chief Executive. You know the Boss over the EEOC. The buck stops with Obama.
      It’s interesting that Liberals want to legislate our lightbulb usage, our energy choices, our healthcare choices, our religious worship choices, and how much of our OWN money we get to keep,….
      But then when it comes time for Them to Obey the Law, they kick and scream all the way.
      What a bunch of hypocrites.

      • independent thinker

        DaveH here is something off subject but of interest that showed up on MSN this morning.

        “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows.

        The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington’s biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.

        Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Holder and Breuer had complied fully with conflict of interest regulations, but she declined to say if they had recused themselves from any matters related to the former clients.

        Reuters reported in December that under Holder and Breuer, the Justice Department hasn’t brought any criminal cases against big banks or other companies involved in mortgage servicing, even though copious evidence has surfaced of apparent criminal violations in foreclosure cases.”

    • Dr. smith

      I often wonder, how we got such an impostor marxist as president; then I read a remark like that from the great mind of robert Ferguson and it all becomes very very clear why we have this freak as president.

      “ignorance is bliss”

      • m

        he is not a marxist – he is a wall street boy just like Dubbya. If anything he is fascist.
        Socialism for corporations and capitalism for individuals. Check up definitions before you spew out whatever you hear from Rush Limbaugh and the usual right wing propaganda.

      • DaveH

        Obama’s actions and appointments say Socialist at best, Communist at worst.

      • Alex

        Very, very closed mind there, DaveH, as usual.

      • DaveH

        Is that the best you can do, Alex?

    • Joseph

      mr ferguson theliberals have not use por you.wait intill you get yours
      wake up.

    • Old Henry

      Just having Little Barry Soetoro in OUR White House shreds our Constitution.

      The will be THE seminole moment for the Supreme Court – tossing out this inllegitimate, fraudulent usurper. Then we zero out his entore term of occupation.

      • Jim Cumber

        I think you meant “seminal” moment: please refrain from insulting our Seminole Indian cousins…they have NOTHING to do with this political and legal “dust up!”

      • Old Henry

        Sorry Jim. My apoloties. My keebord is at it again.

      • DaveH

        They didn’t, Jim, until you used their name in vain in an inane and unnecessary attack on Henry.

    • DavidL

      Wow, religious/conservative right, a unanimous Supreme Court rules that contained in our Constitution there is, indeed, a separation between Church and state. Do you get it now?

      • Flashy

        Hmmm..so my religion supports as a doctrine the woman’s choice…and that a Right to lifer is really a Satanist. that’s Ok with everyone then if we accept a church’s right to discriminate? And, of course, the SCOTUS upheld the religious exception based upin the ruling and reasoning of this case?

      • DaveH

        Show us, DavidL, where in the Constitution that is stated?

    • BrianF

      The whole thing started under the Bush Administraion in 2005. The reason it now relates to Obama is because (if I am correct) the EEOC falls under the Department of Justice which in turn is part of the Executive Branch. Meaning, the buck stops with Obama.

      Antodav, she was fired for going outside the church (filing a lawsuit) to resolve the issue, which violates the teaching of the church.

      Case closed.

      • DaveH

        She missed the first five months of the school year. Another teacher had been hired to replace her. The replacement teacher had a school-year contract. The school closed in 2009, probably due to legal expenses. So, all those teachers were displaced, and the children had to change to a new school. The lawyers no doubt made big bucks.
        Cheryl Perich was on disability and if she was indeed worth her salary could have found another job elsewhere.
        The Congregation lost, Cheryl lost, the lawyers won, and the Government won — all at the taxpayers’ expense. You gotta love the Big Government Gang. NOT.

    • mike1127

      While this issue may have started under Bush, the EEOC continued it with the Obama administration’s blessing. I am tired of having our problems blamed on Bush. Obama has been in office long enough to own any problems that we have. If Obama had wanted this suit stopped, he could have stopped it. He did not. That makes it his. All he had to do was withdraw the EEOC from the argument, and the case would have been over.

      It is way past time we insist on blaming Bush for anything. Every single thing that Obama promised not to do during his campaign, he has done. Now he is targeting Iran. Barack Obama is more like George Bush than Bush is. This is Obama’s mess now. Deal with it. Americans voted him in last time, hopefully we will vote him out this time. He has been a disgrace as a President, and an embarrassment to the Office. He keeps on showing no regard whatsoever for the Constitution. For someone that supposedly taught classes on it, I wonder if he’s even read the document.

      If the Republicans lose this election, it will be a miracle. A brain-dead coma victim should be able to beat Obama. He has made our country worse, not better, during his term. Jimmy Carter should thank him every day, because Obama is officially the worst President in our history.

      • Doug

        Hey Farty and the rest of your turds in the bowl can one of you tell me about you hero why he and MOOOOOOchel gave up thier law licenses? It seems to be the Demorat way how many Demorat politicians can you think of that had to either give up their law license or were suspended? That should tell you a lot. And anyone that thinks Obama was born in Hawaii really is looking at double rainbows, specially when the turd can’t even remember what hospital he was born in. I can remember mine and it was the same one he claims now he was born in. But even that matters not since he’s not a natural born citizen. And maybe you can tell me why the Demorats since 2004 kept trying to introduce laws that redefine what a natural born citizen is which does not follow the last decision by the Supreme Court or the Federalist Papers!

      • Flashy

        DaveH—>”does not follow the last decision by the Supreme Court ” Errr..what decision was that Sparky?

        BTW…if you will do any research other than Mises, you will see that it is common practice for non-practicing attorneys to cede the license to practice as their current duties are not connected with the practice of law. I also believe if you examine the status of many atty members of Congress, the situation is the same with the status of their law licenses.

      • DaveH

        Apparently, Flashman is hitting the bottle again. Why are you commenting to me about Doug’s comment, Flashman? And you wonder why you have no credibility?

    • Scott

      OMG!!! Robert Ferguson, assumed by me to be a left wing nut as he is whining about right wing nuts, used the word “God”. He must now face the left wing crowd who will surely chastise him for his beliefs in a higher power that is NOT government. Is this a crack in their wall? If so, we all need to encourage Mr. Fergson in his endeavor to break out of the left wing mold.

    • BillyBob117

      Hey fergy——-why do the dim/libs always have to circle the wagons to protect their hero, the great imposter? The EEOC was doing exactly what little barry and his lackies ordered. Get over it and please grow up—-

      • http://MSN MaryCorrell

        I agree with you 100%. Looking at the birth certificate, which at first couldn’t be found, is not what one would expect to see from a hospital. He is not a U.S. citizen, if he had been, he would have produced proof when this first came out. Look at all the phony ID’s being sold. We have to get this idiot out of office and even out of country would please me.

      • DaveH

        Obama is just the tip of the iceberg. Our country has been slowly perverted from Freedom to Federal Government Unconstitutional Domination by Progressives for over 100 years.
        As citizens, we need to recognize the problem and give some massive political chemotherapy to cure our country. Both parties are complicit in the takeover of our country. Until the citizens are awakened from their Propaganda induced slumber, Government will continue to grow, and our freedom will continue to shrink.
        Ron Paul 2012!
        http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

    • Marvs2

      Robert – the Supreme Court labeled the Obama ADMINISTRATIONS’s argument as extreme – not Obama. And let’s face the facts – any of his Czar’s commissions do only what Obama tells/allows them to do – witness Obama telling Holder to IGNORE passed legislation on marriage. And there’s no point in blaming it on the Bush administration – throughout his reign Obama has been blaming all the problems on Bush; Now you guys are DEFENDING your illegal actions by saying “Bush started it!” Make up your minds – Obama has to start taking the credit and responsibility for his own actions! You sound like one of Obama’s paid bloggers, hired to defend everything he does.

    • http://www.MicahPeak.org Jeff Brodhead

      O’Dingo and his pack of attack weasels have been out of bounds since day one. This has a lot, no, EVERYTHING to do with that FERAL dog on the throne in the White OUT House!

      The supreme Court has been too squirrely for a long time. This and a few other “rulings” (opinions) give some hope – especially with ObamaDONTcare coming up for TERMINATION.

    • Sophocles

      What? Obama’s appointment of czars without Congressional approval, and his unconstitutional so-called “out-of-session” appointments should not be contested? Surely, you jest! And you might want to lay off the funny stuff!

    • Forrest Gump

      I distinctly remember reading that Obama, through one of his spokesmen from the West Wing, most likely, made the statement, as a move to back the EEOC’s stance, that “the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.” This was also stated in the article, just after the quote of Chief Justice John Roberts.
      Maybe you left wing nut jobs should learn to read.

      • Flashy

        Who made the statement you allege?

        you won’t likely find it since it is made up. No “spokesperson’ would have made any such statement.

        you guys just don’t think. It’s written by some wackjob llunatic or some right winger, you beieve it…whether or not it’s a lie and belies even cursory application of common sense, such doesn’t matter. you were told it was true…you dont think, and thus the lie served its purpose.

      • DaveH

        You have no credibility, Flashman. Why do you think any intelligent readers would believe a word you say?

    • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

      Robert, you completely missed the point. When GWB overstepped his position as Potus the Demos had a hissy fit. When Obama takes a much bigger overstep, such as targeting a U.S. Citizen for assination (YEmen). The Demos are completely silent. Wake up and smell the coffee. Both parties are corrupt and are leading us to a One World Government with a single currency, and the same International Bankers will be in charge of the whole shebang.

    • COS911

      The EEOC is part of the executive branch and they appeal previous decisions based on the desires of the sitting President, particularly appeasl to the US Supream Court (USSC). The EEOC might file the original case without Presidential knowledge, and maybe the Circuit appeal. But appeals to the USSC on behalf of the US Government are argued by the Solicitor General–in this case who was appointed by Obama. So it was this administration’s argument addressed by the USSC decision, and the President sitting when the case originated had no input into this appeal. The Justices knew who they were admonishing and who made the argument.

    • Mark

      Obviously Obama is going to be blamed retroactively for anything that went wrong in our history. Facts be damned.

      Where was Obama during the War of 1812? Why did he not prevent the Brits from attacking? Vile, I say, Vile!

      • Doug

        Mark you are looking at the wrong play book now you are going to use the socialist left play book and say everything that happens after Obozo is impeached or voted out that it will all be because of him. Boy can I get a pass to unicorn utopia you lefties live in where you get to play both sides of the line of scrimmage. Kind of like Public unions negotiating with the same people that they stuff dollars bills into their pockets. I am sure all professional athletics would love to negotiate with themselves over pay. I can see it now Kobe Bryant goes into closed door negotiating with himself over the large raise he want to give himself, quote from Kobe ” Not sure which side will when this tough negotiating”. You lefties are out in leftfield get it lefty!

      • Mark

        First of all – this decision has nothing to do with Obama. The case started under Bush. Learn to read.

        Second – invest in a good English grammar book.

        Both of these tips will help you from looking like an idiot the next time you post. Good luck.

      • libertytrain

        While it may have begun under Bush, did not Obama’s folks handle it or did they allow Bush’s team of attorneys to finish the job. Gee… I don’t think so…

      • Vicki

        Mark says:
        “First of all – this decision has nothing to do with Obama. The case started under Bush. Learn to read.”

        Pehaps you should look in a mirror and then take your own good advice. Let me direct you to the relevant passage in the OP.

        “(Chief Justice)Roberts labeled as “extreme” the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect a religious organization’s right to choose its own leaders.”

        Note that, unlike liberals, Roberts is quite aware of whose administration submitted the argument for which he commented.

      • libertytrain

        Vicki – well done.

      • DaveH

        Both of these tips, Mark?
        The first is blatantly wrong.
        The district court ruled in favor of the Congregation on October 23, 2008. And was appealed on January 30, 2009. Let’s see, who was President when the appeal was made? Duh.
        Talk about an idiot.

      • ctc

        MARK.. HERE WE HAVE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. . MARK.. GOOD OL MARK.. A NICE LITTLE FAG COMMUNIST WHO BEDS DOWN WITH OBAMA.. THE TRUTH IS THAT ACTUALLY MARK IN A BOTTOM BABY AND GUESS WHO TOPS HIM? OBAMA.

    • Roy

      Not a thing But His Cazars And He is no president all he does is crap.

    • ctc

      ATTN: ROBERT FERGUSON.. Hey, Communist, why don’t you just LEAVE our great nation. You can move to Cuba and live with some Cuban fags.. or you can just go on down the hell and burn.. that’s where you should, you filthy communist.

      • Alex

        (offensive comment removed)

      • Karolyn

        Thank you so much for living up to our low expectations! So sad :-(

    • bill

      Oh, you don’t get the obvious?What we “Nuts” are saying is, that Obama’s shredding the Constitution of these United States of America and we’re happy to see the Supreme Court make a GREAT decision, w/ the hopes that they will do some reversals, when we kick the Traitor out of office, in November.Also, we have hopes that we can actually keep our Sovereignty and NOT be ran by the U.N. because that was NOT the way the Founding Fathers intended for it to be.We The People, are SUPPOSED to be the Government & the elected Officials are not Kings, but mere figure heads that need to represent the People, not a NWO!Simple enough for ya?!

    • gggirl

      Yes! It was a Supreme Court ruling and a d!@#$ good one. Anything that can be tied to Obama to get him out of office is a VERY good thing. For all the shenanigans he’s engaged in on a “political level” should insure his demise as a two-term president. He’s been nothing but a disgrace to the office and the country. There isn’t a single issue you or anyone else for that matter, can HONESTLY point to that has increased the quality of life in our nation…NOT ONE! The official misery index (there really is one) has moved from a 9 to 11! Oh Yeah: Four more years of Obama…NOT!!

    • Old Henry

      robert!

      Here is some entertainment for ya and yer buddies.
      What a voice!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=x2G3wGVAnlQ

    • Thomas Millet

      So when is Obama finally going to be charged with crimes against the good American Citizens who built this country, and Work hard to keep it strong and stable, for trying to circumvent the constitution, steeling money with his solar energy rip off, and passing laws without authority designed to take away our rights. Put that criminal in prison.

    • Ranger 1

      Admittedly, the Supremes got this decision right. Strictly 1st Amendment stuff. Don’t have to be a legal scholar to figure that one out! On the other hand, I think it’s notable that this has been one of the very few decisions emanating from the Robert’s Court that was handled correctly. Am frankly surprised that the Obama administration would have supported this clergy teacher. The state should have no say in church decisions. On the other hand, Chip is treading on very thin ice when he complains about Obama’s recess appointments. In 2 terms, Dubya made 171 of them, mostly very poor quality. Obama, in one term has made only 32. And as far as “Obamacare”, now that many of the provisions have kicked in, the overwhelming public opinion is that this was an act that benefitted many previously uninsured folks, and was a good idea. Not a GREAT idea, mind you, like Single Payer would have been, but still far better than what we had before! Hopefully, we’ll get insurance companies completely out of the health care business some day. I have a few good buddies, and I love them dearly even though they sometimes seem to suffer from “cranial constipation” who are continually complaining about “Big Government’s” support for social welfare. Sure there are those who take advantage of the system (right-wing-nuts love to call them “Welfare Queens”), but the amount our government pays for social welfare absolutely pales compared to the way in which all of us taxpayers are absolutely screwed by “Corporate Welfare”, which when you crunch the numbers involving tax breaks, subsidies, etc. is almost two to three orders of magnitude greater than the totals government spends on all of our social safety nets combined. For those of you readers who might be mathematically challenged, an order of magnitude is 10 times greater. So yes, Corporate welfare is costing us $$$Trillions (think, Bank Bailout), as opposed to social welfare which is in the paltry billions.

    • http://N/A Honkyrat

      MAN are you an idoit!Where do you get right wing at?

    • Antoinette McCoy

      I agree,it was the republicans who put this country in the fix that it is in,not obama he tried to get them to agree with some of his ideas but they didn’t we as a people fell to the tea party tactics and voted for the republicans in the senate and the house thats what they wanted so they got it now its nothing but gredlock in both. this was nothing but a conspiracy any way against obama from the start remember the pac the republicans signed well i do biehner said that it was his job to get obama out of the white house anyway, republicans that voted on the stimulus bills to,this country fail under a republican president where was he or what was he doing at the time it failed. he had to know about the big banks so i say he did nothing to stop it,because he knew that obama was going to win the election and just let it happen a overall conspiracy .You know I will do all I can to help obama get re-elected

blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom