Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • shell

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

  • 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?

  • 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?

  • 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!…

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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 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.

  • 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

    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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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://aol.com sean murrey ILLIniois

    Robert get your head out of your rear.

  • 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!

  • Mike Davidson

    Lets Hope Obamacare is next to GO.

    • Don

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

  • 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.

  • 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!!!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • http://juanita.shell@att.net Juanita Shell

    The criticism against President Obama is misplaced. President Obama was just standing firm with the EEOC a civil rights law. Church law has nothing to do with this. If someone is disabled how can they work. The racist statics of the Roberts Court speaks for itself. It is also predictable that Roberts will rule against the Health Care Reform Law when all logical thinking people know that it is needed. All of this is evidence that America is the most racist place in the world to live. Unfortunately people are still fighting ending slavery. Get over it Slavery is over!

    • DumbUp

      That bus runs both directions

    • Vigilant

      “Racist?” Be careful, Juanita. You are calling the left wing activist judges (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer) racists.

      The decision was UNANIMOUS! What part on “unanimous” do you not understand?

      Another case of the unwarranted playing of the race card. You lefties are too predictable.

    • rasta soul

      Yes they blame Obama for everything under the sun what everyone’s forgetting is that.Obama run for the whitehouse was for change and to better health care and to make better for all americans.But as usual blame the blackman for all of americas problems,Obama this Obama that since the man been in office the republicans has been defiant to the bitter end.And yeah Blackpeople have been fighting slavery since comeing to america.And that remark to get over it,never would you tell the jews to get over the holocuast.

      • Vigilant

        I rest my case. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.

      • Tom W.

        OK Buffalo Soulja, If your gonna play the race card, lay ‘em all down! Blame the half breed!!! Barack is more white than he is black! Was he not for the most part raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii? Is he not more of a spoiled little white brat than a true soul brother?!! I don’t care how well he thinks he sings Al Green, as a community organizer in Chi-town he was personal council to Tony Rezco, an Arab-American who was the biggest slum lord on Chicago’s South Side! A man who made his fortune oppressing poor black folks!!! I wouldn’t call the poser my brother! Go ahead, do the research! Prove me a lier!!! Our POTUS!

        • JeffH

          Tom W., :) That’s what I would call “layin’ it all out in the open”! :)

    • Vicki

      Juanita Shell writes:
      ” Unfortunately people are still fighting ending slavery. Get over it Slavery is over!”

      and also writes:
      “Roberts will rule against the Health Care Reform Law when all logical thinking people know that it is needed.”

      IF slavery is over why do you want the Obama Health law? just 1 of its requirements is for you and me and everyone to do as the master commands and buy a product the master demands for us to buy?

  • Herbert

    Robert Ferguson it was the Obama Administration that took it on.and it is you and other left wing nuts that want to destroy the constitution.without regard to the rule of law.and it is Obama that thinks he is above the constitution and the rule of law.

  • Joe Chicago

    Make up your mind. Do you support the constitution (contra Bush) or not (pro Bush)? Also, the constitution does in fact provide for the ability of Presidents to make recess appointments. Your god, Reagan did it, Bush I did it. The cynical ploy of Republican’ts “pro-forma” sessions of Congress is a thinly veiled ploy to continue thwarting any tiny bit of progress this Administration might try to make in fixing this economy after 30 years of neoliberal assault.

    • Vigilant

      “The cynical ploy of Republican’ts [sic] “pro-forma” sessions of Congress is a thinly veiled ploy….”

      And when the Democrats do it, which they have on more than one occasion, what do you call that? Adherance to lofty principles?

      Ignorance, thy name is Joe Chcago.

    • JustSayin

      Ah-hem, Dems did those pro-forma sessions against Bush. Did you rail against it then, or cheeer because your guys were standing up against that evil Bush guy. Sauce for the goose and all that….

      • Flashy

        Did Bush challenge the legitimacy of those sessions?

        • Vigilant

          No, Flashy, unlike Obama, Bush did not challenge their Constitutional legitimacy.

          Get your head straight and decide which side you want to argue on.

          • Flashy

            As i said in the past vig…if bush had challenged it, i would not have liked it, but would not have made blanket statements. it is a good question who is correct on the issue.

            Now…according to Dave h etc…since the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the Constitution, who would decide if what the Pres. did was Constitutional?

            BTW…while you and i go at it tooth and nail, I will give you credit for being one of the few on this forum from the right who thinks. You and 45 I do read with interest and give your position some thought (most of the time :)

          • DaveH

            Tu ne cede malis,
            sed contra audentior ito

          • Flashy

            Plagerized from the Mises website eh Dave?

          • DaveH

            It was Ludwig Von Mise’s childhood motto, and it applies well to you.

  • Brad B.

    They didn’t tell Obama “NO”. They told this lady “NO” and violated her rights. Well done on cheering for the squashing of personal liberties on the personal liberty website.

    • libertytrain

      I don’t follow – they reaffirmed the rights of the school/church in question. I don’t have a problem with the woman losing her case. She had an opportunity more than once to settle and get on with her life. We don’t know all the particulars. In court some win, some lose; she gambled and lost. The school/church gambled and won its rights back.

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      How did they violate this lady’s rights, Brad?

      Employment isn’t a right, you know. You can’t force someone to hire and pay you if they don’t want to.

  • Donald D Jones ww2 vet

    This has been an interesting discussion Constitutional authority
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, read it again as I see it
    this case should never have reached the Court. this is not a matter to be decided by the Court. and that is the way I see it
    from an 85 yrar old American.

  • FreedomFighter

    Wow lookie lookie all the liberal attack dogs out today…Soros hiring again?

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Brad B.

      Love how conversations are reduced to the overly used term calling folks “Liberal”. Wouldn’t expect anything less from a Marine.

      • FreedomFighter

        Sir you mistaken, I called the liberals — attack dogs.

        Judge Napolitano: What if they’re lying to you

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNWGG0xoEQ

        Ron Paul 2012

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • .50BMG

        First of all, it’s the opinion of the person not the military as a whole. I would ask that you forgo insulting our military. Your insults irrelevant (as are you). IF YOU HAVEN’T SERVED (it’s obvious you haven’t-you would have had your [expletive deleted] as* beaten into the ground) -THEN SHUT UP!!
        For those that have served, I sincerely thank you for the freedoms I enjoy (and the ones already taken from us). It’s typical of public schooled, brainwashed people to not know what “Semper Fi” means. Can you add and subtract without a calculator?

      • DaveH

        Anybody who supports Big Government as the Solution is a Liberal, Brad.
        If the shoe fits, wear it.

    • aubreyfarmer

      It isn’t often that I read comments more biased toward fascism and Communism than those posted here. If this becomes the mindset for the majority of the voting public, then we will see if our Republic can withstand the onslaught of attacks that are sure to follow against our individual liberty. The extreme ignorance so prevalent today coupled with the not so subtle indoctrination through the Jewish owned media now poses a real threat to our way of life. This is always how the Communists get their foot in the door. Create a problem, wait for the sheep to start running scared and then give them a solution that promotes an agenda that will when carried to fruition impose tyranny. We are well on the way.

      • Tom W.

        Hey Farmer, you make a lot of good points sometimes but there seems to be a consistent anti-Semitic tone in ALL of your posts! You’re not one of those card carrying neo-Nazi skinheads are ya?!!

        Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV)
        “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

        Gen. 32:24-30(KJV)
        “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

        You’d better get on the RIGHT side Farmer, you surely don’t want to get numbered amongst the goats!!! (Matt. 25:31-46)

      • Nadzieja Batki

        What has your rambling nonsense to do with the analysis of the Supreme Court decision?
        The SC made a really good decision at this time.

    • Tom W.

      Like a pack of rabid wolves FF, I pray you’re packin’!

      • FreedomFighter

        Not only do I pack, I have 30 plus years experiance unpacking, if you know what I mean.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

  • Tom W.

    Let me see if I got this sraight, this teacher had an illness and when she was ready to return to work, the school refused to let her return? To me, this is a threat to all of our rights. If she had been teaching something that was against church doctrines, that would be a different story. But maybe this is a good decission in the fact that the cuurent administration would’ve used a reverse decission as an excuse to run roughshod over the church’s First Amendment right to hire and fire based on morality. But if the church simply wouldn’t allow the teacher to return to work because of an illness, then they were wrong and will have the Great Physician to whom they will have to explain themselves!!! But I am glad to see the SCOTUS stand up for the Constitution. For those of you who keep bringing up the seperation clause, have I got a quote for y’all!

    “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 THERE!!!

    • Sirian

      Very good TomW., very good. But here’s the problem. . . they will continue to scoff at this decision no matter what since it doesn’t fit into their “all knowing” agenda.

      • Flashy

        The scoffing will be at anyone who tries to lie saying this was an Obama case.

        • Tom W.

          And just who’s sitting in Capt. Kirks seat right now Flashy?!! Beam us up Jesus, what are you waiting for?! You’re just to kind hearted Lord! Yes, I know you died for them also Lord Jesus, please forgive me!!! Y’all better be glad that I ain’t He!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Tom W.

        That’s because they’re under the power of the “All Seeing Eye” Sirian, they’d better wake up and realize who that “All Seeing Eye” belongs to!!! (II Cor.4:4)

        • Flashy
          • Tom W.

            Thanks Flash, very interesting site! Did you know that if you stood on the nort-west porch of the Capital Bldg. looking down Pennsylvania Av, on Aug. the 10th that the sun will set right down the Av.? About one half hour after the sun sets, the constellation Virgo will appear directly over the White House. Virgo is also known as the Queen of Heaven (Jer. 44:19), Ashtoreth by the Cannanites, Isis by the Egyptians,Demeter by the Greeks, and Ceres by the Romans. If this kind of stuff interests you, it absolutely fascinates me! The book “The Secret Architecture Of Our Nation’s Capital” by David Ovason is one of the best I’ve ever read!
            Keep your eyes on the skies, Jesus is coming! He loves y’all and so do I!!!

  • simian pete

    Ok. So the SUpreme COurt basically ruled a government bureacracy was interfering in religous liberties. So the moral of the story is …

    Teach at a public school – they pay better plus if you get canned, you can use the EEOC to get compensation…… HA HA !!!

    Maybe if she (the teacher/minister) wasn’t involved in being a minister she would have had prevailed. So there is another lesson ! If you teach at a church school – don’t be a minister !! Just make sure you are just designated a teacher !!! RIGHT ?

    • Flashy

      That was the question the SCOTUS didn’t decide…what constitutes a “minister” …

      • simian pete

        Ok, thanks for the info.

        It’s sad that the parties couldn’t settle this in their church..

  • Bev

    Personally, I wouldn’t want to work for a school that discards its teachers if they get sick. I think the Supreme Court made the right decision, but the way the school treated their employee is less than christian. This woman was expecting to come back to work only to find that she no longer had a job. It sounds like she had even completed all of the training required for the job. A sad circumstance for all.

    • libertytrain

      Perhaps they had already discovered that she was a lousy teacher and/or minister …and were grateful not to have to bring her back

      • Flashy

        The opinion of the 6th Circuit gives a very long and lengthy description of the fcts and history

        • DaveH

          Where is that opinion, Flashman?
          Do you not know how to paste a link?
          I’d be glad to help you. Maybe then, your other personalities could also post links to support their unsupported conjecture.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You should rethink what you posted. An “employer” has a right to terminate an employee if they can no longer employ her. Thankfully employers still can trim deadwood employees.

      • DaveH

        The irony is that the Ignorant Liberals can’t figure out that the employment laws cost the economy more jobs than they save.
        Hiring bureaucrats to create regulatory hurdles for businesses cost the private sector money, thus productive jobs.
        Paying the Justice system vastly more than they’re worth, and enabling frivolous lawsuits, costs the private sector money, thus productive jobs.
        The Big Government Gang laughs all the way to the bank.

    • granny mae

      This just seems to me to be missing something! There must be something we are missing because this whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me. I think the school must have had more reason for dismissle than what we know !

  • Larinthian

    I disagree with the court’s decision. The teacher/minister left for legitimate reasons and for the school to go behind their back as they did was wrong.When someone is about to have a baby, it’s not uncommon for them to go on maternity leave. During the time the person is on leave they temporarily get someone to fill the position but when the person is ready to come back they are able to do so. I could understand the decision if it was for poor performance or inappropriate behavior but even then I wouldn’t fire someone until the situation hadn’t improved The school’s decision was wrong and so was the court’s.

    • John

      It was a CHURCH school, typically run by the most bigoted and nasty people in the world who would not be able to get a job anywhere else. Organized religion and churches in the US are nothing but businesses and tax heavens masquerading as religion. It should be taxed and there should be NO exceptions under the law period.

      • DaveH

        No, the most bigoted and nasty people in the world are Liberals.
        What other class of people have worked so hard to dictate other peoples’ choices, and steal other peoples’ money using the Government as their facilitators?

    • Bill

      One the the best things that a person can and should do is to open a business so that one can start to have understanding of what is going on. From an employee perspective it is all together different. The concept of free enterprise is to be able to operate a business without the interference of government as long as you are not violating others rights. You do not have a right to employment, you can negotiate or contract with an employer the provisions of your employment. If that contract is broken by either party then and only then should the courts step in and settle a contract issue. We as free people should have the right to operate under any conditions as we may see fit, including wages, settlement of disputes procedures, work environment or any other issue so long as we do not violate the right of others to do the same. Someone who does not understand their contract before they commence work should seek legal counsel so that they are fully knowledgeable about all aspects of their contracted employment with others. For instance, if you sign a contract with an employer to work 8 hours without a break then that is what you contracted for, it might be stupid but who said you don’t have a right to be stupid. You should have a right to contract with anyone that would agree to a contract with you. You do not have a right to employment with anyone, only yourself. So-Go into your own business and teach others to do the same. Do not hire employees, you’ll only we setting up an adult day care center)have only independent contractors where each independent contractor has a contract with you. They pay their own taxes, make out their own paper work and you do not get involved with their baby sitting problems or sick problems. You are simply not responsible for other people unless…..you contract for that responsibility. Take control of your own life, there are more ways to acquire what you want than working for someone else.

      • Vicki

        Bill writes:
        “You do not have a right to employment”

        Well. Actually I do have a right to be employed. Where the liberal makes a mistake (and the tyrant uses this) is thinking that you have a responsibility to employ me. Your decision to NOT employ me has NO effect on my right to be employed. In fact as you say further on I can employ myself thus satisfying that right.

        • Vicki

          Lets apply this to health care. I have a right to health care. That does not give me the right to force you (at gunpoint of government) to give me that care. Nor does it give me the right to force Joe’s insurance to pay you to give me that care. Nor does it give me the right to force you and Fred (and others) to buy Joe’s insurance to pay for my health care.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Businesses or churches do not owe anyone a job. There is no right to a job.

      • DaveH

        There’s no right to food, shelter, clothing, or healthcare either, but that doesn’t stop the Liberal Slave Masters from taking those from other people.

        • DaveH

          We have evolved into a Society of Criminals:
          http://mises.org/daily/4125

        • Vicki

          DaveH writes:
          “There’s no right to food, shelter, clothing, or healthcare either, ”

          We DO have a right to those things. The problem is that liberals think that they have a right to force others (at gunpoint of government) to provide us with those things. This makes slaves out of them (and us).

          • DaveH

            I am speaking in the sense that certain people think others (through Government, thus the taxpayers) should provide those things for them.
            Judge Napolitano on Natural Rights:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVG2oaJ1c0

          • Vicki

            Then we should probably say that they have the right to food and shelter but are not entitled to it. Though that is fuzzy too since being entitled to food and shelter implies a right to it. Usually applied to property that is legally owned such as you are entitled to the fruits of your labor.

            No big surprise that socialists deliberately use that fuzziness to create confusion and get people to agree to laws that enslave themselves.

            Good link btw.

          • DaveH

            Vicki,
            This is a quote from Lew Rockwell’s book “The Left, The Right, and the State”:
            “The role of government is neither to grant rights nor to offer them some kind of permission to exist, but to restrain from violating them”.
            That, I think, is what both of us were trying to say.

          • Vicki

            Yes I think that is what both of us is trying to say. Thus we are both Constitutional Moderates as described in this video.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

  • http://mygunblog.blogspot.com/ Al Lowe

    Ok, why was she fired? Was it because she got sick? I didn’t see any mention of WHY Hosanna-Tabor didn’t want her back.

  • http://mygunblog.blogspot.com/ Al Lowe

    I’m curious too, did the school consider her to be a minister AFTER they decided to let her go, or before? Was she ever “officially” ordained? Frankly, I think the decision stinks, based on the info provided. Now I have to worry, next time I get injured on the job or sick, will my company label me a “minister” and tell me to go pound sand?

    • Flashy

      She was an ordained minister in theory. She took time off for an illness. They filled hr position, would not give her back her position, then fired her when she went to the EEOC stating the reasonthey fired her was she violated church doctrine to settle disputes internally.

      The Court would not go into whether the “doctrine” was created at that moment for an excuse or not. It also did not decide whether the minister defense would be allowed in a policy deniminationally wide or parish sized. Thus, if a baptist gay minister fired all hetero employees…it may well be a legitimate defense even though baptists decide heterosexuality is a good thing.

  • http://gnosisgroup jimmy

    If someone is negative we have a choice in how we react. Let the vampires of society suffer alone like most religions have corrupted their conscious thought processes. We are all connected to the same computer at the cellular level some just have damaged hardware. If we got of all religion. Hyprocracy and much evil would dissapate. Make adult decisions for yourself without beliefs or ego influencing your emotions. American infancy needs to grow up. Jrm

  • Jim

    “The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers.” SCOTUS

    “Religious organizations are free, under the First Amendment, to discriminate by sex, disability, or race. And they can fire a minister at will, without having to worry about the federal anti-discrimination laws. But the Court did not hold—or even approach the notion—that religious organizations operate autonomously with respect to any body of law other than the federal anti-discrimination laws.” Marci Hamilton, a Justia columnist.

  • Karolyn

    Why use Obama’s name in this article. It is not his administration; it is the EEOC, which would have probably done the same thing under any other President. He had noting to do with this. The president can’t be faulted for everything every agency does. They do not answer directly to him; and it would be impossible for him to be involved in all of the agencies’ everyday operations. Just another method of going after Obama.

    • Tight Fist

      most people in authority don’t have the courage to place , in authoritarian positions, individuals who don’t have similar beliefs as they do. in the final analysis the individual at the top of the food chain is responsible, by action or inaction, for what happens during their tenure. I have little use for “any” individual that is a ghost & hides behind the shadows of uncertainty to confuse & demoralize Americans. what do you really know about the ghosts in D.C. ? what do any of us know ? the media makes the news & wants us to believe they are reporting it !!!! who actually knows the truth & sees through the mind of justice ????????????????

    • Vicki

      Karolyn says:
      “Why use Obama’s name in this article. It is not his administration; it is the EEOC, which would have probably done the same thing under any other President.”

      Cause Obama made 3 of the five currently active commissioners?
      “On March 27, 2010, Obama made recess appointments of three Commission posts: Berrien, Feldblum and Victoria Lipnic. ”

      Or maybe cause the current (that would be Obamas’s) administration argued in favor of the EEOC position?

      “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

  • burner123

    Enough said, the decision is in and all the talk will not change it.

  • DaveH

    The EEOC is an Unconstitutional Agency to begin with. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the Power to control companies’ hiring and firing practices.

    • Flashy

      Equal rights?

      • DaveH
        • Flashy

          The First and Fourteenth Amendments. I had almost said only the 14th, but a quick check also showed the SCOTUS ruled first amendment rights were also involved. And such was decided upon by the SCOTUS many years ago. So go tell the SCOTUS they were wrong.

          • DaveH

            Flashman, surely you jest. As usual you preferred obfuscation to an intelligent response. But then you don’t care, do you? You’re just here to disrupt good people who are trying to learn concepts of Freedom.

          • DaveH

            The First Amendment:
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
            I fail to see anything in there about employment.

          • DaveH

            The Fourteenth Amendment:
            “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
            Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
            Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
            Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
            Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”.
            Still nothing about employment.
            Surprise, Surprise.

          • Flashy

            Both pertain to equal rights DaveH…and we are talking about employment dicrimination. And both are cited by the SCOTUS as basis for ruling on employment discrimination. As i wrote, i would have just said the 14th…but doing a quick bit of research showed the SCOTUS also using the First. i would, personally, agree with Justice Doulas that the Ninth recognizes certain Rights which are not specifically detailed in the Constitution.

          • Vicki

            Flashy says:
            “Both pertain to equal rights DaveH…and we are talking about employment dicrimination. ”

            Flashy talks about equal rights but some rights are more equal than others.
            What of my right to employ whom I choose? Protected under the First Amendment. To employ you requires that I associate with you. The Freedom of Association necessarily includes the freedom to NOT associate with you. Thus the EEOC is clearly an unconstitutional entity both in the lack of any constitutional power given to the federal government to create such an “independent” agency and the clear violation of the First Amendment that says CONGRESS Shall make no law….”

          • DaveH

            Flashman,
            You’re making things up. Why do you bother? The intelligent people don’t believe you, and the rest don’t understand your double-speak.

  • T.E.

    ALEX,
    Figure it out! Obum denies the pipeline. Buffer owns the Burlington RR, and hauls OIL in his tankers. With a pipeline Buffer wouldn’t get the MANY thousands of bucks EVERY day.
    Buffer maket many trips to Penny Ave. (dropping off bucks?) Get your empty head outta yo ass. Follow the money.
    Except for khunts like you the issue is simple…
    blowing dead dogs along the interstate would be a good job for you.

  • justme

    The article points out the Bush admin. ignorance of the Constitution.
    It also points out the continuation of same by Obama.

    And to the poster who feels 9mm owners MUST find them phallic….

    A gun is a gun, and I know RIGHT where THAT adult toy store is….

    A phallic symbol is just that.. If I want one of THOSE, I know RIGHT

    where THAT adult toy store is TOO!!!

    I am for DARN sure not confused about the differance; let’s just hope

    for the best for YOU!!!

  • David

    1) This had nothing to do with Obama. Zip. Noda. Just another effort to paint Obama as some whack job. (Offensive statement removed)
    2) This has nothing to do with religious freedom, but everything to do with workers rights. The church had hired her, she was in good standing and they had retained her for a period of time, apparently satisfied with her performance.
    3) The Supreme Court, with the Bush nominees at the helm, have proven tha the Constitution has no bearing anymore. It’s all about what the radical right fundamentalist Christians want.
    4) It has become abundantly clear that the Supreme Court has been sold to the highest bidder, and that isn’t mainstream America.

    • DaveH

      Nothing to do with Obama? The case was filed to the Supreme Court in 2011. The EEOC defended the case. The EEOC is an Agency of the Executive Branch. Obama is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch.
      The case has Everything to do with Freedom. The Freedom for employers to employ whoever they want to employ with their OWN money.
      What part of Unanimous Decision did you not understand, David?
      The Supreme Court was never meant to represent “mainstream America”. It was established to protect people from Unconstitutional Power Grabs by the Federal Government.

      • Flashy

        But but Dave…earlier you said the SCOTUS wasn’t the final arbiter…that the People were.

        • DaveH

          I didn’t say that, Flashman.
          Show me where I said “the people were”.

          • Vicki

            Hey Flashy. I said that The People are the final arbiter. I even provided evidence. http://fija.org/

        • Flashy

          Then who is?

          • Vicki

            The People. And there are multiple avenues to pursue such. Study founding documents for a few clues.

  • http://aol trogdog

    The EOOC is made up of 5 members. 3 were appointed by Obama, 2 by Bush. Reference: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/commission.cfm

    Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair OBAMA
    Stuart J. Ishimaru, Commissioner BUSH
    Constance S. Barker, Commissioner BUSH
    Chai Feldblum, Commissioner OBAMA
    Victoria A. Lipnic, Commissioner OBAMA

    Keep in mind that the President nominates these people. The SENATE confirms them.

    • Flashy

      Ummmm…how many were appointed by Obama in 2003-2004 when the EEOC began the enforcement action?

      • DaveH

        Ummmm, the case wasn’t even filed to the EEOC until May 15, 2005.

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      “Keep in mind that the President nominates these people. The SENATE confirms them.”

      And several of them were Obama recess appointments, trogdog. That means the Senate DIDN’T confirm them.

  • Alex

    What a precious quote from the Hell-bound slave owner Tommy Jefferson, the failed business man who traded his wife with the neighbors for linen—”…bind him down from mischeif with the chains of the Constitution…”

    The Number One Floundering Father—BIG ideas that even HE didn’t believe in. What a bill of goods the sheeple of the wretched White Estates of Amerikkka were sold from DAY ONE!!!

    • Flashy

      i discovered some quotes from jefferson’s papers that spoke on relgiion and its place in our government. The wacked right constantly referring to the “Founders’ (whomever that may mean at the time) would not like his thoughts on the matter…

      • libertytrain

        I had no idea that alex knew Jefferson personally.

      • DaveH

        What quotes were those, Flashman?

        • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

          Probably quotes from Jefferson’s college and young adult days when he took a more distant view of the role of religion. Probably NOT quotes from Jefferson’s early years, or writing-the-Founding-documents years, or old age years, when he was devoutly religious.

          • DaveH

            I’m simply asking Flashman to supply us with those quotes. He makes stuff up on the fly you know.

          • Karolyn

            It’s well known that Jefferson had a problem with organized religion and the divinity of Jesus, although he was a great proponent of the teachings of Jesus and did believe in a Supreme Being. You can find the “Jefferson Bible” online at Beliefnet.
            http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

          • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

            karolyn, the so-called “Jefferson Bible” and the viewpoints you ascribe to Jefferson were from the college/young-adult period I mentioned earlier, when Jefferson took a more distant view of the role of religion. He espoused significantly different ideas later in his life.

            Also, you might want to do some research into Jefferson’s personal motivations for creating his “Jefferson Bible.” His intent was very different from what most people assume when they just look at the edited Bible without any context.

          • Karolyn

            Jazzabell – On the Monticello site I referenced above, is a quote from Jefferson to Adams in 1823 when he was 80 displaying his feelings about organized religion:
            “Jefferson to John Adams). “The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”[14]

    • DaveH

      As usual, the Liberal Alex prefers to personally attack somebody rather than having a civil conversation. For those who want to understand the Slavery issue better:
      http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R72_2.pdf

      Slavery is now, and always has been, morally wrong. But human beings have always had a tendency to rationalize immorality when it suits their purposes to do so. For instance, I’m sure that Alex can rationalize his taking of other peoples’ money using Government as his tool. It’s an unfortunate aspect of human nature. But one which we should strive to avoid. Our society can only be enhanced by people adhering to commonly accepted morality. Theft is wrong, even if performed by Government people. And killing is wrong (except in self-defense), even if performed by Government people.

      • Robert Smith

        DavidH claims: “Slavery is now, and always has been, morally wrong.”

        Not according to some christians. The catechism for slaves is real. You can find it at: http://www.theliberatorfiles.com/a-catechism-for-slaves/

        So Dave, please help me sort it out. Who are the correct christians? The ones who promoted docile slaves or the anti-slavery christians?

        The christians who deny women choice, who deny dying with dignity…

        Which christians are the “good” ones?

        Rob

        • Vicki

          Robert Smith writes:
          “Which christians are the “good” ones?”

          The ones who follow the teachings of Christ of course. For those who do not or are unsure here is a reset for your moral compass.
          “First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
          How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
          is how you shall be judged.”

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Vicki,
            You religious nuts tried to stop embyyonic stem cell research.It is good good thing you didn’t. The greatest minds in history are pantheist.Here are some of these men and women that are.Such as Albert Einstein-(physicist,Plato(Greek philsopher),Marilyn Von Savant (Highest IQ ever recorded)Leonardo da Vinci(scientist,painter,inventor) Stephen Hawking(scientist and physicist) and Baruch Spinoza( father of modern pantheism)
            Tell me something Vicki.If Christ is the son of God.How come he couldn’t tell the difference between a whale and a fish?I like to hear your answer on that one.Here is what scientist accomplished when it came to researched.The blind can see.Knowledge is freedom,ignorance is slavery.
            Stem Cells Show Promise As Blindness Treatment In Early Study …
            http://kazu.org/post/stem-cells-show-promise-blindness-treatment-early-study
            4 hours ago … Two women losing their sight to progressive forms of blindness may have … a treatment made from human embryonic stem cells, researchers …

          • Vicki

            Coalminer writes:
            “Tell me something Vicki.If Christ is the son of God.How come he couldn’t tell the difference between a whale and a fish?”

            It is not as likely that Christ doesn’t know the difference as it is that the translator doesn’t know the difference.

        • DaveH

          Robert,
          You know I’m Atheist. Why are you asking me such a question?

        • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

          Robert Smith and Vicki
          The Dark History of Christianity:
          The Myth of Christianity Founding Science and Medicine
          http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm -
          May 22, 2007 … (And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages*) … including: appeal to ignorance (failing to understand the history of Christianity in how it did …

          • vicki

            Just one of the places where the dark side of Pantheism might reside
            http://logosresourcepages.org/Holidays/halloween.htm

            Yes they (pantheists) have a dark side too.

          • vicki

            And here is a chart on big religions. Fun to go thru.
            http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Vicki

            Show me the dark side of Pantheism.You can’t.Halloween?Boy,you are nuts.Halloween is for children. My advice,seek professional help.Ha ha ha ha ha. That website you posted is full of sh*t.

          • Vicki

            coal miner says:
            “Show me the dark side of Pantheism.You can’t.Halloween?Boy,you are nuts.Halloween is for children. My advice,seek professional help.Ha ha ha ha ha. That website you posted is full of sh*t.”

            Ah in typical liberal reaction you attack with ridicule rather than explaining how it is the Pantheism is pure good.

            Perhaps you should study your “new” religion more carefully.
            Just one of it’s problems is
            “For Pantheism, everything that exists is an aspect of God. Violence, vengeance, and destruction are just as truly expressions of the divine will as are peace, forgiveness, and restoration.”

            http://questions.org/attq/is-christianity-less-inclined-to-violence-than-other-religions/

            Now regardless of your belief system I recommend the following for setting a moral limit on bad behavior.

            “First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
            How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
            defines your moral character.”

      • Robert Smith

        DavidH says: “For instance, I’m sure that Alex can rationalize his taking of other peoples’ money using Government as his tool.”

        That’s a simpe one. Even I can find that one.

        You know, it’s that old: “”Render unto Caesar…” is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ Matthew 22:21).”

        It took me all of five seconds to find it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

        There are lots of other sites that get into it also.

        Any more wild requests of the obvious?

        Rob

        • Vicki

          Better take more than 5 seconds next time Robert. The link goes to a page that starts with
          “This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. ”

          You probably meant
          https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

          “The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about under what circumstances it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority.”

          So you are rationalizing stealing other peoples property / money as ok because some people interprat what Jesus said that it is sometimes desireable to submit to earthly authority.

          Quite the rationalization. How about we pass a law that allows us to take all of Robert Smiths wealth and spread it around to the rest of us equally?
          According to Robert Smith he would be ok with that cause it is the law.

        • DaveH

          Robert,
          Do you think that’s news to me that our Big Government Gang isn’t the first in History that has bought votes from the citizens by distributing other peoples’ wealth? And do you think it’s news to me that Liberals can rationalize any immoral behavior?

      • Robert Smith

        DaveH has come up with a wealth of material today!

        Here is the last one for now: “Theft is wrong, even if performed by Government people. And killing is wrong (except in self-defense), even if performed by Government people.”

        These are called “social contracts.” Pretty much ALL societies regardless of religion (or not) have rules against stealing and murder (unauthorized killing).

        There is an interesting book about it: OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHTby Jean Jacques Rousseau. It was written in 1762 and Translated 1782 by G. D. H. Cole. It is in the public domain.

        BTW, “right” is not the same as the political position of today.

        You can check it out at: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

        And thus the “christian” inspired laws of America suddenly don’t look so inspired, but are in fact common sense.

        Rob

        • DaveH

          Your point, as usual, makes no sense to me, Robert.
          Do you think it’s okay for Government people to steal?
          Do you think it’s okay for Government people to kill?

        • Vicki

          Robert Smith writes:
          “…(unauthorized killing).”

          And why do you seem to think it is ok for the King (government) to kill? Who “authorized” him to kill? At least prior to the NDAA 2012 there was a VERY SPECIFIC process before the government (thru it’s agents) was permitted by We, The People to put a man to death.

          Part of that process is described here:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY
          It is in the section describing Democracy.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Tell us again why you are still living in America, you are not forced to live here. But if you remain here abide by the Constitution that preserves our freedom.

  • http://aol trogdog

    Whoops! Should be EEOC.

  • slapshotpuckbob

    I cannot believe the wasted time and space here bloviating about a lot of nothing with lack of ability decending into name calling and blame to support your anachist leftist agenda. Progressives united behind chaos and disruption to cover up the main drive to globalize the world under one new world order. Rome did it and failed, Napoleon did it and failed. Hitler did it and failed. Mussolini did it and failed. Japan attempted to play and failed. Chia did it and twelve farmers overturned the red plague and that cannot ever survive the onslaught of capitalisms fredom to gain by personal investment in self, not government directed impoverishment. Most socialized faux Democracies fail since none of those have our constitutions protections that are contantly being attacked by mans arrogant position that he/ she are smarter, and can personally benefit from that destruction. This brings down most all societies that have tried it. We are on the very desperate brink of financial collapse by Obamas mentors and sponsors run by the likes of George Soros who is nothing less than a recostructed Nazi youth, his confessions , not mine. Discussing openly his agenda is most educational for both the leftist and the anarchist because as in all elitest designed societies, you are the first to go. The super heavy debt placed upon us was and is designed to crush our society and create havoc like Germany after WW1. The Uber rich and the illiterati poor, will not feel the pain since they will have voice, one heard, one not. It is the Constitution that brings so much fear into the loudest bloviators that are understandibly educated beyond their intellect. The subject discussed rationally here is America’s survival under the constitution or Anarchy.It does not matter who caused the supreme court decision. It matters that a decision was made. Move on. It does not matter who’s administrion started it, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow wilson, FDR, JFK, Bush or Obama. It matters that the constitution prevailed. Stop the silly bickering and name calling and blaming and make sense about saving our great country, if you can rise to that level.

    • JustSayin

      Thank you, that was a good reminder for us all!

    • DaveH

      That’s an awful lot of verbiage from somebody concerned with the “wasted time and space here bloviating”.
      I’m sorry, slapshot, I could only get to your comment “anachist leftist agenda”. And then I knew that reading any further would be a waste of my time. Leftists are anything BUT anarchist.

  • http://PersonalLiberty Joanne

    Congratulations, Mr. Wood, on your excellent article on the Supreme Court and its obligation to follow our Constitution! Common sense and truthfulness must always be our moral goal. I believe that all of these attacks on our beautiful citizens, our churches, our morality, etc., are the pre-planned attacks by the communists of this country, who, at their core existence, are atheists. We must diligently work hard to combat this evil that is trying to destroy us from within. Again, thank you for your diligence in covering and writing this article.

    • Flashy

      Dang…even I haven’t gone so far as to calling Bush/Cheney communists.

      • Robert Smith

        Good, then Cheney won’t consider you a candidate for torture.

        Remember the “Malleus Maleficarum” by the Reverend Montague Summers? Wow! Those christians really know how to torture a person, literally. Guess it’s OK for Cheney to torture folks as a christian.

        You can find it at: http://www.reanimality.com/founders/mjd/…/malleusMaleficarum.pdf

        Rob

        Rob

    • DaveH

      Joanne,
      Communists (or any kind of Socialists) don’t like organized religion because it competes with their own “religious” doctrine, and gets in the way of their absolute power.
      But that, by no means, indicates that they are all atheists.
      I am Atheist. I believe there is no God. But I also believe that the morality we mostly embrace came from religious people, and that’s a good thing. Now if everybody would only practice that morality instead of just giving lip service to it.

  • Tom Daughty

    The original CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ! They seem pretty clear to me. On the matter of religion, it states that Government MUST stay out of meddling with IT’S affairs, and should never USE religion to enforce or deny ANY of our NATURAL RIGHTS that the Government is supposedly there to maintain ! Stay OUT of each others business! The BILL of RIGHTS applies to the INDIVIDUAL ! Government is supposed to there to maintain that right of the decent individual to choose ! (Personally, this individual prefers not to meddle in the affairs of either. Both pretend to extend brotherly love, but both can easily become BIG BROTHER).

    • DaveH

      For Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Markets, and the PEACE that comes with respecting our fellow citizens’ Freedom — Vote Libertarian:
      http://libertarianparty.org/platform

  • Henry Ledbetter

    GREAT NEWS Having been involved in the right of Christian Schools to exist in the early 80′s, this is tremendous news. We were threatened with jail on many occasion but ultimately the victory was The Lords. AMEN AND DIG IN.

    • John

      There should be no exception under the law for any business in this country,

      • DaveH

        The Law, the main law of the land, The Constitution, gives the Federal Government NO Power to intervene in the hiring practices of non-Federal-Government employees.

        • Flashy

          It gives the fed government the power to protect the citizenry and ensure all have equal rights free from discrimination and crimnal actions.

          • Vicki

            Flashy says:
            “It (The Constitution) gives the fed government the power to protect the citizenry and ensure all have equal rights free from discrimination and crimnal actions.”

            Ummm…. Where does it protect the citizens from discrimination?

            And there is the matter of “freedom of association”. Though not explicitly in the constitution it is often considered to be a part of the First Amendment under freedom to peaceably assemble.
            http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/association.htm

          • DaveH

            Vicki,
            You’re talking to a guy who is just here to spread misinformation. Flashman can’t possibly be as Ignorant as his comments make him appear to be. He is just here to disrupt the board and do his best to keep good people from learning the concepts of Freedom.
            If he can read our comments and respond with his inane comments, then he certainly has had enough time to read what the Constitution really says.
            He’s just taken over the board Troll status from Eddie who is on timeout.

  • Gayle

    What I got out of this is the justices held up the constitution. Whether you feel its right or wrong is your business. I for one, don’t know the whole story, but the Constitution was upheld.

    • Flashy

      As it was upheld in Roe vs Wade

      • Vicki

        Ask the murdered millions if they agree. Oh wait. They were disappeared.

  • http://protonius.wordpress.com Protonius

    Based on the information that I see in the above article (Supreme Court Tells Obama ‘No!’”), and regardless of whether the case began under Bush/Cheney or if the majority of the EEOC Commissioners are Obama-appointees, my estimation — in contrast to the ruling of SCOTUS — is that this was clearly NOT a situation centering on “religious freedoms” and the like, but that, rather, the case instead centers directly and overwhelmingly on the issue of the rights of an employee vs an employer.

    Was this teacher hired as, and primarily serving as, and being paid (and provided benefits) primarily for, her services as a “minister” (and let’s have an official definition of “minister” too, by the way) — or was she hired as, did she primarily function as, and was she primarily paid (and provided benefits) for her service as, a “teacher”?

    Seems to me she was hired (etc.) to be a “teacher”, and that if anything her services as a “minister” — if indeed she provided any such “ministerial” services as part of the job — were secondary and, in this legal case, similarly should have been treated as secondary.

    Further, this woman initially took her leave due to health reasons, which her employer — the “ministry” — apparently agreed to. Had this employer instead already, at that time, decided that she was unfit, not due to her health but instead due to (in the employer’s view) her lack of fitness to continue teaching (or “ministering”) for that employer, why didn’t that same employer fire her (or urge her to resign from that employment) right then and there, right at the outset of her taking that leave — or even before that leave began?

    Instead, it seems, the employer gave her no indication of displeasure about her teaching or “ministerial” capabilities, and waited until a month had passed and she was ready to return to work, before the employer then chose, initially, to try to persuade her to not return, and then only when she insisted on returning did they choose to fire her.

    On what basis in the above scenario, I ask, is there any ground for a (convoluted, in my view) concept of “separation of church and state” to take primacy?

    I submit that the answer is that there is no such ground, no such justification, and that the SCOTUS ruling was entirely off-point, unjust, and in error.

    But, on the other hand, suppose that the SCOTUS ruling as to “separation of church and state”, in this ruling, was correct. If that were the case, then I would ask the following:

    On what grounds, in this matter, would it be acceptable to rule that the decisions of this employer — a “religious ministry” — should be permitted to take precedence over the decisions of this employee (the teacher) — a “religious minister”? Are not both this employer and this employee “religious entities” under the law? On what grounds, then, were this employee’s requests denied and this employer’s requests upheld — even if by a purported “hands-off this case” attitude inherent in the ruling by SCOTUS?

    Let’s take it a step further:

    Much has been made, in recent years, of the Catholic Church scandals in which ordained ministers have reportedly sexually preyed upon young boys. Would SCOTUS, if presented with cases in which these boys were seeking justice against those church ministers who had allegedly committed those acts, rule in favor of those ministers, by cloaking its ruling in a similar desire to uphold “separation of church and state”?

    I grant that the interpretation of law can often be fluid. Yet, how far, I would also ask, should it be acceptable — even permissible — for SCOTUS to lean in reaching a ruling that’s based, in its official reasoning, on a question of religion, rather than on the more appropriate (in my view) direct route of focusing on an American citizen’s Constitutional rights — and, at heart, basic, ethical, justice?

    Where SCOTUS erred — in my opinion — was in

    • http://protonius.wordpress.com Protonius

      (PROTONIUS HERE, with tiny clarification to my above post: OOPS! that last open-ended line, “Where SCOTUS erred — in my opinion — was in”, was not meant to be there. Sorry about that.

      • DaveH

        Where in the Constitution, Protonius, was the Federal Government given the Power to determine “rights of an employee”?

        • Flashy

          the 14th and the 1st amendments Dave…

          • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

            ROFLMAO

            We’re dealing with a real Constitutional scholar, here.

          • DaveH

            He knows he’s full of it, Jazzabelle; he’s just here to harass us.
            He’s a Troll.

          • Vicki

            Flashy talks a lot about employee rights but noting about employer rights.
            Flashy must consider employers to be slaves.

    • http://www.twitter.com/antodav antodav

      Very good legal argument. You seem to be one sole voice of reason in an ocean of ignorance and insanity. This site is on the right side of the debate usually, but it attracts people from the intellectual dregs of society.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Because Protonius used quite a few words, your assumption is that he said something intelligent. Obfuscation, may I introduce you to Protonius.

    • Pat

      Protonius, one important distinction in your argument that I would point out is the following: the Catholic Church doctrine does not sanction the sexual abuse of anyone, especially not young children. What those priests did was in violation of internal church teaching which left them open to public prosecution regardless of the church’s failure to expel them and allow justice to take it’s course. In this case, the teacher was in violation of church doctrine and procedure regarding the church’s teaching regarding how to resolve disputes in a Biblical manner. This article does not mention that fact. She bypassed the church’s internal process for handling disputes among believers and took her case directly to the public court system in violation of church doctrine. In doing so, she violated her duties as a minister and her agreement to abide by the teachings of the church. Think about it. How often do you see a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court where Bader-Ginsberg agrees with Scalia?

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      Protonius, you seem intelligent, but you have a few facts wrong that taint your analysis of this case.

      First, you wrote: “Much has been made, in recent years, of the Catholic Church scandals in which ordained ministers have reportedly sexually preyed upon young boys. Would SCOTUS, if presented with cases in which these boys were seeking justice against those church ministers who had allegedly committed those acts, rule in favor of those ministers, by cloaking its ruling in a similar desire to uphold “separation of church and state”?”

      First of all, this case was NOT about “separation of church and state.” That phrase is not in the Constitution anywhere, the court did not address that issue at all. All the Supreme Court did in this decision was apply an existing precedent (the ministerial exception) to a case where an employee had voluntarily agreed to a particular method of dispute-resolution with her employer, and then she broke that agreement and took her problem to the courts. If you side with the employee, then you must also want the Supreme Court to throw out the validity of all existing arbitration agreements, which comprise an entire industry that reduces the burdens on our public court system.

      Also, your hypothetical question about the Catholic sex scandals correctly notes that it was “ordained priests” who molested little boys. But that’s turning the question around, since in the current case, it was the employee who was suing who was the “ordained minister,” that is, the alleged victim was the ordained minister, not the one committing the crime. So the two situations are not analgous at all. Not to mention that the altar boys weren’t employees AND weren’t old enough to enter a legally binding contract when the molestation occurred.

      Secondly, you wrote: “I grant that the interpretation of law can often be fluid. Yet, how far, I would also ask, should it be acceptable — even permissible — for SCOTUS to lean in reaching a ruling that’s based, in its official reasoning, on a question of religion, rather than on the more appropriate (in my view) direct route of focusing on an American citizen’s Constitutional rights — and, at heart, basic, ethical, justice?”

      First, this ruling was NOT made on a question of religion. It was made on a question of the First Amendment. You might not see the distinction right away, since the First Amendment mentions religion, but it mentions religion in the context of telling the federal government that it may neither establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. It would certainly prohibit the free exercise of religion if the government were to create regulations that, when applied to the church, forced the church to abandon its religious principles and engage in behavior that was against its religious teachings. The Supreme Court ruling simply acknowledges this fact and correctly prohibits the government from acting in such a manner. This isn’t ruling “on a question of religion;” that would mean that the court was deciding a religious question, such as, who should citizens pray to? or, must members of a church tithe ten percent of their income to the church or not? These are religious questions which it would be unconstitutional for the courts to rule on. The First Amendment question which the court took up in this case was well within the court’s authority to decide, and they reached the correct (Constitutional) decision. The ruling applies equally to all churches of all religions and preserves their autonomy and freedom from government control. That is why it’s a correct ruling.

      Next, you ask why the court couldn’t simply have focused its ruling on the Constitutional right of American citizens. The answer should be obvious: neither you, nor the lady in question, nor any other American citizen, has the “Constitutional right” to have a job at a church (or any other private institution). Such a “right” simply does not exist. If the Supreme Court had ruled based on such a “right,” they would have violated the Constitution.

      Finally, you express the view that it would have been more appropriate for the court to rule based on “basic, ethical, justice.” You did not explain what you mean by “basic, ethical, justice,” but our system of laws prohibits the courts from ruling on any basis besides the law. Surely you agree that this is a good thing?

  • http://facebook Kritisa Baxter

    Thank you Supreme Court.

  • Mike

    So the supreme court decided in favor of a business (in this case a church) against an employee that had been sick.
    Big surprise, coming from the “Corporations are People” supreme court.
    This is no “win against Obama” as claimed in the headline. Just another win for the 1%.

    • DaveH

      I hate to break this to you, Mike, but Corporations are People. Who else do you think runs them, Robots?
      They are groups of people who have the same rights as individual people. Joining a Corporation in no way diminishes our rights.

  • Tight Fist

    let’s leave politics (right, left, independent, don’t give a damn, etc.)out of the scenerio. i’ve been passing through for 67 years & hAVE not been completely satisfied with any of the leadership in D.C. or at the state level & most of what I’ve observed seems to stem from the power theory. when does a theory become a conspiracy & “THEN FACT” is the question I pose to all. ANYONE WHO CAN PUT THEIR MIND IN NEUTRAL & THINK WILL PROBABLY NOT DISAGREE. no small group of individuals has the cabibility or right to “DECIDE” what is best for everybody. I have seen few people with vision during my passing through except Lincoln (before my time)& Martin Luther King with anything close to “VISION” that I can remember & their vision has been over shadowed by shadow people whose only need is “POWER”.. think & then act, not react. no one in D.C. will tell me if the Constitution is law !!!!!! do we have justified law or no law ?

  • I am theTEA PARTY!

    It is all Bush’s fault. It is all Bush’s fault. It is all Bush’s fault. Like a broken record. If you believe that I own the Golden Gate bridge. I will sell it to you for only $100. When I was in Viet Nam fighting for my country we had a saying. “AMERICA–LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!” OOORAW!

    • Alex

      Killing babies and raping grandmothers is not fighting for your country.

      • libertytrain

        alex, your lack of intelligence is keenly noted by all who read your ridiculously ignorant remarks.

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

    It’s not clear exactly what role the Obama Administration had in this decision; I don’t think you can hold a president directly responsible for every single decision made by a government agency under the purview of the executive branch. However, I’m more concerned about what exactly this woman did wrong to deserve being fired in the first place. As the article describes, she was just doing her job, in the proper manner, then she got sick and the school fired her for no reason. Maybe there are additional details missing, but it seems like she had a case. We don’t even know that the alleged discrimination was on the basis of religion; perhaps it could have been on the basis of race or gender. If it was on the basis of religion though, then a school firing someone because of their religious beliefs seems like a far greater concern and a more severe infringement upon liberty than the government telling them that they cannot discriminate and trying to keep that person from being fired. Perhaps this makes me not a “true” libertarian, but I don’t believe that private companies should be able to violate the First Amendment rights of their employees. Not entirely convinced the Court made the right decision here.

    • Bill

      sorry Antov but it is possible that your thinking is not clear this morning.

    • DaveH

      Libertarians believe that we have a right to control our own bodies and property free from Government intrusion. Business owners are people too.
      Please read this book to understand better what a Libertarian is:
      http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

    • Nadzieja Batki

      It will be forever a case of “she said, they said”. We may never know what words were said between the church and the teacher unless they were recorded. The recording and the words said may not have been admissable in court.

    • Vicki

      Antodav says:
      “It’s not clear exactly what role the Obama Administration had in this decision;”

      We may not know the full extent but we do know enough to comment.
      “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

  • Pat

    One of the things that I have read elsewhere about this case indicates she was fired because she did not follow the church’s procedure for resolving disputes within the church rather than taking them to the courts. The Lutheran church believes that disputes among believers should be handled by their internal board according to the teachings of the Bible that tell believers not to take each other to court. She refused to abide by church doctrine in the matter and took it to the public courts instead. That was the basis of her firing because, as a minister who was teaching church doctrine to her students, she was violating the doctrine she had agreed to observe and teach. The decision rightly concluded that to uphold her suit would be a violation of both provisions of the First Amendment because to dictate to the church what it could teach would essentially violate the establishment of religion clause, and to force the church to reinstate the teacher against the wishes of the church would be a violation of the free exercise clause. On that basis, the Supreme Court decision was the correct one no matter how much some would wish to denounce it. The fact that it was a unanimous decision among such disparate ideologies as are present on the court should give anyone who disagrees pause to consider. How often in the history of the Supreme Court has the court handed down a unanimous decision? For them to do so indicates the Constitutional issues are pretty clear and indisputable.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I am glad the church stood it’s ground and not cave in or compromise.

  • Bobbi

    What no one has explained is why the Church didn’t want her back. I assume she had dome sort of a teaching contract, and she was religiously trained. Anyone???

    • Pat

      Bobbi, she was fired for violating the church doctrine on how to resolve conflicts Biblically. The Lutheran church believes that disputes between believers should be handled within the church using a body that exists within the church for that purpose and not in the public courts as is taught in the Bible. She refused to follow that procedure and took her case to the public courts. In doing so, she violated the church doctrine she had been ordained to teach and observe within the church and in her role as a teacher in the school. This article does not make that clear, and that may be much of the source of confusion about this decision. For the Supreme Court to rule unanimously on this issue makes me think the Constitutional issue was pretty indisputable. How often does Bader-Ginsberg agree with Scalia on anything?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Thanks Pat.

      • Robert Smith

        Pat posted: “The Lutheran church believes that disputes between believers should be handled within the church using a body that exists within the church for that purpose and not in the public courts as is taught in the Bible.”

        But she was ALREADY fired before she went to the EEOC.

        What was the root cause that they didn’t want her back? I’d be interested in knowing that.

        For me it literally could be that she didn’t represent the faith as they wanted her to. I can understand why a right wing baptist church wouldn’t want to hire a pagan like Isaac Bonawitz to preach their message.

        However, for non church related stuff like secretarial and janitorial staff they should be held to the same rules as any other business.

        Religion is after all a BUSINESS.

        Rob

        • DaveH

          Here is the actual court filing to the 6th Circuit Court:
          http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0065p-06.pdf

          You Liberals should all have to run your own businesses so you can see how it is to have a not-so-silent partner who wants to tell you how to run your business and not only hasn’t provided any capital but is actually dipping into yours.

          You’d be crying like a baby.

        • libertytrain

          you should go back and actually read the case.

      • Jay

        Pat, Cheryl Perich suffered from a medical condition known as, “Narcolepsy.” Although you are correct, that the Churches’ policy/doctrine stipulates, that “disputes” are to be settled within the church, which she eventually circumvented, was not the “first response” or reason/cause for her dismissal, rather, it was her medical condition. To suggest that she was terminated because she disregarded church policy with respect to settling disputes within the church, is to violate the chronological order of the events, for there first had to be a dispute that needed to be settled within the church. When it became obvious to the plaintiff, that she would not receive justice, or the dispute settled, the plaintiff logically chose a different venue. As she should have!

  • Jim Turner

    I would like to see the Federal goverment sued. The Constitution says it is supposed to promote the general welfare. When in fact many of the federal laws and programs actually destroy the welfare of many individuals and families.

    • Bill

      Yea, everyone of their programs.

  • Herb

    Do you all fall for the elitest program that is running in the background. You all are taking two sides of government who work hand in hand, you are being divided by the government, and as I remember the government was set up for the reason of binding together against a common foe, the Brittish. But since then the Brittish have been infiltrating our government and are winning by the stupidity of all of you here, proving my point. The saying goes, divide and conquer your enemy, and the world is yours. The banks were fought off by Thomas Jefferson and was even almost killed by the elete bankers from Europe, and JFK again signed to print our own money, and again was snuffed out. All the presidents from 1939 on have been working on the NWO and have taken control of all media that tells the people of the USA how to hate each other by dividing each other over the simple two party system. Bone up on your History from the old History books and compare them to todays History books and you will see that all I say is the absolute truth, which I concider more important then what you hear from blabbermouth polititions who only want control over all of the world, and you are being the same idiots you proclaim the other side to be. Am I the only one here with the brains to research the truth instead of research someone elses propaganda??? It has been said by a famous man of the Elite “give me the control of the monetary system, and it matters not who rules the Nation,”

    • Nadzieja Batki

      What else do you think we don’t know about history? Majority of the posters here know history very well and do not plan to lend a hand to the Statists who pretend they will give people Utopia if people just surrender their freedom.

      • Robert Smith

        Nadzieja says: “if people just surrender their freedom.”

        Tell me Batki, what freedoms have you surrendered?

        I’ll bet you will be allowed to marry anyone you want.

        I’ll bet you will die a natural death as you want.

        I’ll bet that if you have any recreational drug it is alcohol.

        But those who want to marry someone of the same sex are not free to do so according to some brutal christians.

        Some who want to control their death to escape pain or humilliation aren’t allowed the freedom to do so.

        Those who want the freedom of pot or other religious drugs are not allowed to do so.

        Oh, and even though that there brutal christian god gives humanity free will it is take away from women in their reproductive issues by some of them there brutal christians if they have their way.

        Again, who is taking away freedoms? Please explain it to me.

        How is the left denying you anything personally you want?

        Rob

        • Vicki

          Robert Smith writes:
          “Oh, and even though that there brutal christian god gives humanity free will it is take away from women in their reproductive issues by some of them there brutal christians if they have their way.”

          This rather interestingly worded statement might have been referring to abortion. I notice multiple attempts to demonize Christians (use of the adjective brutal in front of each reference) and a remark about free will as though the free will given to the woman by her Creator somehow overrides the free will given to the child by the Creator.

          How is it brutal to object to murder? Would Robert Smith accuse us of being brutal if someone were trying to murder him?

          • libertytrain

            His vocabulary is quite limited for someone who claims a very high IQ.. “lying” “brutal” “acorn” – he needs to read more.

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Vicki and Liberty:
            Where did Robert get the idea that the Jewish-Christian God is brutal?Ha ha ha
            Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church …
            http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
            How many people have been killed by Christians since biblical times? … Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10220 burnings. … and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action).

          • vicki

            May I remind you of the difference between sheep and wolves in sheeps clothing. That you claim to be a Christian but do not act like one does not make you a Christian.

            To quote a line from the movie “Priest” (2011)
            “The devil comes in many forms”

        • DaveH

          Surely you kid, Robert?
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to keep our own earned assets (slavery).
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to hire whom we want and pay them what we want.
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to put what we want in our own bodies.
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to travel freely.
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to reside peacefully in our own homes without fear of Government breaking down our doors and terrorizing our families.
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to Gamble and to sleep with Prostitutes.
          We’ve surrendered the Freedom to trade with who we want and at what price we want to pay.
          I could go on, but I’m getting bored, and I think I’ve made my point to thinking people.
          The Government intervenes in myriad areas of our lives, and you Liberals want even more intervention. And the real irony is that you want us to pay for the bureaucrats who mess with our lives. Talk about double Jeopardy.

          • DaveH

            No doubt Robert will poo poo what I’ve said, but it’s always easier for the man who has his hand in another man’s pocket to smile more than the owner of the pocket.

        • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

          Robert Smith,@Kate8,Jay,Liberty,JeffH,JoeH,DaveH and Vicki
          Come with me and join the World Pantheist Movement,the only true belief.The religion and philosophy of the future.
          Scientific Pantheism – the World Pantheist Movement
          http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm -
          Pantheism. The Web’s leading resource on pantheist history, theory and practice.

          • vicki

            Interesting:
            One of the points of the religion that he wants us to follow.
            “Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Universe.”

            We should study his writings and see how they match.
            Global Warming and its actual cause for instance.

            I did not find in my quick view how panthiests plan to handle the actions of non-believers.

          • vicki

            Oh and another question for the panthiest. Who or what created Nature and or the Universe? Yes God knows I have that same question for Him/Her/It.

          • libertytrain

            Sorry, I’m just not interested…

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Pantheism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism – Cached
            Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

          • Vicki

            coal miner writes:
            “Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.”

            Does not answer the question. Who (or what) Created Nature/God?

            Now on to another question. What is the protection for individual rights in Pantheism? Are they the ones that the founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

            “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

  • DaveH

    Employers should be free to fire whomever they want, for whatever reason. It is their money, their company.
    Not only is that the correct moral path, but in practical application, it is actually better for the citizens for many reasons:
    1) An employer would need to do vastly less scrutinizing on potential employees if they knew they could fire employees easily. That would lower costs for employers, thus freeing up more money for productive investment, which would be good for our economy (cheaper product prices, etc.). Also employees would find it much easier to find work, since the employers would have much less to lose when they give a person a job. Without all the necessary scrutiny that Employers must do these days to protect themselves from Government, people who had screwed up in the past would find it much easier to turn over a new leaf and prove themselves valuable to their next employers.
    2) It would eliminate discrimination better than any Laws, because the companies who did the right thing, i.e. hiring the best employees regardless of sex or race, would triumph over those who didn’t in the Marketplace.
    3) It would save our economy a ton of money that is now being wasted on Government Intervention in the workplace.

    Big Government is the Problem, NOT the Solution.

    • DaveH

      Please read this good book written by an economist who makes a very good effort not to deluge the reader with arcane Economic lingo:
      http://mises.org/books/capitalism_kelly.pdf

      • Flashy

        Austrian economics…lol…aka “make us rich by buying this piece of garbage which only fools and idiots believe in”

        • DaveH

          Yeah, sure Flashman, instead we should put faith in what lying Liberals with multiple personalities tell us.

        • DaveH

          Flashman,
          Only ignorant people would listen to anything you say. And ignorant people wouldn’t be able to grasp Austrian Economics anyway.

    • Robert Smith

      DavidH claims: “1) An employer would need to do vastly less scrutinizing on potential employees if they knew they could fire employees easily. That would lower costs for employers…”

      Absolutely FALSE. Hiring folks without having a picture of who they are results in training being thrown away if they don’t work out. There is often social upheaval when an employee doesn’t fit in and must be terminated.

      It’s simply good business to make sure hires are compatable with a company. Churning folks through isn’t cost effective in any way.

      Rob

      • DaveH

        How could anybody think that Employers wouldn’t spend less time scrutinizing employees if they knew they wouldn’t have to risk Government harassment and litigation?
        Are you really that clueless, Robert?

      • DaveH

        I guess you can tell that it really gets on my nerves when an ignorant unread Liberal tells me my well-thought out statement is “absolutely FALSE”.

      • DaveH

        You are honestly so clueless, Robert, that you don’t think things like this cost the Employers dearly?
        http://das.hre.iowa.gov/documents/publications/applicant_screening_manual.pdf

  • Barbara Gibbs

    I stand ready to be corrected BUT I am positive that the grand scheme ot the Economic Opportunity Council had it’s beginning under none other than Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1960′s. I interviewed for a job and was offered the position in the office at Berea, KY. I did not accept because I watched for about an hour while waiting for the interview and witnessed a complete WASTE of time by all the employees and their clients. I have a strong background in “work means WORK” and could not in good conscience accept the job.

    • DaveH

      If only more people were like you, Barbara.

    • Robert Smith

      Ain’t America great where in theory oen can choose who they will work for!

      What if you were told who you will work for?

      Rob

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “Ain’t America great where in theory oen can choose who they will work for!

        What if you were told who you will work for?”

        So in your world view it is ok to tell you who will work for you??

        • libertytrain

          It’s not clear that she was ever a “lay” teacher – at least I didn’t see reference to her ever being one. I see the training and then she was “called” – In any case, she threw hissy fit that day in February – and the Church was not at all happy the unbecoming behavior she exhibited for a “called” person and the rest is history…
          Just the little I read, I would have not allowed her back in either…

  • JIm

    All of you with soft sensitive eyes and ears…get over it…GROW A PAIR AND GET OVER IT! If you can’t read the comments posted and catch the intent of the content….well, stop reading them! I could care less about somebodies use of foul language and tend to read between the lines when I see it. So, enough of all this crying and get on with some comments about the topic at hand………….bunch of idiot children…..

  • Vox7

    When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go
    to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?

    You are already totally defeated because you have lawsuits against each other. … there
    is utterly a fault among you, because you go to law one with another.

    the enemy is “wearing down the saints”. “Walking in the flesh” and not the of spirit of Christ. Walking in Christ is a spiritual thing not a worldly one…. the church showing love to her would have been a better resolution then to bring mocking upon the church from non-believers costing them that would become believers any chance to have faith. But this damages the church and does but strengthen it.

    Roberts is right,_ It not the business of the world to interfere with no harm or personal injury,.. but,.. the church did not “do onto other as it would have done onto it”.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So are you saying the church body should have rolled over and played dead for the woman’s benefit causing more internal friction.

  • DB

    Maybe some of you read this differant than I did. (The Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School hired Cheryl Perich as a teacher.) She was hired as a teacher not a minister. She did do more and even though the church considered her as a minister, her job was as a teacher. They then did not want to give back her teaching job once she recovered from her illness. This is not a religous thing it is a job thing. Supreme court is wrong, they should not have brought religon into the case and judged only on employment labor laws.

    • libertytrain

      The decision was unanimous. I’m guessing someone presented the case in a manner that demonstrates the ruling given. I’m guessing the woman in question fit their determination. Unanimous is unusual it seems with this court. Obviously we are not seeing what the briefs presented to the Judges contained or it would not have been unanimous if there was a questionable aspect to the case.

    • Vicki

      DB writes:
      “She was hired as a teacher not a minister. She did do more and even though the church considered her as a minister, her job was as a teacher.”

      She was hired as a lay teacher. She was then called and SHE accepted.
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
      First page of the opinion.

  • ranger hall

    Does anyone know what the Americans With Disabilities Act Covers, What do they cover in the act as to what disabilities are.

  • Robert L. Echola

    If you remember nothing else, remember this: PROFANITY IS THE ATTEMPT OF A LAZY AND FEEBLE MIND TO EXPRESS ITSELF FORCEFULLY.

    • libertytrain

      I agree.

  • Randy

    I am very perplexed about the direction of this Government. I’m not surprized by what Obama is doing, as a matter of fact, I expected it as I knew he was a traitor before he was elected. The thing in this article that got me was this sentence; 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. ‘Some of us are even in Congress’????? Shouldn’t the ALL of the people in Congress be for the Constitution, not just ‘some’ of them? This was the most disheartening sentence I have read in quite some time.

  • mark

    Isn’t there someway to tie this Concordia Cruiseship sinking in Italy to Obama? He must have had something to do with it. C’mon, guys think! I know you can come up with an article or a theory blaming that sinking on him.

    • Don

      Do i detect liberal sarcasm from you Mark. You wont hear consertavies blaming Obama for the stupid things some blamed Bush for. Get it?

  • Don

    Our constitution and bill of rights are Americas first defense against tyrants. Seems we are dealing with a tyranical, executive branch. Thank God our judicial branch done the right thing, and continues to follow the constitution in their decision making.

  • USMCORPS

    I have read almost all comments made. You are all missing the POINT!
    The point really is, is that ALL politicians want to govern the way they believe is best for the governed and fail in most attempts to do so. If one party criticizes the other party in control of the Congress, the one doing the criticizing ends up doing the same thing when in power. It is just one gang against the other who couldn’t care less about the ramifications of their actions among the citizens.
    To put what I am trying to say is in one phrase,”ALL POLITICIANS DO NOT TELL THE TRUTH UNLESS IT IS BY THE SLIP OF THE TONGUE”.

    All we are doing is banging our heads against the wall.

  • http://www.catherinejfrompovich.com DumbStruck

    One issue I’d like to see come before SCOTUS somehow is Presidential Executive Orders, which presidents seem to have taken upon themselves without approval from Congress or citizens/voters. From what I know of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, no such power is granted to presidents. The Founding Fathers, and Mothers too, definitely did not want a king. However, self-proclaimed authoritarian one-man-rule Presidential Executive Orders are not subject to Congressional vetting or approval, and automatically become law(s). Numerous Presidential Executive Orders have taken away personal rights/freedoms that most U.S. citizens are not aware of. I suggesting checking out the Federal Register’s Executive Orders Index/Listing for all presidents at
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html.
    You will be shocked, I think, at what you really don’t know and why nothing has been done about the Presidential Executive Orders, something akin to a dictator establishing law for everyone–something that is anathema to a democratic republic form of government that we are supposed to have in the USA.

  • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

    It would very inspiring to witness and see OUR SCOTUS genuinely research, investigate, detect, decipher and positively determine the exact and true meaning, definition, purpose and intentions of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, especially the Conditional Clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that immediately follows “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”. A Conditional Clause was included in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment because there must be a condition or conditions that a person must be required to meet in order to be qualified to receive U.S. Citizenship regardless if that person is born or naturalized in the United States. Perhaps swearing the oath of total allegiance and loyalty exclusively only to the United States in order to be Officially, Legitimately and Legally under the Jurisdiction of the United States is one of the conditions that a naturalized person(a Legal immigrant or REAL immigrant) must perform as a required condition in order to be qualified to receive U.S. Citizenship. And perhaps a child who is born on United States soil is qualified to receive U.S. Citizenship on the condition that the child’s parents are officially recognized, by the United States, to be under the Official, L Jurisdiction of the United States resulting from one or both parents being Officially, Legitimately and Legally present within the sovereign territory of the United States and NOT unofficially, NOT illegitimately and NOT illegally present on U.S. soil such as a Foreign National illegal alien who is unofficially, illegitimately and illegally present on U.S. soil and therefore NOT under U.S. Jurisdiction, because the United States officially, technically and Legally does not know who the illegal alien is, does not know when the illegal alien illegally crossed the U.S. border, does not know what nation or country the illegal alien holds official and Legal Foreign Citizenship in and does not know the Legal full name, the age, the race, the nationality and does not know the official Legal Foreign residence street address of the exact Legal address in the Foreign nation or country where the illegal alien Foreign National lives or resides in which all means that the illegal alien Foreign National is under the official, Legitimate and Legal Jurisdiction of an unknown but real Sovereign Foreign Nation or Country and NOT officially under U.S. Jurisdiction unless the Foreign National Legally, Legitimately and Officially enters the United States after receiving official Legal permission to Legally enter the United States from the United States Government or I.C.E..

  • Corey Mondello

    I wonder how many people who whine about Obama were the same ones who used to call me a commie and tell me to leave the country if I questioned GW Bush’s destroying the US Constitution, which Obama is just following, like all administrations do when the one prior changes the US Constitution? What I find most fulfilling is, when GW was in the ending of his second and unelected but appointed presidental role, I would tell those folks who called me “commie” and all that mentioned prior, that we all knew a democrat would be the next president and I couldnt wait to hear them whine and cry when he/she just followed what GW Bush was doing, which always happens when a democrat enters the WH, like when Bill Clinton became president. It makes me giggle knowing what hypocrites those on the “right” political ideology are.

  • Buckeye

    When a church starts running as a business then they should be taxed and considered a business. The Roberts court was wrong but we all know the repubs will never rule in favor of the citizen against any business.

  • DaveH

    For some hard-hitting Libertarian logic:
    http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf

  • Juanita

    Never have I seen so much disrespect, ignorance,shown towards a president . I would imagine other countries are in disbelief .

    • Robert Smith

      Actually they are cheering because Bush is gone.

      Rob

  • http://pauljbosco.com Paul J. Bosco

    True conservatives were unhappy with the way Bush trashed the Constitution, arrogating to himself every power he could. Similarly, many –probably most– Obama supporters from 2008 have been groaning for years about his following in that Bush mold. And the true left (like the Occupy Wall Streeters) don’t GROAN, they scream. So where’s the hypocrisy?

    As for Chip’s article, the misleading, Obama-bashing headline is to be expected. The church –no angel in this matter–lost every case, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Most of the Judges who ruled against them must have been appointed/nominated by Republican Presidents. They seem to have believed that the Churches could not, under the cover of Separation of Church and State, behave hideously in a civil matter. The Supreme Court has deemed otherwise. It’s not so clear that this is a gain for personal liberties.

    This was an important decision, and real discussion would have been useful. Turning it into an occasion to bash Obama was a knee-jerk reaction.

    Except for the part about the knee.

    –Paul J. Bosco
    Manhattan

    • DaveH

      Paul says “The church –no angel in this matter–lost every case, all the way up to the Supreme Court”.
      Really, Paul?
      According to this article:
      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#sub1
      “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”.

  • wlllbjr5

    “SEVERE TOTAL STUPID LUNACY!” I am sorry to say this; howevever our “Society” is sick. prez bam obozo odumbo obummer(still looking for new names to add), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Prgressive/Liberal Democratic Legislators and Judges( to include “Case Law”), and Moderate-Liberal Republicans/RINO are only Symptoms of this Larger Disease.This Nation needs a re-birth of Christianity to remove the cancerous growth prevailent in this Society. I propose to every one get involved with your local church! do whatever you can to increase memberships! So you say this person or that person is a Hypo-crit–I say to you this issue is not appropriate if you value our Christian Values as the Foundation of our Society. As Leaders within our Communities we need to ask and do what ever we can to Make Christianity a Non-criminal Activity for witch it is not and increase church memberships and what all of those whom want to destroy our great society so wantantly want to Criminalize. I surely pray that spirtuality would rise as a result. Sharia Law needs to be out-lawed not our United States Constitution! If you understand what Sharia is and what it is supposed to do–you would know immediately implementing any part of it is “TREASON!” Any Questions!

  • Tom W.

    I’m tired gang, time to go to bed. Can’t hardly wait to see what’s up Ben’s sleeve for tomorrow! I wonder if he’ll have anything to say about our beloved POTUS’s Al Green impersonation, “I know that everything is gonna be all right, He’s comin’ back, just like He said He would, like He said He would, like He said He would…”
    Good Night everybody, sleep well because He’s comin’ back, just like He said He would! He loves y’all and so do I!!!

  • Thinking About

    Chip, I have been under the impression for some years a good journalist does research before submitting their articles but I am finding on regular basis research is only a few clicks away but telling the truth may not provide the readers one desires. I remembered an article written by Bob Livingston titled Cognitive Dissonance about conflicts in truthful measures and wonder if those conflicts prevents us from the truth. This article was of good information but to imply the courts has told Obama no on this matter is a stretch of the truth. There are enough confused people who does not know the proper operation of our civic matters to understand a president does not control all phases of governing and therefore to confuse them is not nice.

    • Tom W.

      Dear Thinking About, this was the genius of the framers and why our government was set up the way that it was, so that no one branch could hold absolute power! As the famous quote so eloquently states, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887. Checks and balances!!! That is why this president is so dangerous, don’t get me wrong, the previous administration was the worst ever up until that point! But the current administration is making quantum leaps in the undermining of our founding documents!!! When JFK was elected in 1960, Ike was scared that he would come into office as the puppet of the MIC, and at first he was! But after the first couple a years Jack made a complete about face when he truly saw what was happening! The Obama administration is trying an end run around all those checks and balances by Executive Order. Everytime an objection is made, the far left inserts the race card. WAKE UP AMERICA! WE CANNOT LET THIS BE!!! We are the ONLY nation on the face of this earth that was EVER founded on the priciple that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (The three words our president had trouble remembering when quoting this line, although to his credit, he finally did get it right when addressing our troops in Afghanistan shortly after Thanksgiving the year before last.) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That’s not by the power of some king, queen, chairman, czar, dictator, imam, act of congress, or senate, but by our Creator! Which makes these rights undeniable! Is there a higher order to be sought? I think not! The New World Order won’t know anything about We the People, but will be of the elites, by the elites, and for the elites. The rest of us that they allow to live will simply be their slaves. Wanna see their agenda in a lapidary nutshell, in their materia sacra? Simply goggle “Georgia Guidestones.” Or better yet:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFg4tgN5ac8
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3eGWZd7LE

      Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)
      “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

      But what did you say Jesus? “Fear not!”

      2 Thessalonians 2:8(KJV)
      “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:”

      For those of us who know Him as personal Lord and Savior, this shouldn’t be a time of fear, but of rejoicing! The ancient prophecies
      are being fulfilled right before our very eyes! Pray hard for your lost loved ones, pray hard for ALL the lost!!! If you should find yourself on the other side of the Rapture, and I truly believe that it could happen at any moment, FEAR NOT!!! Stay strong in the Lord! He will get you through it, but if you should lose your life for the name of Jesus, you shall be truly blessed! It’s a WIN/WIN!!! But whatever you do, DO NOT TAKE THE MARK! I repeat, DO NOT TAKE THE MARK!!! For that is the point of NO return!!! Now if you should decide that you’r rather skip all that nonsense, simply pray this prayer and mean it with all your heart! “Dear God, I know that You love me. I admit that I’m a sinner. Please forgive me for my sins. I place my faith in Jesus as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for saving me. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.” If you prayed that prayer and meant it with all your heart, know for a certainty that it is impossible for God to lie! (Rom. 10:13) This is what it means to be born-again! (John 3:3) Go find yourself a church, forget about a perfect one, they don’t exist. Surround yourself with Christian friends, they won’t be perfect either, that’s why we need Jesus! Emmerce yourself in Gods’ Word so you’ll know how to fight off ole’ nick. (Eph. 6:13-18) You’re in the Army now, soldier! And now it’s your job to bring as many lost sheep back into the fold as possible. (Matt. 5:14-16) What?! Did you think it was going to be easy? (II Tim. 3:12) God be with you! I wish for everyone who reads this post to know that the writer is a certified Jesus nut with plenty of documentation to prove it!

      • Thinking about

        Tom, please do not question my faith, I know where I stand with my Lord. Having said this it still does not influence me to accept untruths. Just because one can not find anything about someone to be negative so just put out stories which might excite readers is just plain wrong. Unfortunately many do not know the truth and do not seek the truth and become confused by all the untruths. May God be with you and guide you every day of your life.

        i

  • Airangel

    I still can’t believe those that support Obama after 3 dismal years…had Bush or any Republican President done what he’s done thus far they would be impeached or imprisoned! But yes I can believe the “blank” minds out there…18 million watching American Idol, 15 million watching the Big Bang Theory and 5 million the SC debate…nobody cares whats going on…they’re all in their own little world in ignorant bliss! Obama sings and they think he’s King–sickening…here’s his latest Disney executive power bringing destruction upon us all!

    President Obama went to Disney World’s Magic Kingdom park to announce his plan to speed the visa process, which he believes will boost tourism in the U.S.

    Three points in Obama’s plan include, expanision of the global entry program, allowing citizens from other countries to visit the U.S. without a tourist VISA and processing tourist VISAs for citizens of China and Brazil at least 40 percent faster staring this year.

    Senator Grassley released the following statement:

    “The President’s proposal flies in the face of the law we’ve had on the books because of 9/11. Only two of the 19 hijackers were interviewed by consular officers, so Congress mandated that all visa applicants be interviewed, with very few exceptions. Once again, this administration is pushing the envelope and using their authority beyond congressional intent, allowing untold numbers of foreign nationals to bypass the in-person interview requirement, and risking national security in the process.”

    This President shames America and defiles his sworn oath to protect Americans…he makes me sick to my stomach!

    • Karolyn

      The Pres. does have a nice voice and should sing more often! As far as the Visa business goes, I say “Bravo!” Everybody blasts him for not doing anything to help create jobs; and then when he does, he gets blasted for it. Besides the tourists who want to come here, there are a lot of entrepeneurs who could boost the economy having a hard time coming here. I know of one, in particular – a guy in Ireland who wants to come over and open a restaurant. He has to have a lawyer to get a Visa and it takes forever. The whole system is ridiculous because people are paranoid. If you want to be paranoid about terrorists, worry about hackers. Arab hackers are starting to hack into Israeli internet and create problems. They don’t need to come here to terrorize us!

    • Jay

      Air, Obama is no worse then the previous, and the previous Presidents were no better then Obama. The destruction, or the dismantling of America was gradual/progressive, hence the illusion that the previous were better, or less evil then the present one. None of them were really our Presidents. They were, and are, and will be just employees of the United States Corporation, owned by a “foreign power” and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic of the United States since its very inception. This power was/is the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today.

      The ten largest bank holding companies in the United States are firmly in the hands of certain banking houses, all of which have branches in London. They are J.P. Morgan Company, Brown Brothers Harriman, Warburg, Kuhn Loeb and J. Henry Schroder. All of them maintain close relationships with the House of Rothschild, principally through the Rothschild control of international money markets through its manipulation of the price of gold. Each day, the world price of gold is set in the London office of N.M. Rothschild and Company.

      Although these firms are ostensibly American firms, which merely maintain branches in London, the fact is that these banking houses actually take their direction from London. Their history is a fascinating one, and unknown to the American public, originating as it did in the international traffic in gold, slaves, diamonds, and other contraband. There are no moral considerations in any business decision made by these firms. They are interested solely in money and power. No president will dare try to upset the apple-cart, those that tried, well, i’m sure you know your history…

      • AintSayin

        Jay, you are so right. It is amazing how many Americans do not understand that we are all being “monetarily” enslaved. It is amazing that so many actually think there is a difference between Obama and Bush. Too many are unable to see who REALLY controls this country.

      • AintSayin

        Those who upset the “apple-cart” DIE! But they die because of lack of support. If ALL Americans were to wake up TODAY and understand, as you do, then ALL Americans would be free TOMORROW! It’s 99 TO 1!

      • Jay

        AintSayin:Those who upset the “apple-cart” DIE! But they die because of lack of support. If ALL Americans were to wake up TODAY…

        Precisely! Unfortunately, Americans are either asleep, distracted, or focused on fixing issues that are merely the symptoms of the underlying “Cause”, thus, their misguided efforts, remain ineffectual! And this, by design, propagated through the effective use of “Media”, which stimulates, and carefully guides its viewers to focus on issues, pre-determined by media, with the ultimate goal, and end-result being; to lead their viewers to frustration, to exhaustion, and ultimately, creating cognitive-dissonance. There you have it, the “Neutralize Dissent” weapon!

      • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

        Jay and AintSayin

        The History of the House of Rothschild Dynasty- Researching Criminal zionism
        http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild_ori.htm – Cached
        The Rothschilds have, with their founding of Zionism, betrayed the principles of the …. In his will he lays out specific laws that the House of Rothschild were to follow: ….. On March 29th The Times of London reports on the Bolsheviks in Russia, …

        • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

          Also Jay

          The History of the House of Rothschild-World Rulers Part II
          http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/%3Fp%3D12331 -
          By wmw_admin on March 4, 2010 … On November 16, President Roosevelt recognizes the Zionist regime of Stalin in Russia without consultation with Congress … At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild.

          • Jay

            Awesome! Thanks for the links Coal, I shall include them to my collection!

  • Janice Fortin

    TOM! TODAY….TODAY….there are Americans echoing Patrick Henry:
    GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH ! I wonder how many Americans are aware of the liberties that are being removed by the minute…..
    Humanity itself is being diminished lower than the level of animals.
    How liberties of some individuals are trampled on by those who consider themselves the “leaders of society”, who slam people’s lives in wild abandon as if they were unfeeling cans of play dough. No JUSTICE DEPT in the world is defending them and religious leaders just egg them on. Is it true that Agenda 21 frowns on individualism to the point of destruction? Look around, AGENDA 21 IS HERE.

  • http://wildblue C Derr

    Stay within the confines of the ten commandments and the constituition and we as a country will have no problems. The government that governs least governs best.

  • DaveH
  • FreedomFighter

    BANKS REFUSING CASH WITHDRAWALS – Ann Barnhardt

    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/on-banks-refusing-cash-withdrawals-ann-barnhardt/

    Possible something big happening in March?

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • Dennis

    A historical input here. G.W.F. Hegel, W. M. Wundt & their almighty state. It was because of Hegel & Wundt, that public education took a wrong turn with Columbia Univ.’s influencing many colleges, when JD Rockefeller created his General Education Board to dumb down America. Many of Hegel’s students (Wundt) have been psychologically manipulating American citizens for decades. Humanism influences uneducated & uninformed “Christians” until the next generation knows not the faith of their grandparents & become slaves of the “Almighty State”. An “Uninformed Christian” is a oxymoron.

    Is Obama a Christian? No. He is instead a liar. No Christian would lie as often as he has done to achieve the federal govt’s Chief Executive office. Religious Ecumenism & synchronization is what that lying OBAMA really is. Obama is fulfilling the type of person in political office that Bible prophecy predicts. He is a humanist, a globalist, & a collectivist: thereby Obama is an IDOLATER & is a type of an anti-Christ. Note the article ‘an’ & not ‘the’.

  • ZEE MADMAN

    As a 100% Disabled Combat Veteran I take issues of Discrimination based on Health seriously. This “Church” got away with Discrimination against this Woman based soley on Her Health. NO, I’m not happy about that at all. The Supreme Court just gave them a Pass to do this again anytime they or others feel like it, because after all they are a “Church” & are Better Than, Special, Exempt from following any of the Laws that have been Fought For & Hard Won to Stop this type of Discrimination. As to what it has to do with Obama, whom I personally have No Use For? Wrong is Wrong & they were WRONG! So was the Court. This is Not what I Fought For! I find the Courts Decision Pathetic & Disgusting!

    • Jeep

      As a disabled combat vet with three purple hearts and combat ribbons from Grenada, Panama, Gulf One, OIF and OEF I find this SCOTUS decision to be the epitome of what you and I fought for. Put aside your feelings and remember your oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the greatest nation ever conceived. Our branches of government seemed to operate as designed for once. The BLUF is that the executive branch made an unConstitutional overreach and the SCOTUS shot it down. Isn’t that what we were defending?

      BTW, you want protection for the worker, but didn’t you forget about the employer? For whatever reason, the employer no longer wanted to associate or employ the employee…by protecting the individual’s rights you are clearly violating the employer’s rights. When government gets involved, someone’s “rights” will always be violated. Do you really trust government all that much?

  • Karolyn

    l feel physically ill. Newt the puke is projected to be the winner in SC!

  • a

    @Kate8
    You are very smart! You get it! Keep up the good work. Propaganda is going to destroy us all if we do not wake up and SEE it!

  • omega_ceo

    The BHO Camp wants to have it both ways. You’re either TOO early to sumit your complaint (pre-election) -or- you’re TOO late to submit your complaint (post-election). What they WON’T do to muddy the waters!! This is an astute brood of vipers!! If you negate or demolish the US Constitution, then there is nothing holding them back from making up the rules as they go along. Everything from the ILLEGAL selection of pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-God, anti-America women to the Supreme Court, to the “appointment” of his latest “Czar” to yet another made-up government position (discounting all the OTHER Hair-Brained schemes they have hatched).

    Can we deduce that WHEN he is officially declared a fraudulent, usurping foreigner, that all his “rulings” will be negated? Since he was never a legitamate US President to begin with, can we also deduce that ALL his appointments (Kagen & Sotomayor, et al) will ALSO be disqualified? And, SINCE he will be disqualified, will his selection of “insiders” and “Cabinet” ALSO be disqualified? How about all Holder’s legal “rulings?” Will they ALSO be deemed null and void?

    You are correct in recommending that Impeachment is the “answer.” The steps seem to be fairly ‘easy,” and appear to have already been set in motion: 1) Expose, 2) Impeach, 3) Indict & Convict, 4) Incarcerate!!

    However . . . . I believe that when pushed back up against the wall, BHO will declare himself dictator (emperor, global-messiah, galactic-savior, WHATever!!), and impose martial law. Don’t think that this is too “far fetched!” He already HAS the military on-line to “support” whatever he deems best, and are “authorized” to arrest & incarcerate dissenters, or shoot them on site. IF dissenters are CAPTURED and falsely accused by BHO’s minions, they will automatically lose their US Citizenship.

    All this should happen within the next 4-8 months. Especially if Barry will be REQUIRED, by law, to make an appearance in a court of REAL law and defend himself . . . . .

    Do you like apples? How ’bout THEM “apples?!!”

    • tgeer

      ?? WTH are you talking about? There has been no sign of anything that you are talking about. Not one.

      What would Obama need to defend himself in court for? It cannot be his BC/COLB, because that has already been proven to be valid.

      The only way for a lawsuit to get past the initial stages is if the Petitioner has valid proof that what the Defendant has to say, or has shown, is not valid. There is no proof that Obama, whatsoever, has anything to defend in court.

      As for the lawsuits that have been filed by the States against the health care act, the US Supreme Court will decide that issue. The President doesn’t even have to be in the courtroom to defend it. The attorney that has been assigned to it by the DOJ will be there.

    • tgeer

      “I believe that when pushed back up against the wall, BHO will declare himself dictator (emperor, global-messiah, galactic-savior, WHATever!!), and impose martial law. Don’t think that this is too “far fetched!” He already HAS the military on-line to “support” whatever he deems best, and are “authorized” to arrest & incarcerate dissenters, or shoot them on site. IF dissenters are CAPTURED and falsely accused by BHO’s minions, they will automatically lose their US Citizenship.”

      Do you have facts to back your opinion up? Any?

      This is the same crap that was said near the end of Bush’s Administration. Didn’t happen did it? Do you know why? Because is was all coming from propaganda and paranoia. A LOT of paranoia.

      Every President has the military on the line. Every.Single.One.

      Dissenters? Do you mean like you, or the majority of people on the right wing forums? It hasn’t even come close to happening. What facts lead you to believe that this will happen in the future, when it hasn’t happened in the past?

      Shoot dissenters on sight? Provide proof of this, please. Official proof, not just what you read on a website.

      Lose their citizenship? Again, WTH are you talking about? US citizens, who were born here, CAN NOT lose their citizenship. Period.

      You, truly, need to educate yourself with facts, instead of the steady diet of hate and paranoia you currently seem to feeding yourself on. That, or see a psychiatrist soon.

  • Another Voice

    The Obama administration had no opinion about this at all, so why do you insist that the Supreme Court was overriding a presidential decision? Couldn’t you at least give credit to the unanimous decision of the court? Even the so-called liberal justices sided with the school’s decision, but you can’t bring yourselves to say it!

  • jopa

    I doubt very much if Obama is even aware of such a trivial matter as the one above.But his name has to be attached to it for what?To try and rattle someone on a slow news day!

  • Vicki

    The Supreme Court just released another ruling upholding the Constitution.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-rules-gps-tracking-requires-a-warrant/

    However since the NDAA why would the government care about search warrants. Just snatch the suspects and take them away.

  • Robert Fine

    As a former teacher I see the issue differently than most of your responders. From the information offered in the article the person dismissed was a teacher not a “church leader”. She was off on a medical leave and when that ended the school authorities did not want her back on the payroll. So this would seem to be a case of wrongful dismissal. It seems that the rights of workers in the U.S. is very much under attack these days which is sad. In any case the fired teacher – remember – was good enough to be hired in the first place and was dismissed basically after she became sick. The Court got this wrong.

    • Temporary Resident

      I also noticed what you said to be true and wondered about the obvious mental confusion happening to everyone in this case. There are books that teach how to use ‘magic’ to control people, “Corporate Magic” is one. Obama’s people are accused of using this to get him elected. In my state a government employee at a high level stated he was not worried as he ‘knew’ he would be re-elected. Scary, and sad. Well. won’t see them in Heaven.

  • nowhereman

    Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that the argument was over a matter of employment rather than a religious matter.

  • James

    Isn’t it illegal to fire someone for being out sick? Sort of like maternity leave isn’t it? How much sick time can you get before the company is allowed to fire you for it?

  • Sandy Daniels

    The supreme’s said NO this time and protected the constitution.
    The Church chooses their own leadership NOT OBAMA, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

    SEMPER FI
    Sandy

  • Jacqui

    Hasn’t anyone ever heard of “separation of Church and State”. That means everything…

    I can’t believe that so many so-called intelligent people can be so uneducated!

  • tgeer

    Where, exactly, did you people get the idea that lawsuits and appeals are dropped when one President replaces another one? That makes no sense. Lawsuits quite frequently cross Administrations. There is no valid reason why they should not.

    Are you of the opinion (insane, IMO) that when an Administration changes hands the DOJ goes through all of its files and decides which ones they are going to continue? It does not work that way. Period.

  • wm mcdannold jr

    A quote from Winston Churchill leapt to mind upon reading the remark that many animals are most dangerous when cornered – as per a liberal, ACLU kind of reaction to the courts ruling. Churchill’s remark following War II of the evils perpetrating the conflict: “The wolf may be dead but the bitch that bore him lives”. Talk about politically incorrect in our current twisted environment!! The remark, of course, is both metaphor and an appeal to vigilance. Another metaphor might be: No matter where you might be, there will always be predators intent upon killing the chickens in your coop. Keep the shotgun over the door loaded! The article re Goldman Sachs world reach/control fits nicely here.

  • Linda

    I’d say if you don’t go by our constitution live elsewhere! Leave my country alone! It’s about time the supreme court goes by our Constitution! Not use other countries laws!!!

  • Cal

    Cheryl Perich was not a minister, and the fact that you consider bigotry and discrimination to be an individual right reveals just what a vile human being you are.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.