dagblog - Comments for "Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy" http://dagblog.com/politics/today-five-members-us-supreme-court-moved-us-closer-theocracy-18674 Comments for "Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy" en There's one more step SCOTUS http://dagblog.com/comment/197308#comment-197308 <a id="comment-197308"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/197072#comment-197072">This nonsensical decision</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There's one more step SCOTUS needs to take to earn that distinction ... decide in favor for a "business entity" to review your past voting records to determine if your political ideology is aligned with their corporate political philosophy.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 13 Jul 2014 21:30:05 +0000 Beetlejuice comment 197308 at http://dagblog.com But have you noted, http://dagblog.com/comment/197307#comment-197307 <a id="comment-197307"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/197067#comment-197067">I just came on line to see if</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>But have you noted, republican controlled state legislatures have been occupied with passing legislation clipping the wings off voters who disproportional vote for democrats? The mid-terms will be the watermark to see if their efforts bear fruit. If they do succeed, then I suspect they'll be redoubling their efforts to minimize woman's right to exercise their right to vote for the general election in 2016.</p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Sun, 13 Jul 2014 21:22:29 +0000 Beetlejuice comment 197307 at http://dagblog.com Yes you are right. They had http://dagblog.com/comment/197094#comment-197094 <a id="comment-197094"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/197079#comment-197079">Here&#039;s one detail that I</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yes you are right.  They had been providing insurance to cover all reproductive health care before ACA.  They are political active before this and took a stand that others thought would unravel ACA and hurt the AA President.  It is all about political power.  If they can't win in the ballot box they have a court that is in their back pocket. That is what all the corporate person hood is all about.  The court is now a tool for the oligarchy. Eventually the political branches of our government will have to assert themselves against the over reach of the court. </p> </div></div></div> Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:30:14 +0000 trkingmomoe comment 197094 at http://dagblog.com One other thought: isn't the http://dagblog.com/comment/197080#comment-197080 <a id="comment-197080"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/today-five-members-us-supreme-court-moved-us-closer-theocracy-18674">Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>One other thought: isn't the health care cost of contraception <em>much</em> cheaper than the health care cost of pregnancy and child birth, to say nothing of the health care cost of the child after birth? If anyone has the numbers on that, it'd be much appreciated. I'm guessing that even a (reproductive) life-time of contraceptive care is cheaper than a single pregnancy and birth.</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 12:11:17 +0000 Verified Atheist comment 197080 at http://dagblog.com Here's one detail that I http://dagblog.com/comment/197079#comment-197079 <a id="comment-197079"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/today-five-members-us-supreme-court-moved-us-closer-theocracy-18674">Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Here's one detail that I don't see anyone discussing, so maybe I'm misinformed, but isn't it true that (under RomneyCare) the Hobby Lobby stores in Massachusetts had to obey the same mandate prior to the passage of ObamaCare? Isn't it also true that they didn't complain about it?</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 12:03:52 +0000 Verified Atheist comment 197079 at http://dagblog.com Since Richard isn't here http://dagblog.com/comment/197078#comment-197078 <a id="comment-197078"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/today-five-members-us-supreme-court-moved-us-closer-theocracy-18674">Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Since Richard isn't here today.</p> <p><br /></p><div class="media_embed" height="315px" width="420px"> <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315px" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5DcdONaKSQM" width="420px"></iframe></div> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 04:26:22 +0000 trkingmomoe comment 197078 at http://dagblog.com Going Obsolete Party's http://dagblog.com/comment/197075#comment-197075 <a id="comment-197075"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/197072#comment-197072">This nonsensical decision</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Going Obsolete Party's Robert's Court.  I wonder if they will make his statue face the wall. </p> <p>Thanks for the link.  Even if few women loose their coverage, they are tired of this crap from the right.  </p> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:46:05 +0000 trkingmomoe comment 197075 at http://dagblog.com You're right, Ramona. 100 http://dagblog.com/comment/197076#comment-197076 <a id="comment-197076"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/today-five-members-us-supreme-court-moved-us-closer-theocracy-18674">Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>You're right, Ramona. 100 percent right. Totally crazy, unsustainable, setting impossiple precedents.</p> <p>And any Roman Catholic justice who votes to empower private religious bigotry has either forgotten the history of Roman Catholics in this country or refused to understand it.</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:35:22 +0000 Doctor Cleveland comment 197076 at http://dagblog.com But it will hurt their bottom http://dagblog.com/comment/197074#comment-197074 <a id="comment-197074"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/197070#comment-197070">I&#039;ve never shopped at Hobby</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>But it will hurt their bottom line.  The organized protests against Rush L. has worked and he has lost a big part of his advertisers and also major market radio stations. Advertisers are now refusing to buy time with AM stations unless they promise not to put them in time slots during Rush's show. His ratings are now in the toilet.</p> <p>Chick fil a CEO just made an apology a month or so ago for his stand on gay marriage.  That boycott hurt.  Enough people just decided in the south not to eat there.  </p> <p>Women are really mad at this.  I expect many will just not shop there for Chines imports made by women who are forced to have just one child.  Where is their moral religious stand on that.  </p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:28:30 +0000 trkingmomoe comment 197074 at http://dagblog.com This nonsensical decision http://dagblog.com/comment/197072#comment-197072 <a id="comment-197072"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/today-five-members-us-supreme-court-moved-us-closer-theocracy-18674">Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>This nonsensical decision separating out "closely held" corporations could theoretically exempt 90% of US corporations and effect 52% of US workers.</p> <p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-peopl...</a></p> <p>The religious beliefs of the workers are trumped by the religious beliefs of the corporations.</p> <p>The Supreme Court enforces a barrier against protestors but denied a barrier for clinics supplying abortion. The Court said that remedies were no longer needed for voter suppression so they gutted the Voting Rights Act. Texas and North Carolina immediately began suppressing votes. The current Supreme Court will go down as one of the worst in history.</p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:17:49 +0000 rmrd0000 comment 197072 at http://dagblog.com