What’s interesting in the news today?
1. As I’m sure you’ve heard, the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby over the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate. Despite that fact the ruling was a narrow one tailored to this case, and not the doom and gloom opening of the flood gates they’d like you to believe, the political left is losing their minds over it. While they’re a bit over-dramatic, it’s still fun to watch. 🙂
From HotAir “I imagine the horrified shrieks that rose from the streets outside the Supreme Court on Monday as the decision in the Hobby Lobby case began to filter out into the crowd of liberal observers was reminiscent of those poor souls who watched helplessly as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire claimed the lives of 146 young, female garment workers.
In fact, the similarities are eerie. It seems that liberal commentators have convinced themselves that, just as was the case in 1911, the courts and the country have deemed women to be of lesser value than their male counterparts. The distinction between these two eras, of course, is that while that argument could be supported in 1911, it exists only in the heads of progressives in 2014.
NBC News journalist Pete Williams, an accomplished reporter who is not prone to indulge in speculation, went out of his way to insist repeatedly that the Court’s decision in this case was a narrow one. He noted that the decision extends only to the specific religious objections a handful of employers raised about providing abortifacients (as opposed to contraceptives). Williams added that Justice Anthony Kennedy allowed in his concurring opinion that the federal government can pay for and provide that coverage if employers would not.
The Federalist published a variety of other observations about this ruling which indicate that it was narrowly tailored to this specific case. The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby and other employers could not simply drop health coverage in order to avoid mandates. This decision does not apply to other government mandates like those requiring employers cover vaccinations. Finally, if the will of the public in the form of an electoral mandate creates a groundswell of support for a government-funded program which provides access to abortifacients, then that would be perfectly constitutional.”
_______________________________________________
2. The Court also ruled against forced unionization of home care workers.
From TheFreeBeacon “The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Harris v. Quinn that politicians can no longer force family members caring for disabled relatives into public sector unions.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court found the state of Illinois violated the constitution when imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich agreed to funnel a portion of home healthcare worker checks to political allies SEIU and AFSCME. The unions collected more than $50 million from about 20,000 such people over a five-year period.
The decision, authored by Samuel Alito, did not completely limit the ability of public sector unions to collect dues from employees who do not want to join unions. However, the court recognized a category of “partial public employees” and ruled that fees cannot be forcefully extracted from these people.
“PAs are much different from public employees,” Alito’s decision read. “Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment.”
______________________________________________
3. Despite his and his supporters claims about his legal prowess and constitutional scholarliness, Obama continues to lose in court on constitutional issues. It’s almost like they’ve over-hyped the guy. 🙄
From TheWashingtonTimes “President Obama suffered two final defeats in the Supreme Court on Monday, capping a 2013-2014 term in which the justices delivered several judicial hits to the White House while taking a firm stand against the unchecked power of the state.
The administration’s losses on Obamacare rules and compulsory union dues served as a rebuke on the Supreme Court’s final day after months of judicial decisions to rein in big government on issues such as snooping without a warrant, campaign finance restrictions and Mr. Obama’s recess appointment powers.
Just as damning was the way the court ruled in some of those cases. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. corralled unanimous votes on privacy and recess appointments — cases that dealt stinging defeats to Mr. Obama, himself a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.
In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times. During the eight years each in the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the government lost on unanimous votes 15 times and 23 times, respectively. That puts the Obama administration on pace to greatly exceed recent predecessors in terms of judicial losses.”
Don’t believe the hype.
_______________________________________________
4. Maybe part of Obama’s problem is he speaks a different language, the language of despotism.
From Hoover.org “Long before 1984 gave us the adjective “Orwellian” to describe the political corruption of language and thought, Thucydides observed how factional struggles for power make words their first victims. Describing the horrors of civil war on the island of Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides wrote, “Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.” Orwell explains the reason for such degradation of language in his essay “Politics and the English Language”: “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.”
Tyrannical power and its abuses comprise the “indefensible” that must be verbally disguised. The gulags, engineered famines, show trials, and mass murder of the Soviet Union required that it be a “regime of lies,” as the disillusioned admirer of Soviet communism Pierre Pascal put it in 1927.
Our own political and social discourse must torture language in order to disguise the failures and abuses of policies designed to advance the power and interests of the “soft despotism,” as Tocqueville called it, of the modern Leviathan state and its political caretakers. Meanwhile, in foreign policy the transformation of meaning serves misguided policies that endanger our security and interests.”
“No foreign policy crisis, however, is more illustrative of the “regime of lies” and abuse of language to serve “indefensible” aims than the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The Arabs’ aim, of course, is to destroy Israel as a nation, a policy they have consistently pursued since 1948. Since military attacks have failed ignominiously, an international public relations campaign coupled to terrorist violence has been employed to weaken Israel’s morale and separate Israel from her Western allies. An Orwellian assault on language has been key to this tactic.”
______________________________________________
Wandering Views 
#4. Almost everything Obama wants passed is the opposite of the name given to it.
e.g. “Affordable Care Act”.
There are other examples, if I could think right now.
LikeLike
In an unscientific poll the Times News takes every day, Today’s question is “Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision on Hobby Lobby?”
66% said yes.
22 % no
and, surprisingly, 13% say they never heard of it.
It’s still early, but I notice that the early rankings remain proportional.
LikeLike
Judicial Watch has filed a motion to have U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan hear why the IRS failed to notify the court that the e-mails of Lois Lerner and other IRS employees named in the FOIA suit brought by Judicial Watch had mysteriously disappeared along with others named in the suit. Judge Sullivan has been know to appoint a special prosecutor in previous cases where he suspected tampering with evidence. You can read about the suit here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/jw-gets-court-hearing-missing-irs-emails/
Maybe Judge Sullivan should be the attorney general and not Eric Holder.
LikeLike
Joe, those e-mails disappeared when the investigation start6ed getting too close.
We all know that, don’t we?
The reason the committee wasn’t told early on is because they weren’t lost yet.
They were lost retroactively. Got it?
LikeLike
Between Hobby Lobby and the “bakery” issue, people are unable/unwilling to think clearly about this stuff. They can’t even pinpoint the differences between 401ks and mandated insurance coverage. People cannot think clearly.
LikeLike
Chas, they use the names of the bills to vilify their opposition. They will put out a stupid bill and name it something like the “Don’t let the Puppies Die Act”. The bill will have nothing whatsoever to do with dying puppies but anyone who votes against will look like a monster.
LikeLike
Exactly, kbells. Just like any opposition to anything touching on birth control is a “war on women.” Amazing that cheap rhetoric actually works.
LikeLike
Hi Joe and Solar.
Nice to hear from you guys.
LikeLike
KBells,
Or my personal favorite,
The many versions of the “It’s for the Children Act”
Doesn’t matter if it is or not, if you vote against it, you hate kids. And their puppies. 🙄
LikeLike
Obama?
Make a mistake?
C’mon!
LikeLike
KBells, you may be correct.
I’m likely the only person in the world who opposes “affordable health care”.
So everything bad that happens is my fault.
I’m also joining the Koch Brothers in the war on women.
You may have to pay for your own contraceptives.
LikeLike
Thanks, AJ. Been hard to find time to duck in here. I still like the looks of the place!
LikeLike
Right, throw the words “children’, “equal” or the name of a recent murder victim and the bill could contain praise to Bin Laden.
LikeLike
I live in the land of those “horrified shrieks” that went up yesterday. 🙂 People are shocked. Shocked.
As in “dark ages,” “we’ll-all-be-wearing-burkas” shocked.
I could go on.
LikeLike
To be fair, Obama is not the first to use language to dress up legislative bills to seem like motherhood and apple pie.This has been going for a few decades at least. The ultimate in Orwellian language applied to the name of a bill is the Patriot Act — what does heavy handed gov’t intrusion have to with patriotism. And the term “Homeland Security” ?? And beyond legislation terms, we have also replaced mercenary with contractor and torture with enhanced interrogation. Continuing with the military and defense terms, what is collateral damage and friendly fire?
One Republican attemtping to make pet care a deduction called it the HAPPY Act
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703820904576057900030169850
In Canada, the present Conservative gov’t has replaced the traditioan neutral bureacratic term “Budget 2013” with “Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2013” complete with its own logo (which resembles a Canadian flag except its conservative blue instead of liberal red)
LikeLike
Oh but wait. Silly me for thinking the court has spoken.
The president, after all, has a pen.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/211022-obama-weighs-executive-hammer
“As we assess the impact of this decision, we’ll consider whether or not there is a range of other options that may be available that don’t require legislative action,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. Democrats signaled in the hours after the high court’s decision that they think the issue could boost their turnout in the fall by highlighting GOP opposition to abortion rights. That makes it even more likely that Obama will not fear taking executive steps.
LikeLike
I do find it rather interesting that the people who noisily defend the US from the threat of sharia law are some times the very same people who defend the Supreme Court decision. (not that the two are the same but it does point out the fact its the nature or type of religion which motivates people to defend secularism)
As for the actual decision, I can understand the logic of the decision but not the casual acceptance of a belief. Hobby Lobby should’ve been forced to explain why certain types of contraception is abortion (but not that abortion is against their religion). Without any meaningful defense of a religious belief, the court has established a precedent where feeling triumphs reason.
Interestingly, Obama’s Supreme Court record is the same as the Conservative gov’ts record in the Canadian Supreme Court ( and the Cdn system makes it harder for the judiciary to rule against the legislature) . Perhaps we simply live in an era of legislative and executive overreach or problem more to the case both Obama and Harper have to work with a court which is of a different political ideology. In the US the prevalence of 5-4 decisions do point to a highly political court.
LikeLike
I wonder will this casual acceptance of belief allow pharmacists and doctors to refuse to discuss birth control, for taxi drivers to refuse to transport people carrying alcohol or being intoxicated or even refusing to transport unescorted females.
My previous post should read “probably more” as opposed to “problem more”
LikeLike
Um, if we didn’t have an administration that pushed to institute government-run health care — which, what a surprise, is bound to bring up all kinds of conflicting rights — we wouldn’t be talking about or litigating any of this, would we?
Sigh.
LikeLike
Interesting allegations about the Mississippi primary battle between Cochran and McDaniel. If it can be proven true, and the named “informant” motives for releasing the info are questionable. He seems to be looking for someone to pay for his story, even if it’s the Cochran camp to shut him up. But he names names, and alleges vote buying by Cochran’s camp using black Democrat voters. Voters who in some cases illegally voted in the Republican primary. It’s long, but the story he tells warrants further investigation.
LikeLike
Hwesseli, if it is their medical practice, pharmacy or cab then yes,I accept their right to run them according to their moral beliefs. If they are working for another doctor, pharmacy or cab company than that is between them and their employer.
LikeLike
The left continues to move from demanding tolerance to demanding affirmation to demanding participation.
LikeLike
And I agree with kBells 1:39 as well.
LikeLike
http://www.cato.org/blog/republic-gilead-not-night
“Personally, I have no sympathy whatever with the substantive moral views of Hobby Lobby’s owners. But I’m dismayed at how many friends who style themselves “liberals,” even recognizing the ruling will make no immediate difference in employee access to contraception, seem to regard it as an appalling betrayal that the Court refused to license what amounts to purely symbolic compulsion of people with retrograde ideas. If we accept that the exemption here makes no functional difference to whether people are covered, however, that’s the only rationale left for insisting on direct purchase of coverage by employers—and not, I had thought, a legitimate rationale for government coercion in a liberal democracy.”
LikeLike
There’s some similarity between enacting Sharia law and this Hobby Lobby exception? That’s what’s known as a “stretch.”
hwesseli: Hobby Lobby’s religious belief is that life begins at conception. The methods of “birth control” to which they objected can terminate the life of a fertilized egg. What else is it you believe Hobby Lobby should be required to argue?
LikeLike
Do people ever just acknowledge when some person or group does something wrong, and not trot out examples of how the *other* side has done the same thing, expecting that to be the end of the discussion? That’s not helping.
LikeLike
Hobby Lobby can assert their beliefs but they need to meticulous outlining how something negates their belief. For them to state life begins at conception and a particular type of conception will result in the end of said life requires them to prove exactly when, how etc conception occurs and how exactly this contraception is intended to destroy rather than to prevent this life form. When all you need to do is state a belief and the courts accept opens the window to all sorts of claims.
I know the decision was very narrowly construed probably to deliberately avoid other implications, but once you establish the idea that religion can exempt you from laws the genie is out of the bottle. Can pacifist refuse to pay the portion of their taxes that goes to the military? Can Rastafarian be exempt from marijuana prohibition? Can police refuse order which conflict with their religion?
Now personally I think involving the employer in health care is silly — heath care should be between the doctor and the patient with the gov’t paying the bills.
LikeLike
Solar — you’re right pointing out the other side does it doesn’t help nor solve the debate. However in the case of “nice” legislative names its helpful to point this nonsense starting a long time ago and was employed by all political stripes. In this way, its no longer a partisan argument and hopefully people can point to solutions.
LikeLike
I don’t think Hobby Lobby needs to do anything. I don’t think the government should require anyone to pay for contraception for any reason.
LikeLike
Chas — I agree but when you use religion as an excuse you open a Pandora’s box
LikeLike
A big chunk of the population believes that life begins at conception. This is not a fringe idea. Perhaps a law that requires a large portion of the population to violate their conscience is a bad and unconstitutional law.
LikeLike
That box was opened when the Bill of Rights were ratified.
LikeLike
Greg Gutfeld brought up the reverse slippery Slope argument. if the Government can require employers to pay for what amounts to them to be a murder, what else can they do?
LikeLike
Good grief. I can’t believe how this issue has been so twisted — and how so many good liberals are shrugging off the specter of government control overriding people’s most deeply held beliefs. What country is this again? Say goodbye to conscience, hello to conforming to the state.
I’m feeling especially cynical lately, sorry. 🙄
Megyn Kelly’s getting pretty feisty these days.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/megyn-kelly-takes-on-sandra-fluke-video/
LikeLike
And maybe I’m not so alone as this 4th of July approaches (for which I usually have a fair amount of enthusiasm):
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0701/Land-of-the-free-Not-so-much.-Americans-sense-of-freedom-drops-poll-finds
LikeLike
Are religious rights to be based on numbers of adherents? And is the Supreme Court able to define what is “fringe” vs mainstream? Rights only become universal if we apply them equally.
Government have forced people to violate their consistence prior to the Obama administration — think of the thousands of young men who have been told to kill by their government and even when they have a religious change of heart they are prosecuted for failing to kill. Think of Quakers and others who were persecuted for actively opposing slavery and helping slaves escape. Think of Christian pacifists and socialists who were prosecuted by the gov’t for their beliefs. Hopefully, this decision however narrowly constricted will give people more freedom to resist gov’t compulsion and persecution whatever their religious beliefs — Amish, Mennonite, Quaker, native spiritualism, Rastafarian, Muslim etc.
I may be a bit cynical but the Bill of Rights didn’t open any boxes unless it was a box owned by a rich white man. One of the ongoing themes of American is the gradual expansion of the Bill of Rights to include other groups than just rich white guys.
LikeLike
Megyn Kelly does seem to have develop a real journalist backbone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6dWbbaylo
LikeLike
Yep, Quakers were persecuted. They also were instrumental in establishing a conscientious objector status for the military in this country — which was and is still a very good thing.
LikeLike
Government, once it acquires power over individuals, isn’t prone to giving much of that up. And that’s why a bigger and bigger (more powerful/intrusive) government worries us so much.
LikeLike
http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/01/talking-about-hobby-lobby-and-religious-freedom-with-liberal-friends/
” … If your liberal friends are enraged about the Hobby Lobby decision, ask them: Don’t we want to be the sort of society that respects personal integrity? … Government should exercise tolerance, particularly in matters it doesn’t understand. … The best policy … is to respect religious groups’ claims of conscience so far as circumstances allow. … when governments try to tell religious people what is and isn’t important to them, they tend to make a mess of it. We don’t have to look to Nazi Germany for examples of that; Waco, Texas illustrates the point just as nicely. … Aren’t liberals the ones who are always lecturing us on the value of a “diverse” society? Whatever arguments you might make for the benefits of having, say, an ethnically diverse workplace, can surely be cross applied to an argument for the benefit of a culturally and philosophically diverse society. If relatively minor accommodations (like slight modifications in employer insurance requirements) can help us to preserve that diversity, that’s a small price to pay. … “
LikeLike
For them to state life begins at conception and a particular type of conception will result in the end of said life requires them to prove exactly when, how etc conception occurs and how exactly this contraception is intended to destroy rather than to prevent this life form.
None of the facts stated or implied in any of this is disputed, by either side, unless there is debate over what “life” is, which is not germaine to Hobby Lobby’s argument. Their belief–which is *THE CORE* belief held by vast numbers of pro-lifers since before Roe, on THE hot button issue of the last few decades–is that life begins at conception. It’s ridiculous to assert the debate is merely regarding the “casual acceptance of a belief.” Some biologists and pro-aborts may not believe life begins at conception. That doesn’t mean the case has been decided and they’re right. It also doesn’t mean that Hobby Lobby and other pro-lifers’ “feelings have triumph[ed](?) reason,” and to assert that as the case is merely begging the question.
LikeLike
Oh, that was me…
LikeLike
This girl makes a fellow proud to be a Texan.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/cheerleader-19-loves-shooting-safari-article-1.1850383
LikeLike
HRW,
“I wonder will this casual acceptance of belief allow pharmacists and doctors to refuse to discuss birth control, for taxi drivers to refuse to transport people carrying alcohol or being intoxicated or even refusing to transport unescorted females.”
Uhhhh, you do realize that part of that is already happening and has been since 2007 at least, right?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-inc-sues-trucking-company-for-firing-muslim-drivers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol/
“When Muslim taxi drivers refused to drive passengers with seeing eye dogs or who carried bottles of alcohol, there was an uproar. But now Obama Inc. is using to claim that Muslim discrimination is a civil right that employers must accommodate.
Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.
A trucking company may be obligated to accommodate religious observance by providing time off for holidays or prayers. It is not obligated to excuse employees from doing their actual job. And delivering alcohol is part of what being a truck driver means. If it’s against your religion, find a job that doesn’t involve delivering large quantities of foods and beverages.”
The Obama admin is all about accommodating religious beliefs ….. If you’re in the right religion.
LikeLike