General Discussion

ucrdem

(15,720 posts)

98. How is it not? It isn't. Anyway we've both made our points so happy new year nt

Reply to Humanist_Activist (Reply #96)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 06:14 PM

Jan 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Justice Sonia Sotomayo Blocks ACA Provision [View all] rsmith6621 Jan 2014 OP

Well, AFAIK, they only have until Friday. longship Jan 2014 #1

The "they" is the government. former9thward Jan 2014 #7

Thank you for the clarification. longship Jan 2014 #13

She dropped the ball last night VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #2

Individuals are not just one thing. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #5

I don't care "Jeff" VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #8

Wow. Straight to eleven. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #14

How about "traitor to our secular society"? WinkyDink Jan 2014 #30

Or perhaps traitor to the LAW and her POSITION. nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #97

That is the correct response in my view, this is about law, and by allowing a religion what lostincalifornia Jan 2014 #107

You damn skippy Jeff... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #51

Wrong Jeff....she wasn't "CHOSEN" for her position based on either... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #134

Justice Sotomajor does know. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #139

YOU can NEVER understand this Jeff VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #140

Jesus. Get a grip. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #145

"this is WHY there is a gender war at DU"- TBF Jan 2014 #46

The outrage is that even NOW after all these years and even on DU VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #52

Your outrage is justified theHandpuppet Jan 2014 #63

that's the heartsickening part... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #66

That instant rant was just bizarre. Marr Jan 2014 #129

I thought so. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #141

You left out that she is a judge. former9thward Jan 2014 #11

Yes and yes. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #16

This is a temporary injuction. tritsofme Jan 2014 #17

so what....would you say that to the LGBT Community? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #53

Again yes, if someone misunderstood something and tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill tritsofme Jan 2014 #57

^^^ prime example of why there is a gender war on DU VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #104

Why should we humor your false outrage? tritsofme Jan 2014 #105

why do you presume to call my outrage false? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #106

Perhaps not false, but definitely misplaced. tritsofme Jan 2014 #110

oh now you want to "soften" your position... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #111

Whatever, I don't care about this anymore. tritsofme Jan 2014 #113

Its quite obvious you never "cared about it" in the first damn place VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #114

You're welcome. tritsofme Jan 2014 #118

I think this poster is mainly upset about a perceived attack on Obama, personally. Marr Jan 2014 #130

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #3

You sound concerned. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #4

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #6

You sound very concerned, now. Of course, staying legislation that is before the Court msanthrope Jan 2014 #25

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #28

Well...this is a TRO on a small part of the mandate....this isn't affecting msanthrope Jan 2014 #49

Yes in fact it does.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #56

Kindly cite precisely where I told you to "shut the fuck up." No one has told you msanthrope Jan 2014 #67

Oh so its being called "silly" "false" and "misplaced" VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #112

Uh, ........ oldhippie Jan 2014 #117

I wish people would STFU about being told to STFU when they have never been told to STFU. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #128

+1 Marr Jan 2014 #131

As am I ....a female who is concerned about this... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #9

An order staying legislation before the Court?? Trust me....this isn't what you worry about. msanthrope Jan 2014 #20

How DARE YOU tell me what I shouldn't worry about VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #21

Because you clearly don't understand how a temporary injuction differs from a final decision. tritsofme Jan 2014 #24

I clearly don't give a shit about that....would you say this to someone in the LGBT Community? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #27

Yes, that's your problem. You don't give a shit about the reality of what you're getting up in arms tritsofme Jan 2014 #37

No you wouldn't and if you did...you would be excoriated by this community and you know it! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #58

I've been here for 10 years. tritsofme Jan 2014 #60

Then I will tell you what I believe VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #62

If you say so. tritsofme Jan 2014 #65

Yeah I say so.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #69

But what if the outrage really is silly? As is the case here? tritsofme Jan 2014 #71

would you tell them "it's silly"? Would you? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #87

I don't know, perhaps you read my profile, or maybe you are just psychic? tritsofme Jan 2014 #103

I didn't...but it was quite easy to figure out.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #108

You have not been here 10 years. U4ikLefty Jan 2014 #95

Oh yes I have.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #99

Not about your body treestar Jan 2014 #89

OH yes it IS about my body... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #100

Calm down soon treestar Jan 2014 #102

Yes, when it's a temporary order treestar Jan 2014 #85

I don't give a shit... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #116

Apparently, Justice Sotomayor gives a shit about applying TRO standards objectively jberryhill Jan 2014 #133

Apparently, this doesn't effect YOUR rights does it jberryhill? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #135

I did not tell you to STFU jberryhill Jan 2014 #136

It doesn't affect YOUR rights either jberryhill Jan 2014 #138

It's not exactly a "pro forma" thing but it's certainly not major. Jim Lane Jan 2014 #123

Okay then. PANIC!!!11!!!!1111 SCOTUS issued a TRO!!!!11!!1 nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #29

Would you say this to someone in the LGBT Community? VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #31

If a TRO had been issued on legislation pending argument before SCOTUS, I msanthrope Jan 2014 #41

The POINT is there should not BE ANY kind of injunction on ANY religious ground. PERIOD. WinkyDink Jan 2014 #34

thank you! VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #38

the case has yet to be decided.... this is like when a federal judge stays abortion laws msanthrope Jan 2014 #45

So the law just should do whatever you think it should treestar Jan 2014 #86

What the other poster said is there should not be religious tests for secular law, ever. Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #124

That description of what should be the case is not the law in the United States. Jim Lane Jan 2014 #144

Really? Ms. Toad Jan 2014 #115

The injunction per se is not based on any religious ground jberryhill Jan 2014 #127

I agree with all your points, except the last sentence. Vashta Nerada Jan 2014 #10

This nonsense is pure anti-Catholic bigotry. tritsofme Jan 2014 #15

Post removed Post removed Jan 2014 #26

Echoes of the sort of things bigots said about JFK in 1960. Pretty sick. tritsofme Jan 2014 #32

Except JFK NEVER---unlike Justice S.---showed a scintilla of favoring any religious argument (he WinkyDink Jan 2014 #39

This temporary injuction is not evidence of favoring anything, it is SOP. tritsofme Jan 2014 #48

Then I demand all people bobclark86 Jan 2014 #40

Funny what people expose about themselves when they don't think before they post. X_Digger Jan 2014 #54

Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #33

Her very injunction belies your entire argument. WinkyDink Jan 2014 #35

What evidence is there that a non-Catholic justice would not have granted this injuction? tritsofme Jan 2014 #42

Well, that query kills your being taken seriously, for one cannot prove a negative. WinkyDink Jan 2014 #47

It is you that is assuming religion must be the root of her decision without any evidence tritsofme Jan 2014 #55

Excuse me, but I DID post that I am also a Roman Catholic (confirmed in 1956!). So sorry, not a WinkyDink Jan 2014 #137

A fact that does not give you carte blanche to make bigoted statements tritsofme Jan 2014 #142

"likely would have been granted by any justice." Hahaha! Good one, given there are 5 more RC's! WinkyDink Jan 2014 #43

By the way for those that are brushing this off VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #12

I'm not brushing it off, but as I understand it , it's only a delay. ucrdem Jan 2014 #18

YES in fact you are....would you tell someone from the LGBT Community... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #23

Trust me, yes, thousands upon thousands have told us this, repeatedly. Zorra Jan 2014 #44

Exactly...over and over and over... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #61

And the saddest part is... theHandpuppet Jan 2014 #68

yes.... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #70

What if the final decision is different? treestar Jan 2014 #94

Frankly speaking theHandpuppet Jan 2014 #120

At least for the time it takes one case to process through the system treestar Jan 2014 #93

And you know who this hurts the most? theHandpuppet Jan 2014 #22

The poor would be hurt if Sotomayor hadn't issued this ruling. ucrdem Jan 2014 #50

Sorry to hear that. Honestly. theHandpuppet Jan 2014 #121

What the hell?? n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2014 #19

Too many Catholic justices on the Supreme Court kiranon Jan 2014 #36

If one of your parents was being cared for in their last days by these nuns ucrdem Jan 2014 #59

So volunteering gives license to dick around with other people's rights? JVS Jan 2014 #64

They aren't volunteers. Their work for the poor is their entire lives. ucrdem Jan 2014 #72

Volunteers for life are still volunteers. JVS Jan 2014 #74

Fine. nt ucrdem Jan 2014 #75

Treatment of nuns by the church is a whole other issue. kiranon Jan 2014 #78

"There's no treasure trove of rubies" etc BarackTheVote Jan 2014 #84

That is hilariously false. RCC, Vatican itself, owns vast amounts of prime commercial Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #125

Wow, that's quite an empire Small Accumulates Jan 2014 #132

Unfortunately, not subscribed to Time online so can't read the full article BarackTheVote Jan 2014 #143

Simony usually refers to the sale of positions of within the Church JVS Jan 2014 #146

Absolutely not. n/t kiranon Jan 2014 #77

Uhm, I'd never let my parents be subjected to their care, and having recent experience... Humanist_Activist Jan 2014 #79

My experience is different. ucrdem Jan 2014 #80

Would you trust a group of people who would sue to try to impose their beliefs... Humanist_Activist Jan 2014 #81

The purpose of the ACA is not to shut down Catholic rest homes. ucrdem Jan 2014 #82

No, its to make sure that those businesses actually follow the fucking law... Humanist_Activist Jan 2014 #88

They follow the law. That's why the injunction was necessary. nt ucrdem Jan 2014 #91

Because otherwise they would be fined? How is that following or complying with the law? Humanist_Activist Jan 2014 #96

How is it not? It isn't. Anyway we've both made our points so happy new year nt ucrdem Jan 2014 #98

Not this shit again! bonzaga Jan 2014 #73

they need an outrage thread Niceguy1 Jan 2014 #83

The Pill doesn't stop fertilization... bobclark86 Jan 2014 #90

They know. They're still against birth control. JVS Jan 2014 #101

I thought you meant the posters on this thread whistler162 Jan 2014 #147

Lip service to temporarily mollify the childish demands of theocratic brats. nt Zorra Jan 2014 #76

This is why we need actual enforcement of .. ananda Jan 2014 #92

The epic misunderstanding of what this actually means....... WillowTree Jan 2014 #109

Don't breastfeed your babies HockeyMom Jan 2014 #119

perfect reason to do away with workplace based health insurance -dumb fracking idea to begin with Agony Jan 2014 #122

Not really. It was explained a bit upthread, but this is a very good explanation: Raine1967 Jan 2014 #126