General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(38,683 posts)

115. Really?

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 06:54 PM

Jan 2014

You are aware that the First Amendment is part of the constitution - you know, the one which guarantees that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The part of the first amendment which is at issue here is whether the ACA prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I haven't looked at the briefs supporting the request for this particular TRO, or the order granting it, so I'm not taking a position about the merits of this particular TRO. But unless you're removing the first amendment from the constitution (which would - by the other part of the provision - permit the government to establish a state religion), you are flat out wrong that there should never be any kind of injunction on any religious ground.

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