SCOTUS rules corporations can refuse ACA's contraception mandate

The direct practical upshot of the decision is pretty narrow - it only applies to closely held corporations. But the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights under the law is the part that worries me - and only 2 Justices decried that part.

Freepers, as is their wont, only briefly celebrated the ruling (mostly for how it pissed off liberals), and then exhort each other to keep frosty - Obama's still out there being a cartoon supervillain, guys!

Enlightened1 is stoked.

Another MASSIVE VICTORY! That's a Hat Trick!

I want the USA back is also happy, though mostly out of tribalistic spite:

This is good. But the best part it that it will give the administration indigestion.

youngidiot also only cares about the anger of those he despises:

The libs on Facebook are losing their minds over this. Hahahaha

dontBSme concentrates on the Democratic leadership:

Wonder how long it will be before Delirious Dingy, the Left Coast Harridan and Little Zero call for a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Supreme Court?

longfellowsmuse is trying really hard to keep the Chief Justice Roberts is blackmailed theory of the ACA.

Wonder how long it will be before nasty family secrets will be “leaked” about the Roberts family.

Man...SgtHooper

Here’s some of the libtard reasoning from Darth Vader Ginsburg in her dissent:

“The requirement carries no command that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable. Instead, it calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans.”

She pits the “”compelling interests” under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment against the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), where religion loses out in her opinion. How sad she is.

He correctly understands the legal reasoning in the opposition, and then just says "sad." and disengages with it. So close!

Triple worries the Supreme Court can find only part of a law unconstitutional, as it has since the Founding:

So, is just part of the law unconstitutional?

Is this the only part?

Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?

PieterCasparzen knows the Supreme Court is in the hands of the financial masters, and this is just to make the sheeple briefly happy.

Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?

Yes, they've always had that. It's just hard to tell because they almost always simply do what their elite financial masters want them to do, i.e., inflict misery on the sheeple. If SCOTUS did their job, virtually every law passed by Congress would be struck down.

Occasionally the sheeple get tossed a bone so they can think they are "winning". This keeps the sheeple playing the game. If the sheeple were never tossed a bone, they'd stop working. Given how many sheeple have stopped working in the past few years, and how SCOTUS has inflicted such misery on them in the past few years, SCOTUS needed to toss the sheeple a bone.

Enlightened1 is sure this will open up the floodgates of litigation, since the law is now completely Unconstitutional.

Very narrow decision. Applies only to closely held corporations. Government workaround is just to pay for BC directly.

Well I strongly disagree.

All these S.C. rulings invalidate the law and open it up for thousands of law suits.

The law at this point has to be changed in order to be Constitutional or it’s goodbye.

inchworm agrees that this mandate (an HHS regulation) clearly means the law was obviously unconstitutional from the start - never mind the previous ruling!

It’s a flawed law. Pelosi said lets pass the law so we can see what is in in. Maybe they should have reviewed it’s constitutionality first. Others have said lets pass the law just to get something out there then we can work on fixing it.

To me that logic is crazy, and is akin to saying lets smear crap on the wall so we can figure out how to clean it up.

Jim from C-Town knows Obama is till smug.

I doubt that Obama will be the least bit upset about it as he may not be able to get the news on the seventh green.

He will continue to rule as a dictator until someone stops him.

Mouton's version of Obama is sure gonna be evil!

Look for Barry to do something to undermine the republic today as he needs to strike back as his ego has been tarnished. Yes, he is that type of vindictive person.

Dick Bachert has this long post that just says the same crap about abortion that's always been said, with a similarly tired "the Bible says liberals are crazy" slant.

The absolute hypocrisy and duplicity of the American statist left defies logical explanation!

Putting aside for the moment that “statist left” and “logical” should NEVER APPEAR in the same rant, the just announced Hobby Lobby decision by the Supremes displayed it for all to see. All, that is, except the looney 47% who are receiving all the “free” chit and other goodies dispensed by the left to keep them voting for Democrat hacks who promise more and more of the free chit.

At the time the left rammed through the (Un)Affordable Care Act, there were loud protests from the few million or so sane citizens still living here that it would interpose fedzilla into the formerly sacred relationship between patient and doctor. The equally looney “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” left quickly waved a collective imperious hand and uttered a royal “Tsk, tsk”, dismissed the objectors and returned to destroying the fabric of the country.

Comes now the favorable Hobby Lobby decision and comes now two pro-abortion radical feminazis to – where else – MSNBC to decry and lament over the decision. One was Rep. Nita Lowey from NYC (aka Gomorrah on the Hudson) and another woman representing one of the several Margaret Sanger eugenics inspired pro-abortion groups still murdering babies in the former safety of their mothers’ wombs.

Their first and only opposition argument? Though I suspect you have figured this out, better brace yourself: “It would interfere with the sanctity of the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”

And before you hit the reply button with “What about the hypocrisy of the pro-life right in celebrating Hobby Lobby?”

You may have overlooked the third and silent party in the discussion: The unborn baby!

The pro-aborts maintain that a fetus is NOT a human being either until birth or the third trimester. (I’ll believe that when a human female delivers a chicken or a cow.) And a number of courts here and in other nations regularly rule in support of that erroneous notion.

And while we’re discussing “hypocrisy”, can you explain this to me? How is it that those same courts correctly rule in cases involving intentional or accidental serious injury to or death of a pregnant woman that if her unborn baby is injured or dies, her baby constitutes a SECOND victim of the trauma or crime and the jury/judge nearly always factors that into the civil judgment or criminal sentence?

That concept comes down to us from the over 2,000 year old law found in the Bible.

And here’s one final piece of law from that Good Book: “A double-minded man (or woman) is UNSTABLE in ALL his (or her) ways”.

What does that say about 21st century America?

Just sayin’

Dick Bachert
6 30 2014

Sacajaweau is also on about abortion:

The real issue is....get rid of Abortion....Period. The idea that every woman has the right to kill is absurd.

Sacajaweau makes some outreach to women!

Very noticeable problem...and the problem at large...ALL 3 women were part of the dissenting opinion. Just can't separate themselves from their sexual identity.

IMHO, Stat wise...at least one should have been part of the majority opinion.

OK, he's on the spotlight list.

Lou L worries the left will start assassinating Justices. Why they haven't started yet, he does not say.

Pray that the left doesn't figure out that a justices doesn't have to necessarily retire in order to create a vacancy...