Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Sunstone]

... in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803

As I understand it, the Court's decision in favor of Madison, by the way, was in part a political decision. Had they decided against him, it was thought at the time that Madison would object to judicial review.

 

[Tarheeler]

If you disregard what I'm arguing, then it's gonna be hard for you to argue with me.
Note that I never said the power of judicial review was specifically mentioned.
Rather, I argue it's an implied power under the theory of original intent.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was providing accurate information.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't arguing with you, I was providing accurate information.

We both believe we are.
But you're taking the strict constructionist view, & I'm advocating
original intent, particularly in light of the subsequent USSC ruling.

For reference on the original intent approach....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[13]
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:

 

[Tarheeler]

As I understand it, the Court's decision in favor of Madison, by the way, was in part a political decision. Had they decided against him, it was thought at the time that Madison would object to judicial review.

It was a test case, and they were flexing their muscles. They had actually ruled against Madision, but then also ruled that Marbuy had no right (under the Constitution) to bring the case. It was a "we have the power to do this, but we don't want to right now", and it was enough of a compromise to keep anyone from making too much noise. Thomas Jefferson was quite upset with it, and called judicial review "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy".

 

[Tarheeler]

We both believe we are.

I don't doubt that at all, but, like I said, I'm not arguing with you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't doubt that at all, but, like I said, I'm not arguing with you.

Good!

 

[Sunstone]

It was a test case, and they were flexing their muscles. They had actually ruled against Madision, but then also ruled that Marbuy had no right (under the Constitution) to bring the case. It was a "we have the power to do this, but we don't to right now", and it was enough of a compromise to keep anyone from making too much noise. Thomas Jefferson was quite upset with it, and called judicial review "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy".

Your memory is better than mine. Thanks for the correction and additional detail!

 

[Nakosis]

The other 3 justices are Jews, so both religions are over-represented.
Of course, what bothers me is that there are so many willing to re-write the
Constitution, & so few constitutional originalists. Gimme more of the latter,
& they could be Scientologists, Spaghetti Monsterists or even Revoltingifarians.

I'd agree mostly. Just the constitution was a compromise. States didn't really want to give the Feds that much power. So you end up with ambiguous wording with lots of wiggle room for both sides.

The constitution is not a good document, but it is the foundation of our federal government. Just look how spiffy the federal government turned out.

No one is going to fix it because no one wants to give up their wiggle room.

SCOTUS rules on whatever BS reason and the rest accept it because neither of the other two powers want anyone to start questioning the authority of the federal government.

Just like Christians who use the Bible as their symbol of authority. The Feds use the constitution as their symbol of authority. Doesn't mean they're actually paying attention to what's written there.

Governments rule by the power of enforcement not by words written on a document. There's no moral ground, just the power to enforce.

 

[Mycroft]

Such hypocrisy. They claim paying for birth control goes against their religious beliefs while expecting atheist taxpayers to keep paying for their churches.

Could someone point me to the part of the bible where jesus warns against birth control pills and endorses open carry?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Such hypocrisy. They claim paying for birth control goes against their religious beliefs while expecting atheist taxpayers to keep paying for their churches.

Could someone point me to the part of the bible where jesus warns against birth control pills and endorses open carry?

Exactly...you are spot on...

And even though it's ironic they diversify their funds in a 401k portfolio with the very companies that make the contraceptive products they sued over....it wasn't an issue before the ACA Mandate when they covered all 20 contraceptives.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...bby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/

 

[Mycroft]

Exactly...you are spot on...

And even though it's ironic they diversify their funds in a 401k portfolio with the very companies that make the contraceptive products they sued over....it wasn't an issue before the ACA Mandate when they covered all 20 contraceptives.

Did Hobby Lobby once provide the birth control coverage it sued the Obama administration over? | PunditFact

On the other side of the Fence, however. Is it really a religious thing behind this? Or is the religion simply being used as an excuse to save a company a few bucks?

 

[Mycroft]

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers | Mother Jones

 

[Mycroft]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones

 

[Revoltingest]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones

The article's title doesn't match the text of the article, which doesn't show any broadening....yet.
You don't suppose MJ is chomping at the bit to find more fault with the decision, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd agree mostly. Just the constitution was a compromise. States didn't really want to give the Feds that much power. So you end up with ambiguous wording with lots of wiggle room for both sides.
The constitution is not a good document, but it is the foundation of our federal government. Just look how spiffy the federal government turned out.
No one is going to fix it because no one wants to give up their wiggle room.
SCOTUS rules on whatever BS reason and the rest accept it because neither of the other two powers want anyone to start questioning the authority of the federal government.
Just like Christians who use the Bible as their symbol of authority. The Feds use the constitution as their symbol of authority. Doesn't mean they're actually paying attention to what's written there.
Governments rule by the power of enforcement not by words written on a document. There's no moral ground, just the power to enforce.

The reasoning isn't always BS.
And I doubt that today's leaders could design a document as elegant as our Constitution.
So despite all the problems, I say it's a great document, & we're lucky to have it.

 

[Nakosis]

Such hypocrisy. They claim paying for birth control goes against their religious beliefs while expecting atheist taxpayers to keep paying for their churches.

Could someone point me to the part of the bible where jesus warns against birth control pills and endorses open carry?

Do you live in another country than the US? Other countries I know have a church tax. Not in the US.

And, what does open carry have to do with religion? Yeah some folks like to carry guns around. I think that's more a constitution thing then a religious one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you live in another country than the US? Other countries I know have a church tax. Not in the US.

And, what does open carry have to do with religion? Yeah some folks like to carry guns around. I think that's more a constitution thing then a religious one.

Aye, most of the handgun carriers I know are atheists.
(I don't think Jesus was into guns.)

 

[Mycroft]

Do you live in another country than the US? Other countries I know have a church tax. Not in the US.

And, what does open carry have to do with religion? Yeah some folks like to carry guns around. I think that's more a constitution thing then a religious one.

Of course there's no Church Tax. But the Church owns a lot of real estate which is not taxed from the Church itself. That tax has to be passed on to other property owners (who are taxpayers).

If a church catches fire or is burglarized, you can bet the pastor/priest will call on the fire department or police department for services. These are services for which the churches pay no taxes to support. In other words, the taxpayers are forced to provide free fire and police services to churches. The churches are also getting free services from all the agencies funded by property taxes.

 

[Nakosis]

The reasoning isn't always BS.
And I doubt that today's leaders could design a document as elegant as our Constitution.
So despite all the problems, I say it's a great document, & we're lucky to have it.

Yeah, stupid post, mine.

My intent was to agree. Reality is though I suppose I don't.

The Constitution is better then nothing. I think there are a lot of issues there still.

Probably not the place to discuss it though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, stupid post, mine.
My intent was to agree. Reality is though I suppose I don't.
The Constitution is better then nothing. I think there are a lot of issues there still.
Probably not the place to discuss it though.

Well, this thread is about a constitutional issue, so it looks appropriate.
But I sympathize....the Constitution is a much abused document.
It does the best it can.