SCOTUS Said So…

July 21, 2014

2014-07-07_08-52-54My religious belief strongly oppose war. I think our military budgets are totally outrageous! We, 5% of the world’s population, spend more on our war machine than the rest of the world combined.  With the latest ruling SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) tells us that religious groups can pick and choose which laws they choose to obey. Thanks to you my tax bill just got smaller. Thanks Mr Scalia and your co-conspirators for making it happen.

You guys never fail to amaze me as to how far you are willing to go to reshape this country to your views. You say you are against “activist judges” but you end up being the epitome of that category by your very rulings. First you upend our voting practices and now you are giving religions power they were never intended to have.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered aloud in her dissent, “Would the exemption … extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions Jehovah’s Witnesses; antidepressants Scientologists; medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus?”

SOURCE:  8 Other Laws That Could Be Ignored Now That Christians Get To Pick And Choose.

I certainly align with Justice Ginsburg’s comments. If a corporation says we are aligned with a religion that believes that God will take care of all our medical needs does that give them the right to ignore ACA? The whole argument just reeks of possibilities.

For any IRS  or NSA folks who might read this blog I am only kidding about not paying taxes so don’t come after me. ;)

2 responses to SCOTUS Said So…

  1. 

    Your objection is illogical. Two wrongs (war and abortion) that you are forced to pay for makes paying for both of them right?
    The decision was very specific about drugs which cause abortion. One set of the two defendants were Mennonites- but it is better news if the conservative evangelical is targeted. I thought you supported those who object to being pushed to do things they find morally objectionable?

    It was not about blood transfusions. Ginsburg was way off base- or she believes that babies are just tissue until,they take their first breath. I get it. I know women who have had abortions and miscarriages. If the baby was just tissue, why is there such mourning? We don’t mourn over a tumor.

    BTW- where are the anti war protestors these days?
    .

    Like

    • 

      Ok, so I am illogical and so it Justice Ginsburg and the other three who didn’t align with this decision. I guess I am in good company….

      As usual you take me too literally. As I said I will be paying my taxes even though I don’t agree with all that my government does. That is the way it is in a democracy. I took a couple of courses in constitutional law while in college and I learned that precedents made by SCOTUS decisions are what mainly drives future decisions.

      Where are the anti-war protesters now. I don’t know they didn’t bother to send me any e-mails about that. But I do know where one illogical one is. He is right here at RJC and proud of it.

      Like