5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

[fskimospy]

Someone is butt-hurt that the SCOTUS said he is wrong.

Lol, no. I'm just pointing out the need to clean house at the Supreme Court so that this result can be changed.

I'm happy to hear about your newfound respect for the judgments of the courts though! I'll be sure not to let you forget it!

 

[TerryMathews]

Lol, no. I'm just pointing out the need to clean house at the Supreme Court so that this result can be changed.

I'm happy to hear about your newfound respect for the judgments of the courts though! I'll be sure not to let you forget it!

Judge makes a decision you don't like? Sack em!

Weird how that wasn't your opinion during the Zimmerman trial. I seem to recall a number of occasions where you were very vocal about how MOM shouldn't be having judges removed for bias.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Judge makes a decision you don't like? Sack em!

Weird how that wasn't your opinion during the Zimmerman trial. I seem to recall a number of occasions where you were very vocal about how MOM shouldn't be having judges removed for bias.

He also seem to think GZ shouldn't be able to exercise his right to appeal the civil suit ruling...............because of all reasons.........someone will have to pay for it.

 

[theeedude]

It was wrongly decided. And we are about to see just how wrongly. Alito is already backing off on parts of the ruling, where he endorsed the process used by non-profits. Now he is blocking that process too. The Republican clerics on SCOTUS are spinning trying to figure out how to pretend they are justices while pushing a religious agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

Judge makes a decision you don't like? Sack em!

Weird how that wasn't your opinion during the Zimmerman trial. I seem to recall a number of occasions where you were very vocal about how MOM shouldn't be having judges removed for bias.

What on earth are you talking about? I think the conservative justices we have right now are radicalized and I am excited about the opportunity to replace them with more moderate ones when they retire.

Why is your first thought OMGTYRANNY whenever someone says something you disagree with?

 

[theeedude]

What on earth are you talking about? I think the conservative justices we have right now are radicalized and I am excited about the opportunity to replace them with more moderate ones when they retire.

Why is your first thought OMGTYRANNY whenever someone says something you disagree with?

Calling them "justices" is an insult to justice. They are clerics.

 

[fskimospy]

He also seem to think GZ shouldn't be able to exercise his right to appeal the civil suit ruling...............because of all reasons.........someone will have to pay for it.

Wait, what? You think other people should have to fund George Zimmerman's civil lawsuits?

I have to say the idea that's one of the nuttier ideas I've heard in awhile. Who else gets the benefit of subsidized civil proceedings? If this is how things work then I'll just start suing everything that moves. It's free and apparently if you don't pay for it you're violating my rights.

 

[TerryMathews]

What on earth are you talking about? I think the conservative justices we have right now are radicalized and I am excited about the opportunity to replace them with more moderate ones when they retire.

Why is your first thought OMGTYRANNY whenever someone says something you disagree with?

When I am dealing with you? Experience.

You know damn well what I'm talking about. Its funny how you can never comprehend when someone is talking about your innate hypocrisy.

Damn, man. Even Spidey was consistent.

 

[fskimospy]

When I am dealing with you? Experience.

You know damn well what I'm talking about. Its funny how you can never comprehend when someone is talking about your innate hypocrisy.

Damn, man. Even Spidey was consistent.

Lol. Are you drunk at noon or something?

I genuinely don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Feel free to attempt to point out my hypocrisy, but you should probably prepare to eat your words shortly thereafter.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Wait, what? You think other people should have to fund George Zimmerman's civil lawsuits?

I have to say the idea that's one of the nuttier ideas I've heard in awhile. Who else gets the benefit of subsidized civil proceedings? If this is how things work then I'll just start suing everything that moves. It's free and apparently if you don't pay for it you're violating my rights.

The District Court of Appeals is already paid to consider appeals, just as the State Supreme Courts and SCOTUS as paid to hear cases.

His lawyers won't be charging anyone (they won't be paid unless they win) to prepare an appeal and submitting it to the 5th DCA

 

[fskimospy]

The District Court of Appeals is already paid to consider appeals, just as the State Supreme Courts and SCOTUS as paid to hear cases.

His lawyers won't be charging anyone (they won't be paid unless they win) to prepare an appeal and submitting it to the 5th DCA

Right. So what are you trying to argue against?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Right. So what are you trying to argue against?

You're the one worrying about who's going to pay for it.

Can you? Who is going to pay for it?

I did find out that GZ's lawyers will have to pay a $300 filing fee to submit the appeal to the 5th DCA. I suspect they can afford such.

http://www.5dca.org/faq.shtml

Q. How much is the filing fee?
A. The filing fee for an appeal is $300. The Court accepts cash, money orders or checks made out to Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeal.

 

[fskimospy]

You're the one worrying about who's going to pay for it.

I did find out that GZ's lawyers will have to pay a $300 filing fee to submit the appeal to the 5th DCA. I suspect they can afford such.

http://www.5dca.org/faq.shtml

You really need to go back and read that thread.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You really need to go back and read that thread.

That was you're reply to this statement you quoted.

You can bet that Zimmerman's lawyers will seek an appeal in this case as his rights entitle him to do.

 

[fskimospy]

That was you're reply to this statement you quoted.

And this was my reply to you.

Yes, who will pay for the appeal? Are his lawyers content to continue in a case that was just roundly dismissed? Maybe they are! (I have no idea) there's certainly a point at which his lawyers are going to start wondering how much it's worth to continue working for free though.

Not sure how it can be any clearer than that. So yet again, what nonsense are you trying to argue about?

 

[Jaskalas]

Sean Davis: I'm kind of hungry for lunch, but my employer doesn't buy my lunch for me. It gives me cash to buy food. Which means I'm going to starve.

^ Mirrors my original thoughts on this subject.

The argument isn't regarding affordability or accessibility. It's regarding the line itemization of specific things Hobby Lobby would have to pay for. When the employees could always pay for it themselves.

You want to avoid the whole thing, create an insurance option outside the employer's pocket. Have that provide plan-b. Done.

Government regulations defy such simple logic.