Birth control isn't the bigger issue here, rather it's the blurring of the line between constitutional rights of citizens and constitutional rights of corporations. First the Supremes said corporations can have freedom of speech, and money is speech, now they are saying corporations can have their own religious beliefs and can exempt themselves from laws that violate their religious beliefs. What they didn't explain is what process a corporation must follow to determine it's religious beliefs.
Case in point, what happens if one of Hobby Lobby's owners becomes a 7th Day Adventist and it now becomes against his religious beliefs to open the store on Saturday? Can he force the store to shut down against the will of the other owners? Can he sue the other owners if they don't comply? whose rights prevail?
This opens up a legal Pandora's box that should make every trial lawyer in the country smile.
"Nothing has to be done on immigration. Enforce the laws, and makes some effort to secure our borders more."
Additional border security isn't free, it takes MONEY lots of it. Only Congress has the power to appropriate funds. You'll have to come up with a better excuse than that.
And regarding Reagan, he did infact invoke something that can be described as amnesty since the process was quick with no strings attached. The Senate/Rubio Bill that has bipartisan support as many requirements and would require a time frame of us much as 20 years or more to gain true citizenship. I would hardly call that "instant"
"The fact immigration reform supporter Sen. Mario Rubio, R-Fla., was elected with heavy tea party support and that Democrats have declared the tea party dead after recent elections was apparently lost on him."
And apparently lost on you was the fact that after Rubio sponsored the Senate bill he ran from it like a scalded ape when his poll numbers plummeted. Moreover Congressional Republicans are now blaming Erik Cantor's loss on his support of an immigration bill.
The truth is nothing is going to get done on immigration becasue the Republcian cowards in the House don't want to bring the issue up even though the votes are there to pass it tomorrow. Getting reelected in November is a higher priority.
The blatant hypocrisy of simultaneously blaming the President for inaction and executive overreach is becoming more and more obvious.
^Regardless of how much merit your grievances have or don't have the only branch of government that has the power to fix any of this is Congress and the Republicans control that.
The Senate/Rubio bill would pass tomorrow if Boehner would only bring it to the floor.
You can't sit on your hands and then complain about what is not happening.
" None of this sh!t would happen if the borders were properly sealed. What is so hard to understand about that?"
Nothing at all, so why doesn't the branch of government that has the authority to appropriate funds by legislation to significantly increase boarder enforcement and other protective measures act to do so?
Just more Republcian hypocrisy. Just like the ACA. They whined and bitched that the mandate would be an undo burden on small businesses and they also bitched that families could not keep their current plan. But when the president acted to lessen the restrictions, and allow an extra year for small business to comply, and further had the insurers go back and reinstate those old plans, Republicans gave the President hell for "executive overreach".
You can't have it both ways.
Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. We never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. Think about it.....Who will you vote for to correct the discrimination against hard work and being responsible?
Maybe you don't watch the news, here's a bulletin for you the Congressional Republicans DID cut $8.7 Billion out of the food stamp budget this session.
Social security is not a welfare program. It's payments are mandated under the law. Social Security is suppose to be self funded, in order to keep it that way Congress will have to act to increase revenue, reduce benefits, extend eligibility age or a combination of these three to keep it self funded. Otherwise the federal government will be required to pick up the differential.
This is magnificent!
An excerpt from Wesley Pruden:
"Either we're going to enforce our laws and remain strong, economically or otherwise, or we ignore the rule of law and go to being a Third World country," Rep. Louis Gohmert told Fox News. "You've got to follow the law. You cannot bring hundreds of thousands of people into this country without destroying the country. Then there's no place that people can dream about coming to."
"No one knows this better than Barack Obama."
Louis Gohmert is a moron and political hack. The President is not bringing people into the country illegally, he has departed more illegals during his term than any other previous President and has publicly stated virtually all of these kids coming in are going to be sent right back home. But if Gohmert truly is concerned about boarder security why doesn't he talk to Mr. Boehner about bringing the comprehensive immigration bill to the floor? You know, the one that was sponsored by Marco Rubio and has already passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. That bill has very robust boarder security elements in it. Or a similar House bill?
The Republcian Party can't point accusatory fingers towards the President alleging executive overreach one minute, and then in the next minute criticizing the President for not doing what the f'ckin CONGRESS IS SUPPOSE TO BE DOING.
When will you knuckleheads not see the hypocrisy?
This debate reminds me of a Beavis and ButtHead episode. Beavis is totally illiterate but ButtHead can read a little bit though he frequently mispronounces words and struggles with more than 2 symbols.
In the end if I only had the two choices I would take ButtHead, whoops I mean Wamp, but thank goodness there will be a third option. :)
CURTIS REVELS said: "A smart business owner does not begin an improvement to his business, that requires extra cash, by increasing the prices of goods or services."
A smart business owner also knows that you can't provide products and services to your customer at prices below your costs and stay in business. Roads and bridges cost money to build and maintain. The simplest and fairest way to cover those costs is to charge the "customers" that is the people that drive on the roads and the bridges.
Corker offered a tax credit plan to offset the addition fees to go with the bill, but regardless if the offsets occur or not, the bottom line is, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want safe roads and bridges we have to belly up to the bar and pay for them, not put them on the government credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay for.
Alito said "a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human being to achieve desired ends. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel (Christian & Education Stores, which is owned by the Hobby Lobby family) protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies."
That opinion flys in the face of everything I ever studied about the Uniform Commercial Code.
A corporation under the law is a distinct, separate legal entity. It has been established as such to differentiate owners from the corporation. If that distinction did not exists than right now everyone that is a shareholder in General Motors would be going to court to defend themselves.
The direct impact of this decision on women's heath is minor. Women still get contraception drugs, and government will likely pick up the tab if they want an IUD or morning after pill. However by blurring the lines between a corporation and it's owners it sets the stage for all kinds of legal precedence including shattering the corporate veil that protects owners against acts of the corporation.
As a businessman I believe when you form a corporation or an LLC, and you decide to enter the markets and do business with the general public, you also by proxy agree to abide by the same laws that every other corporation has to abide by regardless if you are a closely held corp or a publicly traded corp.
This is a crazy politically motivated decision that is going to disrupt the way business is conducted in this country and will open the door for thousands of new law suites.