Jeff Danziger by Jeff Danziger

Jeff Danziger

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. curtisls87

    curtisls87 said, 6 months ago

    This is ruling is not about birth control, per se, but about whether a regulatory law can override a statutory law. It cannot.In this case, the HHS imposed a regulatory law, requiring the provision of birth control, which was not in the statutory law, the ACA. However, this ran afoul of the RFRA, passed by unanimously by the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate, then signed into law by President Clinton in 1993 ( a statutory law). Thus, the ruling in place is that the regulatory law imposed by the HHS was not valid because of the statutory law, the RFRA. Had the ACA bill contained language that changed the RFRA, we would have a different story.

    This is a good thing, because otherwise, regulations would change every time the presidency changes parties to override statutory laws the president of the day doesn’t like.

    If we don’t like the law(the RFRA requiring that government not put a burden on the practice of religion), then we urge Congress to either repeal the law or write a new one. The executive branch does not get to override by regulation.

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 6 months ago

    Only 5 out of 9 are in that [ball]park. And the next one will almost certainly be put in by a Democrat. So the Hobby Lobby ruling is likely to be in the running for the ruling that was most quickly overturned.

  3. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    Become a corporation! You get all the rights and privileges of a person without any of the pesky responsibilities.

  4. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    The problem with the ruling is NOT about the whole “This Type of Birth Control is Abortion” issue, which was Holy Lobby’s argument, but rather the precedents it can set.
    What if a Corporation decides that it’s “Deeply Held Religious Beliefs” don’t allow them to issue safety gear to employees engaged in Dangerous work in Hazardous conditions, because “God Will Watch Out Over Them”, or that they won’t have ANY Female Supervisors because “Women MUST be submissive to Men, because the Buy Bull says so!”?
    Slippery, dangerous slope we are heading down here…

  5. Beau Nobo

    Beau Nobo said, 6 months ago

    They can sniff each others butts.

  6. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    @Michael wme

    Good link, michael. Thanks!!

  7. Griff

    Griff GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    Bush’s boys!

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    You can feel the First Amendment disappearing beneath your feet, not being “enhanced”, on this one. I do NOT like pure socialism, OR theocracy, but do feel my rights to chose eroding, beneath the heavy hands of “corporations” AND religious RADICALS.

  9. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, 6 months ago

    @Michael wme

    Read the link, and all the decisions… Thanks!

    Actually, we did have one president who DID thumb his nose at the Supreme Court: Andrew Jackson! The 1820’s SCOTUS made some ruling on the First National Bank. Old Hickory merely said “OK, They’ve made their decision. Now let’s see them enforce it!”
    (Back then, the SCOTUS had no power to do so, and Jackson did nothing.)

  10. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    Nice LIE.

  11. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    @MangeyMoose

    “Actually, we did have one president who DID thumb his nose at the Supreme Court: Andrew Jackson!”

    I believe it’s an apocryphal quote attributed to Jackson’s disagreements with the SCOTUS, but it’s apt:

    “They don’t have an army. I do.”

  12. babka

    babka GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    it’s the supreme corp. catholic justices should recuse themselves in matters of reproductive freedoms.

  13. Masterius

    Masterius said, 6 months ago

    Maybe someone can explain this to me: Isn’t one of the reasons a corporation is limited liabilty for shareholders? I researched reasons to form a corporation and this is a partial quote regarding limited liability:

    “Legally, corporations are separate entities from those who own them. Corporations will pay their own taxes, can own property, enter contracts, sue and be sued independently of those who own them and are responsible for their own debts and actions.”

    Since a corporation is a seperate entity from the individuals who own them, by what right to those said individuals now get to dictate their personal beliefs onto said corporation?

  14. SABRSteve

    SABRSteve said, 6 months ago

    @dtroutma

    The First Amendment was strengthened. It’s about time you RADICAL baby killers got put down for a change.

  15. SABRSteve

    SABRSteve said, 6 months ago

    @babka

    I think the abortionists should recuse themselves.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).