A Recent Favorite:

Tank McNamara by Bill Hinds

Tank McNamara

Recent Comments

  1. curtisls87 commented on Lisa Benson 3 days ago

    Which is precisely why Ginsberg was wrong. the decision had nothing to do with a "further effort to make a quasi-official “national religion.”" It also was not actually decided with respect to freedom of religion under the Constitution. The case specifically referred to the RFRA passed in 1993 by a unanimous vote in the House, a 97-3 vote in the Senate (both controlled by Democrats at the time), and signed by President Clinton. The actual point was twofold; 1) a regulatory law cannot override a statutory law, and 2) Because there were other means to provide the services, this placed an undue burden on the religious practices of the 5 owners of Hobby Lobby.

    With respect to 1, the provision for requiring birth control was regulatory – it was not in the ACA – it was put in place by the HHS. The RFRA is statutory, thus the RFRA takes precedence. This is a good thing, otherwise, we would have regulatory laws changing every time the presidency changed parties.

    With respect to 2, the Supreme Court showed that alternatives were available, including the federal government’s current program to provide birth control to employees of Catholic hospitals, etc.

  2. curtisls87 commented on Lisa Benson 4 days ago

    Perhaps you’re unaware of how the Supreme Court works. They don’t “complain,” they hear cases brought before them. If no one brings a case, then there is no decision. Having said that, Bush made recess appointments only when the Senate was truly in recess. Once the Democratic Senate under Bush started holding pro forma sessions(an invention of the Democratic party) to prevent appointment, he honored those and did not try to make recess appointments. By Contrast, when the Republican Senate was holding pro forma sessions, President Obama went ahead with recess appointments. His logic was that he could say that they weren’t really in sessions since all they were doing was opening a session every couple of days. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, they correctly ruled 9-0 that only the Senate could decide when it was in session, not the President.

  3. curtisls87 commented on Lisa Benson 4 days ago

    The part of the Constitution where he has to seek the advise and consent of the Senate for appointments.

  4. curtisls87 commented on Lisa Benson 4 days ago

    Right, a policy put in place by the Democratic Senate, during the Bush administration. The difference in these situations is that Bush (as much as it pains me to give him any credit) didn’t attempt to make appointments when the Senate Democrats were holding the Pro Forma sessions. Obama, on the other hand, decided that he could and did make appointments when the Republicans were holding pro forma sessions. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that only Congress could determine when either House or Senate is in session, not the President.

  5. curtisls87 commented on Pat Oliphant 4 days ago

    An interesting article, but the austerity it describes is at the state and local level. The VA is federally funded. Additionally, I’m not sure I would consider reductions of employment at the state and local level anything more than a single indicator of austerity, if there is such a thing.

  6. curtisls87 commented on Steve Benson 5 days ago

    Thank you for your kind words about my posts. I have not stated a position regarding Bergdahl, as I haven’t the information to do so. I’m definitely waiting to see what comes out regarding him.

  7. curtisls87 commented on Jerry Holbert 9 days ago

    I’m sorry, but I was also alive 50 years ago, and there is no comparison. This idea that President Obama somehow is experiencing more hate than other presidents is misguided. For example, in the election of 1800, the fighting was way dirtier than anything, today. One newspaper stated that should Jefferson be elected, he would create a nation where, “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced.” In return, a supporter of Jefferson declared that Adams was a “repulsive pedant” and “gross hypocrite” who “behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/20/the-dirtiest-presidential-campaign-ever-not-even-close/2/

  8. curtisls87 commented on Jerry Holbert 9 days ago

    This is no more the conservative way than it is the liberal way. In 2008, the House sued Bush, so this is hardly a tactic of just one side of that illegitimate coin: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/01/nation/na-privilege1

  9. curtisls87 commented on Steve Benson 9 days ago

    Incorrect. Impeachment, according to the Constitution is for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” not because he isn’t doing his job. As to the merit of the suit, that is for the courts to decide, and this is not unprecedented – the House sued Bush in 2008. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/01/nation/na-privilege1

  10. curtisls87 commented on Jeff Stahler 10 days ago

    With respect, most people are focusing on the externality of the birth control, and not really looking at what the decision was actually about. Put simply, regulatory law cannot supersede statutory law. The ACA (statutory) contains no reference to birth control. The HHS, in determining provisions for care, added birth control as a requirement. This in and of itself wouldn’t be an issue if the RFRA had not bee enacted in 1993, which states that the government shall not put an undue burden on an individual’s practice of religion." In this case, the Court states that the 4 methods to which Hobby Lobby objects on the grounds that it represents abortion (even though it doesn’t) represent such a burden. The Court even concedes that the methods don’t equate to abortion, but because of the beliefs of the closely held (less than 5 owners) corporation that they do, it is a burden. So in this case, the Court ruled that the regulatory law, requiring all methods of birth control to be provided cannot supersede the statutory law of the RFRA. It is interesting to note that the RFRA was passed unanimously in the House, by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate, and signed by President Clinton, so the concept of preventing the government from placing burden on the practice of religion was wholly bipartisan (during a time when the Democratic party controlled Congress).