We Are One Supreme Court Justice Away From Anarchy

0
Share

If the Supreme Court of the United States gets one more far-left justice, we stand to lose our freedom. The 5-4 vote in the Hobby Lobby case has proven that beyond doubt. It should have been a unanimous decision and the fact that it wasn’t should alarm people. The government attempted to say that the head of HHS has the power to defy federal law with a “rule” – the HHS Mandate.

That’s anarchy.

The Hobby Lobby case was based on the protections afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law passed in 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton and approved by almost every member of Congress.

The Act states that the government cannot impose a “substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion,” unless the government can prove that the burden serves “a compelling governmental interest” and that it is also “the least restrictive means” of doing that.

Mr. Obama certainly had options other than forcing the HHS Mandate on religious people. He offered exemptions to unions and other groups but chose to not do so with religious-affiliated organizations. There was no compelling government interest.

If this case had been lost, it would have meant that a religious individual who enters the for-profit realm cannot also adhere to religious values if a government agency – in this case Health and Human Services – says it can’t.

People “should not have to sacrifice their souls to engage in group activities through an organization”, one judge wrote in a lower court decision which favored Hobby Lobby.

The law is indisputable and it’s clear. It was written to protect individuals and companies from government intrusion on their religious principles.

What Mr. Obama attempted to do, through a rule passed by Kathleen Sibelius (the HHS Mandate), was to allow a government agency to overrule federal law. If a person like Kathleen Sibelius can ignore federal law then what kind of lawless government do we have? We are heading for anarchy if governmental agencies no longer have to abide by our laws.

Justice Ginsberg wrote an angry dissent and seems to think it takes away women’s rights yet no rights have been intruded upon. This was an intrusion on religious rights. She would take away religious freedom to pay for a handful of abortifacients that women can get for free from Planned Parenthood.  She is a former ACLU attorney and to say they are opposed to religion is putting it mildly.

Here’s an idea, why don’t women pay for their own abortifacients?

Hillary Clinton, whose husband gladly signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, made a bizarre statement about the decision. At the Aspen Ideas Festival, she was asked by a Facebook questioner how she felt about the decision. She said, “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”

“It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom …” said Mrs. Clinton,

Mrs. Clinton added: “It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Hillary Clinton is either lying, stupid or ill-informed. Clerks can get contraception at Hobby Lobby. Out of 20 forms of contraception, they can get 16 of them or they could buy them on their own. Hobby Lobby doesn’t attempt to tell employees they shouldn’t use certain abortifacients, they just don’t want to pay for them because it’s against their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby does not oppose birth control, they oppose abortifacients. In addition, a corporation is a group of people, it is not an inanimate object.

I’m deeply disturbed that she is deeply disturbed about a law her husband and almost everyone in Congress supported in 1993.

This decision should have been unanimous but it was close. That fact should put the fear of God in people.

Many decisions are coming down with the same partisanship. The Second Amendment wouldn’t last if the court gets one more leftist. Once one of our Amendments falls, they will all fall.

Does anyone believe that free speech will survive when we have people telling us we can’t use the words radical Islamist or name a team the Redskins? Lawsuits are being won by Muslims if they “feel” they were insulted.

The media is complicit so don’t look for any help from our “free press.”

Cases heading for SCOTUS now will determine what is a religious institution and if the government can determine what is or is not religious.

The government now believes they can decide what is or is not a religious institution. The government is demanding Catholic colleges, charities, schools provide birth control and abortifacients when it violates their teachings to do so.

When this began to blow up in 2012, the Catholic church filed 12 lawsuits in 43 jurisdictions to begin with, in their fight for religious freedom. It is the single largest religious lawsuit ever filed in the United States against an administration, but it brought little lamestream media coverage.

The minimal coverage generally included ridicule and straw men arguments.

OPIPER

ABC and NBC ignored the story. CBS had a 19 second story which they distorted by calling it a story about contraception.

In Chicago, the TV coverage balanced the 19 second spot on the lawsuits with a 5-minute story about child molestation in the Catholic church. That is the liberal version of fair and balanced.

So, in other words, it is okay to deprive churches of freedom of religion because there was a scandal in the Catholic church. [By the way, the media almost completely ignored molestation cases that were dropped or cases in which people were found innocent at trial – it’s the lamestream style when it comes to something they disagree with.]

MSNBC ridiculed the Catholics and then set up straw men to provide a diversion from the truth.  The panel cackled about Catholic women wanting contraceptives, completely missing the point. They deliberately left out that the fact that the mandate includes abortifacients & surgical sterilizations. Most significantly of course, they left out the part about it being a violation of the church teachings.

The Orwellian administration thinks that depriving Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews of the right to exercise their religious conscience somehow imposes their will on others’. The Catholics are NOT saying others can’t have free contraceptives, they are saying they won’t provide them.

If the government can demand that a church violate their conscience, what can’t they do?

We are one justice away from totalitarianism.

 

Share