Arguing for Obama, Justice Antonin Scalia

041220_SCALIA_hmed_1p.grid-6x2

I’ve been reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in “Employment Division v. Smith,” a 1990 case in which the Supreme Court pretty much settled the question of whether the federal government can require or outlaw actions that might bump up against religious beliefs. The decision makes it clear that the Catholic bishops have no legal or constitutional basis for their complaint.

Scalia, himself a devout and very conservative Catholic, wrote in the majority decision:

“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

Scalia traces Supreme Court rulings on the issue back to an 1879 decision that upheld federal laws against polygamy. A member of the Mormon Church had argued that because his faith required men to marry multiple wives, polygamy was protected under the First Amendment and that Mormons could claim a religious exemption from such a law.

The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding:

“… the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. … Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

… To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Now, polygamy, human sacrifice and the Hindu practice of “sati” are admittedly rather extreme and obvious cases. However, Scalia went on to note a string of other Supreme Court cases decided to the same effect.

The most relevent to the current controversy is a a 1982 case that closely parallels the current discussion over contraception. In United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing unconstitutional in requiring an Amish employer to withhold and pay Social Security taxes for his workers even though “the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs.”

Here’s how they put it:

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

You would not need to change a single word of that paragraph to apply it to the contraceptive debate.

In his own opinion in the Smith case, Scalia wraps it up rather bluntly:

“Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.”

– Jay Bookman

334 comments Add your comment

Lord Help Us

February 10th, 2012
12:20 pm

It’s still unconstitutional according to John Boehner…

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:21 pm

damnit…ninja’d

Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"

February 10th, 2012
12:22 pm

Heads are gonna explode after reading that one. That is, if they even bother to read.

carlosgvv

February 10th, 2012
12:22 pm

Catholic leaders have believed for centuries that they are a law unto themselves. This will never change. The only real question is will our political leaders have the courage to stand up to these old celebate child rapists and do the right thing for American women. Since real political courage is as rare these days as common sense, which is no longer common, the answer is clear. Cave in and hope you get votes out of it.

Normal

February 10th, 2012
12:23 pm

Geez, The GOP…let them scream…they want to divert their minions from the fact they got nothin’, so they bring out this rerun, hoping that the emotional rise it brings will do the trick. Pathetic.

Lord Help Us

February 10th, 2012
12:23 pm

It’s still unconstitutional according to John Boehner…

And Marco Rubio…

Guess they’ll have to take it up with Antonin.

HDB

February 10th, 2012
12:23 pm

Interesting that a Catholic makes the case FOR the President!! Also, if one had listened to Lawrence O’Donnell’s show the other day, the legal precedent was made by David Boies…..

28 STATES also speak for the President…..so all this is is superfluous noise, signifying NOTHING!!

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:24 pm

Good job, Mr. President, for back-tracking and compromising.

(Even though you did a horrible job of hiding your poutrage during the press conference.)

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:24 pm

Right, wrong, or indifferent, I see it as ANOTHER occasion where President Obama caved in.

It’s a shame all the Republican candidates are such nutcases. You right wingers remember that when Obama wins again. It’s not because he’s “great” or even “good.” It’s because what you are trotting out there against him is SO pathetic.

Mick

February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm

Let’s see if scalia can stick to his guns or will ideology win out? By the way, I do recall the coptic church down here in miami taiking this issue to court arguing that marijuana was considered a sacred herb and they should be permitted to use in their ceremonies – they did not win…dern

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm

Cal Lightman would have been embarrassed….

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm

Obama reversed his decision on this and I AM OUTRAGED AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM NOW AGHAGHAGH. ROMNEY ALL THE WAY. NOBAMA 2012!

Would that satisfy you, cons, if I was serious?

barking frog

February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm

When the administration tries to exempt the churches it will
be sued into removing the exemption but that will be after
November. Good political move.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 10th, 2012
12:26 pm

John Boehner and Antonin Scalia!

Swords and baby oil, to the death, in the ring. Who will draw first blood? :D

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:26 pm

“Right, wrong, or indifferent, I see it as ANOTHER occasion where President Obama caved in.”

On this issue, I don’t see it as caving. I see it as a very smart compromise.

Don’t piss off any entire voting block 9 months before the election.

Guy Incognito

February 10th, 2012
12:27 pm

I think the state of FL tried to stop Haitian refugees from slaughtering chickens, but the Haitians were able to continue due to it being a part of Santeria

I could be wrong

Lord Help Us

February 10th, 2012
12:27 pm

It’s unconstitutional because Obama is for it…

That is the difference that renders the precedents moot…

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:27 pm

I left you a parting note on Germany downstairs Brocephus.

USinUK

February 10th, 2012
12:28 pm

“Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html

frankly – sounds like a win-win for everyone.

Jay

February 10th, 2012
12:28 pm

Normal, I think this has to be viewed as the blowback from the Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco. Having been routed in that one, conservatives are angry and looking for payback in this one. And I don’t think they’re going to get it, because that Obama “compromise” isn’t much of a compromise at all, to be frank.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:29 pm

I listened to the statement, seemed fine to me. But already the pundits are screaming outrage on both sides that he reversed his decision, but either 1) too late or 2) not enough. No one is ever f***ing satisfied.

I predict the Bishop with the Taco Bell comment will be out on the right wing media for weeks telling Fox News and Hannity that Obama hates the Catholic church and didn’t reverse his decision “enough.” Either that, or Hannity and other right wing propaganda operatives will try to use this as an issue for weeks even though it’s basically over.

Lord Help Us

February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm

‘because that Obama “compromise” isn’t much of a compromise at all, to be frank.’

The end result is the same.

barking frog

February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm

Guy Incognito, 12:27, The Haitians were allowed to continue
because more Baptists were slaughtering chickens on Sunday
than they were.

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm

I do Peadawg. A “compromise” means you discuss it with the concerned party before you open your mouth and say “This is how it’s going to be.” A cave is when you say, “This is how it’s going to be,” and then go “oops, do over” 24 hours later.

getalife

February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm

Well he just compromised as predicted.

The gop will continue to run on it because they got nothing else but the Catholic dems will agree.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm

However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

Ok, if that is true I am satisfied.

ty webb

February 10th, 2012
12:31 pm

what do you call a “male chauvinist theocrat” without spine?…President Obama…that swooshing sound you just heard was the millions of Obama’s faithful throwing their pom poms down at the mere mention of any “accomodations”…let not you’re heart be worried, for they will surely rise again.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:33 pm

ty: OUTRAGE./ OBAMA COMRPOMISED. I’m NEVER VOTING FOR HIM AGAIN. GRAAAAAAAAHHHH!

Do you feel better now that I have portrayed the stereotype you wish existed?

barking frog

February 10th, 2012
12:33 pm

Guess maybe the Church has to get involved in the State to
get a compromise. Maybe the Bishops can move over to Congress
and help out there.

Bryan G.

February 10th, 2012
12:34 pm

There are several issues here:

1. There is a debate as to whether the health care law is Constitutional.
2. There is a legitimate debate about this Birth Control provision.

But, whether what the government did was valid Constitutionally or otherwise, it was bad policy. It was unfair to the Catholic employers.

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
12:34 pm

However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

I’m thinking insurance companies will find a way to make someone else pay.

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:35 pm

Can you believe after all this Brother Barry STILL has the nerve to email me?

Jay

February 10th, 2012
12:36 pm

The Obama “compromise” is a mere fig leaf of the sort that the Catholic Church itself once pasted onto naked statues and slapped onto paintings. The conservatives aren’t buying it for a minute, and if I were them, I wouldn’t either.

It’s so obviously nothing that it’s almost an insult to even offer it. Just tellin’ the truth.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:36 pm

Fred: I know right? How dare anyone support him if he doesn’t do 100% what *I* want! (whine)

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:37 pm

“I’m thinking insurance companies will find a way to make someone else pay.”

Yeah…probably just jack up rates on other costumers.

All about making hc more affordable for EVERYONE, right?

USinUK

February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm

Jay – meh – it lets everyone walk away and feel like they got something out of the deal

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm

dam

February 10th, 2012
12:36 pm

Fred: I know right? How dare anyone support him if he doesn’t do 100% what *I* want! (whine)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I know, you want a democrat. I want a LEADER.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm

Jay: So Obama’s pawn takes conservative’s Bishop? :D

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm

I disagree, Jay @ 12:36. Not making the religious institution have to pay for the contraceptive coverage seems good to me. Or did I miss something?

Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"

February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm

I’m thinking insurance companies will find a way to make someone else pay.

Nothing, in America, is ever free of cost…

barking frog

February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm

Jay, 12:36, I’m betting you’re right and the argument continues
as a campaign issue.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm

Fred: Leader is another word for dictator/Svengali the way the conservatives use it. What do you mean when you say LEADER?

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:40 pm

barking frog: Jay, 12:36, I’m betting you’re right and the argument continues
as a campaign issue.

It’s the TERROR MOSQUE wedge issue of 2012.

getalife

February 10th, 2012
12:41 pm

Speaking of the corrupt sc, I listened to the inventor of citizen united and the next step is unlimited donations straight to the candidate and not outside groups.

BTW, this compromise was for the dems to stop stabbing our President in the back.

Tune Gal

February 10th, 2012
12:41 pm

Everyone is so quick to make this into a religious issue, and I’m not saying that it is or is not. But when is this going to become a women’s health issue? Just like the Komen/Planned Parenthood fight, too many people want to ignore women’s health issues and make it all about morality.
When is freedom of religion going to start including the freedom to NOT have someone else’s religion and moral values thrust upon you?

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
12:41 pm

All about making hc more affordable for EVERYONE sure executive pay doesn’t get cut , right?

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:42 pm

Kam @ 12:41

Barking up the wrong tree on that one…executives get no sympathy from me.

Midori

February 10th, 2012
12:43 pm

pearl clutching attack @12:31!!!

we need a fainting couch — STAT!!

godless heathen

February 10th, 2012
12:43 pm

“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.”

But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed? That’s what the argument should be.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

February 10th, 2012
12:44 pm

Well, it’s lunch time and I’m glad to see Bookman come up with another post on birth control. Might as well. I was getting mighty tired of that guy with the needle You-Know-What bragging about how much Magnums cost. One of those would probly fall off of his arm, much less his You-Know-What.

Anyhow, this whole to-do is pretty simple. If it’s something I don’t like, it’s Unconstitutional. And if a judge says I’m wrong, then he’s a Activist Judge. I don’t give a hang what you think, in my heart I know I’m right.

Have a good p.m. everybody. I’m pretty sure Bookman will duck out of work by 3 or so and post some weird guy’s music. Most of us will of never heard of the guy, but there’s always two or three that will claim to of seen him in concert and know all about him. There’s a-holes everywhere you go in this country.

stands for decibels

February 10th, 2012
12:44 pm

The conservatives aren’t buying it for a minute, and if I were them, I wouldn’t either.

Let’s see–CPAC goes on for another day, I’m sure the proceedings will be most entertaining.

From the other side, here’s what my favorite DFH on the topic of reproductive rights had to say about the after-effects

[...] it seems that the compromise is actually, for once, a real compromise. So I got all bent out of shape for nothing. The White House is saying that women who work at religiously affiliated employers will get coverage, but by the insurance companies directly, instead of through their employers. So far, no rub. If it’s as clean a win as it looks, then this is very good news indeed.

[...]

The good news is this: By choosing to fight over this, the right has exposed their anti-contraception agenda. To win this battle, they may well have planted the seeds to lose the war. Pretending to care about “life” was always a key component to the war on female sexuality. But by doing this, conservatives insured that the abortion rate will be higher than it otherwise would be. Given the choice between reducing the abortion rate and fining women for [bleep]ing, they chose the latter. They need their noses rubbed in that fact every single time they pretend to care about fetuses to attack women.

Maybe not EVERY single time, but certainly often enough to remind everyone that Romney and Man-on-Dog were totally on the same page on this issue.

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
12:45 pm

Barking up the wrong tree on that one…executives get no sympathy from me.

Uh, huh.

Sure. :roll:

And I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.

With Morgan Fairchild.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:45 pm

godless: But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed? That’s what the argument should be.

Unless you’re suggesting the church is a “private company” I am not sure what your point is.

stands for decibels

February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm

probably just jack up rates on other costumers.

funding contraception, I’m fairly sure, is a lot cheaper than funding pregnancies, both those carried to term and those that aren’t.

Aquagirl

February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm

But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed?

Perhaps you’re unaware of something called an Insurance Commissioner.

Mick

February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm

guy

You are correct, in mimai-dade county, santeria priest are allowed to use chickens and goats for sacrifice – legally. Go figure, no weed but goats and chickens have no rights. Hey, that’s floriduh…

jewcowboy

February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm

All the Catholic church is doing is to ensure more fetus’s are chucked into the dustbin. But that is how they roll.

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:48 pm

Kam,

You obviously know nothing about me.

‘Nuff said.

Moderate Line

February 10th, 2012
12:49 pm

The right are people who don’t feel like anyone should tell them how to spend their money. In fact they lobby for the government to protect their wealth. The left are people who don’t want anyone to tell them who they can have sex with. In fact they believe you ought to pay for their birth control. The country is all about “I” and will continue to decline.

In other words “There is no sacrifice to great.” In fact it is not a sacrifice because it is an entitlement which means it is thief if not granted.

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:49 pm

“fetus’s are chucked into the dustbi”

What what happens to aborted babies? They still have to be delivered…

Joe Hussein Mama

February 10th, 2012
12:50 pm

G. Heathen — “But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed? That’s what the argument should be.”

If it’s a matter of interstate commerce, then the Federal government is totally within its rights to regulate it.

Mick

February 10th, 2012
12:50 pm

Man, I swear I can’t type anymore, thats – miami dade county…

ByteMe

February 10th, 2012
12:51 pm

Typical Obama compromise: let’s change what we call it, but I still get what I want.

Can’t understand why Dems aren’t loving him.

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:51 pm

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm

Jay: So Obama’s pawn takes conservative’s Bishop?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOL Freaking hilarious, Adam

Mr_B

February 10th, 2012
12:52 pm

“Not making the religious institution have to pay for the contraceptive coverage seems good to me. Or did I miss something?”

My guess is the the insurers just won’t tell the buyers how much of the cost of the “free” additional coverage they’re paying for.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:52 pm

Peadawg: What what happens to aborted babies? They still have to be delivered…

Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement

Intended instead to be a statement where the term babies is used improperly and pretend that all abortions are the scooping out of said “baby”

getalife

February 10th, 2012
12:53 pm

Our President tried dealing in good faith with the gop but they did not.

This compromise is not with them.

That is not going to happen.

This compromise will keep the women happy and Catholic dems happy.

The gop can run on it because they got nothing else to run on.

Stonethrower

February 10th, 2012
12:53 pm

The Lord said “be fruitful and multiply!” So does this mean they will cover viagra but not birth control?

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:54 pm

ByteMe: Can’t understand why Dems aren’t loving him.

Well, didn’t you know? EVERYONE hates Obama, and NO ONE wants/promises to vote for him!

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm

“Then I got Mary pregnant
and man that was all she wrote
And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat
We went down to the courthouse
and the judge put it all to rest
No wedding day smiles no walk down the aisle
No flowers no wedding dress”
– Thomas Jefferson

barking frog

February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm

ByteMe, 12:51, the governments now regulating an
insurance company, not a church affilliate ,but I’m not
sure it can order a private company to do anything for
free except as punishment for a civil crime.

Fred

February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm

Adam

February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm

Fred: Leader is another word for dictator/Svengali the way the conservatives use it. What do you mean when you say LEADER?
__________________________________

We’ve had this conversation before. you didn’t get it then and I doubt you would now. Some people are managers, some administrators and some are leaders. A Leader CAN and DOES manage and administrate. A mere manager cannot be a leader, nor can a mere administrator.

stands for decibels

February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm

EVERYONE hates Obama, and NO ONE wants/promises to vote for him!

heh. which is why the normally cautious Gallup has him up a coupla points this week…

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Tune Gal

February 10th, 2012
12:56 pm

I grow weary of a bunch of wrinkly old white dudes deciding they are my moral compass, i.e. “you can’t have an abortion, but we’re not going to let you use contraception, either.” As an adult woman, I can make decisions on my own, thank you, without having the morality police on my back. And if I make a bad decision, then I have to deal with the consequences.

USinUK

February 10th, 2012
12:56 pm

“Jay: So Obama’s pawn takes conservative’s Bishop?”

ohsweetjeebus … that’s brilliant.

(golf clap)

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:56 pm

Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:52 pm

Funny how Adam thinks he speaks for me.

:lol:

pat

February 10th, 2012
12:57 pm

Oh goody, more sponsored anti-Catholic hate speech.

Jay

February 10th, 2012
12:58 pm

Yeah Pat.

That Scalia, he really hates himself some Catholics, doesn’t he?

getalife

February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm

I wish they had the morning after pill in vending machines when I was being a problem child :)

ByteMe

February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm

the governments now regulating an
insurance company, not a church affilliate ,but I’m not
sure it can order a private company to do anything for
free except as punishment for a civil crime.

Near as I can tell, it’s not ordering the insurance company to give it away, but to make it cost nothing to the covered person. Doesn’t mean rates won’t go up so that the coverage gets provided.

Fred

February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
12:45 pm

Barking up the wrong tree on that one…executives get no sympathy from me.

Uh, huh.

Sure. :roll:

And I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.

With Morgan Fairchild.
_____________________________

DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!! You should have seen her when she did “The Graduate” at the Fox a few years ago. She was Mrs. Robinson. When she got out of the bed wearing nothing but a g-string I like to have fell out of the logue. The lady next to me gave me her opera glasses lol and my wife kept me from going over the rail………..

Adam

February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm

Fred: You haven’t really said how Obama does one but not the other. Which is Obama, Manager or Administrator? (and you didn’t use those terms before btw). And what do you base this on? I see him doing both in many cases.

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
12:48 pm

Kam,

You obviously know nothing about me.

Funny how Adam peapup thinks he speaks for me.

‘Nuff said.

stands for decibels

February 10th, 2012
1:01 pm

USinUK

February 10th, 2012
1:02 pm

Jay – 12:58 – :lol:

JohnnyReb

February 10th, 2012
1:03 pm

Here you go again, Jay. Arguing this morning for individual liberty to local school boards but this afternoon for Federal Control over everyone’s healthcare.

This is a perfect example of what most often happens with Liberal’s good intentions. There is always collateral damage.

The big lesson here will be repeal of Obamacare. There were already huge numbers in favor of repeal. This incident will only grow those numbers as people realize Obamacare strips liberties in the name of good intentions.

Next, many who were asleep at the wheel will have awakened to realize that unchecked Obama would “transform” this Nation into something unrecognizable to the founders.

Obama at present is doing more to unite the Republicans than any of the candidates.

Fred

February 10th, 2012
1:03 pm

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
1:03 pm

That’s not fair Fred.

You make me regret missing a performance that I didn’t even know happened.

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 10th, 2012
1:04 pm

In my opinion i think its a win win all around. For women, they’ll see it as Prez O fighting for womens rights and women putting notice that the CONs aren’t for THAT aspect of woman’s rights or health. He11, the only people that were bent outta shape about this were’nt voting for Prez O any dayum way.

pat

February 10th, 2012
1:04 pm

And neither of the above Red Herrings are relevent to the current situation. This is so rediculously simple, it escapes you people. The government does not have the right to make institutions pay for goods or services they stand against, period. It’s not a moratorium on birth control, abortion or anything else, it’s simply a matter of the government forcing institutions to pay for things they are against.

Instead, you turn this into an opportunity to bash Catholicism and religion in general under the guise of an opinion column. You are stoking the fires of hate, you know it and you do it gladly.

I have read people here wanting to lash out at, or vandalize churches because they don’t like the stance. Or that people will accuse it of being against women and for child molestation because a few people committed some horrible crimes year and years back. You are not only ok with it, you welcome it because you believe in equality for all, except Christians. We deserve your ire because we’re sooooo close minded and backwards about issues you don’t actually understand.

mm

February 10th, 2012
1:05 pm

“Can’t understand why Dems aren’t loving him.”

No comment necessary.

The Catholic church leaders seem to think they speak for all Catholic’s. Other than a few bishops and crazies, I think Obama garnered quite a few Catholic votes with this. Cosn, you lost another faux poutrage. I believe you are now 0 for 4 this year.

Peadawg

February 10th, 2012
1:05 pm

Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm

Your comment makes no sense, leghumper. Off with you and your squirrel.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm

pat — “Oh goody, more sponsored anti-Catholic hate speech.”

Jay, may I suggest The Jim Carroll Band for the Friday music, please? Preferably “People Who Died,” from his “Catholic Boy” album? :D

getalife

February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm

reb,

Actually, the health care bill is open to compromise and ongoing updates.

If you repeal it, nobody can afford it.

Then what are you going to do after the system collapses?

USinUK

February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm

“Next, many who were asleep at the wheel will have awakened to realize that unchecked Obama would “transform” this Nation into something unrecognizable to the founders.”

ohfercryingoutloud …

hysteria. it’s what’s for lunch.

evidently.

Adam

February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm

This incident will only grow those numbers as people realize Obamacare strips liberties in the name of good intentions.

Yes, the liberty that people have to use religion as a reason to deny someone help or health care is SACRED :roll:

Jefferson

February 10th, 2012
1:07 pm

Is that the Sat night live Pat ?

Kamchak

February 10th, 2012
1:07 pm

“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you?”
– Thomas Jefferson

Joe Hussein Mama

February 10th, 2012
1:08 pm

Peadawg — “Your comment makes no sense, leghumper.”

As much as you use that term, it makes me wonder if a dog did something really disturbing to you when you were little. :D

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 10th, 2012
1:08 pm

pat

February 10th, 2012
1:04 pm

How is it that if you disagree with something, its “vile” or Hate” as you say it?