Arguing for Obama, Justice Antonin Scalia
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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
334 comments Add your comment
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
Medicare for everyone. Same policy, same requirements, same payments.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
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.
Woo Hoo! We have a winner!
Granted, I’m not a widely recognized expert in American jurisprudence, pertinent case law or the decades of intricacies involving US Supreme Court decisions on this matter, like pat and so many of our respected right-wingers here, but that is my cross to bear…
mm
February 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
“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.”
Dream on, Johny Reb.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
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.
Somebody else needs to switch to decaf.
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
I am accusing you, Jay, not Scalia… You know damn well you are inviting and welcoming anti-Catholic bashing. It’s not the first time.
Scalia was not talking about forcing church or any other institution to pay for things they are against. Polygamy is not the same as forcing churches to pay for abortions or birth control.
If obama wants to give everybody free contraception, let him pay for it.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
You know, reading that White House press release, sounds like they just reframed the issue to say that really, the insurance companies are dealing directly with the individual ANYWAY, and that the religious organizations are not paying for the cost of the contraceptives ANYWAY.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders. They knew that would happen. That is why the constiturion was written as a guidline on how laws shoule be passed instead of stating laws. Only one law is written in the Constituiton.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
“As much as you use that term”
1st time in a very long time, Joe.
But don’t let that get in the way of a bad joke.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:12 pm
A group policy for a Religious affiliate will not provide employees
with contraceptive benefits but employees who desire contraceptive
benefits can obtain a policy that provides those benefits from the
group carrier free of charge. o.k.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
pat, I’ve been out doing my part to keep the wounded American economic engine humming, so maybe you’ll humor me and show me all of the apparently vast number of Catholic-bashing posts here?
Thanks, you’re a peach…
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
“Leghumper” is old school.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
Well, I declare, I almost forgot. I was catching up on the news last night and found this item on a new book about Wallis Simpson—you know, that American woman the King of England left the throne for way back there. Seems like the book author said the Simpson woman was something called a intersex, kind of a man in some ways and a woman in the others. Heck, I never even knowed there was anything but XX and XY kids. Seems like there’s all kind. Anyhow, the author claims this Simpson woman was a expert in, uh, other ways to please a man. She was kinda flat-chested like a man but had some woman features. And the author claims there’s more intersex people than anybody thinks. One of the reviewers of the new book has two kids that are intersex.
Anyhow, I thought I’d bring it up, seeing as how this blog right now is about birth control. It’s for dang sure you won’t have kids if you hook up with a intersex person.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
pat — “If obama wants to give everybody free contraception, let him pay for it.”
If people want to send their kids to private school, let them pay for it.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
free of charge. o.k.
You think anyone is foolish enough to think the cost won’t be spread back to them to cover the carrier’s overhead.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
You can accuse all you wish, Pat.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders.
It’s kinda hard to recognize anything when your eyeballs are dust.
mm
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
pat,
Catholics are fools. They treat the Pope like some kind of god.
Hows that for bashing?
Jefferson
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
Spread the cost so it won’t be so great, greedy Pat ?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
Peadawg — “1st time in a very long time, Joe.”
Aha, you’re keeping count. I knew it.
I predict you’ll pick up Dave’s old insult about ‘yappy teacup poodles’ soon.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Now he is a dead liberal.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
I’m listening to Mitt Romney speaking at CPAC. The reception is rather mild so far, to say the least.
Guy Incognito
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
Mick
I was going to ask you if you remebered that haitian chicken case.
and you are right………boo for not allowing the Rasta’s to practice thier religion freely (puff-puff)
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
dust to eyeball. eyeball to dust.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
“I predict you’ll pick up Dave’s old insult about ‘yappy teacup poodles’ soon. ”
First time I’ve heard that.
JohnnyReb
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
A lot of Moonbats here who won’t face even the possibility that Obama will not be reelected.
And, that the majority of the Nation is for repeal of Obamacare.
My guess is, these same folks thinks it’s OK for federal tax dollars to be used to pay over a billion dollars for poor people to receive a free cell phone with the monthy bill paid.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
He is flatter than roadkill so far.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
You are stoking the fires of hate, you know it and you do it gladly.
yeah, I totally imagine Jay making like Snidely Whiplash and twirling his ’stache and going “MWAH-HA-HA!” any time he’s posted on reproductive rights issues.
Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
“Leghumper” is old school.
Wrong. Leghumper is a damn good beer!!!
http://sat.gmncdn.com/Blogs/tombedell/files/2011/03/old-leghumper.jpg
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
The fellows who accused Catholic priests of molesting them were accusing of bashing the Catholic church when he news came out, weren’t they?
Just sayin’.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:19 pm
Jay, didn’t you mean to delete the words “flatter than” from your sentence @ 1.18?
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:19 pm
Joe: I predict you’ll pick up Dave’s old insult about ‘yappy teacup poodles’ soon.
Dumbest. Insult. Ever.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
“This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders.”
Yeah, K Street, unlimited bribes, occupations, peeing in a cup, drones, etc….
True.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
A lot of wingnuts EVERYwhere who won’t face even the possibility that Obama WILL be reelected.
FYT
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
a little early for that one, sfd …. but I get your point.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
off to the Oyster Barn and a catholic bashing Scallop salad with their homemade blue cheese dressing. Yum. $2.00 off if I say, “The pope wears a funny hat.”
I’ll be thinking of you pat.
Don't Forget
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
He is flatter than roadkill so far.
He still hasn’t brought out the miniature bicycle though.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
Bro,
I learn something new everyday .
Thanks
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
I’m listening to Mitt Romney speaking at CPAC. The reception is rather mild so far, to say the least.
Much like voter turnout in the primaries.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:24 pm
Fred, 1:22, Do not say the pope wears a dress with the buttons
up the back or you will be accused of hatemongering.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:25 pm
By the way, “leghumper” is one of those words Jay said he doesn’t tolerate.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:25 pm
barking frog: Fred, 1:22, Do not say the pope wears a dress with the buttons
up the back or you will be accused of hatemongering.
If I tell someone that when they’re wearing a snuggie they are just wearing a backwards robe, am I hatemongering?
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
“And, that the majority of the Nation is for repeal of Obamacare.”
And then what happens when the costs are too high and the system collapses?
cons never can answer this question.
Midori
February 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
Is that the Sat night live Pat ?
I’ve asked but he/she/it won’t tell me
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
Bro, all I can say is that that is one lucky hound dog!
BTW, I had some yummy Rogue Chocolate Stout last night.
And may have to go see what delicacies my local purveyer up the street is offering today…
Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"
February 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
getalife
I’m sure AmVet would probably agree with that one. I’m not a big fan of porter beers, but I had no problem with drinking that one.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
Actually, the majority of Americans are for repealing the ACA because they think it’s some weird government overreach. Btu when you ask them about EVERY LAST PROVISION in the law, they don’t want those parts repealed.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
Adam — “Dumbest. Insult. Ever.”
I know; I see the “teacup poodle” and “leghumper” insults as being cut from the same cloth.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:28 pm
Adam, 1:25, as long as it’s not the pope and there’s no sexual
connotation you’re free to monger.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:29 pm
And then what happens when the costs are too high and the system collapses?
But…but…but… the free market RULZ and would therefore, never let that occur.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:29 pm
Maybe it’s just me — we’ll see what the conservative target audience has to say — but I cannot think that Mitt won over anybody with that presentation…. He seemed nervous and halting throughout.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
JHM, 1:27, why do you hate puppies?
Vinny
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
Meanwhile, Barrack Hussein Obama, the man of no principles capitulates for politcal purposes because he is afraid that it will cost him the election. So much for integrity.
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes because Obumbles deemed it so.
To have sex is not mandatory, so taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it just because a bunch of skanks can’t keep their legs together.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:31 pm
Jay, 1:27, Mitts bulletproof vest may have been too tight.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:31 pm
Jay,
He sounded boring as usual so I switched it to ESPN.
He lost me at inhale.
The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling
February 10th, 2012
1:32 pm
The catholic church needs to stay out of the female uterus.
The catholic church should use the same enthusiasm in prosecuting pedophile priests.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:32 pm
To have sex is not mandatory, so taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it just because a bunch of skanks can’t keep their legs together.
When did Bill Orvis change his handle?
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:33 pm
It’s funny that NOBODY denies the bashing or the bigotry. At least you admit it.
And I will accuse all I want because it’s true. If you have attempted the same strawman parallels about something with the LGBT, NAACP, planned parenthood, NARAL, or any other type of organization, you’d be called all kinds of names and probably would have had the blog pulled. But you attempt some ridiculous parallel between the supreme court and polygamy as somehow being even remotely related to forcing institutions to pay for that which they stand against, just to inspire the hatred and the much welcomed hate speech of your minions.
This particular column doesn’t even make sense, 22 years ago, Scalia pronounced that churches need to follow the law too, some how relates to making organizations pay for that which they are against? That’s a very tortured parallel to make. You need a jack hammer to make that peg fit.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:33 pm
Porters are both pretty rare, relative to other ales, and apparently hard to do “right”. For every good one I’ve tried, I’ve had one that was forgettable…
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes…
So THAT’S where hand-held farming implements come from.
I always thought they were made in a factory.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
Vinny
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
tick, tick, tick
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling
February 10th, 2012
1:32 pm
The catholic church needs to stay out of the female uterus.
The catholic church should use the same enthusiasm in prosecuting pedophile priests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case in point! Hopefully this person will also stay out of a female uterus.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:37 pm
vinny,
We don’t call women “skanks” on this blog.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:41 pm
It’s funny that NOBODY denies the bashing or the bigotry.
Hello? Is this thing on?
I realize that to numerous neo-cons here I am NOBODY, but I flat out asked you to show me some examples of this “Catholic-bashing” here.
And as always, when asked to do so you’ve produced nothing, nada, nary, nilch, zip, zero.
At least you are consistent…
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
1:41 pm
I just love to see CONs get bend outta shape……
Occupiers @ CPAC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FQBcpCNsAwE
Understanding the Law
February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
Thanks for clearing this one up. I was sitting on the fence because the religious laws are sometimes confusing.
The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling
February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
@Vinny
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
Meanwhile, Barrack Hussein Obama, the man of no principles capitulates for politcal purposes because he is afraid that it will cost him the election. So much for integrity.
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes because Obumbles deemed it so.
To have sex is not mandatory, so taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it just because a bunch of skanks can’t keep their legs together.
*************************************************************************
Some of you need to go back to school and get your GED.
Obviously you are total idiots.
Do you not understand what this is all about?
Instead of spewing your stench of racism and your putrid odor of ignorance – say something of substance and not something of IGNORANCE.
Obama 2012
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
“Case in point! Hopefully this person will also stay out of a female uterus.”
It is Pat from SNL.
FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)
February 10th, 2012
1:45 pm
I just wonder how these GOP and religious hypocrits defend insurance coverage of male enhancement drugs. If the good Lord intended for these guys to naturally procreate (the “obvious intention” of heterosexual intercouse) then He would provide them the natural ability to ummm…make it happen. Just sayin..
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:47 pm
AmVet,1:41, one definition of catholic is liberal, if this is the usage,
examples should be easy pickings..
Understanding the Law
February 10th, 2012
1:47 pm
Vinny says…
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes …
How would you phrase or what would you call men when taxpayers have to pay for Viagra or Cialis?
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:48 pm
Get Real, as I posted earlier, I don’t think it’s much of a compromise at all. And if you DO think Obama backtracked, the prez is even slicker than I thought.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:49 pm
Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
Or, “Mr. Tibbs,” in a pinch.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:50 pm
Vinny: Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes
….annnnnd I stopped reading. Someone who thinks garden implements need contraceptives clearly is not worth listening to
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:52 pm
Jay: And if you DO think Obama backtracked, the prez is even slicker than I thought.
Checkmate in
5 moves10 months.Bruno
February 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
You would not need to change a single word of that paragraph to apply it to the contraceptive debate.
In case there was any confusion regarding my position earlier, my objection to the forced inclusion of contraception coverage is strictly made along the lines of free commerce. It has nothing to do with religion. I agree wholeheartedly with Scalia’s opinion:
“… 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.”
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
Adam, 1:50, I believe that kind of hoe can be used as a
permanent male contraceptive…
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
Someone who thinks garden implements need contraceptives clearly is not worth listening to
You really wonder what these people are up to in their, um, personal lives. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:54 pm
Amvet, I don’t owe you anything and I am not going to do you work for you. Just look up and down the page, look at any blog where the Catholic Church is the topic and it’s flat prevalent. Hell, it’s right here, in front of you on this page. Are deliberately being obtuse? Hell just look at this little gems’ post at 1:32
“The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling”…. Hell, even the name is basing. What if we changed it to “The hypocrisy of the Lesbian and Gay community is appalling”. Then you’d be mad, wouldn’t you.
Bruno
February 10th, 2012
1:54 pm
I just wonder how these GOP and religious hypocrits defend insurance coverage of male enhancement drugs.
Insurance companies should be free to offer–or not offer–any type of coverage they want. That isn’t the issue. The issue is government-mandated coverage.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:55 pm
Bruno: Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
To the fringe right, that is the point. Hence why I refer to the fringe right as anarchists.
I am not sure what your objection is to including it in all insurance coverage. You said “along the lines of free commerce.” Are you saying there should be NO law with respect to what insurance companies decide to cover or not cover?
Normal
February 10th, 2012
1:57 pm
Isn’t it funny how one can accuse another of lack of integrity for doing something very astute, when that one has compromised his own integrity by backing a party that has shown no integrity at all by refusing to work with that person for the betterment of the people of this country…ever. Funny, or downright sad?
Bruno
February 10th, 2012
2:00 pm
Are you saying there should be NO law with respect to what insurance companies decide to cover or not cover?
As long as fair business practices are followed, e.g. full disclosure of the contract terms, etc., then absolutely I believe that insurance companies should be allowed to offer any product they wish. For auto insurance, minimum coverage amounts can be mandated because auto insurance is liability insurance–it protects others from our own dangerous actions. Very different from health insurance which only protects you from your own poor choices.
Recon 2533 1811
February 10th, 2012
2:00 pm
I’ve heard of sea lawyers, jail house lawyers and the like, so now we have blog lawyers.
TaxPayer
February 10th, 2012
2:01 pm
Maddow did an excellent job of summarizing the Republican hypocrisy regarding contraceptives as well as many other issues.
Bruno
February 10th, 2012
2:01 pm
Back to work…..Catch you guys later on FNM.
Thug
February 10th, 2012
2:02 pm
Constitution? what constitution. it’s just a piece of paper
come on peoples, ‘bama’s only doing what anyone of us would do
in a similar situation. Nothing is unconstitutional to Obozo
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
2:02 pm
right Jay, it’s definitely you regarding Romney at CPAC…but why do you care? he’s not on your “team”.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:05 pm
Bruno: I am not sure I totally agree with the idea that auto insurance and health insurance are different for the reasons you state. Health insurance claims can be triggered as a result of simply living normally, even within the bounds of what many deem “normal” and “acceptable” etc. If that is admitted, though, then perhaps we would be having a conversation about just how far into people’s private lives a health insurance company can pry to find out if they are looking for “your own poor choices.”
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:06 pm
Young Vin is just one of the more repulsive Tucker refugees lost at sea and without a daily forum to spew his bigoted bile.
Butch Cassidy
February 10th, 2012
2:07 pm
Can someone please get pat a Sean Hannity doll?
Guy Incognito
February 10th, 2012
2:07 pm
Kam
Check it out. A Purple Squirrel!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-the-purple-squirrel-discovered-in-pennsylvania/
JKL2
February 10th, 2012
2:08 pm
the hypocracy- – say something of substance and not something of IGNORANCE. Obama 2012
nice oxymoron…
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
2:08 pm
Bruno — ” Very different from health insurance which only protects you from your own poor choices.”
I am deeply dismayed at the notion that a physician would apparently suggest that health issues only stem from poor personal choices.
There are many individuals, myself included, who suffer from health issues that have little or nothing whatsoever to do with choices we’ve made.
I may be reading you wrong, Bruno, but you certainly seem to be suggesting that health problems *only* result from poor personal choices. If I’m incorrect in that perception, I would genuinely welcome some clarification and elaboration on that point.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
Butch: Hannity is not as sacred as Saint Ronnie. Ronald Reagan dolls are set to be delivered to console conservatives in November. There will be protection from liquid, so that tears do not degrade the quality of the doll over time.
Butch Cassidy
February 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
JohnnyReb – “This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders.”
Of course it is. You think they had planes, trains and automobiles in the 1700’s? Not to mention the fact that no one currently owns slaves. Geez.
JKL2
February 10th, 2012
2:10 pm
taxpayer- Maddow did an excellent job…
Last I checked, lesbians don’t need contraception. Kind of a moot point for her.
pat
February 10th, 2012
2:11 pm
Yes, please present your dolls on your commemorative Barrack Obama plate surrounded by fully grown obama chia pets.
godless heathen
February 10th, 2012
2:12 pm
Adam: “Unless you’re suggesting the church is a “private company” I am not sure what your point is.”
An insurance company is a private company. And as someone who appears to have no qualms about unlimited governmental power, I’m sure you wouldn’t see the point.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
2:13 pm
Last I checked, lesbians don’t need contraception. Kind of a moot point for her.
There’s your sign…geez…
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
“Yes, please present your dolls on your commemorative Barrack Obama plate surrounded by fully grown obama chia pets.”
You left out MESSIAH!!!