Hobby Lobby, the U.S. Supreme Court – Good, Bad, or Ugly?

GREAT NEWS!!!  As reported in this article, the U.S. Supreme Court finds that Obamacare can NOT force businesses to provide contraception for their employees if the business has a religious objection against doing so: “The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law.”

More good news: Mainstream media is FINALLY pinning the tail on the donkey who allowed Obamacare to move forward in his un-Constitutional swing vote. The donkey in this case is Chief Justice John Roberts:

“Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama’s campaign for re-election. On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.”

Now for the BAD news: Four members of the Supreme Court will apparently ALWAYS oppose the Constitution in favor of the position of the Democrat Party.

Finding in favor of the position of one political party or another is NOT their job: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI

Furthermore, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” – Article VI

Bottom Line: All U.S. Supreme Court Justices are BOUND BY OATH to follow the Constitution. Furthermore, they CAN be removed from office for failing to do so! Their appointment to office comes with a restriction: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” – Article III, Section 1

If any judge fails to support the Constitution, that is a violation of their oath of office, hence “bad behavior” and grounds for their removal under the U.S. Constitution.

Judge’s Statements and Their Implications:

Taken from this article

Although I’m glad Alito held the majority opinion, he got the justification wrong: “Alito said the closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage under Obamacare if they voiced religious objections under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

Wrong! Our First Amendment alone not only provides sufficient justification against forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs, but it will always trump any federal legislation such as the RFRA, each and every time:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Paraphrased for poignancy and clarity: “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

Even if Congress repealed the RFRA, the Second Amendment protection remains, and it doesn’t matter if a company falls under federal law or not. If any law passed by Congress, such as Obamacare, prohibits the free exercise of the religious beliefs held by the principles of the company, IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND IS THEREFORE NULL AND VOID. While the RFRA may have highlighted this truth, our Second Amendment specifically and emphatically prohibited such un-Constitutional violations 225 years ago!

I am very happy for Hobby Lobby’s good Christian founders, yet this opens the door for the restoration of other religious freedoms.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, joined by Stephen Breyer, Sonia Stotomayor and Elena Kagan, just makes no sense at all:  “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

No, wait!  Actually, that makes PERFECT sense, and YES, our Founding Fathers DID establish such protections.

It’s called FREEDOM, Justice Ginsburg, and a careful read through our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and its 27 Amendments should reveal the underpinnings with stark clarity.  Put simply, our nation was established to provide for and protect the FREEDOM of We the People against despots like you, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Obama, most in the Democrat Party, and some in the Republican Party.

As my father used to say, “you’re free to swing a stick over your head all day long, so long as it doesn’t hit or threaten to hit others.”

Open Carry for Demonstration Purposes, Yet…

Youtube is rife with various pro-2A activists who open carry firearms as much for show, defiance, or antagonism as the rest of do for self-defense.  I’d like to show you one such video, which I think is better than most.  However, I would also like to add the following comments.  Feel free to review the comments and video in any order you desire. 🙂

1.  I do not advocate open carry as a means of showing off, making political or sociological statements, establishing “turf,” or for any other reasons save for the following two:

2.  I only open carry for two reasons:  Response time and deterrence.

2.a. Response Time:  The least amount of time between drawing and hitting one’s target is achieved by means of open carrying on one’s hip.  That’s why competition handgun shooters carry on their hips.  It’s why all openly-marked law enforcement officers carry on their hips.  It’s why I and most members of the military who carried handguns into either combat or hostile fire zones carried on our hips.  And it’s why I open carry on my hip today.  My open carry response time is less than a second.  If I have to conceal, it ramps up to at least a second and a half, if not two seconds.  Should you ever find yourself in a firefight, things usually happen very quickly, hence the expression about “the quick and the dead.”  I’d rather not be the dead one.

2.b.  Deterrence.  The visible presence of a firearm in modern society is a deterrent.  This is quite different from combat, where the enemy could be anyone, and if you look like a member of the American military you may indeed be a target.  In modern American society, criminals want just one thing, but in two parts.  The one thing is to survive.  Most are in a situation where they feel they have to steal.  That’s Part A.  Most also do not relish becoming wounded or killed (Part B).  They have no interest in reliving any semblance of the “Wild West.”  In fact, the “wild west” really wasn’t the wild west, either.  That’s largely Hollywood fiction created to sell movies.  The firearms death rate per capita back then was a fraction of what it is today, even though several times more people routinely carried firearms.  Wait…  What?  You heard me.  In any given society, there is an INVERSE correlation between the percentage of citizens who’re routinely armed and the firearms death rate per capita.  Amazing how that inverse correlation keeps popping up, isn’t it?  🙂  You can’t compare between dissimilar societies, though, such as the U.S. and Yemen, because there are so many more factors at work than merely the number of firearms vs the number of firearms related deaths.  That’s why I said, in any given society, there is an inverse correlation between the percentage of citizens who’re routinely armed and the firearms death rate per capita.

Regardless, the visible presence of firearms in modern America is indeed a deterrent.  That’s the other reason why law enforcement open carries, that’s a primary reason why the military open carries, and that’s the other reason why I open carry.  Criminals are into stealing from you, not mixing it up with you.  They have no idea how fast or accurate you might be, or the nature of your demeanor of disposition.  If you’re carrying concealed, you or may not be a target, depending on other factors.  If you’re visibly carrying, you’ll probably not be considered a target.  The often-voiced objections of “they’ll kill you to get your gun” or “they’ll kill you first because you’re armed” bear no resemblance to reality, and are not supported by any number of crime statistics, for good reason:  When faced with a choice between walking away or attending their own funeral, criminals are pretty similar to the vast majority of you and I: Live to fight another day.  I always use my brain first (stay away from trouble), feet second (get away from trouble), and firearm third (deal with trouble, in that order.  All the testosterone posing in the world will only increase your chances of injury of death.  On rare occasion you might encounter a different response, but that’s the exception, not the rule.

3.  Speaking of which, I believe a large part of these YouTube “open carry demonstrations” are little more than a testosterone exercise, choosing to err on the side the of the law, hoping for the best, or recording the worst.  While I admit they’ve had have some utility with respect to checking the actions of a wayward department or catching a rogue cop in action, I’m not an advocate.  The vast majority of the planned ones seem rather silly, and some have been downright dangerous.  I think the unplanned ones have had the most utility, but usually only after serious civil rights violations.

4.  When I open carry, I simply go about my business.  Whether that’s to the bank, a restaurant, or the grocery store is really no one else’s business but my own.  I have a CC permit, and do so when it’s expedient or more appropriate to do so.  The choice, however, remains mine.  I exercise sound judgement, reasonable caution, and do so as I see fit given all involved circumstances.

This is a freedom upon which our country was founded, the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, on our own terms, non someone else’s.  The criminal element in our society exists, but it’s a very small percentage of the remainder of us law-abiding citizens.  It’s up to us law-abiding citizens to ensure the over-zealous control freaks in our government remain in check and continue to work with us to enforce the laws as necessary without crossing the line, trying to force us to do their bidding.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the primary reason why we carry in the first place.  It’s both the first line in the sand against everything from aggression, robbery, rape, homicide, as well as the last line in the sand against tyrannical aggression.  Those in law enforcement who respect this, and they are many, we’ve got your backs, and we know you have ours.  Thank you.  You should know by now from the above reading we’re not in this for show.

Those who don’t, if I may, please start with the Library of Congress.  Better start at the beginning.  Follow the links.  Follow the history, lest we repeat it, and please, let’s not repeat the massacres of the 20th Century.

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Sotoro – NOT an American Citizen – NOT eligible to be President – Ergo NOT President

Point 1:  If Obama was a “Foreign Student” in 1981, he was most certainly not an American citizen in 1981.  Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama - Columbia University Student ID Card

Point 2:  If he was not an American citizen in 1981, then he was not a natural born citizen at all.

Point 3:   If he was not a natural born citizen, then he is ineligible to be President.

Point 4:  If he is ineligible to be President, then he is NOT our President.

Our Constitution is crystal clear on this matter, folks:

Article II, Section 1:  “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As per this evidence, as well as the as yet unsettled evidence involving his birth certificate forgeries, Sheriff Arpaio’s volumes of evidence, as well as Dr. Taitz’ case before the Supreme Court, Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen.  Unless he’s 236 years old, he wasn’t a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, either.

We thus return to reexamine points 1 through 4, above, and, since Obama fails every test, the only logically conclusion is that Barack Hussein Obama IS NOT OUR PRESIDENT.

Since that is the case, the following actions also apply:

1.  All generals relieved of their command under Obama should be reinstated, effective immediately.

2.  Each and every one of Obama’s “Executive Orders” should be declared null and void, effective immediately.

3.  Each and every bill signed into law should be returned to both the House as well as the Senate for full review and consideration under the first LEGITIMATE President of the United States of America.

4.  Since Obama and Biden ran on a ticket together, and Obama was ineligible to be President and therefore ineligible to run for president, their ticket should be declared null and void effective immediately, with the Romney-Ryan ticket declared the winners by default, again, effective immediately.

5.  Any an all legislation that was either requested, proposed by, modified by, or influenced by Obama or his 2008/2012 running mate, Joe Biden, should be declared null and void effective immediately.

Yes, folks.  It is a mess.  However, it is far less of a mess than America will find herself in if we allow this fiasco to continue.

STOP THE LIES.  STOP THE DECEPTION.

At the very least, Obama is an ignorant pawn in global conspiracy to instill a puppet of a sinister group into the office of the Presidency of the United States of America.

At worst, however, he is a willing participant, a liar to the American people, and perpetrator of countless scandals, lies, deceits, corruption, usurpation, espionage, and traitorism.  If it’s discovered this is the case, he should be impeached, tried as a traitor, and sentenced to either death (maximum penalty) or life in prison.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear at least Dr. Taitz’ arguements:  SCOTUS Schedules Obama Eligibility Case To Be Heard In Conference.  I sincerely hope they bump the hearing up to prior to the swearing in, and postpone the swearing in if there’s any evidence which requires further discovery and examination.

America deserves better from the U.S. Supreme Court than a delay which will lead to far more hassle and consternation than is necessary.

Supreme Court Injustice Sotomayor

The U.S. Supreme Court, specifically Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overstepped her lawful authority.  She is subject to our Constitution, not above it, and has no authority to either change the Constitution or ignore it.  Her oath of office states in part:  “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Our Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Many previous Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the restriction against preventing the free exercise of religion applies to the every branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court itself, as well as to the states.  Thus, not only is she violating our Constitution, she is single-handedly ignoring Supreme Court precedence.

With that thought in mind, I would like to share with you the following, and ask you how Justice Sotomayor’s decision to force honest, God-fearing Christians to support murdering unborn children does NOT violate our First Amendment’s restriction against prohibiting the Green’s free exercise of their religion?

I would also like you to consider, and accept the true meaning of the term “civil disobedience:”  It is an act of doing what is right, true, and moral by God, as peaceably as possible, instead of conforming to an evil in this world.

Finally, I would remind you of the provision for Supreme Court Justices given in Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution:  “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”  I would argue, gentlemen, that ignoring the Constitution, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, and forcing U.S. citizens to support murder of unborn children against their Constitutionally-respected religious beliefs is very BAD behavior.

Justice Sotomayor’s behavior since she took the bench has been a blight on American integrity.  She has continually sided with the other bad apples on the court who continually vote against the Constitution, and in favor of eroding our individual rights and freedoms while helping to build precisely what our Founding Fathers fought to avoid:  Big, Massive, Government i.e. a Socialist State.

Sotomayor needs to be removed from office.

In closing, I would like to share a link to the website which details the Green’s predicament, their decision, and the massive up-welling of support they have experienced and will continue to experience from the American people:  We must obey God rather than men!

UPDATE:  Only June 27, 2013, the full body of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made the following ruling:

In its opinion, the circuit court held (1) that RFRA applies not only to human beings, but to a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby that is wholly owned and operated by humans who share a religious belief; (2) that this HHS Mandate is a substantial burden on orthodox Christian belief; and (3) that it is not authorized as a measure that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.

Note:  RFRA:  “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”

I find it very interested they held that it applies to corporate entities, as that’s precisely what the Supreme Court did when it gave personhood rights to corporate entities a couple of years ago.  If the Supreme Court attempts to undermine this application, they will then be forced by the American People to remove the personhood rights of corporations.  You can’t apply a legal concept one way in one situation, then try to apply it in a diametrically opposed manner in another.

 

sotomayor
Honest, God-fearing Christians!