Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2017, 04:29 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 07:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
1. At what point during a presidential term, should the Senate refuse to take up a nomination, and "wait for the will of the people" to be expressed in an upcoming election ? Is it OK to cherry-pick one's constitutional duties in favor of political expediency ? Half-way through the term, 1/3 way through the term, 1/12 way through the presidential term ?

2. If it's OK for corporate executives to refuse to provide birth control to women as it violates their religious beliefs :

"As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows" .. Gorsuch

is it then also OK for Quakers to refuse to pay taxes, as it "violates their faith, as it represents a degree of complicity their religion disallows" in supporting warlike military adventures ?

Facepalm
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-03-2017, 04:45 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
Is your name Merrick Garland?

No


Fuck you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like I'mFred's post
19-03-2017, 05:08 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
I think I see your confusion, which I believe I can clear up.

Corporations are accorded certain "rights" under the constitution, such as the right of free speech and unrestrained religious "practice". Such rights are absolute, inviolate and cannot be diminished or waived.

But what is true for corporations is not necessarily true for individuals, who under a variety of circumstances are often granted waivers of rights, usually involuntarily. I'm sure that Quakers would be found to have been granted a legitimate waiver of their right to withhold financial support from legitimate government functions where the legitimacy in both instances has been established by the government and the granting of the waiver of rights was also established by the same government.

Similarly, asset forfeiture was a granting of a waiver of 4th amendment rights that used by held by individuals, while corporations still enjoy their 4th amendement protection against property seizure.

Otherwise it's a pretty good question. Too bad lawyers are the ones whose answers prevail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
19-03-2017, 06:47 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 05:08 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  I think I see your confusion, which I believe I can clear up.

Corporations are accorded certain "rights" under the constitution, such as the right of free speech and unrestrained religious "practice". Such rights are absolute, inviolate and cannot be diminished or waived.

But what is true for corporations is not necessarily true for individuals, who under a variety of circumstances are often granted waivers of rights, usually involuntarily. I'm sure that Quakers would be found to have been granted a legitimate waiver of their right to withhold financial support from legitimate government functions where the legitimacy in both instances has been established by the government and the granting of the waiver of rights was also established by the same government.

Similarly, asset forfeiture was a granting of a waiver of 4th amendment rights that used by held by individuals, while corporations still enjoy their 4th amendement protection against property seizure.

Otherwise it's a pretty good question. Too bad lawyers are the ones whose answers prevail.

It's not an answer. The REASON Gorsuch gave for the corporation not to provide contraceptives, had nothing to do with the corporation. It ONLY had to do with religious beliefs of persons (executives) who work for the corporation and THEIR religious beliefs.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 07:00 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 06:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not an answer. The REASON Gorsuch gave for the corporation not to provide contraceptives, had nothing to do with the corporation. It ONLY had to do with religious beliefs of persons (executives) who work for the corporation and THEIR religious beliefs.
It makes no sense for me, that corporations are forced to provide contraceptives, or health insurance for that matter.
USA is seriously confused.

If a corporation wants to look attractive to employees then they can choose to offer these sweeteners if they want.

But, if govt deem unwanted pregnancy as a hindrance to the poor then govt ought to subsidies contraception and other family planing services and products.

I don't understand the USA think where corporations do public services such as health or provide minimum wage or cover living costs etc.

Govt ought to provide the safety nets, prop up insufficient incomes, cover medical necessities, not corporations, the purpose of corporations is to make profit, not to manage a society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 07:10 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 07:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 07:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 06:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not an answer. The REASON Gorsuch gave for the corporation not to provide contraceptives, had nothing to do with the corporation. It ONLY had to do with religious beliefs of persons (executives) who work for the corporation and THEIR religious beliefs.
It makes no sense for me, that corporations are forced to provide contraceptives, or health insurance for that matter.
USA is seriously confused.

If a corporation wants to look attractive to employees then they can choose to offer these sweeteners if they want.

But, if govt deem unwanted pregnancy as a hindrance to the poor then govt ought to subsidies contraception and other family planing services and products.

I don't understand the USA think where corporations do public services such as health or provide minimum wage or cover living costs etc.

Govt ought to provide the safety nets, prop up insufficient incomes, cover medical necessities, not corporations, the purpose of corporations is to make profit, not to manage a society.

All irrelevant. Corporations in the US provide health insurance. As long as they do that, (including providing coverage for MEN'S reproductive affairs, in effect PROMOTING reproduction "artificially" ... Viagra is THE MOST prescribed medication in the US), then women should have coverage for their reproductive meds, (and the fact is, estrogen is prescribed many times, not just for contraception). Part of competing for the best workers, is providing health insurance.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-03-2017, 07:20 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 07:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 07:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It makes no sense for me, that corporations are forced to provide contraceptives, or health insurance for that matter.
USA is seriously confused.

If a corporation wants to look attractive to employees then they can choose to offer these sweeteners if they want.

But, if govt deem unwanted pregnancy as a hindrance to the poor then govt ought to subsidies contraception and other family planing services and products.

I don't understand the USA think where corporations do public services such as health or provide minimum wage or cover living costs etc.

Govt ought to provide the safety nets, prop up insufficient incomes, cover medical necessities, not corporations, the purpose of corporations is to make profit, not to manage a society.

All irrelevant. Corporations in the US provide health insurance. As long as they do that, (including providing coverage for MEN'S reproductive affairs, in effect PROMOTING reproduction artificially ... Viagra is THE MOST prescribed medication in the US), then woemn should have coverage for their reproductive meds, (and the fact is, estrogen is prescribed many times, not just for contraception). Part of competing for the best workers, is providing health insurance.
All, Im saying, is that it doesn't make sense to me', to force corporations to do the government's role in providing health care.
If you are going to force them, then you fall into this ground of forcing them to do things that their owners and directors may disagree with.

It just makes no sense. If my country were doing this, passing the Health care buck onto the corporations, well, I wouldn't be in support of corporations being forced to do things that are against the owner's and directors values.

The cure of this disease is of course, getting the government to take care of health care rather than forcing corporations to do it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-03-2017, 07:27 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 07:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 07:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It makes no sense for me, that corporations are forced to provide contraceptives, or health insurance for that matter.
USA is seriously confused.

If a corporation wants to look attractive to employees then they can choose to offer these sweeteners if they want.

But, if govt deem unwanted pregnancy as a hindrance to the poor then govt ought to subsidies contraception and other family planing services and products.

I don't understand the USA think where corporations do public services such as health or provide minimum wage or cover living costs etc.

Govt ought to provide the safety nets, prop up insufficient incomes, cover medical necessities, not corporations, the purpose of corporations is to make profit, not to manage a society.

All irrelevant. Corporations in the US provide health insurance. As long as they do that, (including providing coverage for MEN'S reproductive affairs, in effect PROMOTING reproduction "artificially" ... Viagra is THE MOST prescribed medication in the US), then women should have coverage for their reproductive meds, (and the fact is, estrogen is prescribed many times, not just for contraception). Part of competing for the best workers, is providing health insurance.

Hehe, take estrogen away from menopausal women and you won't be a happy man no more. Lots of women need estrogen during menopause (takes years) or they will turn your life into the emotional rollercoaster they find themselves on. Good luck with that.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
19-03-2017, 08:56 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 06:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ... It's not an answer ...
Sometimes when I'm being satirical the satire doesn't come across. My fault.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
19-03-2017, 09:40 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 07:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 07:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All irrelevant. Corporations in the US provide health insurance. As long as they do that, (including providing coverage for MEN'S reproductive affairs, in effect PROMOTING reproduction artificially ... Viagra is THE MOST prescribed medication in the US), then woemn should have coverage for their reproductive meds, (and the fact is, estrogen is prescribed many times, not just for contraception). Part of competing for the best workers, is providing health insurance.
All, Im saying, is that it doesn't make sense to me', to force corporations to do the government's role in providing health care.
If you are going to force them, then you fall into this ground of forcing them to do things that their owners and directors may disagree with.

It just makes no sense. If my country were doing this, passing the Health care buck onto the corporations, well, I wouldn't be in support of corporations being forced to do things that are against the owner's and directors values.

The cure of this disease is of course, getting the government to take care of health care rather than forcing corporations to do it.

Corporations are not "providing health care". They offer insurance coverage so their employees go to their providers, and the cost is paid by the corporation, as part of their compensation package. Some executives want to interfere, and pick what kinds of heath care they want the employees to get.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: