Men in Black
16/2/12 09:28![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:
The first row are the allowed witnesses.
All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.
That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.
Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.
I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.
Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*
The first row are the allowed witnesses.
All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.
That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.
Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.
I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.
Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 03:01 (UTC)http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/299915/20120216/obama-birth-control-contraception-mandate-obamacare.htm
"Your personal view as a so-called constitutional scholar is not being debated here"
Agreed, my arguement comes from the words of the 1st Amendment as below.
http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1351189.html?thread=107611669#t107611669
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 16:55 (UTC)"This was an unexpected gift," Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and a Republican strategist, told the Times.
....
"Religious people determine what violates their consciences, not the federal government," Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, said during the hearing.
They can frame it as: "Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"
but the fact is, they didn't have any legal scholars there to talk about what the obama administration, legally, can do. they had a bunch of religious leaders there. can you cite me any legal scholars who were there and spoke on legal matters? So far, I've only found religious leaders as speakers there.
but go ahead, correct me.
as for the 1st amendment, repeating it isn't an argument. the words alone do not present your case for you. if i cannot smoke pot as part of my religion, it's obvious that the first amendment does not protect all religious action. legal scholars debate what is and what is not covered. hence, legal scholars should have been presenting that evidence to the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, not a bunch of religious leaders testifying as to what their religious views tell them
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 17:33 (UTC)They can and they should.
"as for the 1st amendment, repeating it isn't an argument. the words alone do not present your case for you"
The words mean something. If you can't refute -how- the words make my case in any manner except saying "the words alone do not present your case for you", you fail to make your case.
Please tell me how the 1st amendment is not relevent.
"if i cannot smoke pot as part of my religion"
What religion is that? Which Holy book do worship from? If you just smoke pot religiously, maybe it's because you can't help yourself. I so, there are programs-----
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 17:36 (UTC)Holy book: principia discordia
And again, even if you refuse to accept this religion, I'd hope you'd accept Mormonism and polygamy as another example.
The fact that I have offered examples of the words of the first amendment being insufficient to cover all religious activity, it is quite obvious that some religious activity isn't protected. Ergo, you must state why this is protected
And got anything for the lack of legal scholars at the hearing?
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 20:38 (UTC)As for polygamy, even the Mormon church gave that up in 1890 because it was never a religious principle and never allowed by the Mormon Bible.
From the Book of Mormon , "(Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."
Anyone who can read and understand the simple words of the 1st amendment is sufficiently scholarly to understand that the Obama contraception mandate violates those words.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 21:00 (UTC)Nonsense.
That's simply denying the need or value of experts in constitutional law.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 21:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 21:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 22:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 22:37 (UTC)I hope you proof-read your scholarly works, though.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 22:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/2/12 22:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 02:29 (UTC)"
eeeh
used to express an overall feeling of blehness and just not really giving a Crap. it is neither happy nor sad. it just is".
"blehness"?? OMFG I MISSED THE KAD RS!!" "Blehness!!!"
Idon't wanna go any farther. It is another language!
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 02:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 02:38 (UTC)You agree?
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 15:49 (UTC)Gimme a response to that, and I'll consider responding to your response to the mormon issue.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 17:01 (UTC)If I were to write a book that started a new religion that required a human sacrifice in the form of putting a wife, daughter or volunteer on the dinner table every Thanksgiving as the main course to please the god of turkeys, I believe I could understand why the 1st amendment may not consider it a valid religion.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 17:07 (UTC)Human sacrifice and ritual drug consumption are NOT the same.
And what makes religion about chaos and confusion any more or less religious than that about a man who raised the dead or walked on water?
Kooky religions are all kooky. Is Fred Phelps really more protected than I am, just cause his God shares a name with your God?
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:11 (UTC)Are you trying to distract me from the Mormon issue?
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:29 (UTC)im bringing it home
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 23:13 (UTC)Neither are illegal drug consumption and contraception, which is the distraction that was injected into this debate and you were trying to defend.