9th Circuit: pharmacists must dispense morning-after pill
posted at 10:15 am on July 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The most overturned appellate court has teed up another case for the Supreme Court to consider — and likely soon. The 9th Circuit overturned an injunction in a district court case, allowing the state of Washington to force a pharmacy to stock and dispense morning-after pills, which causes the abortion of an embryo in the early days of a pregnancy. The pharmacy owners had objected, claiming that the law violated their religious practice:
Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the “morning after” contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.
Family-owned Ralph’s Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion.
Ralph’s owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.
There have been two different issues in the legal fight over Plan B. In one group, pharmacists not working for themselves — for instance, at chain pharmacies — objected to dispensing the pill and wanted job protection despite their refusal. Those cases hardly stand up to scrutiny. The owner of the pharmacy has the right to decide on his own inventory and what to sell, and the employees of that pharmacy either should follow that policy or find a job somewhere else if it offends them. It falls into the same category as a cashier who refuses to handle meat at the checkout counter because he’s a vegetarian.
However, this is something else. The owners of the pharmacy do not want to stock the pills for their own reasons. Even apart from religious grounds, that still seems to be their decision in the marketplace. If they don’t want to sell aspirin, or Ginsu knives, or inflatable life vests for swimming pools, that should be their decision, too. If their customers object to their policies, they will find other pharmacies to patronize. The government has a public interest in telling retailers what they cannot sell for safety reasons (like dynamite, as an example), but should not force business owners to sell something they do not want to sell.
I’ll be interested in the appeal to this decision. I suspect we’ll get another 5-4 decision. I just hope that the decision will support the rights of business owners to determine for themselves the products and services they will offer.
Update: Gabriel Malor wants to emphasize that this ruling overturned the temporary injunction sought by the pharmacy, and is not a ruling on the case itself, which proceeds in district court. I believe the ruling can be appealed to attempt to reinstate the injunction, and I hope it is.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Just guessing most conservatives would accommodate themselves to diff laws, and be content to have their values expressed in their own communities and schools and institutions–although that shouldn’t stop anyone from trying to influence laws elsewhere.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I don’t understand conservatives don’t see most everything as state rights. The feds have grabbed far more then was ever intended. We are no longer a collection of sovereign states united for common defense.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Sell ‘em some ex-lax. Maybe chronic diarrhoea will stop the shaved apes from shagging themselves into bastardom.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:05 PM
-
A young woman spoke at the Tea Party in Phila on the 4th… She spoke against abortion. She is a soon to graduate nursing student and stated that she will not be setting aside her moral objection to abortion, her personal opinion that it is murder, or the Hippocratic Oath because of laws such as the Freedom of Choice Act, HR 1964.
-
I don’t recall what she said she would do specifically if faced with the demand that she assist, but she was emphatic that she would not. God bless her.
-
RalphyBoy on July 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Yes. The 9th & 10th Amendments have been dismissed as anachronistic. Anything goes.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Precisely! Do it via a changing of the law. If we think it’s ok to ignore one law, others will think it’s ok to ignore another. Protesting/campaigning for a change to an undesirable law is a right, but not ignoring it in the meantime.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM
She could be legitmately dismissed, so I hope she finds work with a like-minded team.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Good point.
Johan Klaus on July 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM
America would not exist if the world had been peopled with the likes of you.
Your slave mentality makes me shudder.
I am not a slave to the law. I decide what laws are just and right, and I ignore the others. It’s called self-determination.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Sort of like illegal immigration.
Johan Klaus on July 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Have I got it mixed up with the Declaration of Independence? If so, I apologise. The part I was referring to was “… under God”.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM
-
Great, and when they pass a law that you should off your as yet unborn son because you have 2 already…?
RalphyBoy on July 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Well it’s been fun but the wife is bugging me to cut the lawn because it’s sunny out. I tried to explain that I was frightened by the bright light and lack of water falling from the sky but she has assured me that endless rain is really not normal for summer. Bummer, I was hoping that the EPA would declare my yard a protected wetland.
jmarcure on July 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM
That would probably be a good time to lock’n'load ;)
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:12 PM
bumped heads, or not, I feel your pain. Wifey gets home at 5pm and that lawn is just begging to tell on me.
Limerick on July 11, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Actually what I said is what I said.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Fing snitch! Now my wife is demanding I do the same! When I get my hands on you…. ;)
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM
A Republican form of govt did not prevent a popular choice being made last November. Whether it means to be democratic or not, the results seem to be much the same.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
That’s probably because our republican form of government has nothing to do with the presidential election, dummy.
The electoral college chooses the president. This can often coincide with the ‘popular vote’, but mathematically-speaking it does not have to. It is possible to be elected after losing the ‘popular vote’.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I don’t think Franklin was differentiating between a representative Republic, and a true democracy. I think he was merely saying that keeping freedom alive wouldn’t be easy. And I was wondering aloud, if he though we stood a chance.
As for the other topic, how/if/when we should protest/disobey the law, I have to disagree with you. When the law conflicts with my own sense of right and wrong, I go with my gut. I think that’s the Am. way. (Ever hear of jury nullification?”)
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I would like that, too. Unfortunately, my slave-masters won’t let me. They make the laws, and they enforce them. Of course, we all tend to ignore laws that we find objectionable, but there is a limit beyond which we have lawlessness.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I do understand that, but the result last November was a popular one. Also, your govt does not consist only of the president – even when he may have right of veto. The fact that some Democrats are now backing away from some of the president’s initiatives shows that their popularity is important to them.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM
and after that, perhaps a revolution. It’s an old story.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I think many people forget what a truly radical place the US was. That’s still in the core of many.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Which is what the subject of this thread did – according to his conscience, but the powers that be dictate otherwise. I find it hard to allow one section to ignore the law, without accepting that another section may ignore a law that I wish to be fully observed.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I am not an Obamabot, but I’ve seen some on TV and can say with moral clarity, none of them have any idea what this means. None of them. Anna especially. However the Soviet rules provide for the State mandating certain actions and as such, provide for strict control of commerce because the State reigns supreme.
Maybe we will get lucky and we start hearing of mass suicides similar to that movie “The Happening” that randomly affects only Obamabots. (/sarc)
JP1986UM on July 11, 2009 at 1:35 PM
A very good point. I certainly have no concept of it, beyond the old “cowpokes and injuns” movies.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I get that, totally. It’s how a “civil” society operates, according to the rule of law. But the US is becoming uncivil. And the authority of all institutions is in question. You are witnessing something historical in our country, especially coming from that segment of the population that usually is mum. I don’t think you should underestimate the potential for great change here going forward.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Which is what the subject of this thread did – according to his conscience, but the powers that be dictate otherwise. I find it hard to allow one section to ignore the law, without accepting that another section may ignore a law that I wish to be fully observed.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Our form of government was intended to accomodate a moral and just society. When the courts rule in an unjust and immoral way it is our obligation to oppose it. How that manifests itself I don’t know.
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM
And you’re fine with looking at someone who sacrificed to educate himself as a pharmacist, worked as a pharmacist, built a life-long career as a pharmacist, and finally went into business in his chosen profession, and telling hime, “If you don’t want to sell these drugs as a matter of conscience, just quit being a pharmacist and find another job.”
All because the government decided to change the rules after he’d worked 15 or 20 years as a pharmacist to get where he was.
We’re citizens, not subjects. The government doesn’t get to throw a man’s career away because they want to add another rule.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM
He can change jobs if his religious convictions dictate. His freedoms have not been restricted.
AnninCA on July 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM
If, by that, you hint at a possible return to the old America, I can only wish you the best of fortune – I would like nothing more. The old America was a country that could, usually, be relied upon to stand for all things right and proper – not today.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Absolutely. I saw Jim Crow laws in my youth. You had a restaurant in the South, you could post a sign and say, “No negroes allowed.”
That was “freedom.”
No, it’s racism.
Absolutely, the pharmacist has no legal grounds. Change jobs if you don’t want to follow the law.
End of story.
AnninCA on July 11, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Sell ‘em some ex-lax. Maybe chronic diarrhea will stop the shaved apes from shagging themselves into bastardom.
LimeyGeek
Great line. Thanks for the laugh.
SKYFOX on July 11, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Moronic! Equating civil rights with being able to access a particular product in a particular store. Vomit inducing thinking.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I know you do, and I know you already picked yourself up and left home so you know of what you speak. I don’t know what’s coming. I don’t think it can stay “balanced” this particular way much longer.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Absolutely, the pharmacist has no legal grounds. Change jobs if you don’t want to follow the law.
End of story.
AnninCA on July 11, 2009
Equating resistance to the forced selling of abortion drugs to racism is typically low of you. You are pathetic in your predictability.
End of story.
SKYFOX on July 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM
But Muslims who refuse to transport seeing eye dogs or alcohol can refuse to serve those customers.
JustTruth101 on July 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Yes. it was, and it’s gone way off track. I just have a problem with becoming lawless in order to oppose it. Perhaps another revolution is on the way, although I doubt it. Register your protest, at the local level, by all means. But if your local reps don’t want to know, does it give you the right to ignore the law? The last thing i would like to see happen is that the good folks of Hot Air and elsewhere get tagged as dissidents – and ignored, or worse.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM
No, it was both.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM
That sort of thing bothers the heck out of me, too. All, or nothing.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Does it ever bother you that you and others on the left instinctively reach for “racism” as a comparison, just like some instinctively compare their opponents to Nazis?
Is there some form of discrimination going on here? I just see an objection on grounds of conscience. So what does “Jim Crow” have to do with objecting to being forced to help people abort their babies?
Unless the principle at stake is that unquestioning subjection to the government.
I seem to remember something about dissent being patriotic…
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Please tell me ur kidding. What could be more honorable than to be tagged as a dissident by a force one views as evil?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM
The last thing i would like to see happen is that the good folks of Hot Air and elsewhere get tagged as dissidents – and ignored, or worse.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I have the same exact fears, we are already beyond being tagged every derogatory way imagineable. A business that is privately held being dictated to by the courts opens another door into pandoras box. When is enough enough?
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Ann has a dog in fight people as the more abortions the less she feels guilty.
Ann—- you will see that higher courts will disagree with you. Your obsession with the topic has been confirmed.
Standing up against racism and standing up for the rights of those to not go against their conscience are two different things. Up is down and down is up to the Anns of the world.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Ann said earlier she grew up with Jim Crow in the South. I assume that means her people were the problem. that must be hard to live with, so maybe she right’s her own family’s wrongs. No matter. She says the playing field was tilted against minorities for long, and it deserves to be tilted against whites in recompense.
Ann’s not looking for equality or fairness. She’s happy to choose winners and losers. Screw the pharmacist. It’s how she makes a mends. Typical guilty white liberal.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Whether it be abortion guilt or racist guilt she has it all
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I think you are mightily confused about our country, which is understandable given your perspective and indoctrination. ‘The powers that be’, over here, have no authority to dictate otherwise. The fact that they behave as if they do is a measure of the immense violence they’re doing to our founding principles.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM
What is abortion guilt?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM
The deep-seated realization that they are sociopathic.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Hey, I just realized you and Old English share something (I’m slow on the uptake I guess.) Anyway, I think you have reached the core of the issue. The extent of gov’t (esp. federal) power is in question. It’s happenend in the past, and led to increasing gov’t power. This may be where that is finally objected to and halted.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM
http://www.peaceafterabortion.com/feelings.html
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM
What do you mean? That they support abortion, but inside know it’s murder? So why would they want to see it continued?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
NO, it’s not the tag, it’s the effect it will have on your relevance to ongoing discourse. To be sidelined is to lose any chance of being heard.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
For the longest time I thought he was an immigrant too.
It now seems clear that he’s located in blightey and has a veeeery warped understanding of American founding philosophy.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM
it only gets sillier
the obvious is so lost even on the supposed intelligent
this has brought us almost unbridled abortion rights, an out of control government (inc. under the Bushes), and now Obama.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Oh, I didn’t think u were talking about people who had abortions. I would have thought that that kind of abortion guilt would lead to NOT wanting to see it continued.
You were accusing Ann of abortion guilt. She supports abortion.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Not confused, merely seeing what is, in place of what should be.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Yes people never try to justify their wrong by living in denial as well as going even to the point of encouraging others to do the same act in an attempt to justify their own actions.
Sarc….. see my previous post
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Thomas Jefferson never said that, by the way.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Leaving the murder debate aside for now….rather that they realize it is homicide, that they are cognizant of their participation in the wilful destruction of human life.
They can bleat about ‘a clump of cells’ and ‘warts’ all they want….you cannot lie to you reflection. They know what they’ve done, and they know of the sociopathuic nature it betrays.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I’m hardheaded. Could never compromise on fundamentals. Has been my undoing in many jobs, etc. I can’t accomodate myself to what I think is wrong, and I turn subversive. I can no longer accomodate myself to American liberals. They win, or I do. I really don’t want to live together anymore. I’m a little surprised you don’t see that, as you made the trip to Australia for the same reason.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Dad to say you did not know of abortion guilt was at the very least dishonest or you are just being childish …which is it?
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Fine, understood. But how does that lead to promoting liberalism?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM
As CWforFreedom mentioned….the whole psychological groupthink required to promote en masse a vile act in order to diffuse their collective guilt.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I’m not making myself clear. I accused Ann of being a guilty white person, and therefore attracted to liberalism as a way to cleanse herself of guilt.
Someone then added that’s she has abortion guilt as well. I thought that was said to mean that “abortion guilt” also leads one to embrace liberalism. That’s what I didn’t understand. (Of course, I know what abortion guilt means in regard to the woman or couple that have had an abortion and come to regret it.)
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I do understand your founding philosophy, but that died some time ago. I speak of what is, not what should be.
Way off on the location – i escaped to Australia in ’72.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM
their “individual” guilt. but now I see what you mean.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Why is it that on most issues, disagreemment among conservatives can be discussed in civilized terms, but when it comes to abortion, any dissent from the most stringent pro-life orthodoxy attracts seething hatred?
Knowing full well what a sh**storm I’m in for, I will say two things:
A. It’s a states rights issue, like most issues…and most states, if Roe v Wade was overturned, will still permit abortion under a broad range of circumstances.
B. By continuing to bang the loud drum on what is essentially a lost issue, we continue to lose a crucial percentage of the independent vote – and thus, lose elections.
Now, this does not mean I agree with the 9th Circuit on this. I despise the over-reach of courts and politicians who, year after year, drive the huge trucks of statism through the tiny gap of the commerce clause.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Just never put that together. tks. YIKES!
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Hmmm
Abortion parties?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070911.html
T Shirts noting that they had an abortion?
http://www.womenonweb.org/listpublish-162-en.html
All this defensiveness is brought on by guilt
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM
If there is not guilt why the need to justify it in a society that largely supports abortion rights ? (While at the same time admitting it ends the life of a human)
Up is down
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Still a long way from here….in both the physical and abstract realms.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:30 PM
That is disgusting.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:31 PM
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM
It is the prospect that the Judiciary is acting legislatively in an immoral case in order to further erode private business rights, and make moral judgements that are immoral.
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM
yes it is
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM
See? Sociopathy is widespread.
I don’t want to live with those people either.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Oh, I do see it, and I’m very much like yourself in my stubbornness against things that i don’t like. Fortunately for me, Australia hasn’t gone completely round the bend on core issues (gun rights aside). It’s just that it would be great if the angst that you and others feel about your own situation could be annulled, somehow. As you say, there has to be a return to sanity, but I wouldn’t suggest it be achieved by breaking the law, but by abolishing it and replacing it with laws true to your founding.
As an aside, when the “rebels” broke away from the Crown, they didn’t break the law, they abolished it and replaced it with their own laws. They instituted a rule of law.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM
It is the prospect that the Judiciary is acting legislatively in an immoral case in order to further erode private business rights
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM
The “everybody does it” excuse.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:38 PM
FFS dude. Are you striving for a MA in Cluelessness?
D’ya think the ‘rebels’ were, perhaps, maybe, breaking the law regarding treason?
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Tks for the distinction. I won’t forget it.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Indeed. The logical inference being “therefore who are you to judge?”
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
The only problem with his distinction is that it is bollocks.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM
That is about as logical as:
Whether abortion is immoral or not lies within the conscience of the individual. A judiciary that bans drug use, rape, burglary could just as easily require drug use, rape, burglary.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM
That excuse is more than alive and well. Just look at the explosion of cheating in education.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Time to lighten things up. OT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_UxhPbMyy8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fenrevanche.blogspot.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I know OldEnglish can defend himself perfectly well, but i do think he’s saying that maintaining a system of laws, and encouraging law abiding by the citizens, is the ultimate goal. Our goal is to have the laws we want, not to undo the legitimacy of a system where the rule of law operates.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Indeed, but it allows me the opportunity to look in, rather than nearby. And, bear in mind that i frequent this blog to learn, and one of the best ways to learn is to put one’s point of view across and see how quickly it gets shot down. If everyone agreed with my points, I wouldn’t learn much.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM
I have a question for you then. If next week there was a readily available pill that would transform homosexuals to straight would you be in favor of the courts mandating pharmacys carrying it?
fourdeucer on July 11, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I usually listen very carefully to whatever you and OldEnglish say. I LOL because today you are on opposite sides(actually you’re only a few degrees out of phase, not 180) and I think I see what both are saying.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Did the new country hold those actions as treason? You broke from the old country – what they thought didn’t matter to you. You abolished their hold over you – that’s not the same as committing a crime within a system.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Sorry to get in on this late — wasn’t mowing the lawn, but I HAD to go to the beach. The 9th Circuit court is a joke and should be disbanded. Those “judges” wouldn’t recognize the U.S. Constitution if someone shoved it down their throats. If some stores want to sell the pill, fine. But if owners of an independently-owned (for now at least, until federal health care is imposed) store don’t want to sell it, that owner should not be made to carry it. It’s such a no-brainer, I can’t believe we have to even have this discussion.
CarolinaGirl6 on July 11, 2009 at 2:51 PM
You win the most bizarre, unfathomable post award for the day?
What the hell are you talking about?
I’m not in favor of courts doing ANYTHING other than upholding the Constituion.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Yeh rub it in
Btw I agree with your point emphatically.
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Actually, from a standpoint of pure logic, that is true.
But, then, logic is obviously not your strong point.
guntotinglibertarian on July 11, 2009 at 2:56 PM
It’s 5 AM, I’m out. Later.
OldEnglish on July 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Now you’re attempting to finesse your way out of your nonsense by analyzing law at the quantum level.
The colonies were, by Crown law, the property of the Crown. The very act of defying this was treason. They broke the law, and were considered in violation of it until such time as they won independence and established the legitimacy of a new nation formed under a new system of government.
They were traitors and would have been executed (as some were) for their crimes against the Crown.
Thank God for righteous lawbreakers.
LimeyGeek on July 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM
look up convoluted . you might see your picture.
nice rebuttal.
/sarc
CWforFreedom on July 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »