Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

posted at 4:50 pm on March 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

He’s fine, of course, with private citizens being attacked by his own campaign if it helps squeeze extra cash out of liberal suckers obsessed with the “Kochtopus.” Granted, you can’t compare Fluke to the Kochs because they have endless resources at their disposal to fight back whereas she only has the Democratic establishment/major media eager to use her as a martyr for O’s “war on women” messaging in the fall, but what about, say, Joe the Plumber? Jonah Goldberg looks back:

You may recall that when Joe Wurzelbacher was approached by Barack Obama entirely accidentally, he became something of a political celebrity for having a philosophical disagreement with the president over spreading the wealth around and all that. Before long, the mainstream press went to battle stations to discredit the man. He didn’t even have a plumber’s license! (didn’t need one in Ohio). He had financial problems! He was a fraud! An astroturf plant! Blah blah blah. The Democrats, likewise, were unrestrained in their efforts to ridicule the man. Here’s Joe Biden ridiculing Wurzelbacher (and offering a tendentious argument about taxes)…

When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes — if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured, and treated to corrosive media skepticism.

On her Facebook page, Palin wonders re: Bill Maher, “Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone’s daughter, why doesn’t his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?” Well, we know why. I confess, after years of “teabagger” snickering, grotesque fingerpointing over the Tucson shooting, and most recently the high-fiving on Twitter over Breitbart’s death, it’s increasingly difficult to blog about these sporadic “civility” lectures. What’s left to say? They’re frauds. They care about “tone” precisely to the extent that it can be exploited to electoral advantage and no further. To write about it even to dump on them for it is to give them more credit than they deserve. Any questions?

Note the exchange at the very end here, too. If you can’t decipher all of it, John McCormack has a transcript. Turns out when O’s asked to critique right-wing rhetoric, he can muster a few thoughts, but when it comes time to weigh in on the “war on women” schtick being pushed by Debbie “New Tone” Wasserman-Schultz, suddenly he’s not in the business of arbitrating. Again, any questions?

Update: Commenters remind me that I forgot this golden moment of healing. At the rate we’re going, the DNC will end up turning that into an ad before the campaign is over.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

What Obama really means is ” I don’t like to see liberals insulted for speaking up”(lying)

CTpatriot on March 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I stopped listening to Limbaugh in 1989. However, with this humiliating take down by a college student in a fight he picked, I’ve been tempted to tune in just to hear him whine.

But why bother when I can just come here and read the desperate flailing and screeching of his ditto-addled acolytes?

The fact that Ms. Fluke wisely rejected Rushbo’s false apology is really the sweetest part of this whole thing. She figuratively put the boot in his groin for just for good measure!

The mighty Rush Limbaugh! From talk radio bully to low man on the scrotum pole in less than a week!

chumpThreads on March 7, 2012 at 8:11 AM

chumpThreads on March 7, 2012 at 8:11 AM

It’s odd that you concentrate on Limbaugh when Fluke has been shown to be not an innocent college student but a radical who lied with the aid of the democrats and the media.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Obama was motivated to phone Fluke out of concern for his own daughters.

That seems to have slipped his mind when Letterman went after then 14 year old Willow Palin, a lot closer in age to his own kids.

Brad Brzezinski on March 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I stopped listening to Limbaugh in 1989. However, with this humiliating take down by a college student in a fight he picked, I’ve been tempted to tune in just to hear him whine.

But why bother when I can just come here and read the desperate flailing and screeching of his ditto-addled acolytes?

The fact that Ms. Fluke wisely rejected Rushbo’s false apology is really the sweetest part of this whole thing. She figuratively put the boot in his groin for just for good measure!

The mighty Rush Limbaugh! From talk radio bully to low man on the scrotum pole in less than a week!

chumpThreads on March 7, 2012 at 8:11 AM

I can understand the entertainment value you are getting from this. I also find entertaining to see the rationalizations of HA political lemmings and ditto-heads. I also thought, Its a bit ironic that the mighty rushbo, once feared by most GOP politicos, ended up defeated out by someone as powerless and unknown as Fluke.
delicious story…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:30 AM

It’s odd that you concentrate on Limbaugh when Fluke has been shown to be not an innocent college student but a radical who lied with the aid of the democrats and the media.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 8:18 AM

can you lay off the propaganda mode for a while…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Yes, it’s so upset Rush that he retired to the solitude of his private jet to reflect before flying to Hawaii for a golf trip. He’ll just have to cope somehow.

jangle12 on March 7, 2012 at 8:36 AM

can you lay off the propaganda mode for a while…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:31 AM

MUHAHAHAHA!!!

So says some tard that’s devoted hours and hours of days and days trolling Rush threads. You’s funny, boy!

MNHawk on March 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM

MUHAHAHAHA!!!

So says some tard that’s devoted hours and hours of days and days trolling Rush threads. You’s funny, boy!

MNHawk on March 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM

the thing is, I was not trolling, indeed, I was shocked with the mindless support many posters gave rush. indeed, I think I was being trolled :(

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM

What’s left to say? They’re frauds. They care about “tone” precisely to the extent that it can be exploited to electoral advantage and no further.

I think it’s more primal than that. It’s tribalism. If you’re outside their tribe, they figure you deserve whatever you get.

Jim Treacher on March 7, 2012 at 9:09 AM

How ’bout when an Activist speaks up?

TimBuk3 on March 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Saw a note about Bill Maher coming to Rush’s defense. HBO is taking a real hit here folks. Talked with a friend at a Comcast Call Center and they have had a ton of calls of people dumping HBO, or at least trying to dump HBO.

It took me over 55 minutes yesterday to dump HBO from my cable package. I don’t agree with the politics of destruction however, it’s time some take a stand against the double standards and hypocrisy of the left and right.

This all started January 7th when Democratic operative and ABC “journalist” (that’s a true crock) asked the Repub candidates in a debate about contraception. The look on Romney’s face was perfect! Where did that question come from and why is it being asked? Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBC, Viacom/CBS, News Corp/Fox, CW/Time Warner, PBS/Government these folks are worried about their FCC licenses and the Billions their local stations provide to their bottom line. The FCC is now a radical organization headed by Obama’s lackeys. Obama can shut down Rush tomorrow, if he wanted. All he has to do is insist that Radio stations that air Rush, MUST air 3 hours of Ed Shultz to counter. I can guarantee you some local stations will not stoop to this unless they are FORCED to. That’s what Obama is all about, Force by Mandate, if you don’t like it too bad, now shut the hell up or there will be union goons outside your home protesting.

Government is NOT the solution, Government is the PROBLEM!!!!!!

Atlanta Media Guy on March 7, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I am tired of Barach Obama making blatantly hypocritical statements and the MSM parroting him, with a halo over his head, like they are his PAC. They should just file the papers properly, and let someone else broadcast the so called news.

Fleuries on March 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I’m a private citizen who spoke up by attending a Tea Party rally and was rewarded by the Won who called me and my 90yo mother a vile name. My phone is gathering dust in silence.

Kissmygrits on March 7, 2012 at 9:30 AM

can you lay off the propaganda mode for a while…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Nothing I said was inaccurate or exaggerated.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

Tell that to a certain plumber…

right2bright on March 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

can you lay off the propaganda mode for a while…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:31 AM

But just before you posted this:

I can understand the entertainment value you are getting from this. I also find entertaining to see the rationalizations of HA political lemmings and ditto-heads. I also thought, Its a bit ironic that the mighty rushbo, once feared by most GOP politicos, ended up defeated out by someone as powerless and unknown as Fluke.
delicious story…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:30 AM

It made me laugh at your “indignation”…just one minute apart…political lemmings and ditto-heads…you make that up yourself? HAHAHAHAHA!!! No propaganda in your posts….HAHAHAHA!!!

right2bright on March 7, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Nothing I said was inaccurate or exaggerated.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

sure, sure, by the way, some people ARE complaining to HBO, and maher is already *gasp*, defending rush!?!?!? rush blood in the water turned into deluge, and maher could not swim away in time. this is going to be fun!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM

sure, sure, by the way, some people ARE complaining to HBO, and maher is already *gasp*, defending rush!?!?!? rush blood in the water turned into deluge, and maher could not swim away in time. this is going to be fun!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM

What the hell are you rambling about?

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I can understand the entertainment value you are getting from this. I also find entertaining to see the rationalizations of HA political lemmings and ditto-heads. I also thought, Its a bit ironic that the mighty rushbo, once feared by most GOP politicos, ended up defeated out by someone as powerless and unknown as Fluke.
delicious story…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:30 AM

It made me laugh at your “indignation”…just one minute apart…political lemmings and ditto-heads…you make that up yourself? HAHAHAHAHA!!! No propaganda in your posts….HAHAHAHA!!!

right2bright on March 7, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Political Lemming® was my own creation, yes. created from the careful observation of hot air posters defending rush slut comments.

maybe someone used this term before, since, no doubt, in the story of politics, a mindless group of political followers did followed their mindless leader toward some “political” precipice.
I think however, not all rush admirers committed this suicide, to them, goes my admiration of knowing when to agree, and when not to agree!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM

What the hell are you rambling about?

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/06/maher-defends-limbaugh-twitter-he-apologized-liberals-looking-bad-not

So, why do you think he did this?

In the wake of the Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy, Maher’s coming under a lot of pressure from conservative groups for his vulgar attacks on women.

Despite his claim Friday that he’s different from Limbaugh because he doesn’t have any sponsors, he knows this is nonsense.

HBO makes money from subscriptions, and it’s far easier for such patrons to directly make their negative opinions known to a company than in a traditional boycott. You call up your cable provider and drop the channel. Simple.

As such, one gets the feeling there may have been a lot of that lately in response to advertisers dropping Rush.

Just as Limbaugh likely started getting pressure from stations and his advisers before his apology Saturday, you can bet Maher has been told by people inside HBO and business managers that he needs to put his finger in this dike before it explodes all over him.

Maher’s probably beginning to realize that if Limbaugh continues to lose sponsors and stations, he’ll come under even more pressure which could force HBO to dump him.

Take it from someone that watches Maher almost every time he’s on television – this man hates Rush Limbaugh. He’d only be defending him to prevent financial loss. Period!

And, if this tweet doesn’t stop the bleeding, there might be something more closely resembling a real mea culpa in the days to come.

Stay tuned.

there, what I have said to you from the beginning, stop whining, start acting…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

Is he finally going to apologize to Palin and Joe the Plumber?

Sir Napsalot on March 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Carbonite update:

After closing at $8.35 yesterday, down 8something percent, from Monday’s high (which was down 7-8something percent from Friday’s), with over 240,000 shares being traded, someone made a valiant effort in after-hours trading to push the price back up to $8.75, trading about 1400 shares.

Opening bell this morning and the price plunged immediately to $8.56. So all morning, stockholder(s) have been buying (volume 36,000 shares) to push the price up again. It just hit the day’s high of $8.75, and now it’s plunging again. It’s pretty obviously not even going to make it halfway back to Monday’s high, which was dismally low.

Looks a lot like a handful of investors (Carbonite executives?) are trying to keep this stock from hitting a new 52 week low today, which it did yesterday. A few more days of record lows and, by the time Rush’s program is airing a new wave of advertisers, you can buy Carbonite for pennies.

So take that, Rush!

de rigueur on March 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

She might be a private citizen, but she is also a political activist who is at Georgetown with a specific agenda in mind. This little fact is always omitted from the left.

lea on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Politics in general IS DIRTY BUSINESS…..

All these calls to boycott Rush’s sponsor’s… ARE companies that employ people… people with families, that pay for housing, buy cars, groceries and other products. Hope no one in YOUR families work for any of them.

Yeah… boy you sure got Rush guys…woo-hoo. Freaking fools.

What Rush said was inappropriate and the backlash against him pretty much from all sides. That said…. There was nothing about what Ms. Fluke said that was not open for public ridicule either… in her “NON”-testimony testimony before a activist friendly arena with absolutely “ZERO” counter testimony…Ms. Fluke if in fact she is wishing to be in the public eye, and by being an attorney it would be public record in public arena’s and venues had better grow a thicker skin and fast!

She does not speak for all woman.. She does not even speak for most woman. This is not the 1800′s, and she and her sisters of contraception want more money from me they are going to hear me loud and clear speak up about it too.

ActinUpinTexas on March 7, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Teabagger!

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Ah yes, Obowma’s NEW and improved civility:

http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

as he wants to set a good example as he did with the DC policemen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5181436-503544.html

dthorny on March 7, 2012 at 11:34 AM

When any dictionary is revised it should have a photo of B Hussein Obama along with the word
H Y P O C R I T E. This is the only remembrance I can stand about this unworthy man.

democratsarefools on March 7, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Pot….Kettle….

Susanboo on March 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Atlanta Media Guy on March 7, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Excellent post, MG

DevilsPrinciple on March 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM

27… and counting.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

But wait! It gets better!
Limbaugh’s response to the mass exodus of advertisers is essentially: Let ‘em go! I’ll get more. The message to new advertisers being, you’re expendable; I can toss you away like a used tissue.

This just keeps getting better and better!

chumpThreads on March 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Are you guys complete dingbats or something?

Do you have any idea how many sponsors Limbaugh has?

Do you realise that he has signed 3 big, new sponsors in the wake of this and one of the bailers already wants back?

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Political Lemming® was my own creation, yes. created from the careful observation of hot air posters defending rush slut comments.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM

You and Biff must have stolen the keys to the DeLorean then because that term has been around for YEARS.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:20 PM

nathor, I wanted to bring your attention to this so that we could put Smith to bed once and for all — at least, as it applies to the Federal government.

From Justice Scalia’s opinion in Smith:

If the “compelling interest” test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if “compelling interest” really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society’s diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because “we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference,” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. at 606, and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind — ranging from [p889] compulsory military service, see, e.g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), to the payment of taxes, see, e.g., United States v. Lee, supra; to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, see, e.g., Funkhouser v. State, 763 P.2d 695 (Okla.Crim.App.1988), compulsory vaccination laws, see, e.g., Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816 (1964), drug laws, see, e.g., Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 279 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989), and traffic laws, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, see Susan and Tony Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), child labor laws, see Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), animal cruelty laws, see, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F.Supp. 1467 (S.D.Fla.1989), cf. State v. Massey, 229 N.C. 734, 51 S.E.2d 179, appeal dism’d, 336 U.S. 942 (1949), environmental protection laws, see United States v. Little, 638 F.Supp. 337 (Mont.1986), and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races, see, e.g., Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603-604 (1983). The First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty does not require this.

Values that are protected against government interference through enshrinement in the Bill of Rights are not thereby banished from the political process. Just as a society that believes in the negative protection accorded to the press by the First Amendment is likely to enact laws that affirmatively foster the dissemination of the printed word, so also a society that believes in the negative protection accorded to religious belief can be expected to be solicitous of that value in its legislation as well.

As I have told you repeatedly, in the wake of Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

In 1993, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), Justice Antonin Scalia, himself, joined the majority (7) in overturning the very same animal cruelty law to which he referred in Smith, i.e., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F.Supp. 1467 (S.D.Fla.1989).

What changed?

You’ve got it! The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was upheld, as to the Federal government in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The only reason that the Court ruled it unconstitutional as to the states was because of a Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, enforcement issue…not a First Amendment issue, not a “privacy rights” issue, not even a Tenth Amendment issue.

So, Justice Scalia’s words in Smith might be pretty and you might agree with them, but they no longer apply nor would he agree that they are applicable today.

Joan Walsh really needs to learn how to Shepardise caselaw.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I am sure he meant when he spoke out against the police officer arresting his friend.

PapaG on March 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM

One question we need to be asking is:

“Has Ms. Fluke stayed yet in the Lincoln bedroom and who did she bring along? Were they there for breakfast?”

ProfShadow on March 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM

As I have told you repeatedly, in the wake of Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

In 1993, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), Justice Antonin Scalia, himself, joined the majority (7) in overturning the very same animal cruelty law to which he referred in Smith, i.e., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F.Supp. 1467 (S.D.Fla.1989).

What changed?

You’ve got it! The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was upheld, as to the Federal government in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The only reason that the Court ruled it unconstitutional as to the states was because of a Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, enforcement issue…not a First Amendment issue, not a “privacy rights” issue, not even a Tenth Amendment issue.

So, Justice Scalia’s words in Smith might be pretty and you might agree with them, but they no longer apply nor would he agree that they are applicable today.

Joan Walsh really needs to learn how to Shepardise caselaw.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I confess, I am lost. it is such a yarn. the end point seems to be now to have a “compelling interest” to deem a law constitutional\unconstitutional or something?!?
what I am trying to say is, considering what you know of law, can you give me a short rule book of when a law that forces secular law into religious practice be considered constitutional\unconstitutional.

examples:
constitutional\legal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
prohibition of polygamy
forcing religions members to pay taxes that might be used in wars

unconstitutional\illegal per Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
forcing contraception insurance into church owned non religious businesses.
forcing santeria users to follow animal slaughter laws.

without snark, I am very confused.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

27… and counting.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

But wait! It gets better!
Limbaugh’s response to the mass exodus of advertisers is essentially: Let ‘em go! I’ll get more. The message to new advertisers being, you’re expendable; I can toss you away like a used tissue.

This just keeps getting better and better!

chumpThreads on March 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Are you guys complete dingbats or something?

Do you have any idea how many sponsors Limbaugh has?

Do you realise that he has signed 3 big, new sponsors in the wake of this and one of the bailers already wants back?

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Without commenting on the apparently invincible dingbattery to which RWM alludes, it needs to be pointed out that Rush isn’t the one sending a message to future, current, or former corporate advertisers. It’s their own stockholders.

And the message is: shareholders don’t have a lot of confidence in corporate executives who are easily stampeded by non-stockholding leftist propagandists. The shareholders are dumping the stocks of a good chunk of The Magnificent 27 mentioned above, presumably to cut their losses or enjoy their less-than-hoped-for profits, or to reinvest in companies run by executives with brains.

Take a last look at Carbonite, the 1y (one year) performance graph. If that trend line (which began immediately after the IPO) continues– which, I know, I know, is not how you predict stock performance, but– but if that trend line continues, Carbonite has about 2 months to go before its stock is worth… zero, or about the collective IQ of its board of directors.

de rigueur on March 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You and Biff must have stolen the keys to the DeLorean then because that term has been around for YEARS.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:20 PM

maybe, never heard it…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I confess, I am lost. it is such a yarn. the end point seems to be now to have a “compelling interest” to deem a law constitutional\unconstitutional or something?!?

It is the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review. Go back and read the post that I wrote about the 3 things that the administration would have to prove and how Tsarina Sebelius has already admitted that the contraception mandate would not have more than a nominal impact on the access of contraception.

“what I am trying to say is, considering what you know of law, can you give me a short rule book of when a law that forces secular law into religious practice be considered constitutional\unconstitutional.”

There’s not a “rule book.” Each law that would burden a First Amendment right must survive strict scrutiny.

1. There must be a compelling state interest.
2. The law or regulation must be in furtherance of said interest.
3. The law or regulation will have more than a marginal impact in furthering said impact. A law or regulation that will increase access to contraception by 1-2% does does not have a marginal impact…just as the California ban on the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision was struck down because it would only marginally affect children while unduly burdening the protected speech of the entertainment companies. See: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

constitutional\legal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
prohibition of polygamy

Polygamy is a crime and US v. Reynolds upheld the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1886 (? I think. I didn’t look it up). The government can prohibit certain behaviour — even if religious in nature — if it survives strict scrutiny. As I have said, no religion would be allowed to have human sacrifices, child rape, child brides, etc. Reynolds prohibited an activity. It did not mandate a behaviour.

Moreover, with regard to polygamy, I think that the basis for banning the practise is going to get very murky in the future considering the SSM. I fully expect Justice Kennedy to join with the 4 liberals to overturn SSM bans. Once the definition of marriage is changed from one man + one woman to two people, what is to stop it from being changed again? I think that triads and other such couples have a strong Equal Protection argument and an old friend of mine, who is a Con Law Prof that you’ve probably seen on tv is actually involved in a case challenging polygamy laws on those grounds.

forcing religions members to pay taxes that might be used in wars

No, taxes are different because they are fungible. There is no conscientious objector status for a taxpayer. If there were, I would find it.

forcing contraception insurance into church owned non religious businesses.

I think the argument would be stronger for you in this case. Such businesses are not 501(c)(3)s and do pay taxes. The Supreme Court has upheld their taxable status. I think we should probably draw the line at the 501(c)(3) mark. If an organisation is religious under the rules of the IRS, then it should be under the HHS.

forcing santeria users to follow animal slaughter laws.

That’s already been decided. You can’t. As long as the Santeria are slaughtering their chickens in a religious ritual, no law can ban same. PETA be damned.

without snark, I am very confused.

I know. I’m trying to help you understand.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

ok,

thank you very much! :)

lets see:

There’s not a “rule book.” Each law that would burden a First Amendment right must survive strict scrutiny.

1. There must be a compelling state interest.
2. The law or regulation must be in furtherance of said interest.
3. The law or regulation will have more than a marginal impact in furthering said impact. A law or regulation that will increase access to contraception by 1-2% does does not have a marginal impact…just as the California ban on the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision was struck down because it would only marginally affect children while unduly burdening the protected speech of the entertainment companies. See: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

1) “compelling state interest” is quite subjective… for example, is contraception in health care insurance mandates an “compelling state interest”? I have no idea…
2)”furtherance of said interest”, I guess so, this one is covered.

you said on point 3:

3. The law or regulation will have more than a marginal impact in furthering said impact. A law or regulation that will increase access to contraception by 1-2% does does not have a marginal impact…

what does this mean, that if a small church objected, because they have a small impact, they would be granted exception, while the catholic church cannot be granted exception, due their huge number of employees?

forcing contraception insurance into church owned non religious businesses.

I think the argument would be stronger for you in this case. Such businesses are not 501(c)(3)s and do pay taxes. The Supreme Court has upheld their taxable status. I think we should probably draw the line at the 501(c)(3) mark. If an organisation is religious under the rules of the IRS, then it should be under the HHS.

yep! I agree!
so what is, in your opinion, the verdict? will the catholic church have a chance in challenging the government contraception mandate in health insurance for their taxable businesses?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 3:33 PM

1) “compelling state interest” is quite subjective… for example, is contraception in health care insurance mandates an “compelling state interest”? I have no idea…

I’ll give you that the government has a compelling state interest to mandate contraception cover, but that is simply not enough.

It is subjective, but it is a court that decides, not a government apparatchik or a religious institution.

2)”furtherance of said interest”, I guess so, this one is covered.

Yes, it would be covered.

you said on point 3:

3. The law or regulation will have more than a marginal impact in furthering said impact. A law or regulation that will increase access to contraception by 1-2% does does not have a marginal impact…

what does this mean, that if a small church objected, because they have a small impact, they would be granted exception, while the catholic church cannot be granted exception, due their huge number of employees?

No, it means that this mandate would have a slight impact on increasing access to contraception, as Tsarina Sebelius admitted.

so what is, in your opinion, the verdict? will the catholic church have a chance in challenging the government contraception mandate in health insurance for their taxable businesses?

Taxable businesses? No. Georgetown is a 501(c)(3) educational institution. Catholic hospitals are 501(c)(3)s. They are non-profits. They do not pay Federal income taxes.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Taxable businesses? No. Georgetown is a 501(c)(3) educational institution. Catholic hospitals are 501(c)(3)s. They are non-profits. They do not pay Federal income taxes.

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I going to recommend you as HA top law scholar :)

ok, but they are not considered a religious exception on taxes, just an non-profit tax exempt hospital, yes?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I going to recommend you as HA top law scholar :)

hehehe

ok, but they are not considered a religious exception on taxes, just an non-profit tax exempt hospital, yes?

No, there is a religious exception on taxes, too.

“The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

I think the 501(c)(3) line would be easy to draw. If it is good enough for one area of the Federal government….

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Maybe our resident liberals can explain to me the consistency in high ranking democrats and the media going on and on for years about those teabaggers but get their panties in a twist when someone is called a slut?

gwelf on March 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I think the 501(c)(3) line would be easy to draw. If it is good enough for one area of the Federal government….

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

but my question is, when you file the 501c3, do you state the type of exception, say, its religious or education?
could it matter legally?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Hey ‘chumpThreads’ – at least you got the first part of your name right. Rush discussed this issue on his show today so sorry to burst your bubble but he has sponsors lined up, waiting to advertise on his show. And there are 3 who actually cancelled – and 2 of them are begging to come back. In other words, chump, Rush is stronger than ever.

Samantha on March 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Resist We Much on March 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Nice analysis. You get an “A”.

alwaysfiredup on March 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

but my question is, when you file the 501c3, do you state the type of exception, say, its religious or education?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Yes. You have to be very explicit. Applying to be a 501(c)(3) is a terrific PITA.

alwaysfiredup on March 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

And how exactly will his phone call stop it?

“Warning: if you insult someone who speaks out, the insulted person may be getting a call from me.”

Rather obviously, it’s a ploy to gin up enthusiasm among women. “Aw, Obama, he really cares about us, protecting us from mean Republican men.”

Jingo95 on March 8, 2012 at 3:54 AM

Let me be clear, you bitter clingers are all behaving stupidly.

FineasFinn on March 8, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

Did you call Carrie Prejean, who has the same position on SSM that you do?

Resist We Much on March 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4