Hobby Lobby opponents: Supreme Court probably legalized xenophobia, racism

posted at 2:01 pm on June 30, 2014 by Noah Rothman

The left has been… animated in their objections to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case which declared the mandate in the Affordable Care Act which forced employers to provide employees with abortifacients drugs over their religious objections to be a violation of the law.

In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.

One of the more creative arguments in this direction was submitted by NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. On Monday, she suggested that the Court has created a legal pathway for employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and even national origin.

Totenberg summarized Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote a concurring opinion in favor of the decision to strike down the mandate: “Don’t worry,” she said. “As long as I’m here, the floodgates won’t open and it won’t be hundreds and hundreds, and thousands and thousands of companies saying ‘Why me?’”

She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”

Federal Equal Opportunity Employment laws are clear that discrimination based on those guidelines is already prohibited. Furthermore, given that the decision was intentionally narrowly tailored to apply only to emergency contraceptives, as opposed to, say, vaccines, it seems unlikely that Totenberg’s nightmare scenario could materialize.

For his part, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said on CNN on Monday that this decision the “flip side” to Citizens United; one extended speech rights to corporations, and this ruling extends religious freedom to some corporations. He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations. It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today.


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

Hobby Lobby opponents: Supreme Court probably legalized xenophobia, racism

The left is just wanting me to feel giddy with glee about today’s ruling. =)

Stoic Patriot on June 30, 2014 at 2:04 PM

In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.

Discrimination is now, and always has been, legal. To discriminate is to be able to tell differences between two things or people. If you can tell that an adult is not a child, you’re discriminating. If you can determine that someone is a woman and not a man, you’re discriminating. If you think The Wolverine had better acting than X-Men: The Last Stand, you’re discriminating.

The only question is whether that discrimination is rational, and if irrational, whether it leads to unjust treatment. And that is something where liberals today have completely lost their minds in being able to formulate rational and coherent judgments.

Stoic Patriot on June 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM

probably legalized xenophobia, racism

When did those things become “illegal”?

vlad martel on June 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”

I missed the details of Nina’s comments, what religions did she list that insist that you are a certain color to belong, or insist on you being a certain ethnic to belong to that “church”…and what corporations do they control?

Nina, at least complete your thought…if it was any kind of actual intelligent thought…

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

“On Monday,”

Hello? Today is Monday.

Dusty on June 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

The fearmongering, the gnashing of teeth, the slippery slope fallacies, the projection, the angst, the vapid ‘arguments’…

..it’s all so…

…entertaining.

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Hey Libs, Be careful what you wish for.

rjoco1 on June 30, 2014 at 2:10 PM

In a just world, being fired for plagiarism would exclude you from obtaining another job in the world of media, Nina.

negentropy on June 30, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Well.

If we had an opposition party, this kind of nonsense would be easy to deal with.

Because we have no opposition party (the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC), this nonsense will go mostly unrefuted.

but, by all means conservatives, keep voting GOP every election.

Monkeytoe on June 30, 2014 at 2:11 PM

He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

Heh.

butch on June 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

There is no middle ground or logic with these retards. Case in point:

Maybe people are starting to put two and two together re your intense concern about the implementation of Sharia Law, and American religious leaders desire to make Christianity a condition of employment. Admit it, you know you want it. And you’re closer to it. So celebrate. You won.

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Of course it’s silly of me to pick on a known retard, but he makes it so tempting. I suppose the above is true if it is also true the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Commies.

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

NotCoach on June 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

The only question is whether that discrimination is rational, and if irrational, whether it leads to unjust treatment. And that is something where liberals today have completely lost their minds in being able to formulate rational and coherent judgments.

Stoic Patriot on June 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Exactly, I use the scenario of you having a baby sitter for your 8 year old daughter, and who shows up?
A tattooed, 30 year old guy with a six pack, blood shot eyes,unshaven, smoking…and you will leave your daughter with him? Without talking to him?

Maybe he can convince a liberal to babysit…

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Leftists squealing like stuck pigs–then again, they are pigs.

Nice lead-in to the July 4th weekend.

MisterElephant on June 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

There going to put us all back in chayyuunnnsss, that’s what’s going to happen.

Bishop on June 30, 2014 at 2:13 PM

He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

Good.

p0s3r on June 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Dear God – I need a Nina Totenberg image blocker! Yikes!

22044 on June 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM

this is awesome: sandra fluke tweeted her disagreement with the hobby lobby decision and if you read the tweets in response to hers, almost all of the tweets are calling her out on her dishonesty and stupidity. keep scrolling down and reading! lots of people are smart enough to not fall for the left’s bs spin on this hobby lobby decision.

Sachiko on June 30, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Seeing Nina and other cretins melt down is really the cherry on the sundae. Keep ‘em coming.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on June 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Wow, I see Totenberg still stops Clocks, Trains, Trucks,
and Buses with her face…

ToddPA on June 30, 2014 at 2:17 PM

For his part, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said on CNN on Monday that this decision the “flip side” to Citizens United; one extended speech rights to corporations, and this ruling extends religious freedom to some corporations. He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

Turley might be a lefty, but he’s demonstrating that he’s an intellectually honest lefty.

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 2:17 PM

And they said Todd Akin was the only nut in politics.

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 2:17 PM

She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”

To hear the left tell it, the only ones doing this are the dinosaur conservatives, who are all old and white, and will die soon. Why are they worried about this sort of thing if [social] conservatism is on its way out, and progressivism is our inevitable future? How on earth could we ever have a court that would ever rule against the homosexuals if America has so completely embraced them and their deviancy?

avgjo on June 30, 2014 at 2:18 PM

It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations.

What both have in common is that they pertain to conscience protections.

We can’t rely on government to make our decisions for us all the time. We especially can’t rely on corrupt government to do so. Our Founding Fathers realized that doing so would lead to the scope of tyranny they had experienced. So they attempted to write measures into our form of government that leave moral and ethical decisions made by individuals up to the individual, based on the conscience of that person.

They were correct in doing it, too.

lineholder on June 30, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Unhinged conspiracy kooks.

forest on June 30, 2014 at 2:18 PM

She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”

Or cases involving CEOs who believe in traditional marriage. You know… that thing that pretty much all Liberals said it was Mozilla’s right to do. That is the world that Liberals want!

LancerDL on June 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Can’t imagine what Nina will say about Sharia, other than “Diversity Is Good”.

Another Drew on June 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

BOMBSHELL:

“Right now I’m feeling like they can all go f**k themselves,” Hillary said, referring to the media.

“I know the country needs us, but they aren’t acting like they deserve us. Just f**k ‘me.

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Wow! These stupid women are really sore losers.

It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations. It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today.

This is a mischaracterization of the AZ case. It wasn’t like the business owners were refusing to provide a service to a customer because they were gay. They were refusing to provide a service for a “rite” their beliefs tell them is moral. I’m sick of this issue being framed as if that baker or photographer acted like Christ turning out the money lenders from the Temple upon finding out somebody was gay.

It is a nuance that is important but not likely to be paid attention to so long as the Hobby Lobby hysteria continues.

Happy Nomad on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

The decision referred to the Dictionary Act, which I didn’t even know existed. The Dictionary Act states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

[...] the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

That seems pretty straight-forward and makes me wonder what all the fuss has been about since the Citizens United decision came out. A corporation has been “person” since at least 1947.

HakerA on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Nina, at least complete your thought…if it was any kind of actual intelligent thought…

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Actual intelligent thought is nowhere to be found in the mind of Nina and her ilk.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

I won’t bother on the Leftists Losing Their Minds Thread BUT …

I real time cross fed from SCOTUSblog to the HA Open Thread

Relevant related statements MADE BY ALITO during his presentation of the majority opinion are below:

(Everthing ELSE is horseshite)

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Justice Kennedy write to respond, in part, to Ginsburg’s characterization of the majority opinion, saying that it “does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent.”

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 10:24 AM

.
Nina Totenberg USED TO BE a journalist …

…now she’s just another Obama media whore.

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Been gone a few days. Who is this Noah Rothman guy, and what has he done with Erika?

NOMOBO on June 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Read my comments on the other posts. I’m hoping for a series of “unfortunate” accidents to happen to Hobby Lobby stores and the Greens.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Leftist violence on display, unless they win.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Because clearly it wasn’t constitutional scholar and law professor President Barack Hussein Obama and the (D) majority’s fault for exclusively writing and implementing the law that way.

rogerb on June 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

BOMBSHELL:

“Right now I’m feeling like they can all go f**k themselves,” Hillary said, referring to the media.

“I know the country needs us, but they aren’t acting like they deserve us. Just f**k ‘me.

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

You’ve convinced me. If that isn’t lucid and insightful presidential material right there, I don’t know what is.

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Dear God – I need a Nina Totenberg image blocker! Yikes!

22044 on June 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Is that old fossil still around? I thought everyone had tired of her well-worn rhetoric. Stand down Nina. Go home and breath your CO2 into your roses and do something positive to help mankind for a change!! Sorry, personkind to you!!

Deano1952 on June 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Nina Totenberg USED TO BE a journalist …

…now she’s just another Obama media whore.

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Never forget that Nina Totenberg conned Anita Hill to try to railroad Clarence Thomas.

Yet another former ABC shill doing the DNC’s work.

viking01 on June 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Poor ugly scumhag Nina

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

But the left will discriminate against, via the job, people who believe in the sanctity of marriage between a Man and a Woman!

FLUCKING ILLIBERAL HYPOCRITES

Scrumpy on June 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

I’m betting that all liberals will quit their Hobby Lobby jobs.

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Can’t imagine what Nina will say about Sharia, other than “Diversity Is Good”.

Another Drew on June 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Well she is the one that openly wished that Jesse Helms grandkids would get infected by HIV-AIDS.

Happy Nomad on June 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

So let me try to understand… NOT forcing your will on people will lead to um…. Forcing your will on to people…..

lol….. Ohhhhh Kay then….. Got it

KMC1 on June 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

It’s just not clear.”

Yeah, I suppose so….if you’re that FREAKING STUPID!

GarandFan on June 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Nina Totenberg–the woman who got a leak from a Democratic Senator’s office that Anita Hill had signed an affidavit accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Nina not only spread the word, she then subsequently lied publicly, claiming that she uncovered the affidavit through (as she told People magazine) “tireless digging.”

I still have the People Magazine (Oct. 28, 1991) where she made these lies. Nina got the Hill affidavit leak because Dems knew she was willing to do anything to protect Roe. In one of the photos, she’s getting gussed up like she’s a movie starlet. Good ole Nina Totenberg: an abortion crazy who’s always been willing to lie and smear people for the larger cause. Still at it, I see.

will77jeff on June 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Been gone a few days. Who is this Noah Rothman guy, and what has he done with Erika?

NOMOBO on June 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM

erika made her goodbye post recently http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/27/thats-all-folks/ and noah is a new hotair blogger.

Sachiko on June 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Leftist violence on display, unless they win.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Even when they win, they can display extreme and overly uninhibited celebratory enthusiasm.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Federal Equal Opportunity Employment laws are clear that discrimination based on those guidelines is already prohibited.

And are also unconsitutional in the strictest interpretation. So the liberals have some cause for concern. But, again, “liberals” aren’t really so – they insist that anything they dislike or find immoral or dangerous should be prohibited by government at the national level.

Unless it involves sex, of course. Then immorality reigns.

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 2:26 PM

My God, this woman is just stupid.

READ. THE. LAW.

RFRA says the government must show that the policy being challenged is the least restrictive way to achieve its policy goal. This has already been litigated with regards to the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in other areas. Anti-discrimination laws are extremely difficult, if not impossible to challenge under RFRA.

So sick of the liberal “parade of horribles” we always get after these close Supreme Court decisions.

rockmom on June 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM

The Facebook postings from my more liberal friends are hysterical.

So much stammering DERP and whining about ‘we should be concerned’ or something.

Good Lt on June 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM

It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations. It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today.

They are different legally and in this decision but they are similar in that they both involve the state telling people what to do with their own property.

I wish this was leading to the elimination of anti-discrimination laws but it isn’t.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM

But the left will discriminate against, via the job, people who believe in the sanctity of marriage between a Man and a Woman!

FLUCKING ILLIBERAL HYPOCRITES

Scrumpy on June 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

This is exactly my thoughts. Even though this case did not promote discrimination against anyone, it’s the left who arrogate the right to discriminate against the unpopular without legal consequence. It’s pure hypocrisy.

LancerDL on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

OT

CBS News ✔ @CBSNews

Coming Up: President Obama will make a statement on immigration reform at around 2:50 pm

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Oaf to speak, because he’s overtaken by SC news and can’t stand it.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Dear God – I need a Nina Totenberg image blocker! Yikes!

22044 on June 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I’m betting 3:35PM!!

Deano1952 on June 30, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Dear God – I need a Nina Totenberg image blocker! Yikes!

22044 on June 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Yeah, there should be a regulation against forcing anyone to look at her mug.

TarheelBen on June 30, 2014 at 2:31 PM

In one of the photos, she’s getting gussed up like she’s a movie starlet.

will77jeff on June 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Why did I suddenly go blind for a moment after reading that sentence?

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

noah is a new hotair Progressive blogger.

Sachiko on June 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

FIFY

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

OT

CBS News ✔ @CBSNews

Coming Up: President Obama will make a statement on immigration reform at around 2:50 pm

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

I’m betting 3:35PM!! That’s more like it!! Sorry.

Deano1952 on June 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Obama wants Congress to act and fund deportation of all these unaccompanied kids. That way, it’s all on them.

If Congress doesn’t act, then they all stay.

This is enforcing Immigration Laws – The Obama Way.

TarheelBen on June 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Oaf to speak, because he’s overtaken by SC news and can’t stand it.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:31 PM

The VP, Biden will attend…

Here is one who won’t attend:

The corpse of an 11-year-old–an unaccompanied migrant from Guatemala–was discovered on June 15 in La Joya, Texas.

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Nina Totenberg USED TO BE a journalist …

…now she’s just another Obama media whore.

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Never forget that Nina Totenberg conned Anita Hill to try to railroad Clarence Thomas.

Yet another former ABC shill doing the DNC’s work.

viking01 on June 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Unfortunately, a substantial majority of so called journalists have decided to deep six their integrity and journalistic ethics in order to become open advocates and propagandists for progressive-fascism.

Totenberg has been intellectually and ethically bankrupt for decades.

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Deano1952 on June 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

You may be right. Afterall, he now has to figure out how to tell us that he still has his pen/phone and he needs to make some statements about how today’s SCOTUS rulings don’t apply to his power. esh

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Breaking: Dear Leader to announce this afternoon that he will be breaking the law again……

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”

A future court could have done that anyway, nitwit.

xblade on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Idiots. Seriously

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You’re right there mofo. For me it brings up the chicken/egg question, do prog women turn to politics because they have nothing else, or does prog politics turn women ugly?

slickwillie2001 on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Coming Up: President Obama will make a statement on immigration reform at around 2:50 pm

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Yeah, he’s going to ask Congress for $2B to bail him out of the refugee crisis he created by announcing that he won’t deport illegal children. I want Congress to tell him no. Plan B ship all these disease-carrying illegals to sanctuary cities like San Francisco.

Happy Nomad on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

A protester held up a sign that read, “keep your rosaries off our ovaries”.

Will do buck-a-roo.

gip on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

I haven’t been checking in. My gosh, these leftists are hysterical. They have really gone off the rails. I like it.

crankyoldlady on June 30, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Coming Up: President Obama will make a statement on immigration reform at around 2:50 pm

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Hola, my new amigos.

Bishop on June 30, 2014 at 2:40 PM

. He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

I have to admit to being confused by this seeming conflict.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Bishop on June 30, 2014 at 2:40 PM

lol

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Wonderful. D1carter
/

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 2:44 PM

A protester held up a sign that read, “keep your rosaries off our ovaries”.

Will do buck-a-roo.

gip on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Oh! I think somebody should hold up “keep your ovaries away from my rosaries” sign.

Frankly, I love the leftist hysteria this afternoon- as if the SCOTUS ruled against Roe v. Wade or something.

Happy Nomad on June 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Read my comments on the other posts. I’m hoping for a series of “unfortunate” accidents to happen to Hobby Lobby stores and the Greens.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Saying something like this should get someone banned.

crankyoldlady on June 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Dear leaders straw men hate Latino kids …..the gop needs to give me 2billion dollars just cuz

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

For kicks

What the bigger corporations will do – the board of directors/CEO of a ‘regular’ corporation, to the other owners/shareholders “You are all adopted! Welcome to the family”

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Yeah, there should be a regulation against forcing anyone to look at her mug.

TarheelBen on June 30, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Oh, I dunno, she doesn’t look half bad for a 70 year old doing her best to look 50. She probably would get hit on from some residents of a nursing home given a chance. Anyway, I’d rather look at Nina than Shrillery, a 66 year old looking more and more like an 86 year old.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 2:50 PM

I have never understood that whole baker must make a cake for gays thing. That is still the most insane thing ever. That ruling would have been different if a white person went into a black bakers and ordered a KKK cake that depicts a lynching on it. But now that black baker is forced to make that cake.

The Notorious G.O.P on June 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Let the screeching begin continue. Although it applies only to private, closely held companies, it will be spun as part of the “Republican War on Women” to deprive them of free birth control, because that is their definition of oppression.

Women in parts of the world dominated by muslims may have somewhat different definitions.

*****

Meanwhile, that yellow coward AllahPundit hasn’t posted in three days, why won’t he come out like a man and take his lumps for all his hand-wringing, hair-pulling, and garment-rending posts that “Boehner is going to screw us on amnesty!”?

Probably hiding behind Hillary’s pantsuit leg . . .

Adjoran on June 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

crankyoldlady on June 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

I think he would have to have the male genitalia to threaten to do something himself rather than cry like a baby on a blog.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Coming Up: President Obama will make a statement on immigration reform at around 2:50 pm

CoffeeLover on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Hola, my new amigos.

Bishop on June 30, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Not to worry, Obumbles will take real good care of all these poor chirren, and 100s of thousands more.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Hope they all foam at the mouth and get put down for being rabid.Best news out of DC in a long time.

redware on June 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Obama needs $2 B for diapers

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Next thing you know, people will begin demanding their individual freedoms be honored by the Federal government.

Liberals will no doubt fight hard to prevent that from happening.

s1im on June 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Wow, these leftists sure come unglued quite easily….talk about hysteria. What’s next, blaming Climate Change for the SCOTUS decision making?

Cherokee on June 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

I wish she were right.

Private businesses ought to be able to discriminate as they please. Based off of anything they like.

Baggi on June 30, 2014 at 2:58 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

That’s no broad. That’s Jack Klugman in drag.

NOMOBO on June 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Saying something like this should get someone banned.

crankyoldlady on June 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM


Given
that my first instinct is “We take off and nuke’em from space. It’s the only way to be sure.”

… my view may seem too direct for some, but has anyone sent an email with a link to the editors?

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Hahahahahaha

Nina Totenberg

What a buffoon. I see she got rid of that helmet she used to wear.

darwin on June 30, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Screw these left wing, slobbering dirtbags. When a decision goes against them it’s the work of a pagan devil but when it goes their way it’s a revelation from an omnipotent deity. They need to steel their fragile little egos for more solid blows.

rplat on June 30, 2014 at 3:08 PM

What’s next, blaming Climate Change for the SCOTUS decision making?

Cherokee on June 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

I would say give it a few more hours. There’s bound to be a climate fanatic somewhere thinking that.

darwin on June 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Actually xenophobia and racism are not illegal, nor have they ever been as far as I know.

claudius on June 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM

now that they have won HL needs to drop all company insurance for a few months then close their doors.
to hell with the takers.
people need to feel the pain of voting themselves stuff underwritten by others.

dmacleo on June 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM

It speaks.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a statement:

It is no surprise that Republicans have sided against women on this issue as they have consistently opposed a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. Republicans have also blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would bring us closer to the promise of equal pay for women. In the wake of this dangerous precedent set by the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress will continue to fight on the issues of importance to women and their families.

BobMbx on June 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Breaking: Stompy foot is stomping his foot…his rant is hilarious.

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Actually xenophobia and racism are not illegal, nor have they ever been as far as I know.

claudius on June 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Unless you own an NBA franchise.

BobMbx on June 30, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Actually xenophobia and racism are not illegal, nor have they ever been as far as I know.

claudius on June 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM

You’re right. Ask any white liberal that lives in a protected, gated community.

Also ask them why they treat everyone according to their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and religion.

darwin on June 30, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Sheriff Joe looks serious…..as the rant goes on.

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3