Schumer says Dems will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

[georgephillip]

So, basically, because you don't want them too.

There is no such law.

I suppose that depends on the RFRA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

"RFRA was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores and other related RFR issues, twenty individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.[3]"

 

[Colorforms]

I suppose that depends on the RFRA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

"RFRA was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores and other related RFR issues, twenty individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.[3]"

You still haven't presented anything. In fact, considering that corporations are considered people and there is no law limiting their rights to free speech and religion, making such a limited ruling could be construed as liberal.

 

[georgephillip]

My question was your assertion that a company (and partnership) holds rights that are exclusive to a corporation. At least, that's what I thought you wrote.

I was trying to point out how limited liability related to corporations but not to the other forms of businesses. Now I'm wondering if that was even relevant to the discussion?

 

[Days]

I was trying to point out how limited liability related to corporations but not to the other forms of businesses. Now I'm wondering if that was even relevant to the discussion?

heh, it wasn't. Limited liability protects stock owners personal finances from being accountable for the financial failure of the corporation. I think you were trying to invert it into a kind of relationship between the personal freedoms of stock holders and those of the corporation... it is not really the case, a corporation, although considered an entity, the same as a person is an entity, is a legal entity... for purposes of legal and financial consideration by a court of law... so while the Supreme Court might feel that entitles corporations to the right to donate to political candidates, it still falls short of guaranteeing constitutional rights to freedom of worship... what justoffal was saying is, corporations are run by people who defend those rights and exercise them at work, so they come up in the course of business, whether by corporation, company, or street vendor, they come up.

 

[justoffal]

Whitehouse is likely at least as compromised as Gorsuch by corporate money, but that doesn't justify putting the latter on SCOTUS, does it?

http://progressive.org/dispatches/zephyr-teachout-on-gorsuch/

"One of the most remarkable moments during Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearings came when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, questioned Gorsuch about the role of money in politics.

"Noting that 'dark money' groups had spent around $7 million to defeat Merrick Garland, President Obama’s ill-fated nominee, and have now spent $10 million to support Gorsuch, Whitehouse asked what ideological bent had endeared him to this group of secret donors. After all, Gorsuch insisted that as a justice he would remain independent from outside pressure.

“'I’m trying to figure out what they see in you that makes that $17 million delta worth their spending,' Whitehouse said. 'Do you have any answer to that?'

“'You’d have to ask them,' Gorsuch replied, tersely.

“'I can’t, because I don’t know who they are,' Whitehouse shot back. 'It’s just a front group."”

Do we really need another corporate shill in federal government?

You will not find one that is not tainted and one way or another.
Elizabeth Warren is also a closet corporatist with a large vocabulary of hypocritical condemnations.

 

[georgephillip]

You will not find one that is not tainted and one way or another.
Elizabeth Warren is also a closet corporatist with a large vocabulary of hypocritical condemnations.

I agree Warren's another Demo who thought she could break the glass ceiling with a corporate bi*ch who married well; however, Warren is not appointed to a lifetime position as Gorsuch is. imho, corporations have seen their political leverage rise steadily over the past forty years, and Gorsuch will do little or nothing to curtail that unfortunate trend.

 

[Days]

I agree Warren's another Demo who thought she could break the glass ceiling with a corporate bi*ch who married well; however, Warren is not appointed to a lifetime position as Gorsuch is. imho, corporations have seen their political leverage rise steadily over the past forty years, and Gorsuch will do little or nothing to curtail that unfortunate trend.

the challenge for America in 2017 is to get her corporations to look after the home fires; all our corporations were seduced by overseas investments; our lower middle class is starving; we lost all our lower middle class jobs... all of them.

 

[georgephillip]

the challenge for America in 2017 is to get her corporations to look after the home fires; all our corporations were seduced by overseas investments; our lower middle class is starving; we lost all our lower middle class jobs... all of them.

Is it reasonable to expect the manufacturing jobs to return? For-profit corporations will go where they can pay the least for labor, and that moral certainty certainly has destroyed much of the US working middle class. I have more confidence in a Green New Deal (run through the Pentagon) when it comes to putting millions of un/underemployed Americans back to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

 

[Days]

Is it reasonable to expect the manufacturing jobs to return? For-profit corporations will go where they can pay the least for labor, and that moral certainty certainly has destroyed much of the US working middle class. I have more confidence in a Green New Deal (run through the Pentagon) when it comes to putting millions of un/underemployed Americans back to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

I preached for ten years that those jobs will not return. It's as simple as this, the same corporations that invested over seas are not about to compete with themselves building the same industries in America. Trump can do a little damage control on plants that haven't left yet, but the future is all about getting the big corporations to build their future plans here in America. And now that they have built a starving class of labor in America, every bit as poor as the labor they are utilizing over seas, we should have a decent chance at capturing some of the future investment... that is, if Trump is successful at cutting the red tape that scares away investment.

This is also a good reason to get behind Sanders vision of socialized medicine; it lowers another big cost of doing business in America. I am so sick of hearing this bull shit about how we will lose the best doctors... the rich will always have those and the rest of us never had 'em.

 

[Dawg]

when boy Θ nominated Garland it was of the upmost importance that we have 9 justices and today dem/libs put off vote for 1 week...........good thing Harry gave them the NUCLEAR OPTION ☻

 

[Dawg]

I preached for ten years that those jobs will not return. It's as simple as this, the same corporations that invested over seas are not about to compete with themselves building the same industries in America. Trump can do a little damage control on plants that haven't left yet, but the future is all about getting the big corporations to build their future plans here in America. And now that they have built a starving class of labor in America, every bit as poor as the labor they are utilizing over seas, we should have a decent chance at capturing some of the future investment... that is, if Trump is successful at cutting the red tape that scares away investment.

This is also a good reason to get behind Sanders vision of socialized medicine; it lowers another big cost of doing business in America. I am so sick of hearing this bull shit about how we will lose the best doctors... the rich will always have those and the rest of us never had 'em.

Days I've talked with some folks and the cost of shipping is what's bringing them back............

 

[Days]

Days I've talked with some folks and the cost of shipping is what's bringing them back............

I really believe we will see a decent return of business, I'm not as sure that it will produce enough jobs to replace all the jobs that left.

 

[georgephillip]

In fact, considering that corporations are considered people and there is no law limiting their rights to free speech and religion, making such a limited ruling could be construed as liberal.

"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

Corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as natural citizens, while they have the right to own property and enter into contracts, they don't have the same rights to free speech and religious practice as natural citizens.

 

[marvin martian]

Even to be plausible we'd need a government of workers and farmers first.

Which one was Hillary Clinton?

 

[Colorforms]

"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

Corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as natural citizens, while they have the right to own property and enter into contracts, they don't have the same rights to free speech and religious practice as natural citizens.

And as soon as you show me the law that prohibits corporations from freedom of speech and religion, I'll believe you.

 

[Dawg]

Which one was Hillary Clinton?

pig in pant suits is ETR farmer of BS

 

[EatTheRich]

So we need another socialist like Hitler telling us how to run our lives.

Hitler was a "socialist" in the same sense that Fox News is "fair and balanced." His use of a "socialist" slogan no more discredits socialism than Fox's slogan discredits fairness and balance.

 

[EatTheRich]

Techincally, since Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded and is family owned, it is not a corporation. It is a company owned solely by a single family. Gorsuch's ruling was for the family that owned that company. One that I whole-heartedly support.

It the owner of a company can't steer the direction of that company, then that owner loses their religious freedom.

That has nothing to do with the question at issue, namely, whether employers should be able to make religious decisions on behalf of their employees.

 

[EatTheRich]

Which one was Hillary Clinton?

Clinton is a former corporate lawyer and career politician who is among the political representatives of the bourgeoisie.

 

[Colorforms]

That has nothing to do with the question at issue, namely, whether employers should be able to make religious decisions on behalf of their employees.

No one made a decision on behalf of anyone. Hobby Lobby offered a package. If the employees didn't like the package they can go to a place with a better package. Hobby Lobby isn't telling their employees they can't practice their religion, Hobby Lobby's owners were fighting to be able to practice theirs.