Supreme Court Rules Against Obama Admin: Religious Employees Can’t Sue For Job Discrimination
- Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:11pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying for the first time that churches — not courts — are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired. The Blaze originally covered this story in October.
But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes.
It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a so-called “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves religious employees of these institutions.
Chief Justice John Roberts
“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a unanimous opinion. “But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”
Douglass Laycock, who argued the case for a church school that fired a teacher for bringing about an employment discrimination lawsuit against it, called it a “huge win for religious liberty.”
“The court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders,” he said.
The court’s recognition of the ministerial exception likely ends any chance members of the clergy and church leaders have to sue churches and other religious organizations for job discrimination, experts say. The U.S. Census identified 429,000 Americans as members of the clergy in 2010.
“Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces,” said Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.
U.S. Supreme Court
But there need to be future court rulings to spell out exactly which other church employees fall under this ruling, like teachers and instructors at religious schools. Some teachers will and some teachers won’t, said Rick Garnett, associate dean and professor of law at Notre Dame Law School.
“There are going to be some employee relationships involving religious institutions that are not religious at all, and those are not going to be covered” by the court’s ruling, Garnett said. “But there are going to be some that are religious, even if they are not ordained clergy, and they are going to be covered. The way the court put it was that some employees are essentially involved in the religious mission of the institution and those employees are covered.”
Judges will still have to decide which religious employees get protection and which ones don’t, Garnett said, something that could bring the issue of who gets protection back to the Supreme Court.
In the current case before the court, justices denied government antidiscrimination protection to Cheryl Perich, who complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that her firing was discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., over her firing.
Perich was promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a “called” teacher in 2000 by a vote of the church’s congregation and was hired as a commissioned minister. She taught secular classes as well as a religious class four days a week. She also occasionally led chapel service.
Justice Clarence Thomas
She got sick in 2004, then tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The school said she couldn’t return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her and removed her from the church ministry after she showed up at the school and threatened to sue to get her job back.
Perich complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued the church for violations of the disabilities act.
A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on grounds that Perich fell under the ADA’s ministerial exception, which keeps the government from interfering with church affairs. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated her lawsuit, saying Perich’s “primary function was teaching secular subjects” so the ministerial exception didn’t apply.
The 6th circuit’s reasoning was wrong, Roberts said. He said that Perich had been ordained as a minister and the lower court put too much weight on the fact that regular teachers also performed the same religious duties as she did.
The circuit court also placed too much emphasis on the fact that Perich’s religious duties only took up 45 minutes of her workday, while secular duties consumed the rest, Roberts said.
“The issue before us … is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch,” he said.
National Review writes:
The opinion thus rejects the remarkably hostile contentions of the Obama administration that there is no general ministerial exception and that religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.
Justice Samuel Alito
But since this was the first time the high court has ever considered the “ministerial exception,” it would not set hard and fast rules on who can be considered a religious employee of a religious organization, Roberts said.
“We are reluctant … to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” he said. “It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.”
The court also refused to extend the ministerial exception to other types of lawsuits that religious employees might bring against their employers, like breach of contract lawsuits.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that in future cases, he thinks the lower courts should defer to the religious organization on who it thinks “qualifies as its minister” instead of letting a judge decide.
“A religious organization’s right to choose its ministers would be hollow … if secular courts could second-guess the organization’s sincere determination that a given employee is a `minister,’” Thomas said.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a separate opinion, argued that the exception should be tailored for only an employee “who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”
But “while a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the `ministerial exception,’ the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones,” Alito said.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 586 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (101)
pamela kay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:47pmTIRED OF CODE NAMES, Well said, I agree.
Report Post »GodsDotr
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:07pmSo why do churches hire religious workers to preach the gospel? Jesus didn’t. If you pay people to preach the gospel, then the issue of worthiness and desire to preach becomes secondary. That individual or preacher will put the paycheck first and the work second. It is human nature.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:17pmAmen Sister! I also missed the sermon about building giant mega churches and golden thrones and bejeweled crowns. What about the one where Jesus that said “thou shalt pay $75,000 and go to a University to learn about me and the Father, then thou shalt spread my word”?
Report Post »darasen
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:35pmSorry, did you miss that huge part of the old testament where the priesthood is created and God makes sure they are paid as well?
If the Temple of the Old Testament was not a “mega church” what is?
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:36pm@GodsDotr. Obviously you don’t understand the original concept of what a Pastor for a congregation was to be. The Pastor is simply an employee. He can be fired by the church council at any time for not following the congregational ideals. Mega churches make me wonder about just who is in charge. The minute the Pastor, Priest etc. decides he or she is in charge….that goes against everything taught by the Apostles and Paul. It comes down to Christianity lite. Better yet, Christianity feel good. Just don‘t tell me anything I don’t like to hear because I’m a good person. Law and Gospel gone. Just make me feel good. We can give them trophy’s for being there. Just like we do for everyone who plays t-ball now. You’re all winners and all get a trophy.
Report Post »The Blu Morpho
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:13amFirst. The lutheran church is a temple of FALSE DOCTRINE. They neither baptize correctly ( acts 2:38) NOR do they teach that the Holy Spirit is something that you MUST RECEIVE ( acts 2:4, acts 10:44-48, acts 19:1-6) NOR do they teach that YOU DO NOT BELONG TO JESUS WITHOUT IT. Romans 8:9.
Since JESUS said that the TWO AREAS that comprise the NEWBIRTH are WATER AND SPIRITUAL BAPTISM, this leaves the teachers of false doctrine in a lurch. John 3:1-8. This is a discussion about false or true doctrine so I don’t respond to “feelings” or “that wasn’t said in love”. Find a scripture. Secondly, WOMEN ARE FORBIDDEN FROM PREACHING and contrary to the false doctrine taught in SATAN’S church, this was not Pauls Opinon BUT was a COMMANDMENT FROM JESUS CHRIST.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-37.
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Report Post »As you can see the Apostle claimed that his was a COMMANDMENT. Break it at your own peril. Opinions are like buttholes, most have ‘em and they all stink. The WORD is TRUE.
marion
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 1:25amYou missed the point of the decision. A person can be fired for any reason, but they can’t use religious descrimination as a reason to sue the clergy or institution. I think that is right, the person with the job position should have the right to hire and fire a person to fill that position and not have some descrimination charge making them fear being sued and keep a bad person in any work position.
In the case in point, this woman was released because she couldn’t do the job. The American Disability Act does not mean a person has to keep a person on hire that cannot perform the job. Just like a painter with no arms would have to be able to prove he or she could paint without the use of hands, and if he or she could, and was a good painter, you couldn’t say no, I won’t hire you have no arms, In this case, how can a sick teacher teach anything if she has narcolepsy and dozes off during her 45 minutes four times a week? She is not capable of doing the job. Sorry, but she can‘t use religious descrimination because she wasn’t even released because of religion, it was because she was incapable.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 2:26amHere comes Eric Holder to the rescue of Obama’s friend the Rev (always) Wright.
Report Post »Amos37
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 5:58amdarasen: The ‘church’ has become a business.
7 Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you. 9 And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 8:03amDarasen the temple was and always will be man himself we are the temple. The whole crystal churches and jeweled crown thing as always been a thorn in my side with orginized religion.
Report Post »I they asked Christ if he would ratehr have a 100,000,000 dollar church or help the sick ,and hungry with that 100,000,000 dollars WE ALL KNOW WHAT CHRIST WOULD SAY.
Orginized Religion is a business first and foremost. Do god people need a house to gather a praise his name…yes. Does that house need to be crystal…no. I went to little wooden church in a rural area. It was built by donation and everything given to the church went to help others and maintain the build. even the minster worked a full time job to take care of his family as he wouldn’t take a dime for spreading the love of Christ……THOSE CHURCHES DON’T EXIST ANYMORE
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 8:48am@Marion
You are absolutely correct in your comments. The Americans with Disabilities Act is the issue not the beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 10:50amBarry Lynn, refuse to acknowledge any religious title to him, as he is a mockery to the title of Reverend. He is a left wing rebel rouser and head of the puke organization, Americans United for Church and State.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 10:51amoops, should be Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 1:10pm1 Tim Ch 6 V 5-10 answer the question about financial gain, by those preaching the word.
Report Post »I will be content with what our Lord says, That being said, the Gospel also tells us,as laity, to support our pastors and teachers, but they should not enrich themsleves.
I am unable,myself ,to find a local church where the social gospel isn’t being preached,and/or health and wealth as gospel. A sign of the end times for sure. The problem with Christianity,is Christendom.
Sola Sciptura!
Maranatha
drphil69
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 2:14pm@Godsdotr…
So then employees should be able to sue a Christian Church who fires them for not being Christian?
Basically, your logic leads to forcing churches to hire athiests, antithiests, and satan worshippers as ministers… would Jesus be ok with that?
Jesus also said “The poor will always be among us.”
Report Post »bigspike
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 4:48pmand your right to decide on church hires is derived from…?
Report Post »rx4nv
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 6:04pmNo Clergy should ever be paid! That is one way to differentiate a church of God from an apostate church. If it is done right, God is the one that appoints those to guide His gospel. Once you start to pay clergy, you get a politician (someone that will say what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear).
Report Post »SaraD
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 7:34amThey sure do. There are a some preachers that are atheists but continue to preach because their education is in divinity school, and they need the money.
Report Post »Redmanblackdog
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:17pmTurn Worm, Turn!
Report Post »JQCitizen
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:17pmThough I agree with the court’s decision; I don’t think we should expect them to unanimously agree with the average small Christian School that there are NO areas of “secular knowledge”, since, most
Christians schools argee with what the Scriptures say. “…The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and knowledge.”
ALL knowledge originates with the Creator, therefore there is no area of secular instruction.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:54pmAn excellent decision by the Supreme Court. And an enjoyable shocking unaminous vote to boot!
Report Post »db321
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:09amHang in there Conservative Judges – Soon the Republicans will have the majority in the WH, Senate and Congress – more conservative Judicial appointments on the way.
Report Post »floradaze
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:31pmDarn, there goes my lawsuit against the Mosque that fired me for Tebowing in the hallway.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:10pmNow that is a funny mental picture! Good Stuff.
Report Post »panick
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:29pmIf the firing or layoff is not about theology, then why are they in such a lather ? They get special tax treatment, and often generous housing allowances and now they find that they are basically “at-will” employees, too. Poor babies, they are now just like the rest of us in that regard. Guess they’ll just have to “exceed expectations” like those of us who’ve suceeded in the real world. Is tenure now an entitlement ? And what if a Catholic parish fires a muslim secretary for wearing an abaya or burqa ? Or an evangelical church lets an atheist go for spouting secular humanist drivel. Seems like they are still protected. What about the employees of a chruch or other religious-base organization who sign an agreement to “behave appropriately” then has an abortion. Where is that one going ??
We pay SCOTUS to do a job and they fall down very ungracefully
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:19pmSo does this mean Achmed can still sacrifice a live goat in the middle of foot locker ???
Report Post »Bgroovy2
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:33pmWhat do your not understand about “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion! You Libs should love this! This is seperation of chirch and state!
Report Post »Leopold
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 12:33am@BGR excellent point
Report Post »maccow
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:38pmDid Satan fall asleep at his job this week?
Report Post »First Satan allows Tebow to win and rack up exactly 316 (John 3:16) total passing yards, thus humiliating his servant Bill Maher. Then he lets this Supreme Court decision slip by unopposed effectively blocking a gay person from suing a church that mistakenly hired them for the churches youth ministry.
Bad week for Beelzebub.
Have you Blaze people been praying more or something? : )
maccow
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:43pmcorrection. “church’s
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:50pmI’m dissapointed in the news piece though. It states in the first few paragraphs. “But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes.” REALLY? Bolstering the CONSTITUTIONAL separation of church and state? There is no such thing. Glenn. You need to get your back healed and come up with some oversight.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:55pmUnanimous?
I thought the Court ruled on a case like this one several years ago. Unanimous, wow.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:16pm@teamarcheson….my issue was not with the ruling. I believe it’s correct. I just can’t understand the perpetuation of the myth that there is a a “constitutional” separation of church and state.
Report Post »maccow
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:42pm@Tired
Report Post »I too hate the damage that has been done to this country under the myth of the wall of separation. I just realized that 2012 will be the 50th anniversary of the 1962 ruling taking prayer out of school based on this lie. Never before has so blatant a lie been perpetrated and repeated ad-nauseum with such negative consequences. For those reading who wish to perpetrate the lie further save your breath.
Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:09pm@maccow….Thank you. I was beginning to become one of the only persons who actually knew that there is no separation of church and state….constitutionally. We live in trepid times. I’m a conservative Lutheran. I don’t begrudge Baptists, Episcoplians, Mormons….whoever. They can all worship they way they wish. I just would like for all of us to take our COMMON morals together and raise this country back to the country it was founded upon. And the progressives can try hard to say and especially in our schools…K-12 to College, that it was not on Christianity…..but, they will doom themselves, and everyone in our country if they get their way. I drink beer, love college football, am an avid baseball fan. I have vices. I don’t judge, nor should Christians be judged by the progressives. The only reason the progressives do is that it they must take moral, ethical ideas out of the mainstream in order to accomplish their new world order. Which will take us to a destruction similar to Rome.
Report Post »sb36695
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:25pmPlease let this be the beginning…
Report Post »Bgroovy2
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:59pmAmen Brother\Sister !
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:16pmToday I love our Supreme Court. but will I love them still after they do Obamacare.. Is there one entity within our government who will rise for the American people.. I guess it is a wait and see.. the anticipation is killing me! God help us!
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:55pmIt would be interesting to see Newt Gingrich in charge and play out his theory that the supreme court and their few is not above nor overseers or the last word on what is constitutional in the event the legislative branch and the executive branch choose to band together and decide otherwise. The supreme court was never, never, never envisioned as the final say. I don’t know which federalist papers made that point, but, if you care to read it, the point is there.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:15pmIt always bothered me that the 9 members of the supreme court have so much power to decide policy over millions of people…Obamacare was forced on us;against the will of the vast majority of americans..now 9 people get to decide policy on this…what about what we want
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:22pmVote for Gingrich. He has the correct idea that the court branch of the government was never designed to be the ultimate ruler. The legislative and executive branch CAN come together and as a 2/3 majority overule bad judgements that the 2/3 agree is unconstitutional. It’s a shame that so many people believe the Supreme Court is the “final” authority of what is constitutional. They also are required to abide by the check and balance concept of the constitution. If Newt does not get in there, I hope and pray that idea will gain traction amongst fair minded individuals who are tired of legislation from the liberal left benches.
Report Post »bigspike
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 4:51pmSOOOOOOOO sorry, but ‘we’ don‘t get to violate the 1st Amendment even if that is ’what we want’….
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:06pmI’m shocked, even the liberal justices voted the right way…..the fascist obama admin lost big time…
Report Post »Brimstone100
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:53pmIf you really want to find out how the Supreme Court lied and took religion out of our government then read this informed paper by constitutional expert Publius Huldah. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/
Report Post »TelepromoterNChief
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:51pmSounds like the chickens were unable to come home to roost.
Report Post »KangarooJack
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:40pmYo, duz this meam da buz driver won’t stop da buz and haul out iz prayer rug while being paid???
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:39pmNext up is the disastrous obama care which should be struck down 5-4,Kennedy being the swing vote.
Report Post »lel2007
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:37pmCourt’s decision makes perfect sense to me. Where did our liberal girl judges come down on this issue?
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:43pmOddly, it was a 9-0 vote.
Report Post »TRILO
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:32pmHard to believe that this was a unanimous decision.
Report Post »David, the Constitutional Libertarian
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:28pmBy the way Blaze, if you did not mention it, the decision of 9-0 against Obama’s position. Even his own appointees went against his position.
How bout THAT!
Oh, you have the quote with the unanimous in it, good work.
Report Post »Bernice Durdan-Rowland
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:26pmAbout time he got his “ears” pinned back – - he isn’t a complete dictator yet !
Report Post »Bill Rowland
Posted on January 12, 2012 at 5:43amHe doesn’t want to be a dictator he wants to be King.
OMG
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:25pmHOORAY! I love it when the poser and his possie lose at anything!
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:24pmI would have to agree with the court on this one.
Report Post »NOBAMA201258
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:51pmBROTHER-ED What about that case where the muslim woman sued a catholic church in Pa. ? She was awarded some kind of settlement,shouldn’t that case be reviewed in light of this ruling?
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:23pmPerhaps one of the only good things GW Bush did was appoint Roberts and Alito, securing a conservative court. Keep that in mind when you cast your Ron Paul or Gary Johnson protest votes, but at least you will have your principles, LOL!
Report Post »diablosho
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:38pmDude…that was a REALLY good point! I hadn’t considered that…the choice between Obama and Paul (assuming it actually comes down to them) just got a LOT harder!!!
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:40pmYou know that did give me pause about writing in the Doctor, but then I thought, “meh it doesn’t matter”. D‘s and R’s don’t mean a thing anymore. All candidates, except Ron Paul support the NDAA, Patriot Act, etc., do you think they‘d appoint a justice who’d repeal it? I‘m actually quite suprised the establishment GOP hasn’t flinched yet. I would have thought they would be kissing RP supporter’s butts by now. That is if they actually cared about conservatism. Oh well, as long as they get to kill Iranians (or have other people do it, that is).
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:42pmI just can’t vote for a progressive with an R next to his name or a Marxist,maybe I’ll have to sit it out.
Report Post »DetritusScreener
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:43pmRon Paul 2012
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:45pmWhy suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:04pm@Justangry – Oh blow it out your ear. I don’t give a d@mn about killing some d@mned Iranian when the Iranians have been killing (hundreds, if not thousands over the years) our people with your blessings, apparantly. They even cross borders to kidnap our people and sentence them to death.
You have a lot of nerve defending those savages.
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:25pmFROMVIRGINIA , you are hopeless and will NEVER wake up.
the reptilian response is too strong in this one Luke.
She is most Illogical Captain.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:26pm@From VA Get a grip. I wasn’t defending the Iranians, I was taking a pop shot at our war mongering politicians.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:35pm@From VA, Besides I’ll say what the hell I want. I’m mad as hell they sent me over there for THEIR stinking oil.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:54pmOOkspay is right on this one.
I don’t know how old most of you protest voters are, but i‘m assuming you’re fairly young.
Be careful, a very liberal SCOTUS will have lasting effects for the rest of your life.
Hate to see ya’ll with an extreme case of buyers remorse.
Won’t be pretty. Unless you want that kind of existence. (Emphasis on the word “existence”)
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:25pmif we are given a choice between Mitt and Hussan
then we have nothing to loose voting for RP because the only
difference between them is Mitt is white and has a birth certificate
both will bring us into a one world currency and govt. just as Lucifer has ordained.
Ron Paul 2012 vs Lucifer 2012 it’s your choice.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:40pmTo ANGRY PROGRESSIVE TRUTHER, All 3 of y’all. Yeah I would agree Ron Paul would probably make better choices to the SCOTUS than Romney. But I hate to be the bearer of the news “again”, Dr Paul has absolutely zero chance of winning the nomination. Unless they catch Mitt Romney in a hotel room with a dead women or a live boy!
It will come down to a choice between Mitt and Barry. Choose ONE! But choose wisely my principled friends. You have made your protest, so have I. Your dream house has been sold, pick another one or live in the street. Unite or die, when Barry’s SCOTUS really zaps your freedom.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:07pm@OOKSPAY, I hear ya man. I‘ve been thinking about it since I made a crack regarding how I’d like to see Napolitano take Ginsburg’s spot. I’m still struggling with it. Right now, I‘m thinking progressive Romney would appoint a progressive justice and there wouldn’t be any difference between his pick and Obama’s. I am keeping an open mind though. Your point is certainly valid.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:16pmWhen Your Choices are Newt Obama or Mitt Obama,it does not leave you much to choose from.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:58pmWhat’s so hard for me is I identify with the military their families. I’m assuming that, like I was in 90-94, today‘s sailors and troops are being told they’re fighting for freedom, yet the people putting them in harm’s way are destroying freedom with a reckless abandon here. Their sacrifice must have some meaning behind it. Granted we got a couple of decent judges out of the deal with GWB, I’m just not sure it was worth the waste and loss of life in Iraq. (Afghanistan needed its ass kicked, just not rebuilt.) I’m weighing the options… would another Kagan/Sotomayor type justice be worse than sending who knows how many of our boys to die in a preemptive attack on Iran for… I don’t even know what, but its certainly not freedom. (I’m guessing oil again)
It may not even matter. Seems the war drums are being beat pretty hard these days with Iran, almost as if it were inevitable that it’s going down before Election Day. In that case, it’s a no brainer, assuming we still have an election.
It would also be a lot easier if all those folks who road into Washington on the Tea Party express in 2010 didn’t hijack the movement and then slap us in the face as if we’re fools by crapping all over the 5th with the NDAA. I just don’t know how else to get it through their thick skulls that they work for us and their job is to protect freedom by working within the constraints of the constitution. Not simply rewriting it.
I just don’t know, Hoss.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:16pmI guess Obama is finding out that the whole “separation of church and state” can in fact, go both ways.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:24pmI imagine a new executive order will be coming out soon to overrule this matter of the SCOTUS.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:30pm@SNOWLEOPARD….yes, and it will be called the “have your cake and eat it too” law.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:37pm@SNOW
Yes … that is what DICTATORS DO … 2012 the end of an Error!
OMG .. Obama MUST GO!
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:44pm@ SNOW Or Barry could simply take a page out of Newt‘s book and arrest the justice’s.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:36pm@progressiveslayer. Whether you like Gingrich or not, his point is NOT to arrest judges…..rather to hold them accountable and to use the powers of the constitution to take two of the three EQUAL branches of the government to contest an out of control judge. It would be orderly and with process. Why are the judges not held accountable for their actions? Allowing the judges to be held unaccountable is a PROGRESSIVE idea. Seems to me you should be totally on board with that. I don‘t care if you don’t like Newt. The concept is constitutional and is something that should be debated in this country. If Newt gains nothing from this election other than to bring that into the forefront of many folks I know who can’t stand progressives, either “D” or “R”, he’s done a great service to our country…..again. Just like he did dragging Clinton kicking and screaming to balance the budget four years in a row……
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:14pmso when Christians can’t work without the mark of the beast
Report Post »now you know the law.
TelepromoterNChief
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:25pmDear Lord I do not want a tattoo of Michelle on my forehead.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:28pmHE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE and you sure like your Hitler pictures, weird huh?
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:42pmThat won’t happen until we are a one world order and there is only one true religion. I’m thinking islam at this point.
Report Post »Skippy Toes
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:43pmTattoos for everyone!
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:44pmbetter Hitler than Michelle Obama….
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:47pmwhy do soo many people care about the Pic and not the message ?
Report Post »TelepromoterNChief
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 7:53pmMy pic is more aweful than yours.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:11pmNot a tattoo – a chip. They’ll chip us.
Report Post »Skippy Toes
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:18pmooo I thought TelepromoterNChief said they DO want a tattoo.
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:21pmTELEPROMTER I agree your Pic is 10 times scarier than mine….
Report Post »I do like your style L O L
Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:23pmwhat’s the difference a chip, Tattoo, or Vaccine ?
Report Post »It’s hard to be sure what John meant.
Ookspay
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:08pmDidn’t Jesus say, “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows”?
Yes Jesus did say that, yet 70 years later John had a vision of the end times and tattoos/ marks? I will stick with Jesus on this one.
Jesus never said “after my death their will be a man who will write a story explaining the end of times and seven headed monsters to you”.
Report Post »