I don't care much about the "Hobby Lobby" decision because the impacts are small in comparison:
The decision covers about 20% of the US population. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014...
Birth control, assuming half the population uses it at a cost of $400 year (Planned Parenthood) comes to roughly $200 per capita, so having coverage reduced per Hobby Lobby costs about (20% x $200 =)
$40 per capita each year.
The Bush tax cuts cost the US about $800 per capita per year ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cu... )
The Iraq War costs the US about $1000 per year per capita (Wikipedia).
Doing nothing about global warming costs the US populace on the order of $2000 per year (Stern Review 4% of GDP).
1. Are you concerned about global warming? No
2. Was the Hobby Lobby decision right? Yes
3. Was expanding that decision the following day right? Yes
4. Will that expansion have a significant effect on women's health care? No
5. If there is a change in women's health care, is that good or bad? N/A
6. Is the decision to allow some government employees to opt out of the unions that represent them good or bad? Good
7. Will that decision be expanded to cover more union employees? Why join a union that will screw You?
8. Would it be good or bad if that decision is expanded to cover all government employees? No public employees union.
9. How's your day? Good ;)
1) Yes, anyone that isn't concerned about the planet warming because of what we humans have done is simply not intelligent to understand the issue.
2) No, I dont think the religious views of a company owner should be allowed to impact their employees.
3) No, changing the ruling after the fact is sort of illegal. Shouldn't this have gone back before the entire SC if they wanted to make changes?
4) Probably not, but its way to early to say for sure at this point.
5) Depends on the change.
6) Good, unions had their place in history, but modern workers don't need unions because the EPA already protects them from the majority of the environmental problems that were partially to blame for the creation of unions in the first place.
7) Yes, it should be.
8) Public employees should not be allowed to for unions!
9) Pretty good.
1. Yes, global warming is a concern.
2. The Hobby Lobby decision is horrible. I believe vehemently in the separation of church and state, and the decision blurs that distinction. The justices pretended to make a very narrow decision, but it won't turn out that way. This leaves open the door to corporations (and other "persons") not paying taxes for any reason they can dream up. I'm sure it's against Zippi62's religion to pay for climate research, it will be against someone else's religion to pay for schools, another person's religion may make them not pay taxes for defense. Ridiculous. And those that say it's just about abortion are incorrect--Hobby Lobby objected to IUDs also.
3. and 4. Not sure what you mean by that, but anything that expands a horrible decision can't be good.
5. I don't believe this will significantly affect women's health care, there will be ways around it.
6, 7 and 8. I've never been a big fan of labor unions, and especially forced participation in them. On the other hand, there seems to be less and less of a counterbalance to income disparity in the U.S. The system needs to be fixed. Look at this plot
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl...
I don't know what the answer is, but clearly there is a problem.
There are four justices and sometimes more that don't seem to care about the Constitution. It isn't like Hobby Lobby was denying anyone birth control. They just didn't like abortion including the morning after pill. They couldn't stop them from taking it. They just didn't want to pay for it
we just cancelled a meeting so Yeahhh, it is a great day.
It is obscene that there are government unions. It was warned against by Democrats and that shows how far standards have fallen. I hadn't heard much about it but I know there was a mother that was receiving benefits (nothing at all to do with unions and they could not benefit her) but they wanted her to pay some money. They extort money like mobsters. Government unions are nothing but a democrat money laundering scheme. Money is confiscated from taxpayers, given to the unions, who pass it back into the pockets of Democrats in hundreds of millions of dollars. It isn't a conspiracy. It is just the sad corrupt facts.
I am somewhat concerned about AGW but not as much as some others. I'm probably a lukewarmer (which is "denier" to some of the more fanatical about this issue) but I certainly support "no regrets" policies regarding energy (e.g. nuclear).
My stance on birth control is firmly pro-choice. I'm not too sure on the details of the Hobby Lobby case but it sounds bad if workers are treated differently based on religious beliefs. I am non-religious and while I have no problem with people practicing the religion they choose but I start to have a problem when they practice it on me.
As for unions, I belong to a government one and I pay a lot in union dues. I doubt I get my money's worth. The bureaucracy of the union is large and it concerns me that most of my money goes to supporting that instead of me and my coworkers. I realize the utility of unions but, like government, I wish them to be as small and efficient as possible; just big enough to get the job done.
1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. Good
7. Unknown...it should be.
8. Good
9. Good
Leaving anything for Government to decide is the same as to why we fought to get away from tyranny in the first place. You're a scientific dolt, if you think any Governmental scientific entity isn't tainted by "individual" politics.
Businesses are considered separate entities and carry their own SS# for one simple reason. They are based on a business idea and not individualism. Carrying out that "idea" in a business manner doesn't depend on the individuals who work for the business idea. They are only there by their own choice to "help" carry out the business idea. The business idea is "not" based on whether a woman has a right to her own contraceptive methods. That's her choice. Forcing it on businesses is what the ACA is trying to do. Simple Socialistic ideology. which is why it will ultimately fail or have to simply rely on inadequate Government subsidies to function the way it was originally intended. The cost of Socialism is already known to crush Socialistic economies. This has been tried too often and has "always" failed.
Health Care is an individual's prerogative.
Hey Dook - $2000 per year? LOL! Climate Science expects people to pay for the research? Natural Disasters are what they are and are beyond our control. You can't prove that they aren't part of nature already. If you do blame humans for tornados, floods, droughts, or hurricanes, then you better connect your dots better. Past weather records are showing a more active destruction path that is well behind us. The inflated dollar amount that you present is just another way for "environmental climate clowns" to bolster their fear-mongering campaign.
1. Yes.
2. From what I know of it, no.
3. Not quite sure what that was, but probably no.
4. Likely.
5. This kind of change would be bad.
6. No strong opinion. Probably *slightly* good, but I can see reason for caution.
7. Quite possibly.
8. As per 6.
9. OK so far.
you have extremely made a farce of all the above . look in your dictionary for the meaning of a mendacious menagerie and you will see the error in your question
For example, the Hobby Lobby decision. Was it a good or a bad decision? What about widening that decision. the following day, to include all forms of birth control? What about Alito's summary statement that the decision was only to apply to specific forms of birth control, and then, the next day, turning around and saying that it applied to all forms of birth control? What about the union ruling? "the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that certain government-funded employees cannot be required to pay fees to the public sector unions that represent them". Do you think that decision will be expanded to all public sector unions? Should it?
1. Are you concerned about global warming? Yes or no?
2. Was the Hobby Lobby decision right? Yes or no?
3. Was expanding that decision the following day right? Yes or no?
4. Will that expansion have a significant effect on women's health care? Yes or no?
5. If there is a change in women's health care, is that good or bad? Good or bad?
6. Is the decision to allow some government employees to opt out of the unions that represent them good or bad? Good or bad?
7. Will that decision be expanded to cover more union employees? Yes or no?
8. Would it be good or bad if that decision is expanded to cover all government employees? Good of bad?
9. How's your day? Good or bad? ;)
