[Lnc-business] King v. Burwell v. Obergefell v. Hodges

[Scott L.]

Fellow LNC members:

 

As of right now, 9am Pacific Time on Tuesday, June 30, there have been 8
articles of one kind or another 

regarding the "verdict' in Obergefell v Hodges (the Gay Marriage case)
posted on the LP's Facebook page since that "verdict" was issued.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

 

However - it has been 5 days since the Supreme Court's "verdict" in the King
v. Burwell case was released, 

and there are still 0 articles regarding that "verdict" on the LP's Facebook
page.

 

Had the "verdict" in King v. Burwell gone the correct way, it is possible
that the Republican House and Senate would have done the right thing and let
ObamaCare disintegrate within the next few years by refusing to let the
Federal Government subsidize health insurance premiums.

 

I am surprised that our Facebook team has not posted at least one or two
articles that chastise the communist    progressive members of the US
Supreme Court for going even further than the Court went in Roe v. Wade in
actually looking outside the penumbra of the Constitution for guidance on
how to opine.

 

 

   Scott Lieberman

 

 

 

PS:  it is always interesting when a right-leaning libertarian like me
agrees with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and it is especially nice when the
source is the Huffington Post:

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade_n_32
61187.html

 

 

"CHICAGO - One of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be expected to give a rousing defense of
Roe v. Wade in reflecting on the landmark vote 40 years after it established
a nationwide right to abortion.

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law
School that while she supports a woman's right to choose, she feels the
ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion
opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been on
the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that
has placed more restrictions on abortion.

"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to
abortion a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students.
"... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that
was on the side of change."

The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it
was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women's rights. Rather, the Roe
opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy
and asserted that it extended to a woman's decision on whether to end a
pregnancy.

Four decades later, abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in
American life, and anti-abortion activists have pushed legislation at the
state level in an effort to scale back the 1973 decision.

Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that
struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court.
That law allowed abortions only to save a mother's life.

A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum
to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights,
she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument
that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision
by "unelected old men."

Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed "judicial restraint"
and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive,
aggressive decisions.

"The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that
change develop in the political process," she said.

A similar dynamic is playing out over gay marriage and the speculation over
how the Supreme Court might act on that issue."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150630/4f004c6c/attachment-0002.html>