Nuns and their supporters rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on March 23, 2016, as the court hears arguments to allow birth control in health care plans in the Zubik vs. Burwell case. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

White House expands birth control exemptions for employers with religious objections

WASHINGTON (RNS) — The Trump administration has issued new rules it says will “provide conscience protections for Americans who have a religious or moral objection to health insurance that covers contraception methods.”

The final rules follow interim regulations issued a little more than a year ago by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury that aimed to protect Americans with such objections from paying for health insurance that provided birth control. The departments claim a “small fraction” of the nation’s 165 million women will be affected.

The rules counter the efforts by the Obama administration to provide access to free contraception through a provision of the Affordable Care Act. Those efforts were opposed by many critics of the previous administration who now provide a base of support for the current one.

“The first of today’s final rules provides an exemption from the contraceptive coverage mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs,” HHS said in a news release issued Wednesday (Nov. 7).

“The second final rule provides protections to nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have non-religious moral convictions opposing services covered by the mandate.”

On the National Day of Prayer in May 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that said the government would address “conscience-based objections” to the health care mandate. The order, which drew mixed reviews, called for the departments issuing the rules to consider taking the actions they took Wednesday.

The mother provincial of Little Sisters of the Poor, one of the religious groups that opposed the mandate, welcomed the administration’s new regulations.

“Today, we are so grateful that the federal government has provided a way for us to continue to serve the elderly poor and stay true to our Catholic faith,” Mother Loraine Marie Maguire said in a reaction tweeted by Becket, the law firm that has defended her order in court.

“We pray that lawsuits by the state governments that attempt to prevent this will soon be over and that we can finally serve the elderly poor in peace.”

The administration noted that the new rules do not provide exemptions for governmental agencies or for publicly traded businesses.

The announcement, issued the day after the midterm elections, noted that government programs that provide subsidized or free contraceptive coverage to poor women, such as through community health centers, are not included in the exemptions.

But the exemptions do apply to several other groups that may object to the contraception mandate.

“The religious and moral exemptions provided by these rules also apply to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals,” HHS said.

The new rules do not prohibit employers from covering contraceptives, HHS said.

The departments making the announcement estimated that the exemptions will affect “no more than approximately 200 employers with religious or moral objections.” A fact sheet estimates that the exemptions may affect about 6,400 women and “in no case will they impact more than 127,000 women, which the Departments suggest is far more than will actually be impacted.”

The announcement said tens of millions of people are already exempted from the contraception mandate because it does not apply to plans insured through grandfathered coverage that existed prior to the law.

The rules will take effect 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the administration’s actions enable employers, including universities, to deny religious freedom as well as access to contraception coverage.

“This administration is weaponizing ‘religious freedom’ to justify hurting the millions of women who depend on contraception for their health and equality,” said Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. “Bosses shouldn’t get to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, nor should universities on their students.”

Comments

  1. We had and election about this kind of stuff in 2016 and another one yesterday. About half of white women in this country are in favor of this piece of Trumpism and all pieces of Trumpism. Whether that will ever change materially is an open question. Obviously not yet.

  2. In fact what you call “Trumpism” is completely within the law.

    There is NO law that requires contraception as part of healthcare.

  3. there is also NO good reason for employers to interfere with the health care that their employees choose as their benefits . employer’s beliefs don’t trump employee’s beliefs–not since the end of slavery .

  4. But, of course, there should be—–which is the point. The days of wearing down women as broodmares like the 18th century nursery rhyme (see below) need to be OVER:

    “There was an old woman who lived in a shoe.
    She had so many children, she didn’t know what to do”

    For me, this is not an abstraction. My wife’s mother, whom I loved dearly, was near the last of 12 children (spanning a 20-year period) born in 1925 to her parents, her father a Holiness preacher. Her mother died soon thereafter. Childhood, running through the Great Depression, was a mess and a nightmare. They needed birth control which they neither had nor believed in. The consequences were far from Holy. They were abhorrent.

  5. The sentence “The days of wearing down women as broodmares like the 18th century nursery rhyme (see below) need to be OVER:” indicates propaganda, disconnection from reality, ideological fantasies, rather than serious consideration and a good logical connection to reality as it exists.

  6. Great, now we can have more children to help destroy the environment. More taxes will be needed for welfare, infrastructure and housing for the unwanted kids.

  7. If you really cared about the environment, you’d seriously consider terminating your own existence, wouldn’t you?

  8. The employees in the plans in question do not choose their benefits.

    These are plans which are mandated by legislation, typically purchased by the EMPLOYER who does the chosing. Employee-chosen plans, typically large plans of large unions, were EXEMPTED from the requirements of the legislation by the previous Adminstration.

    Nor did Obamacare include contraception as a mandated benefit. That inclusion was the result of rules ginned up under Kathleen Sebelius while Secretary of HHS.

    Of course the previous Administration’s attempt to dispense with the fact that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 protected employers from being compelled to pay for and implement provisions contrary to their religious beliefs ran into trouble in the courts:

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

    In a parallel case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor and a number of other Christian organizations, the Supreme Court compelled the previous Administration’s Justice Department to supplement their briefs, at which point the lawyers sheepishly admitted that they really didn’t need the organizations to provide contraception, and the Supreme Court sent them packing back to lower courts.

    So, this change does NOT interfere with the health care that employees choose nor does it place anyone’s beliefs over their own.

  9. Bum answer. I gave you a real-life true example of the problem. It was my mother-in-law’s REALITY. The propaganda is on your side.

  10. It’s 2018, not 1925, and the Supreme Court was not responsible in 1925 and won’t be responsible in 2018.

    Sloganeering and the application of logic to facts are two entirely different processes.

  11. Only a complete m0r0n opposes access to birth control. Which is why people only choose to do so as religious dogma. It is so beyond anything reasonable and rational that you need divine excuses for such nonsense.

    Even more repulsive is the very notion of one’s employer micromanaging the healthcare choices of workers based on their own faith.

  12. Only a complete m0r0n would think killing one’s offspring in the womb is “healthcare”.

  13. Cute, but irrelevant. We are talking about contraception. What prevents pregnancy. Not what one does during pregnancy.

    But your remark is rather stupid anyway. Because you are talking about a procedure done by doctors in a clinical setting.

    I guess you prefer back alleys and wirehangers.

    We get it already. You do not consider women people. To you they are property for you to command.

    My opinion of your position concerning contraception remains and is actually greatly supported by your remark. There is no reasonable, sane or intelligent argument against contraception. Just a nonsense religious one.

  14. Nice try shifting the goalposts.

    Your initial post referred to “birth control”.

    My reply referred to abortion, which is universally understood to be one form of “birth control”.

    You then backtracked and said “We are talking about contraception”, when you clearly said “birth control”, and my comment referred to abortion, a form of “birth control”.

    Like I said, nice try.

    We get it already. You do not consider those in the womb to be people. To you the most vulnerable among us are non-humans for you to slaughter at will.

  15. If the Supreme Court members will not “be responsible” in 2018, they should not be there.

  16. No, you were trying to divert the discussion from contraception, things use to prevent pregnancy to s1utshaming.

    S1utshaming is what fetus worshipers do when they want to pretend women are their property and incapable of making decisions concerning what goes on in their bodies.

    You can call abortion birth control, but that would be incorrect. It was not backtracking, it was correcting your clear and obvious error.

    Either way an anti-contraception stance is utterly irrational and requires a religious backing because it is too stupid to consider in an objective fashion.

  17. The Supreme Court members are responsible for your 93 year old wife’s mother?

    Where is that specified ?:

    http://constitutionus.com/

    If it’s good laws you’re talking about, head right for Article I, Section 1.

    No, they should be there applying the laws and Constitution AS WRITTEN to facts.

  18. If it is a ground for religious reasons yet the agency receives federal funds through medicare, grants for social services , student loans, etc.; then they should include birth control. What if the for profit employer said for religious reasons, I will not hire or serve people of x race, the disabled, or people of a different religion? Same bogus argument that we once allowed for discrimination based on race, sex, disability or religion.

  19. The Supreme Court justices in 2018 are responsible to 100% of the citizens for quality decisions and their consequences on ALL of those citizens. They actually are not responsible to any of the opinions (imagined or otherwise) of the writers of the Constitution or to the opinions of any persons involved in ratifying the Constitution. We might as well start now having a major national fit about “originalism” being nothing but unabashed partisanship on the Republican side. John Roberts will hear it, even if the others do not. It would not hurt anything to start reminding people NOW, as well, that five Catholic men making decisions alone is always inappropriate on its face. America is not a theocracy and every 5-4 by this gang is appropriate fodder for religious criticism—-just as was also the case with Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. The Court of public opinion must be in session 24/7/365 and doing it BEFORE bad decisions is better than doing it after bad decisions.

  20. Your post referred to “birth control”, and I was replying to that.

    It is indeed correct to call abortion a form of birth control. It would be incorrect to call it contraception.

    You do not seem to understand the difference between birth control and contraception.

    I am not opposed to many forms of contraception.
    .
    I am opposed to all forms of abortion.

  21. “Democrats that are against abortion have a pang of conscience” – Spuddie; Nov 2018

  22. Still not addressing the point. Abortion is not birth control. You saying so doesn’t change that fact.
    You don’t really want to address the topic as given.. Fair enough. Who needs honest discussion when you can engage in useless diversion. Whatevs

  23. A [Democrat] with a slight pang of conscience….
    Close enough….

  24. Not even, liar.

    A REPUBLICAN with a slight pang of conscience.

  25. Yeah, but u were talking about the pro life democrat guy.

  26. Who voted Republican. Who is a regular writer on the site and frequently does conservative fetus worship hit pieces. When have you stopped lying?

  27. Yeah… but he’s still a democrat. And you meant democrat with a pang of conscience.

  28. The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution.

    If the law is bad but constitutional, the consequences belong to the legislature that passed the law, and the remedy is for the legislature to repeal or amend it.

    In interpreting the Constitution they are interpreters, not authors, and if the Constitution as it exists does not please one or more of them, that’s simply too bad. If it is defective, Article V provides the remedy: amendment.

    Your position well illustrates what Justice Gorsuch wrote about some years ago:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2005/02/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6/

    “But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

    “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs – real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce – are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”

    “At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has – its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.”

    Unlike our parent, England, we have a written Constitution in order to ensure we are a nation of laws, not men, and that our process for changing laws is democratic, not autocratic. Your view is precisely what Gorsuch is decrying: “bad decisions” are those which do not please you, and “good decisions” are those with which you agree.

    That is not our system of government as devised at its founding. It is anti-democratic, it destroys democratic processes, as now-Justice Gorsuch pointed out.

  29. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/white_house_expands_birth_control_exemptions_for_employers_with_religious_objections/#comment-4185021546

    The law does NOT require that health plans include contraception.

    That was an interpretation of the law ginned up by Kathleen Sebelius specifically to engineer a church-state collision in an attempt to do an end run around the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

    The Supreme Court saw through it.

    If you’re of the belief that contraception is healthcare, and you’re also of the belief that religious beliefs be damned, you’re free to lobby for legislation along those lines.

    The previous Administration did not try that because it knew it would never happen.

  30. “The Supreme Court justices in 2018 are responsible to 100% of the citizens”

    “They actually are not responsible to any of the opinions (imagined or otherwise) of the writers of the Constitution or to the opinions of any persons involved in ratifying the Constitution.”

    Those two statements are completely contradictory.

    The Constitution as written and ratified IS the voice of 100% of the citizens. And remains so until it is duly changed by the citizens via the prescribed process. That is the entire point of having a written constitution. That is why we call it “rule of law.”

  31. “Abortion is not birth control.” LOL.

    Puddie likes to channel the White Queen: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!”

  32. I am taking to a 8 year old. Your entire argument is “nyuh huh, it is”.

    Look up contraceptive in a dictionary and get back to me

  33. Nope. A Republican in everything of substance. He even relies on trolling and lying about the positions of opposition. Just like you.

    You can’t even quote someone honestly back to the speaker. When will you ever stop lying?

  34. Who really is a conservative. Even down to trolling and using “alternative facts” like you.

    A lying trolling fetus worshiper. Entirely indistinguishable from you. Except he may have a conscience. You do not.

  35. There are no sane or objectively rational arguments against access to contraceptives.

    There is no sane or objectively rational argument for employers making healthcare decisions for their employees.

    If employers do not like being involved in such things they should lobby for single payer insurance or bolstering the ACA so they can absolve themselves of any responsibility here.

    What the fetus worshipers don’t realize is this is a purely corporatist move. To strip away protections of workers bit by bit. Once employees get control as to how employees use their healthcare compensation, they can move on to control how paychecks are spent.

    If you work for a living and do not own your own business you would be self destructive stupid to support such measures.

  36. Contraceptive: “a method, device, or drug, serving to prevent pregnancy”..

    Abortion is not contraceptive, as the pregnancy has already occurred.

    It does, however, prevent the birth of the already conceived child, and hence can be properly termed birth control.

    All forms of contraception are birth control, but not all forms of birth control involve contraception.

    You are probably confused because the pharmaceutical industry/Planned Parenthood/ etc., now use contraception and birth control as if they were synonyms, when they actually are not.

    An example of controlling the narrative by manipulating the meaning of words. Kind of like how “gay” was hijacked to serve the homosexual movement.

  37. There you go:” prevent pregnancy”.

    Not terminate one.

    “Abortion is not contraceptive, as the pregnancy has already occurred”

    You proved yourself wrong. Nothing more is needed. Glad to see you admitted to lying. Didn’t bother or have to read the rest. Don’t care. You were trolling.

  38. The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution.

    If the law is bad but constitutional, the consequences belong to the legislature that passed the law, and the remedy is for the legislature to repeal or amend it.

    In interpreting the Constitution they are interpreters, not authors, and if the Constitution as it exists does not please one or more of them, that’s simply too bad. If it is defective, Article V provides the remedy: amendment.

    Your position well illustrates what Justice Gorsuch wrote about some years ago:

    “But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

    “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs – real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce – are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”

    “At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has – its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.” – National Review, “Liberals ’N ’Lawsuits, February 7, 2005

    Unlike our parent, England, we have a written Constitution in order to ensure we are a nation of laws, not men, and that our process for changing laws is democratic, not autocratic. Your view is precisely what Gorsuch is decrying: “bad decisions” are those which do not please you, and “good decisions” are those with which you agree.

    That is not our system of government as devised at its founding. It is anti-democratic, it destroys democratic processes, as now-Justice Gorsuch pointed out.

  39. You’ll notice that the post I made on this that you upvoted disappeared.

    Apparently someone turned on the Disqus switch at RNS that detects embedded urls in posts as “spam”.

    This is the third time I’ve had to edit the url out and repost something.

  40. In America’s reality, all rules of law are can be amended or suspended by Supreme Court cases at any time. This happens continuously and has for the entire history of the country.
    All the First Amendment freedoms are subject to interpretation. Freedom of speech, for instance, does not include yelling “Fire!” in a crowded building, inciting other kinds of riots, or directly threatening other people, especially authority figures. How did we discover these nuances? Cases, of course. There is no such thing as judging the laws and carte blanche “upholding” them at the same time.

  41. You are probably a supporter of state voter suppression laws and a principle permitting unlimited secret-source money used to influence elections through incorporated not-for-profit “educational” entities which run ads in media. There were some legislated federal laws in “rule of law” which limited both of those nefarious activities. But you are on the side of slapping citizens by finding your preferred judges to overturn parts of both. Gorsuch is correct in his view that “Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes”——- when conservatism squishes the real people in such ways from the bench, using only conservatism’s appointees to do it.

  42. I am a supporter of the Constitution, as written and amended, approved by the people of these United States.

    You are a supporter of government-by-edict of as few as five persons as long as they agree with you.

    If they don’t, it is a “bad decision”.

    If you don’t like conservatism, vote for liberals.

    If you don’t carry the day, suck it up.

  43. Ah, the sweet “in your face” tone of conservatism finally comes into clear view—-again.

  44. Ah, the sweet “a nation of laws, not men” tone of America’s experiment finally comes into clear view in response to “we don’t need no stinkin’ laws”.

  45. We, over on the left, are not against laws. We like speed limits and traffic lights just as well as you do—-maybe even better than you do. But we never thought much of states telling people that interracial couples’ love for each other was a valid topic for legislative meddling. Thankfully for Clarence Thomas (when he was a younger man) the bad ole Activist Supreme Court relieved him of that roadblock so he could marry a white woman as his second wife in 1987. It’s doubtful that his birth state of Georgia would have ever given him that right without the liberal SCOTUS which preceded him.

  46. No, they can not be amended or suspended by the SCOTUS “at any time.” They can be insofar as they conflict with the social compact which is the Constitution. And the SCOTUS does not “judge’ the Constitution; it is sworn to uphold it.

  47. It’s still accessible; you just have to click on it to make it show.

    There’s no accounting for this crazy moderation system.

  48. You either:

    1. Did not read the rest of what I wrote.

    or

    2. Are too stupid to understand the rest of what I wrote.

    or

    3. Both read and understood it, but hope with your blustering reply to distract people from the fact
    that you were bested.

    Sux to be you, doesn’t it?

  49. Didn’t have to. You were rambling incoherently and dishonestly. Your admission was at the very beginning and the rest was just garbage of no importance.

    You conceded the point and admitted you were misrepresenting things.

    I understand your point. I just don’t feel a need to take it seriously. You were trying to derail a discussion through deflection on a different topic and to misrepresent basic facts here.

  50. Well, now that you have openly admitted you don’t necessarily read the posts you reply to -you just spout BS – there’s little point in conversing with you.

  51. I don’t need to read rambling garbage after you initially you were purposefully misrepresenting facts

  52. SCOTUS takes upon itself a duty to tell everyone what the Constitution means. There is nothing, for instance, actually in the Constitution which tells us that a corporation is a person or somehow inherits the rights of a person. There is also nothing in the constitution which tells us we can have a National Weather Service instead of fifty state weather bureaus. Those kinds of “biggies” are done at the discretion of the Court. You know it. I know it. You have better things to do than trying to snow me, okay?

  53. The National Weather Service arose out of the need for flood control and forecast. I assume you know that rivers cross multiple states and are natural conduits for interstate commerce?

    And if you are complaining about Citizens United, that decision does not state that corporations are people or have the rights of people.

  54. You’ve already made it crystal clear you abhor the Constitution, which provided a Congress to legislate, a Supreme Court to adjudicate, and a President to execute.

    There is no reason to believe any SCOTUS would have ruled differently, but the suggestion and the phrase “states telling people that interracial couples’ love for each other was a valid topic for legislative meddling” is a melodramatic non-substantive vapid emotional piffle of the type that your posts commonly use in lieu facts and reason to argue.

  55. The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution.

    If the law is bad but constitutional, the consequences belong to the legislature that passed the law, and the remedy is for the legislature to repeal or amend it.

    In interpreting the Constitution they are interpreters, not authors, and if the Constitution as it exists does not please one or more of them, that’s simply too bad. If it is defective, Article V provides the remedy: amendment.

    Your position well illustrates what Justice Gorsuch wrote about some years ago:

    “But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

    “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs – real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce – are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”

    “At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has – its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.” – National Review, “Liberals ’N ’Lawsuits, February 7, 2005

    Unlike our parent, England, we have a written Constitution in order to ensure we are a nation of laws, not men, and that our process for changing laws is democratic, not autocratic. Your view is precisely what Gorsuch is decrying: “bad decisions” are those which do not please you, and “good decisions” are those with which you agree.

    That is not our system of government as devised at its founding. It is anti-democratic, it destroys democratic processes, as now-Justice Gorsuch pointed out.

  56. -=1 of 2=-

    The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution.

    If the law is bad but constitutional, the consequences belong to the legislature that passed the law, and the remedy is for the legislature to repeal or amend it.

    In interpreting the Constitution they are interpreters, not authors, and if the Constitution as it exists does not please one or more of them, that’s simply too bad. If it is defective, Article V provides the remedy: amendment.

    Your position well illustrates what Justice Gorsuch wrote about some years ago:

    “But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

    “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs – real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce – are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”

    to -=2/2=-

  57. -= 2 of 2 =-

    “At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has – its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.” – National Review, “Liberals ’N ’Lawsuits, February 7, 2005

    Unlike our parent, England, we have a written Constitution in order to ensure we are a nation of laws, not men, and that our process for changing laws is democratic, not autocratic. Your view is precisely what Gorsuch is decrying: “bad decisions” are those which do not please you, and “good decisions” are those with which you agree.

    That is not our system of government as devised at its founding. It is anti-democratic, it destroys democratic processes, as now-Justice Gorsuch pointed out.

  58. Now the other version is marked as SPAM at this end.

  59. Gorsuch’s ramblings describe exactly why “Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes.” He is articulating in advance how he plans to see to it that the whole dang thing is politicized to the advantage of conservatism. I would advise people to start hollering at John Roberts now, not later.

  60. He is articulating the Constitutional vision of what the Supreme Court should do, which you try hard to portray as “conservatism”.

    Gorsuch was writing as Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, Robert McCallum, at the United States Department of Justice. As McCallum’s Principal Deputy, Gorsuch was assisting in managing the Department of Justice’s civil litigation components, which included antitrust, civil, civil rights, environment, and tax divisions.

    He had served as clerk for Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then for Supreme Court of the United States Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

    He attended Harvard Law School and graduated cum laude in 1991 with a Juris Doctor on a Harry S. Truman Scholarship. He was an editor on the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

    In 2004 he received the DPhil in law (legal philosophy) from the University of Oxford, where he completed research on assisted suicide and euthanasia as a postgraduate student of University College, Oxford on a Marshall Scholarship .

    You, on the other hand, are rambling.

  61. Give us a break. He was writing for a hack audience in National Review. If he had any balanced judgment as a public official in the DOJ, he would not be within a hundred miles of such a publication. You’re impressed, but spare the bio fog. You are not going to impress me with a man chosen SPECIFICALLY for his partisanship. Dang, Mark. Why do you assume your opposing counterparts are blind?

  62. State laws against interracial marriage stood in America from Colonial times through an activist Court in 1967. In many states, the good ole white boys would have simply murdered Clarence Thomas for trying to marry a white woman. It was not “any” SCOTUS which would have or did overrule such travesties. It was liberals bringing their country out of fool darkness and into sense.

  63. Corporate personhood is a judicial interpretation which dates to 1886. It Is not in the Constitution and not a matter legislated by the will of the people through their representatives in Congress or statehouses. It is an example of Courts making law, something they routinely do. The only question is what kind of law they make. As for the weather service, it is not in the business of “regulating interstate commerce”. It is an example of an extra-Constitutional activity undertaken by the federal government simply because it makes sense to do it. SCOTUS could easily decide that there really is no Constitutional basis for it to exist at the federal level. They won’t, of course, but originalism suggests that they should.

  64. Why? Was there no river commerce in 1789? 😀

    Before the highway system, most interstate commerce was via waterways.

    As for corporate personhood, it is far older than you seem to believe. I suggest you read some of Blackstone’s Commentaries, from which all of the founders and framers who were lawyers studied. He wrote quite extensively on the subject, describing corporations as artificial persons legally created to encourage cooperation among individuals to the advantage of the public. The earliest SCOTUS case recognizing the personhood of corporations for certain purposes was Dartmouth vs Woodward in 1819, where Dartmouth, as a corporation, successfully regained its charter rights which had been abrogated by the state. The opinion was authored by John Marshall, btw, who worked closely with James Madison to secure the ratification of the constitution.

  65. Interesting how much Goat is starting to sound like the Tater Tot.

    I may have to fashion a second sock puppet.

  66. It is the complete lack of any facts to support the ideologically driven conclusion:

    “He was writing for a hack audience in National Review. If he had any balanced judgment as a public official in the DOJ, he would not be within a hundred miles of such a publication. You’re impressed, but spare the bio fog.”

    that rings the same bell in both cases.

  67. YOU give us a break.

    His outline of the Court’s business could be used as a law school text.

    His prediction as to the impact of the politicization of the Court was prescient, a script for the shenanigans made of the Kavanaugh nomination.

    Yes, no one with whom you disagree is going to impress you, the fact that he is vastly qualified and you are supremely unqualified notwithstanding.

    The Constitution was not written to impress you.

  68. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was not a result of an “activist” Court. It was a unanimous decision by a Court which split on many other issues that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Conservative Associate Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.”

    The opinion was based on a plain reading of the Fourteen Amendment:

    Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses in context:

    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “

    This case was an excellent example of Justices doing their jobs without regard to their own personal beliefs.

  69. Funny how none of the other previous Courts managed to reach such a conclusion in 200 years. Also funny how this era also included enactment of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, ERISA, EEOC, and eventually Roe at SCOTUS. We are looking back on a time when a liberal wave was getting a lot of things done which needed to be done, which could not happen before the era and probably could not happen today if we didn’t already have them.

  70. No, it’s not funny. It’s completely understandable.

    The Fourteenth amendment on which the opinion rested was certified as ratified on July 9, 1868.

    That cuts the time period down to less than one hundred years.

    And so on.

    The enactment of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, ERISA, EEOC, and the Roe v. Wade decision have literally nothing at all to do with it.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, interpreted over time and building on stare decisis, has everything to do with it.

  71. Gorsuch is a man who would still be in a private law firm without the right-wing politicization of both DOJ and the Courts by George W. Bush. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of legal minds with strong legal resumes who hold dramatically opposing views on the left/right spectrum. The ones on the right who ascended by the sheer luck of being alive for Bush and Trump White Houses are not all “more qualified” than the ones on the left.

  72. Your personal assessment of Gorsuch’s legal qualifications, given your complete lack of legal knowledge and your ideological agenda is of interest only to yourself.

    As our Constitution is written, the President makes a selection. There is no requirement that he take your or anyone else’s political or ideological views into account.

  73. Exactly.

    So here’s MY ideologically driven conclusion: if he knew what he was talking about, he would not sound exactly like the Tater Tot.

  74. That often happens when you remove the link and then try to repost. It reads it as a duplicate post.

    Beats me how N/A’s posts kept getting through — they were pretty much all alike.

  75. And—–as I told you, and you argue with me about——the personhood of a corporation is all constructed from case opinion, law MADE in the Courts. They neglected to mention it in the Constitution and they did not ask voters or legislators to define it. Today, we have people imagining that a corporation can have a religious belief, even though a corporation is actually a set of papers residing in a file cabinet.

  76. And — as I told you, and you argue with me about — Hobby Lobby, to which you evidently refer, does not depend upon corporate personhood. The First Amendment does not even mention “persons” at all. It merely states that freedom of religion, and speech, may not be abridged.

    It would be a very odd reading of the Constitution that would ok speech and religious restrictions upon corporations given that most newspapers and many religious organizations, both then and now, are corporations.

    Libs that whine about corporate personhood simply have not thought the issues through.

  77. It tells you something about the non-objectivity of the process.

  78. “Advice and consent of the Senate” escapes your recollection? You do know that any casual reader could easily construe that to mean with the consent of 100% of Senators, no? You do understand that judges were to be balanced and apolitical, don’t you? And that our Constitution tried to provide the mechanism to achieve that, don’t you?

  79. You do know that hundreds of thousands of people had to die in order to get that amendment, and that state laws prohibiting Clarence Thomas from marrying a white wife stood for another hundred years anyway, right?

  80. Good libs understand something I heard my whole life from conservatism: “Well, business is business”. This means that feelings are suspended, and “business” is conducted with guidelines such as contract law and the Uniform Commercial Code, not sectarians’ religious doctrines. Hobby Lobby is not a ministry. It is a for-profit craft store which cannot and does not impose the religious beliefs of its founders upon the foreign-source suppliers from which most of the merchandise arrives. Only five Catholic Republican men, acting solely alone, decided the craft store’s female employees should have their commercial rights as employees curtailed in a manner that publicly-traded retailers cannot and do not attempt to practice. This stems from the mistaken belief that the Green family is “giving” something to those employees, when, in fact the female customers and employees MADE the Green family. The Hobby Lobby case is nothing but confusion about makers and takers—–which is which and who did what in reality.

  81. We’re talking about the Supreme Court, not the Civil War.

    Your fixation on Clarence Thomas and his wife is noted.

  82. Here is a short history lesson for you.

    Historically from the nation’s founding until the early mid-20th century the process consisted of a select committee of the Senate who typically met with the nominee for one to a few hours behind closed doors and any outside witnesses and reported back to the Senate.

    Uncontroversial nominees did not even go through that process.

    The Senate votes were more often than not on strict party lines.

    The first modern-style hearing of a nominee took place in 1873. The nominee was Attorney General George H. Williams over questions about his use of Department of Justice funds for household expenses. President Ulysses S. Grant withdrew his nomination.

    The first hearing open to the public took place in 1916 over President Woodrow Wilson’s nominee Louis Brandeis. The hearing was prompted primarily by anti-Semitism – Braneis was Jewish – and over Brandeis’ reputation as the “People’s Lawyer” for his public-interest work.

    Brandeis refused to testify.

    The committee deliberated four months and he was confirmed 47-22.

    A hearing took place in 1922 on Pierce Butler. He was confirmed 61-8 without testifying.

    The Judiciary Committee first heard a nominee’s testimony in 1925. Harlan Fiske Stone was questioned about his role in the Teapot Dome scandal. That hearing was closed to the public, and the Senate swiftly confirmed him 71-6.

    What changed the situation was the revelation, about a month after the Senate voted to confirm him 63-16, that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who nominated Black, claimed this was news to him and Felix Frankfurter’s nomination in 1939 led to a hearing to avoid embarrassing both FDR and the Senate again.

    Basically the current process is silly, counter-productive, ahistorical, and practically invites the sort of sandbagging and spectacle that the Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh nominations resulted in.

    A smart President with a Senate majority of his own party would do everyone a favor by asking the Senate to return to the select committee approach and simply vote his nominee in by party line.

  83. “Business is business”. Please send that memo to the good libs at the Red Hen in Lexington Va.

    “Hobby Lobby is not a ministry”. It isn’t necessary for it to be in order to have religious freedom.

    Nobody’s rights were curtailed. The SCOTUS determined that there were other ways to fill the bill without treading on the Hobby Lobby family’s religious freedom. Quite frankly the whole idea that someone’s right to contraception is being curtailed unless someone else pays for it has always sounded like nonsense to me. I cheerfully bought my own birth control for many years and it never occurred to me that my rights were somehow being infringed because of it. Certainly I would not have wanted to involve anyone in it who had a conscience issue with it.

  84. A smart citizen would ask for a Constitutional amendment demanding 100 Senators approve—–or no federal judge. We could have the balance which the Constitution tried to provide.

  85. Clarence Thomas is a wonderful example of a man who benefits from judicial activism being against judicial activism.

  86. Skipping over the detail that only five Catholic Republican men did this?

  87. Clarence Thomas is an American lawyer who currently serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the most senior associate justice on the Court following the retirement of Anthony Kennedy. He is the second African American to serve on the Court.

    He has benefited from living in the United States of America, a country with a written Constitution and of laws rather than men, rather than from “judicial activism”, i.e., courts which legislate, an attempt to make this a country of men not laws.

  88. And the first African American on the Supreme Court who basically got put there to do the bidding of white capitalists. The Chamber of Commerce Gang and the Country Club could not have asked for more than good old Clarence has handed them for decades.

  89. Did it bother you that ALL of the Jewish justices, as well as two Catholics, a total of only five unelected people, forced ssm on all the states? Probably not so much.

  90. No, of course it didn’t bother me. Where else would you want gay people to be than inside committed relationships with legal rights and obligations—-just like the rest of us who get married?

  91. Do let us know when the bill is proposed in the Congress.

  92. You’re about to get blocked.

    I really have better things to do than read nonsense like “put there to do the bidding of white capitalists”.

    My personal opinion is that if you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation, that is exactly what you should add: nothing.

  93. Please do block me. That way you will not be replying to my comments.

  94. We just elected some new left-siders who might very well be willing.

  95. I tell you what: I’ll read but not respond unless I find it necessary, as I did in this exchange, to correct completely inaccurate statements – the role of the Supreme Court, the purpose and history of advice and consent by the Senate, the mistaken impression that Loving resulted from activism, errors on the Fourteenth Amendment, and so on – just so the casual reading does not mistake ranting for facts.

  96. I tell you what. I can leave your original comments alone if you can leave mine alone. I do tend to reply to those who reply to me, but generally I am in comment sections to write original thoughts—–not much imagining myself the cop to “correct” other people,

  97. So you are fine with a small, religiously and demographically homogeneous, unelected group making up extra-constitutional law out of whole cloth, as long as YOU like the result.

    Which makes your forgoing objections about the five Catholic Republican men ridiculous, even if your argument about originalism were sound — which it isn’t.

  98. I was fine with the decision to normalize same-sex marriage in the entire United States when several states were already there and others were going to drag their feet forever on religious grounds. I was also fine with Justices from two faith traditions (not just one) making the decision. The only thing regrettable about the decision was that it was not unanimous in favor. There is absolutely no reason why gay people should not have full marriage rights and, for that matter, full employment rights in every kind of job, public or private.

  99. As I expected, your response completely blows past the key point. That some states had already gone down that road is irrelevant. That the decision was made by justices of different faiths is irrelevant. That you see no reason why gays shouldn’t have marriage rights is also irrelevant. The problem with Obergefell is the exact same problem with Roe — that it was a federal exercise of power that rested upon no constitutional provision whatsoever. And yes, that includes the 14th Amendment, which by its very language demonstrates that it was never intended to address anything related to gender.

  100. You would prefer a Constitution which permits states to pass laws against same sex marriage based on nothing but the religious beliefs of some of the residents of those states? None of whom are remotely affected by the prohibition they seek to enact, or remotely affected by its absence when gays actually do get married? How constitutional is that really?

  101. Entirely constitutional where the social compact delegates no power to the federal government to exercise any power to the contrary. Which is what “enumerated powers” is all about, a concept which is chronically difficult for libs to understand — except where it works to their benefit such as in the question of immigration law enforcement.

    There are a number of reasons why a sovereign state might elect not to recognize a marriage relation between partners of the same sex and they are not all religious — historically even officially atheist regimes have seen no reason to recognize them. In any case, the assurance that no one else would be affected by them has proved to be an outright lie, as any thinking person could see even as the very oral arguments were being made before the SCOTUS and as Anthony Kennedy tried unsuccessfully to forestall with his customary sermonizing.

    He would have done better to have simply left it to the people where it belonged, as Roe should have been left as well.

  102. You are arguing for establishment of religion in the definition of marriage. You are arguing for a majority to discriminate against a minority. You are arguing that you have a vested interest in someone else’s marriage when, in fact, we have none.

  103. As I already stated, reasons to not recognize a marriage between same-sex partners are not exclusively religious in nature.

    The word “discrimination” is nowhere to be found in the constitution, and minority status in and of itself is irrelevant to a law’s constitutionality or lack thereof. There must be some specific provision that gives the federal government the power to step in.

    Those who have faith-based objections to same sex relations have a vested interest in not having to participate in events or activities that indicate approval or celebration of those relations, an interest that is continually under attack in the courts. As the very lawyers who argued Obergefell assured us would be the case.

  104. You have given exactly zero valid non-religious reasons for your objection to same sex marriage. You do cite “faith-based objections” as your presumed vested interest to stick our noses in what is only other people’s business. This simply does not wash in any kind of logic.

    Now that you have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, I’ll make you a couple of predictions. Same sex marriage will stand forever and workers will lose business case after business case after business case for the rest of their lives——all because you guys on the far right had your big fit and installed Trumpism for America. Wake up. Clue in. The Chamber of Commerce gang ate your lunch and that of your kids, rather permanently.

  105. Faith-based objections are not offered as a reason to interfere with others’ relationships but as the most glaring example of how this issue does very much affect others who are not parties to it.

    A state does not need religion in order to conclude that there is little social utility in formalizing relationships which can not under any circumstances produce children and therefore do not require the social protections which came about solely to create the optimal conditions for the raising of two people’s own children. Pagan societies which were far more accepting of homosexuality than ours is saw no more need for such formalities than Christendom ever did.

    You’re probably right that gay marriage will remain, but likely those who object will be protected from having to cheerlead for it going forward. That, I believe, was Kennedy’s aim in his closing words and actions on the subject. And if you guys had given a fig about the workers you would never in a million years have lost the Rust Belt to a Republican — and a businessman at that. Look to yourselves for a Two-Minute Hate target if you must have one.

  106. I have no idea at all what the “cop” comment is about.

  107. What he is relating is exactly the problem.

    He sees the Supreme Court as a super-legislator, just as Justice Gorsuch noted. It’s not objective, it’s completely subjective.

    And playing it is a lot easier than the democratic process.

    As a result we have Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc..

    EXCEPT – from time to time it actually takes a look at the Constitution, and then it’s a “bad decision”.

    This approach, of course, is the road to disaster.

  108. The National Weather Service is not a creation of the Supreme Court.

    The notion of a corporate “person”

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

    arose in the colonial period, prior to the Constitution, as a result of the British treatment of corporations.

    The first notice by the Supreme Court was in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), where it opined:

    “The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

  109. Actually it predates the first judicial interpretation of 1819.

    That, and the fact that the first Congress granted corporate charters at the Federal level, precludes the Supreme Court from deciding ” there really is no Constitutional basis for it to exist at the federal level”.

  110. Actually it arises from British law, which was followed in the colonies, and which routinely established corporations and enforced their existence and rights.

  111. The religion of the justices is completely irrelevant.

  112. Exactly.

    From this individuals perspective the law is what Humpty Dumpty said about words:

    “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”

  113. From his perspective, his response did not blow past the key points.

    The key points were:

    – “I was fine with the decision”

    – “others were going to drag their feet forever on religious grounds”

    – “I was also fine with Justices from two faith traditions (not just one) making the decision.”

    So, good decisions are those he is fine with, and the purpose of the Court is to bypass the states and legislate over the ignorant masses who adhere to religions.

  114. No state had a law against same sex marriage which cited as its basis religious beliefs.

  115. What happened? You were going to block me. Then you were going to not block me but restrain yourself from wasting your time on me. New day and you’re back so soon?

  116. There are a lot of people who are not already rich, who followed people like Kim Davis to produce the Trumpism effect in America. They thought gay marriage was a reason to give power and control to every take-advantage sharpie in America. They and their children are going to lose a lot going forward—–in addition to what they already lost with thirty years of their disadvantage from Reaganism. It’s a shame, but it’s done.

  117. Natural law, which has traction in American law, is sufficient.

  118. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/white_house_expands_birth_control_exemptions_for_employers_with_religious_objections/#comment-4189019971

    “I tell you what: I’ll read but not respond unless I find it necessary, as I did in this exchange, to correct completely inaccurate statements – the role of the Supreme Court, the purpose and history of advice and consent by the Senate, the mistaken impression that Loving resulted from activism, errors on the Fourteenth Amendment, and so on – just so the casual reading does not mistake ranting for facts.”

    Questions?

  119. I don’t imagine myself as one who is deputized (by something or other) to run around the comment sections trying to “correct” other people’s original opinions.

  120. You appear to be missing almost all of the notion of a discussion in a public forum.

    As I am reading you, you are entitled to join Disqus, make a comment either on an article or someone else’s comment, and then never ever have anyone raise any issues about it, dispute either the facts or conclusions, or in fact do anything but endorse it.

    So, this forum exists to provide you a soap box?

  121. To take legislative power from the people’s elected representatives and allow the unelected to exercise it instead is a denial of every principle that we fought a revolution over.

    Washington warned about allowing free governments to be destroyed this way for the sake of wins that may seem benevolent in the short term. What he might not have foreseen is how civically ignorant and careless the electorate would become after the founders had worked so hard and risked so much to give us a limited republic and constitution.

  122. Those are the key points in his world. Obviously his world is not a constitutional federal republic. Wonder what world it is? Venezuela, perhaps.

  123. Begin by noting that “every principle that we fought a revolution over” is gibberish to your correspondent and a number of the RNS pundits providing articles.

    The goal is to remake America in the image they wish, and any means that accomplishes that is greeted with “I was fine with” whatever the means were.

    So, ignorance of history, ignorance of law, ignorance of philosophy, ignorance of the Constitution, all lead to ignorant decisions.

    To defeat that we began with a written Constitution, which as you can see is now a target of your correspondent.

    We also began with a republic, not a democracy, to avoid this and you can also see that is a target of the same folks – EXCEPT when it works as a means to accomplish remaking America in the image they wish.

    So, Hillary won the popular vote = scrap the Electoral College.

    The states were slow in approving same sex marriage = make the Supreme Court the Supreme Legislator and pack it with folks who see it your way.

    It’s a circular deal, and we only point out the facts for the other readers, not the individuals espousing this silliness.

  124. No, it’s very simple: the world is what he is fine with.

    How that’s accomplished does not require logic, consistency, or anything else except that the ends be achieved.

  125. I tell you what. You can respond all you want for the benefit of other readers who you believe may need to see your corrections to my thoughts.. But I won’t be seeing any of them because I have lost patience with giving you the opportunity to do your routine in my face. There was a guy here named Bob who I had to block for behavior like yours. And now there is one named Mark. You’re gone from my view. Bye, bye.

Leave a Comment