Who is the real-time threat to religious liberty - Obama or Santorum?

We can only assume that Rick Santorum was driven by the same religious opinions he is expressing, today,  when he served two terms as a Representative and one term as a Senator.  We already know how he governs as a conservative Catholic.

In contrast,  we know how Obama governs as an existential humanist. He orders the end of religious objection to state law;  he prays with and condones anti-Christian faiths such as Islam,  he blurs the lines of separation of church and state, he works to force Christian churches to hire those with non members or those with opposing beliefs  (a move defeated by the Supreme Court, 9 to 0 ), he wants to take down tax exempt status for churches,  mosques, and synagogues,  he works against faith based charities and, perhaps, worst of all,  he orders the name of Jesus covered over before he gives speeches,  even if on a Christian campus.

Note of interest:  Here is a copy of the Supreme Courts recent decisions as recorded on the University of Cornell Law School.    Last week,  Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC,   was the last entry on this docket.  The Court decided against the Obama Administration in an unanimous decision ( 9-0 ), a thorough embarrassment to the Administration.  Today (Feb 22),  when I visited this site,  the Hosanna-Tabor decision had been deleted by Cornell staff.  In fact,  one cannot find an information regarding this decision.  It has been thoroughly deleted.    The reason is obvious.

Cornell University is complicit in the cover-up that is the deletion of information regarding the Hosanna Lutheran decision.

MOST RECENT DECISIONS

MAXWELL-JOLLY, DAVID v. INDEP. LIVING CENTER OF S. CA
No. 09-958. Argued October 3, 2011 -- Decided February 22, 2012

PPL MONTANA, LLC v. MONTANA
No. 10-218. Argued December 7, 2011 -- Decided February 22, 2012

MESSERSCHMIDT, CURT, ET AL. v. MILLENDER, AUGUSTA, ET AL.
No. 10-704. Argued December 5, 2011 -- Decided February 22, 2012

KAWASHIMA, AKIO, ET UX. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN.
No. 10-577. Argued November 7, 2011 -- Decided February 21, 2012

HOWES, WARDEN v. FIELDS, RANDALL L.
No. 10-680. Argued October 4, 2011 -- Decided February 21, 2012

WETZEL v. LAMBERT
No. 11-38. Decided February 21, 2012

MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER v. BROWN
No. 11-391. Decided February 21, 2012

UNITED STATES v. JONES, ANTOINE
No. 10-1259. Argued November 8, 2011 -- Decided January 23, 2012

NAT'L MEAT ASS'N v. BROWN, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA, ET AL.
No. 10-224. Argued November 9, 2011 -- Decided January 23, 2012

REYNOLDS, BILLY J. v. UNITED STATES
No. 10-6549. Argued October 3, 2011 -- Decided January 23, 2012
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC


Site found here:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/





3 comments:

  1. After all the campaigning and debates and vetting, Santorum is the best you can do...
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. After three years of "It could have been worse" and "it wasn't my fault at all" and "oh, hey, I know, let's spend more money," THAT is the best you can do?

    Look, chump, with Hillary going to the World Bank and Obama back to Chicago, who on earth do you Democrats have left?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The opininon is still available on the LII website, just Google search for "Cornell Hosanna", the opinion just got bumped off the list of most recent opinions because it's no longer sufficiently recent. And if Cornell were to be missing a scotus opinion from their database it would just make them look bad, since scotus opinions are easily available from countless other sources, it's not the kind of obscure thing that can be "covered up"

    Also I fail to see how it's an embarrassment for Obama since the EEOC Is an INDEPENDENT agency (like the Federal Reserve) with a legal obligation to act as an advocate for people with discrimination claims and to defend broad interpretations of antidiscrimination law whenever arguable, just as the AG has an obligation to defend laws against Constitutional challenge regardless of whether he supports them as a matter of policy.

    ReplyDelete