Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (642061)	1/13/2012 10:05:54 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1576926

CAIR, La Raza and the New Black Panthers run the US.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (642061)	1/13/2012 12:55:43 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576926

Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House By Peter Johnson Jr. January 11, 2012 foxnews.com Wednesday the United States Supreme Court[ delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation. The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed. There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy. Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence. But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out: “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” Citing well-known legal precedent dating as far back as Reconstruction, the court made it clear that it is not up to the government to contradict a faith’s determination as to who should -- and should not -- be performing religious functions. The Supreme Court clearly announced Wednesday that the First Amendment itself gives special recognition to the rights of religious organizations and rejected the government’s view that the Religion Clauses of the Constitution don’t apply to religious organizations’ freedom to select their own ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. The Court also took aim at Plaintiff’s Cheryl Perich’s claims for back pay finding that such relief would operate as an unconstitutional penalty against a religious institution for terminating an unwanted minister and exercising its constitutional right to make decisions about internal church governance. Unfortunately, the federal government has become expert in imposing penalties for practicing one’s faith. As the new year rolls on, Americans face even greater issues in their desire to retain their religious freedom. The mandates of ObamaCare -- with its narrowly tailored if not measly conscience exemptions protecting some religious orders from compliance -- will mandate thousands of other religious organizations ranging from educational institutions to insurance companies to insure and/or provide procedures like free sterilization and abortifacients like Plan B known to be violative of many Christians and Jewish faiths. Will the government continue to test the bounds of religious liberty? Will the government continue to pick fights against religious freedom? Will the government continue to demand that Americans violate their faith tenets or worse from an intolerant government? Only time will tell. But for today, the founding fathers are smiling down at a Supreme Court that could not agree more about how wrong-headed our government is in trying to hijack our constitutional right to religious liberty. Peter Johnson, Jr. is a Fox News Legal Analyst and attorney.He has also successfully litigated issues with regard to the rights of religious organizations. Read more: foxnews.com Related Stories Supreme Court sides with church on decision to fire employee on religious grounds Supreme Court: Church School Cannot Be Sued Over Discrimination Complaint Supreme Court sides with church on decision to fire employee on religious grounds Supreme Court: Church School Cannot Be Sued Over Discrimination Complaint

To: PROLIFE who wrote (642061)	1/13/2012 6:30:07 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576926

Court rules Texas sonogram law can go into effect immediately 1/13/2012 \| Kathleen Gilbert lifesitenews.com January 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Days after ruling that Texas’s sonogram law is constitutional, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another ruling favorable to the law, saying that it can be enforced immediately. The ruling dashes the hopes of pro-abortion activists that there might be a delay before the green light was given enforcement, possibly sufficient to mount a challenge to the court’s ruling by asking for a rehearing. It is now up to the Texas Department of Health Services to come up with a timeline for the implementation of the law, reports CNN. A spokesman for the Department told CNN that enforcement could begin within 30 days. On Tuesday a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a temporary injunction against the law and advised U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks to reverse his ruling against the law from last August. The court also flatly contradicted opponents’ claims that the law, which requires doctors to disclose details of the baby’s limb and organ development, was an assault on abortionists’ constitutional rights as a form of forced-speech. Pro-life advocates hailed today’s decision mandating the law’s enforcement. “This order is a triumph for women and the unborn,” said Texas Right to Life in a statement. “The sonogram law was passed overwhelmingly by the 82nd Legislature, because Texan women deserve to receive accurate medical information from all physicians. When women are given all the pertinent medical information they need to make a truly informed decision regarding their pregnancies, they will choose Life.” Under the law abortionists will have to offer women the option of hearing the heartbeat of their unborn child and seeing the child’s image in a sonogram, a procedure normally performed before abortions but normally out of sight of the mother. The mother may decline; however, the abortionist must describe her unborn child at that stage in his development, and describe what organs and limbs are formed as well. Exceptions are made when the unborn child was conceived in rape or incest, or suffers from a severe disability.