Way too many Republicans have no objection to big govt. They just want to be the ones in charge of passing out the goodies.

The fact that the mandate hasn't gone into effect yet doesn't change the fact that it is current federal policy. It's current federal policy for taxes to rise in 2013 after the current round of breaks expires; the fact that this hasn't yet occurred doesn't change the policies at all.

I reject the argument that the mandate violates the 1st amendment in any fashion. I also specifically disagree that the amount of power delegated to HHS is 'absurd.' Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to say that Obama has shown 'signs of seeking dictatorial powers.' This is just an exaggeration for effect on your part.

I would also point out that polling has yet to show any damage to Mr. Obama over the contraception issue - even amongst regular church-going Catholics. I submit that this entire issue is a ginned-up controversy and a losing one for the GOP - Obama wins out with the groups he needs to come out and vote (youth and women) and loses out with people who weren't going to vote for him anyway (hard-right wing Catholics and Evangelicals).

If Obama and his crew continue to own the framing of this issue - access to contraception for women being a fundamental value that they support - the GOP will lose this fight. But, seeing as the strategy and tactics displayed over the last few years by this group have been horrendous, who is surprised by that?

I reject the argument that the mandate violates the 1st amendment in any fashion.

Gee, what a surprise. What part of "free exercise thereof" is so hard to understand? Birth control is a right, huh? Supersedes all religious concerns. What if the opposite happened: birth control outlawed because a religious-minded Congress or state legislature decided as much. Would you and your lefty pals be so cavalier about it then?

I also specifically disagree that the amount of power delegated to HHS is 'absurd.'

Duh. You lust for government power. What's out of bounds? Whatever we on the left say. Disagree, pay a fine, go to jail. Spend the country into the ground. Who wouldn't want more of that?

Don't share your awful interpretation of the Constitution, sorry. But I like how you often pretend you aren't something when you clearly are. If you didn't lust for state power you wouldn't be in favor of the current administration (like me), or any other administration that lusts for state power, in whatever form it takes. So you fall back on another characteristic of the left - muddled, twisted thought (e.g., don't change anything regarding contraceptives and insurance but pretend you are.) When you say there is "little difference between the previous state of affairs and the current one" - I don't even know what the hell that means, except it's gobbledygook masqueraded as something kinda sorta maybe profound.

Would that be a crime? I doubt Scalia would argue that no one can disagree with his views on the law. He has certainly disagreed with previous Justices. My main criticism of him is that while stare decisis is an important concept, a bad ruling is a bad ruling and should be overturned. The more liberal members seem to have no problem with this and it kind of tilts the playing field when you have a bias towards the left( they will overturn conservative rulings, the right won't overturn liberal ones) like that.

Meanwhile, if the Fed didn't impose itself into so many aspects of our lives, this would be less an issue.

And I would remind you that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act mentioned in the post was passed to PREVENT just this this sort of thing once it was clear the the courts wouldn't.

You kidding me? You might want to look up a different precedent. This was the constitutional question (from Sandra Day O'Connor): "whether the Free Exercise Clause protects a person's religiously motivated use of peyote from the reach of a State's general criminal law prohibition."

That answer was, yes, the state could deny unemployment benefits for using an illegal, hallucinogenic drug. Not sure if you've noticed, but birth control doesn't have either of those adjectives attached to it.

The greater point of that case was that the SCOTUS didn't want federal judges deciding whether every single religious act violated general laws on the books. Scalia said if that happened, you'd have courts deciding every ridiculous thing under the sun, like whether throwing rice at a church wedding was legal. Forcing birth control, etc., on insurance policies isn't the same as the people on those policies trying to skirt laws already on the books that prohibit illegal behavior.

Is there any reason the next Sec.HHS can't roll coverage back to the PPACA bare minimum?

If we are really concerned about letting religious institutions preserve their moral convictions, shouldn't we grandfather polytheism into the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

Or would this moderate-right rag argue that that's going too far? That the intention of conservatism is only to argue for the retention of the moving moral average that was mainstream attitudes from 30 years prior?

What's the point in merely slowing the tide of progress--so that what you dread doesn't arrive in 15 years, but 30 instead?

Irrelevant much? A polytheist such as a Hindu would most certainly be covered by the act. And even non-theists such as Buddhists. I wonder what certain Buddhists would say about abortifacients, since they won't even take the life of an ant or a cockroach. The RFRA doesn't specify it only covers monotheists--or do you have a special copy?

Really, the quality of progressive thinking around here has deteriorated.