Kly, during her testimony before the US House's government oversight committee, Lois Lerner claimed her 5th amendment protection. However, other than by a grant of immunity, can 5th amendment protection ever be overcome? Also, does the 5th's protection extend to one's house's, papers, and effects as stated in the 4th amendment?

UPDATE: Glenn Ford was indeed released from prison late Tuesday afternoon local time. The same judge who denied him relief in 2009 was the one who signed the order authorizing his release.
Ford's dogged lawyers and enlightened parish prosecutors in Shreveport both filed motions late last week informing a state trial judge that the time has come now to vacate Ford's murder conviction and death sentence. Why? Because prosecutors now say that they learned, late last year, of "credible evidence" that Ford "was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder" of the victim in his case, a man named Isadore Rozeman...

Can we drop the whole Christie thing? Why do you people want him to fail? The man's a leader who can get shit done.

Yes, because it's their freedom of religion and these potential customers can use other companies if they don't like it.

You know what? Politicians have to develop a thick skin.

Joe, I really wanted to like Christie, but too many times he has acted like a bully who will stomp on anyone who dares to disagree with him. For example, there were some hecklers at one of his appearances today. He yelled at them and then had them thrown out.

You know what? Politicians have to develop a thick skin. You cant rant and rave all every time your way gets thwarted. Can you imagine him talking to Putin that way??

Kly and DT: can a civil suit be initiated against a juvenile and, if found liable, will the judgement follow them until satisfied?

This is the transcript of the arguments before the SC of the Hobby Lobby Case. What do people think of the argument touched on in the debate that under the government's position that theoretically the government could require for profit medical organizations/individuals to perform abortions and that therefore this would be a ridiculous and overly expansive outcome?

4. Has the government satisfied the least restrictive means test?
None of these approaches to the case involves making new law. But if the Justices wish to rest the decision on a still narrower ground, it could hold that the government failed to prove that the mandate is the least restrictive means of achieving its claimed interests. Justice Breyer may have been laying the groundwork for this type of resolution by asking why employer coverage is the least restrictive way to provide that access. Tr. 63. A decision focusing on least restrictive means would be easiest for the Court to distinguish in later cases, thus leaving the most room for the government to win future RFRA cases when its claims might be more meritorious.

Even accepting (arguendo) the notion that insurance coverage for contraceptives is a compelling interest, it is hardly obvious that the least restrictive way to provide that coverage is by forcing employers to provide it. Indeed, the government’s argument that Hobby Lobby should just drop insurance altogether demonstrates that the government actually does not view it as essential that people receive insurance through their employers as opposed to from other sources. The important point for the government, it seems, is that employees who work at Hobby Lobby have access to this coverage from some source.

This could be structured in any number of ways. The government could extend the same accommodation to the small number of businesses with this conscientious objection that it already has to religious employers. It could subsidize the contraceptive coverage directly. Employers with conscientious objections could compensate for not providing contraceptive coverage by adding other valuable coverage to the employees’ plans, thus ensuring that the employer receives no financial benefit from the objection and that the employees bear no net burden. The government could allow employers to substitute cash for coverage on a tax-free and tax-deductible basis.

Ultimately, the government’s problem here is that it has essentially reduced its own compelling interest to a funding question: Who should pay for the contraceptive coverage the government has decided people should have? Almost by definition, where the government’s claimed interest is merely a question of who should fund something, there will always be less restrictive alternatives, because the government can always choose to fund its own priorities (which it of course does with a great many things that even the government would not claim to be compelling interests).

The political dynamics of this case have attracted extraordinary attention, but the Supreme Court is a court of law, not of politics. The excellent questions posed at oral argument are evidence that the Court intends to decide this case in accordance with standard principles of constitutional and statutory analysis. My guess is that in the cold light of legal principle, the challenge to the contraceptive mandate will carry the day.

Hobby Lobby Transcript

This is the transcript of the arguments before the SC of the Hobby Lobby Case. What do people think of the argument touched on in the debate that under the government's position that theoretically the government could require for profit medical organizations/individuals to perform abortions and that therefore this would be a ridiculous and overly expansive outcome?

His attitude does discourage me at times, and his lack of control over his staff.

Did people expect anything else from Obamacare? Whether it's being forced to provide services for gay marriages or for abortion, we continue to see religious freedom assaulted everywhere by the secular left in this country.

Okay how do the two correlate at all? My problems with Obamacare have nothing to do with gays or religious freedom, which by the way is not under assault. As long as people are not persecuted for the way they worship then there are no worries. I think if atheists left Christians alone, and vice versa there would be no problem. But for gays, while I agree to a certain extent that the agenda can be taken too far, I don't think it's too much to ask for marriage or at the very least, civil unions.

As for abortion I'm only in favor of it to an extent. Past a certain part of the cycle, a woman cannot view her body as the most important thing at stake. But for situations like rape or early on in the pregnancy absolutely it is their choice. We have enough people in the world as it is plus it still bothers me the Catholic Church still thinks contraception is immoral

i don't think it's any man's right to tell a woman that she can't abort a kid

do you have any clue how many mothafuckas should've been aborted, swallowed, or spit out?

As for abortion I'm only in favor of it to an extent.

I take it then that you favor killing children if somebody has what they think is a good reason to do so.

Come on really? What kind of question is that? I said to an extent. There comes a point where a woman is too far along for an abortion and then it is a murder of a child. In cases of rape or the woman feels like she's not ready for a kid and it's very early in the pregnancy then yes I am in favor of it.

do you have any clue how many mothafuckas should've been aborted, swallowed, or spit out?

I know one "muthafucka" that should've been aborted

Must you always be so vulgar? This isn't the OC section. There are women who post in this section regularly.


In defense of Cook: If his mother is half as stupid as he is, she probably thought she just had gas.

Once again, you favor killing children when there is what you consider to be a good reason to do so. By the way, what devalues the life of a person that is conceived through rape?

In that situation we have to look out for the well being of the woman first.

Ah. The good reason rationale again.