Tuesday, July 1, 2014

No. 00042 Hard questions about the Clintons

Judgment is the ability to foresee a little distance into the future, to see the second and third order effects.

Regarding the Clintons:

The court found that for-profit corporations could be considered "persons" under the RFRA, noting that that the government was already treating non-profit corporations as persons for this purpose, stating "no conceivable definition of 'person' includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations."
Alito concludes by acknowledging the dissent's "worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws...", noting that this point was "made forcefully by the Court in Smith." "But," Alito further noted, "Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that 'the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.' ...The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on this matter is not our concern

  • Why did Senator Clinton vote to go into Iraq?

  • And, why did President Obama judge her unfit to handle diplomacy with Iraq after she became Secretary of State?