Alan Dershowitz: I am pro-choice but Hobby Lobby’s constitutional right is more important than my opinion

Alan Dershowitz sided with Hobby Lobby tonight on Huckabee, pointing out that while he is a liberal Democrat who is pro-choice and agrees with Obamacare, the constitutionally protected right of free exercise of religion trumps his own personal and political views.



Watch:

[flowplayer id=”94815″]

 

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

52 thoughts on “Alan Dershowitz: I am pro-choice but Hobby Lobby’s constitutional right is more important than my opinion

  1. Well, well. What strange bedfellows we find ourselves with. I’m happy that the basics of the Constitution trump party/ideology affiliation with the likes of Dershowitz.

  2. Interesting ….. isn’t Alan Dershowitz the Harvard Professor who taught Ted Cruz? … (or am I getting mixed up with someone else?)

    If so, I wonder if Dershowitz watched the passionate speech on behalf of Religious Liberty, that his star pupil gave in the cold rain, on the steps of the SCOTUS building, a few days ago?

    All I can say is this:

    DEO GRATIAS for His Provision of these staunch PRINCIPLED FEARLESS Leaders, for such a time as this ….

  3. When it comes to constitutional issues, never let Alan Dershowitz’s liberal credentials get in the way of listening to him. He’s a constitutional scholar who loves the Constitution.

    I once heard him give a lecture on ‘Common Law’ in America. He reviewed its history in America, then in Britain and continued to its origin, The 10 Commandments.

  4. Again, one must admire the man for speaking out for the constitution instead of his lefty political beliefs.

  5. Catholic Charities may have a problem with all contraceptive mandates; that is not the issue. The question comes down to the greater good of the employees and society. Hobby Lobby feels a religious obligation to provide health care but not to the extent that they are forced to violate their beliefs. They can save money by stopping paying for these benefits and letting their employees pay for their own care. Will the employees be better off with a limited employer subsidized health plan or by being forced to purchase post tax health care on the exchanges? Will society be better off if Catholic Charities fold up shop and close their inner city hospitals?

    Progressives aim for perfection but we do not live in a perfect world. Optimize the good.

    1. Every time they aim for perfection, they shoot themselves in the foot. Perhaps that’s the reason they want strict gun control.

      1. It seems as if Leland Yee wanted stricter gun control so that American citizens could not shoot back at the domestic terrorists his Philippine Muslim separatist friends supplied weapons to. He would have made a great Secretary of State of California.

        1. The day is not over yet. Never count a Democrat out just because they’re about to be convicted of a crime. That’s a badge of honor and a source for promotion to most of them.

            1. He is a prime example of someone getting impeached and then moving up in the Democrat party.

              I live in Illinois, where almost every politician has been convicted of one thing or another. I think it’s a requirement on their resumes.

  6. Alan Dershowitz stands honorably regarding Hobby Lobby and Boston’s Pelletier travesty, well above most any other liberal in the nation.

    1. Although Mr. Dershowitz is a liberal, he, at least, has the intellectual honesty to tell the truth, even when he disagrees with it.

  7. if the only job i could get, made me pray every morning, wear clothes that cover everything, look at xn statures and plaques all day at work, and put up with whatever rules/healthcare bosses believe are good for me….I would be on welfare in a heartbeat.

    church is church, and work is work.

    1. What kind of drivel are you talking?

      So you admit that you are just another liberal who believes that if you don’t like the only available job out there, you prefer to make someone else pay for your existence, while you sit on your fat a$$ doing nothing, watching them throw away their hard-earned wages for useless creatures such as yourself.

      Ok, I get it. Typical.

      But that has absolutely nothing to do with Hobby Lobby.

    2. How exactly does your comment relate to the Hobby Lobby lawsuit, and the U.S. Constitution? IMO, you’re brainless!

    3. what if you keeep in perspective… the GOVERNMENT is telling them what to do!!! The government is telling you what to do as well you just dont care… you dont mind chains around your neck as long as your neighbors are in chains as well!!!!

    4. I believe your picture should be next to this saying:

      “Better to remain silent and be thought a Fool than to speak and remove all doubt”

      Take the above advice, it’s free.

      P/S, You might want to seriously consider changing your screen name….really.

    5. You see, that’s why you have to stop listening to the morons on the left. You know too much of which isn’t true.

  8. I’m about to reach the conclusion that employers should get out of the healthcare business. They’re in it in order to recruit and keep good employees.

    Perhaps each individual employee should be responsible for providing their own health care insurance. It would certainly bring home an understanding of the cost. They could participate in Obamacare or pay the tax. They could then decide to vote in the next election to protect their own self interest.

    The waivers, etc, etc, are clouding the issue. If you support it and want the coverage, pay for it. If you don’t, pay the fine. It’s an individual responsibility, not really the employer’s responsibility at all.

    1. Americans who appreciate liberty will not comply. Those who give no thought to liberty…are they Americans?

    2. Before 0-care was passed, Republicans who proposed other insurance reforms of the private market did in fact propose that the individuals be given the same credit for the purchase of individual health insurance that the feds give employers. The insurance would then be portable from job to job.
      Until then I had no idea that the feds gave employers tax credits. That one reform would have solved almost every coverage problem people were concerned about. That and selling across state lines to encourage competition.

      1. Back in 07 I explained to my ultra liberal boss how to “fix” the insurance problems by telling her what you just said. It seemed like her ears were open and she was listening, she was looking right at me. Two seconds later, she says, I just don’t know what’s the best way to fix the insurance problem. I say to her…I. Just. Told. You. ! She says, oh yeah, boy if my friends knew I was even entertaining that kind of idea…
        I quit shortly thereafter.
        She was also the owner of the business….did she offer any kind of benefit to anyone on her payroll???? NO. Not a single benefit. Hypocrite much?

        1. They only like to spend other people’s money and let the government pick up any of the “necessaries”. Like the government actually produces money from sources other than we the people! I think they are just self-centered from the inside out.

          1. And I think you are right. “Self-centered” is certainly part of what drives their lunacy.
            Hope you’re staying dry! Good NESS, is it ever going to stop raining!

            1. I’m dry right now but I have some outside chores I have to do and it’s awful wet out there.
              I am not able to access comments from disqus this a..m. Are you?
              Trouble might have started when I changed my email over at AT. Weird thing too that they have lost my avatar and they have no way to edit their profiles for disqus.

              1. I didn’t have any problems this morning, but I always say dsqus sucks, never know when it will behave. Hope things are better and you didn’t get too damp outside.

      2. The problem with selling across state lines isn’t about competition. The reason that it costs more in some states than it does in others, whose in charge? That’s the difference. It’s more expensive particularly in tiny blue states. The only balancing factor in states like NY and Cali is that a lot of people don’t live in SF, San Jose, LA, or San Diego. They’re spread elsewhere that it doesn’t cost as much as in the deep left wing cities for everything.

        1. It makes sense that volume allows a greater spread of risk and premium. I don’t know all the ins and outs of the actuarial process and considerations, but I know there is plenty of room for shenanigans when there are only 2 or 3 players in a given state that are allowed to write insurance and others are not permitted to do business. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the insurance commissioners of the states to make decisions that are not self serving.

          1. There were never just “2 or 3” players allowed to operate in each state. Any of them can operate in any state. That isn’t where the problem lies. The problem lies when there are exchanges set up between states where the cost of health care is twice as high as another state, thus it only passes the costs to the lower cost state, thus raising the premiums on EVERYONE who buys a plan in that state to pay for what the people in the more expensive state voted to have IN THEIR OWN STATE. This is another reason it’s a bad deal.

            The States with the most expensive healthcare are the ones that support this law and it is ONLY self-serving.

            1. I have not paid attention to the exchanges but (at least before 0-care) the private markets had to be licensed in every state they did business in. And many states (probably the most expensive) licensed a limited number of companies. Many states have monopolistic insurance laws but I’m not interested in researching each and every one. This is why many legislators were interested in allowing competition across state lines.

              I stand by the comment I made but suspect you are correct about the exchange arrangements.

              They could have fixed all the insurance problems without blowing up the health insurance and delivery system. Too bad Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t give any of the Republican ideas the time of day.

              1. The legislators weren’t interested in having competition across state lines. They were interested in passing the costs of the most expensive states to the states where it doesn’t cost much. The most expensive states are progressive, far left states. That’s why they did it. They never had an intention for this to be good across the board, but to try to cater to their own voters and that is all they were trying to do. There is nothing ethical about the law.

                1. Look, this is a thread about Justina Pelletier and Hobby Lobby. I’m not trying to be rude, but I’m not interested at this time, in hashing out all the reasons the ACA is a travesty against our constitution and our health delivery system, against our God given rights to make our own choices. What they want is for the government to control all aspects of health care. Single Payer, IPAB and Zeke Emmanuel tells me they didn’t intend to do what they told the people. What else is new?

                2. The Hobby Lobby issue is related to the ACA. It should be talked about and you’re not in a place to be able to dictate what is discussed here.

Comments are closed.