|
Crain posted:Also if the argument is that not just the owners, but the business/corporation itself is religious, that doesn't solve anything by hiring non-jews. Since the corp would still be violating "its" own religious morals by being open on Saturday. Also, you'd be requiring the company to use a religious test for employment if they had to hire enough non-Orthodox Jews to operate. I like Stultus Maximus' argument. When it comes to operating on a Holy Day, distinguishing between the corporation and the members doesn't make sense. Requiring the store to be open requires specific performance from the members of the corporation as well. This doesn't exist with Hobby Lobby's situation. A major benefit of incorporation is separating the finances of the corporation from those of the members. If Hobby Lobby can't pay its bondholders or is bankrupted by a lawsuit, well, those are liabilities of Hobby Lobby the corporate person and the owners' accounts are wholly separate and can't be attached. It doesn't make sense to consider the finances of Hobby Lobby as seperate from the owners when it benefits them, but indistinguishable from their private accounts when it comes to following regulations that conflict with their faith. Although I'd go farther and say that compensation is the property of the employee, not the employer and the government is well within its rights to protect the employee's interests and health. No one is forcing birth control on workers against their will here and I don't see how it's any less "Hobby Lobby's money" when they cut a worker a check that she spends on birth control rather than when they cut a pharmacy a check that is spent on birth control. If we let a religious employer be exempt from regulations on compensation, we may as well go all the way and let them pay women in scrip redeemable for bibles, baby formula, and slippers at the company store. 
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
What about Kosher pizza places?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Will the fact that Hobby Lobby's religious argument is based on faulty science (specifically the assertion that Plan B and IUDs are abortifacients) play into SCOTUS's decision at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What about Kosher pizza places? They will be required by law to add Plan B as a topping choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Though it won't happen, I still think the simplest divider that's easily justiciable is this: if you think you deserve to be shielded from the results of your corporate actions (I.e. limited liability), then you can't claim there's no dividing line between your justifications for action and corporate justifications (corporate beliefs). If a corporation is an extension of your beliefs, then remind me why you deserve to be insulated from judgments against the corporation being held against you personally. This could be at least entertained if the government didn't require you to get all kinds of corporate licenses, pay fees, etc. to participate in any business venture of HL's size. But they do require that so~~
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:49
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Kro-Bar posted:Will the fact that Hobby Lobby's religious argument is based on faulty science (specifically the assertion that Plan B and IUDs are abortifacients) play into SCOTUS's decision at all? The appeal court decision addressed this: quote:There is an ongoing medical debate as to whether some of the contraceptive methods relevant to this case act by preventing implantation or fertilization. Compare, e.g., Physicians for Reproductive Health et al. Amicus Br. at 12–13, with rear end’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons et al. Amicus Br. at 12 & n.21. This is relevant because Hobby Lobby and Mardel object to forms of contraception that prevent uterine implantation, but they do not object to those that prevent conception. For purposes of this appeal, however, there is no material dispute. Both the government and the medical amici supporting the government concede that at least some of the contraceptive methods to which the plaintiffs object have the potential to prevent uterine implantation... Whatever the merits of this argument, we need not wade into scientific waters here, given the above-noted agreement that some of the challenged devices function in a manner that Hobby Lobby and Mardel find morally problematic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
The "some of" there sounds really fishy. Like does that mean that if they decide to lump together a bunch of different contraceptives that they don't want employees using and one of them has a 1% chance of preventing implantation as a side effect that they are allowed to ban them all since the government admitted that the one has that tiny chance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
SCOTUSblog has posted a review of the first day. Linkquote:
Seems somewhat predictable. Kennedy is the key vote, it'll be split 5-4, Scalia is a oval office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
SCOTUSBlog posted:Justice Scalia told him that the RFRA law makes no mention of third party interests. Crain posted:Seems somewhat predictable. Kennedy is the key vote, it'll be split 5-4, Scalia is a oval office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:What? What "what?"? He's right in that part. But he's still a oval office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Crain posted:What "what?"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Apparently Kennedy fancies himself an expert on abortion and on the fact that the morning after pill is the exact same thing as an abortion just like he's an expert on campaign finance and that unlimited money in politics doesn't cause corruption. Smart guy that one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I like Stultus Maximus' argument. When it comes to operating on a Holy Day, distinguishing between the corporation and the members doesn't make sense. Requiring the store to be open requires specific performance from the members of the corporation as well. The money/action divide seems like the most elegant solution. Hobby Lobby isn't being forced to provide abortions. They're being forced to provide a compensation package, some subset of which employees can use in a way Hobby Lobby dislikes. I'm wondering if there'd be some comparison to Johanns. In each case, people were forced to give money to a 3rd party that they disagreed with. Admittedly, Johanns was about speech, rather than religion. http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/05/the-beef-debate-continued/ --- Two potentially stupid questions: Are employers actually required to pay for contraceptives? I thought I remembered something about the mandatory contraceptive coverage being a constraint on insurers. Like, I thought there was some scheme where Blue Cross could sell employers a plan that didn't cover birth control. And it could give people that plan. But Blue Cross would have to provide those people (for free) contraceptive coverage or face a fine from the government. Second, are plans that don't cover contraceptives actuarially-cheaper than the alternative? Birth control pills cost money. But they should be cheap compared to babies? falcon2424 fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:The money/action divide seems like the most elegant solution. Hobby Lobby isn't being forced to provide abortions. They're being forced to provide a compensation package, some subset of which employees can use in a way Hobby Lobby dislikes. No. The mandate applies to the coverage that a minimum insurance plan has to offer. They could choose to not offer coverage but then they would have to pay a fine. That accommodation you're talking about was for religious not for profits such as hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Two potentially stupid questions: Are employers actually required to pay for contraceptives? I thought I remembered something about the mandatory contraceptive coverage being a constraint on insurers. You're right, but this isn't involved in this case. Hobby Lobby is self-insured, which means they're not purchasing insurance from someone like Blue Cross. Instead, they have someone managing these medical expenses, and when it's time for insurance to pay $35 on a doctor's visit, Hobby Lobby gets presented with the bill and pays it themselves. If Hobby Lobby were buying coverage from BCBS, you'd be right and none of this would be happening. Instead, Hobby Lobby has decided to be its own insurance company, putting the burden of implementing policies which meet the requirements on them. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Apparently Kennedy fancies himself an expert on abortion and on the fact that the morning after pill is the exact same thing as an abortion just like he's an expert on campaign finance and that unlimited money in politics doesn't cause corruption. Smart guy that one. I don't think Kennedy fancies himself an expert on abortion, I think he finds abortion to be wrong regardless of his vote in PP v Casey and it's obviously impacting his judgement in regards to what the potential outcome of this may be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
They better not add more fuel to the ridiculous 'contraception=abortion' fire. It's 2014 people, we've had the pill for half a century now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They better not add more fuel to the ridiculous 'contraception=abortion' fire. It's 2014 people, we've had the pill for half a century now. Going by this TP article, it seems like Roberts may be inclined to think someone's belief that something causes an abortion is enough to count it as an abortion regardless of science and have it fall under religious exemption. https://www.thinkprogress.org/justi...-birth-control/
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Going by this TP article, it seems like Roberts may be inclined to think someone's belief that something causes an abortion is enough to count it as an abortion regardless of science and have it fall under religious exemption. It's problematic because RFPA protects religious beliefs and religious beliefs are not required to be rational or evidence based. It doesn't matter whether it is happening, it matters whether your religion says it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Going by this TP article, it seems like Roberts may be inclined to think someone's belief that something causes an abortion is enough to count it as an abortion regardless of science and have it fall under religious exemption. Yup. Because that's not a slippery slope AT ALL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Popperian falsificationism is a prescriptive ideal for scientific claim structures, not a pure descriptive. Its contributions were essential for the development of science as a distinct discourse and field of inquiry, as prior to his contribuitons science "as conducted on a day to day basis" was frequently horrible, for example Freud. Your example confuses the published outcomes of the scientific discourse and novelty, (importance) and epistemological strength- the location of evidence for a new exoplanet is published for different reasons than its reliance on a falsification system, but pursuit of a deductive framing to the evidence and assertion of the new planet is necessary to its relative epistemological strength. Descriptive and narrative theories of scientific conduct leave themselves open to abuse, which is exactly what happened as Kuhn's publications have gained traction. To put it differently, the pursuit of structural falsificationism is now latent within the scientific discourse as a necessary element of scientific truth construction, but it is not sufficient to produce publication. The mismatch between epistemic structures and the outcomes of the scientific discourse through publication is basically the thing I'll be spending my career attempting to correct. Before the mid 20th century science as conducted on a day to day basis was horrible? One can argue to what extent Freud was a scientist, but it's not hard to come up with a list of successful scientists who followed scientific method who predate Karl Popper. Galileo, Einstein, Boltzmann, Salk (possibly contemporary), Pasteur come to mind. Whatever the intent of argument over how to do epistemology, it does impact published outcomes. My PI would be quite relieved to learn that I didn't actually have a reviewer complain that my fairly descriptive paper didn't explicitly state what hypothesis it falsified. I'm confused by why you state falsification is not sufficient to produce publication in this context. Did you mean not necessary, as in the case with the exoplanet? There are many times when an important scientific advancement is not the falsification of a previous theory, but the construction of a new model to replace it, many of which are as-of-yet not falsified. It's not hard to construct a long list of Nobel Prize winning research that does just that: Einstein, Hodgkin and Huxley, Watson and Crick, Heisenberg. The value of these models is the extent to which they make predictions that are consistent with them. They only falsify alternative models in a trivial sense. After all, one can always restate the problem as its contrapositive. Not all Earths don't go around the Sun. Moreover, quantification of strength of belief is certainly possible without falsifying all alternative possibilities. That is, after all, what Bayesian statistics are for. Discendo Vox posted:I don't think this is accurate. Frye requires that the theory in question still be accepted within the field to apply- a responsible adjudicator or opposing counsel would not let the DA apply the outmoded method. It's important to note that the Frye standard has been superseded in many jurisdictions by Daubert, which contains both falsificationist and, as a matter of necessity, social descriptive elements. The adjudicator is not able to evaluate the full logical structure of the assertions of the scientific discourse and apply them within the facts of the case (scientists often can't do that, after all!), so field consensus acts as a poor substitute. In both circumstances, however, the fundamental problem is that the court must act as the gatekeeper of scientific truth, so the court is reliant on an imperfect understanding of the already imperfect scientific field. The product of the adjudication, as previously stated, acquires a latent legal truthfulness that science does not claim. This creates problems even without the precedence example you provide. Yet in practice the AFLP product rule is still allowed in many states, including big ones like Florida and New York.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
I didn't see the lower court documents filed in the Hobby Lobby case linked here, so here they are (with apologies for the source), along with the key S Ct documents: http://www.becketfund.org/legaldocshl/ The Summary of Argument from the Government's brief contains a nice synopsis: The SG posted:The Greens’ sincerely held religious opposition to certain forms of contraception is not subject to question in these proceedings, and their personal beliefs merit the full measure of protection that the Constitution and laws provide. But the Greens' beliefs, although deeply held, do not justify an injunction under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempting Hobby Lobby and Mardel from an obligation to com-ply with a generally applicable law that regulates only those corporations and not their individual owners. Granting the relief respondents seek for profit-making corporate entities engaged in commercial activity would expand the scope of RFRA far beyond anything Congress contemplated; would disregard deeply engrained principles of corporation law that should inform the interpretation of RFRA as they do federal statutes generally; and would deny to thou-sands of employees (many of whom may not share the Greens’ religious beliefs) statutorily-guaranteed access to benefits of great importance to health and well-being. E: Given the media coverage here, it appears state created for profit juridical entities, legal fictions set up solely to advance state purposes, will wind up with rights of conscience separate and distinct from those of their shareholders. I look forward to P&G showing up at my local Catholic Church to be baptized, lest its (immortal?) soul be consigned to eternal damnation. Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Emphases mine.KernelSlanders posted:Before the mid 20th century science as conducted on a day to day basis was horrible? One can argue to what extent Freud was a scientist, but it's not hard to come up with a list of successful scientists who followed scientific method who predate Karl Popper. Galileo, Einstein, Boltzmann, Salk (possibly contemporary), Pasteur come to mind. Whatever the intent of argument over how to do epistemology, it does impact published outcomes. My PI would be quite relieved to learn that I didn't actually have a reviewer complain that my fairly descriptive paper didn't explicitly state what hypothesis it falsified. OK, I think I'm seeing the problem here. Falsificationism doesn't require that research falsify prior claims, it requires that the research, through its articulation of the hypothetical assertion, is vulnerable to falsification through empirical testing. Popper articulated a standard for falsification whereby there are no strong truth claims for science, in which subsequent research could, at least theoretically, always falsify prior research-all knowledge claims were tentative in that respect. The researchers you cite from before the advent of falsificationism operated in a discourse where their research, as well as the research of other empiricists, was routinely wrong and constructed in such a way that it could not be falsified- Freudian psychoanalysis being one such example. Popperian falsificationism calls for the statement of empirical claims to be based on on a framework of empirical assertions that is completely explicit, such that all elements can be separately evaluated and subject to testing. This is meant to be an idealized target that is pursued by the mechanisms of the caustic environment of scientific criticism, but it's frequently brought up as a strawman of what falsificationism is. In practice, as Popper himself acknowledges, uncertainty and probability are latent elements of empirical research. The goal of the discipline, then, is to render these uncertainties or limitations as clearly as possible. I hope it's clear how closely this approach matches the normal practices of publication requirements for limitations, conflicts of interest, statistical testing, and, increasingly, full datasets. Falsificationism is trivial in the scientific discourse because due to Popper's work it has become embedded in the evaluation of empirical claims. There's going to be a latent hypothesis and falsification in your article, and if the field surrounding that claim is settled, then there's less of an issue. You wouldn't be able to publish your exoplanet paper if your assertion that the exoplanet exists was presented using a rationale which could fit any and all evidence. Before the development of explicit hypothetico-deductive reasoning in the sciences, this used to be routine. KernelSlanders posted:Yet in practice the AFLP product rule is still allowed in many states, including big ones like Florida and New York. The states you mention are currently or only recently moved away from Frye. According to wikipedia, Florida made the transition last June. Daubert makes challenging bad research standards easier. That said, even under Frye, a good judge/attorney would be able to get bad science thrown out because the rule would no longer justify its inclusion. The issues involved in such science sticking around past its "expiration date" (I know nothing of the AFLP product rule, so I assume it qualifies as such) are issues of adjudicator and attorney literacy, as well as the imbalance of resources and costs that is incipient in the entire US justice system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Obviously this isn't the thread for this but it's just loving AMAZING that crazy fundies who think that abortion is literal murder are going to court to try to get a regulation thrown out that would UNDOUBTEDLY reduce the number of abortions in this country. I don't think you've been paying attention to fundies lately. Over the past decade, the pro-lifers have been taking the position that almost all contraceptive devices and medicines work by causing abortions (condoms don't). Requiring Hobby Lobby (and others) to fund IUDs and birth control pills violates their belief that abortion is murder. Anything that "prevents implantation" is an abortion in all but name (to them). Stultus Maximus posted:Are religious Jews forbidden from hiring non-Jews?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Crain posted:What "what?"? Moreover, even if you want to adopt this position of context-less vitriol, it's directed at the wrong Justice. Alito is probably the worst right-wing stooge on the Court. Like, take everything you could possibly disagree with, shove it into a corner, and you will find Alito there pumping the keg with a party hat strapped on his head giving you the thumb's up. There are no "happy incidents" or "even a blind squirrel finds a nut" events with Alito. Add that little nugget of horribleness with the fact that he's actually a good writer (and therefore can convey ideas in a simplistic and easy to digest manner, thereby making those ideas appear more tolerable), along with the fact that he's going to outlive Scalia (and at least Thomas, Breyer, and Ginsburg), and you have yourself the real Most Evil Justice Of Our Time. Yes, I will blow the horn of "Alito is the worst Justice ever in terms of policy preferences" until he perishes and is no longer on the Supreme Court. No, you cannot make me shut up about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Taking the high ground, then? On the other hand, Alito doesn't get the undeserved accolades from moderates and liberals for "writing so well" or "being so compelling" or whatever the line is. The greatest thing Obama ever did with his presidency is troll the gently caress out of Samuel Alito on two separate occasions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
I come from the perspective of a practicing scientist, and I'll admit I know more of Popper's work from objections raised at me than from studying it myself. Those objections are frequently of the what-did-you-falsify variety. That said, the idea that empirical claims should be falsifiable predates Popper. Disproving a null hypothesis, or rather arguing that its likelihood is very small, forms the basis of frequentist statistics. Student's t-test was first published in 1908, when Karl Popper was four years old. I've discussed the product rule elsewhere, possibly earlier in this thread. I don't recall where exactly. Suffice it to say that it should never have been accepted, but DNA testing was new at the time and it made sense as a first approach to analysis even if anyone who thought about it knew it was based on an assumption (i.e., that human mating is random) that isn't true. It may be that defense attorneys find arguing DNA was contaminated a better strategy than arguing that a 1:100,000,000,000 match is really 1:10,000, so the precedent persists. I am really enjoying this philosophy of science topic, but this is probably not the right thread for it. I'd be inclined to create a new one, but to be honest I think you would frame the OP better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The greatest thing Obama ever did with his presidency is troll the gently caress out of Samuel Alito on two separate occasions. Tell me more! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tell me more! Aside from the well-known Citizens United callout that got Alito to mouth "not true," Alito was a member of "Concerned Alumni of Princeton," a group of Princeton alumni concerned primarily with the admission of women and minorities to Princeton. Obama's very first SCOTUS appointment - and the Justice immediately after Alito - was a minority woman who went to Princeton for undergrad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Huttan posted:I don't think you've been paying attention to fundies lately. Over the past decade, the pro-lifers have been taking the position that almost all contraceptive devices and medicines work by causing abortions (condoms don't). Requiring Hobby Lobby (and others) to fund IUDs and birth control pills violates their belief that abortion is murder. Anything that "prevents implantation" is an abortion in all but name (to them). What's the most ironic thing about the whole 'birth control is abortion' bullshit is that the body regularly aborts implantation itself. Fertilized eggs are rejected about 50 to 60 percent of the time. Some of these fertilized eggs are defective and rejected for that reason. Others are perfectly healthy and normal, but the body rejects them anyway. If you consider that a person, then the body itself is the most prolific provider of abortion on the entire planet. And that you should abstain from sex forever because all you are doing are making more abortions than babies. Of course, science and truth doesn't factor into this at all. And I guess they could brush it off with their bullshit 'God's will' excuse or some other nonsense that they use to justify their inane beliefs in the face of reality. Feelings and belief trump reason and logic, as per the usual. And their desire to force their beliefs on everyone around them instead of minding their own loving business. Quite literally, in this case. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Second, are plans that don't cover contraceptives actuarially-cheaper than the alternative? Birth control pills cost money. But they should be cheap compared to babies? They are IF they cover maternity and birth. If they do not cover reproduction then the gain little from preventing it. Prior to the ACA crap plans routinely screwed women over by not covering reproductive care. Its part of why we have the highest maternal death rates in the first world. Post ACA, however, that's on the minimum coverage lists. You have to cover it. So birth control pays for itself. If you keep an eye out you can see very careful bitching about this. Its bad pr to complain about providing medical care to pregnant women so you rarely get someone openly complaining about it - but its between the lines in a lot of the ACA arguments. Prettying anytime someone starts talking about winners and losers in premiums they are tip toeing mightily around this gorilla. Of course hobby lobby probably plans to just fire any pregnant workers which would get them out of paying for reproduction being self insured and all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Has anyone mentioned that pre-ACA Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control? Because they only suddenly changed their tune and sued after the law passed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
That's because birth control used to be utterly uncontroversial, now the Overton window has centered on it squarely. Vaccines are next.
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has anyone mentioned that pre-ACA Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control? And one of the Federalist Society front groups recruited them for this lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has anyone mentioned that pre-ACA Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control? You need a source for this, the lower court decisions never mention it. They did and still do cover birth control, but have issue with some forms that to my knowledge were never covered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:And one of the Federalist Society front groups recruited them for this lawsuit. That's pretty standard. A lot of the big-name cases will have the relevant advocacy groups find the most sympathetic plaintiffs you can; it's good for PR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has anyone mentioned that pre-ACA Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control? Sotomayor mentioned it briefly in the arguments as a "take that!" and she also pointed out that they could have grandfathered in their plan if they hadn't excluded more contraceptives. The government isn't arguing that in the case though because I think Conestoga can reply "well we've always been terrible so that doesn't apply to us!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sotomayor mentioned it briefly in the arguments as a "take that!" and she also pointed out that they could have grandfathered in their plan if they hadn't excluded more contraceptives. Can you provide a quote? This is inconsistent with other sources I've seen. e.g from Salon, a source that would obviously be opposed to Hobby Lobby's case http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/ quote:Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 methods of contraception mandated under the Affordable Care Act, but it didn’t cover Plan B One-Step, Ella (another brand of emergency contraception) and two forms of intrauterine devices. And it is those drugs specifically that the case is about. Nothing I've seen shows that they've pulled an about-face or "changed their tune" on the topic. This phrasing implies that their religious actions in this case are not sincere, which should (and probably would) have a major bearing on the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Can you provide a quote? This is inconsistent with other sources I've seen. I'm on my phone or I would but it's at the bottom of page 31 of the transcript where Sotomayor says that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm on my phone or I would but it's at the bottom of page 31 of the transcript where Sotomayor says that. While you're not misinterpreting her remarks, I don't think they relevant in the context of that discussion, or are indicative of the sort of dishonesty as FlamingLiberal is implying. Hobby Lobby lost grandfathered status before the contraceptive requirement was even proposed, so Sotomayor's comment there is more of a jab than a relevant comment. Something new that I did learn from Hobby Lobby's brief is that Plan B and Ella were actually covered at one point - when Hobby Lobby discovered this they immediately removed coverage from the plan (which was before the mandate was proposed, and so the removal was not motivated by the mandate). Nothing that happened should lead us to doubt the sincerity of their case, as people have implied. When the mandate was proposed by HHS and the suit began, Hobby Lobby's plan was already not covering those drugs and was not grandfathered - hence most news sources saying they didn't cover them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:51
|
|