|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but does that seem likely? Not now no, but I'm talking about a hypothetical future Congress that wanted to re-enact all the campaign finance stuff SCOTUS has overturned.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Teddybear posted:Also, the Supreme Court is only effective because the rest of the country abides by its rulings. Undercutting that may not be a good thing. Passing a new law specifically to prompt a new ruling because you think the Court has changed its mind isn't really a problem though. It's only a problem if you start claiming you're going to just repass it anyway, Supreme Court be damned you don't care what they think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
We went from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas. At this rate also the last black justice to be nominated to boot if voter suppression laws become entrenched.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
John Roberts posted:Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends largesums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties. Who in their right mind could read this with a straight face and take anything this court says seriously? It's just pure hacksih political and ideological decision making. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:We went from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas. At this rate also the last black justice to be nominated to boot if voter suppression laws become entrenched. Nah, Hillary will get Barack through the senate. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
axeil posted:Is Congress able to write legislation they know is going against a court ruling to specifically attempt to get a new ruling on an issue? They could try, but there's no guarantee that they'd get a new ruling. If the new bill is passed, the lower courts will rule against it, citing the previous ruling. Then SCOTUS can pass on reviewing the lower court's decision. Ultimately, the bill dies and the court doesn't have to reconsider the topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:38
|
|
" moment.
|
hobbesmaster posted:Nah, Hillary will get Barack through the senate. Seriouspost: Taft was the last one of those for a very long time because the next person to do it will be giving up $50-100M+ in speeches a year alone, plus (more) books and all the other perks - sure SCOTUS judges can still do those, but not nearly as many and they have pesky ethics rules that ex-Presidents don't. If Obama wants to do it full time for a decade he could be a billionaire. Also, unexpected side effect of the verdict: now that nothing is stopping unlimited contributions to parties, the Clintons are worth ten figures as fundraisers again instead of the mere eight they were before lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Is there any legal difference between prohibiting people from giving money, and prohibiting candidates from accepting money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Is there any legal difference between prohibiting people from giving money, and prohibiting candidates from accepting money? Is there any legal difference between prohibiting black people from voting and prohibiting voting registrars from letting black people vote?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
The meeting minutes and metadata of all elected officials should be public. I'm sure Justice Roberts would agree this is a good safeguard against quid pro quo corruption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Is there any legal difference between prohibiting people from giving money, and prohibiting candidates from accepting money? This was the question I was going to ask. Can congress pass a law limiting amount of funds a candidate can accept/have used on their behalf?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
All these decisions tell me is that the Congress has to be changed very fast, we don't have time to wait until 2016. Republicans need the boot this year, or we're boned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:All these decisions tell me is that the Congress has to be changed very fast, we don't have time to wait until 2016. Republicans need the boot this year, or we're boned. Then we're hosed. The GOP is all set to sweep Congress this year and it's much, much too late to stop that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Then we're hosed. The GOP is all set to sweep Congress this year and it's much, much too late to stop that. What makes you say that? Why would it be that much radically different than in 2012?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Then we're hosed. The GOP is all set to sweep Congress this year and it's much, much too late to stop that. I don't think they are in for a sweep, more of a coin flip as to who gets the edge. Either way we are in for a lot more conservatism forced on us by the courts, local governments, and as lovely house of reps. Shimrra Jamaane posted:What makes you say that? Why would it be that much radically different than in 2012? The Dem senators that rode in on Obama's coat tails are up for reelection and the Tea Party wave doesn't expire for another two years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What makes you say that? Why would it be that much radically different than in 2012? Midterm Electorate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Will Dems still likely control the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Will Dems still likely control the Senate? Right now it's a coin flip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Is there any legal difference between prohibiting black people from voting and prohibiting voting registrars from letting black people vote? It's sort of similar to many of the pre-Roe anti-abortion laws that targeted the doctors who provided abortions rather than the women who sought and received them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:Right now it's a coin flip. Everything I've seen over the past week or two has said it's more of a 60-40 lean Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
So if both the House AND Senate become Republican majorities... how much damage would we see come out of that? I know anything progressive is off the table but would the Dem minority at least be able to stonewall any regressionist policy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So if both the House AND Senate become Republican majorities... how much damage would we see come out of that? I know anything progressive is off the table but would the Dem minority at least be able to stonewall any regressionist policy? Let me put it this way: Obama better buy a new 'VETO' stamp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
That would require they unite to oppose something, and that's not very bipartisan of you. Besides, it's far too much to ask of these Very Serious People. By the way, please respond to our hundreds of emails asking for donations at every waking hour. So short answer, no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Everything I've seen over the past week or two has said it's more of a 60-40 lean Republican. I thought Nate Silver just said it was close to 50-50 with a lean to the Republicans. I'm probably wrong. Slate Action posted:Let me put it this way: Obama better buy a new 'VETO' stamp. The real dangers are how much Obama decides to compromise with them and if they can stop the greedy Tea Party faction from losing their bone barking at their reflection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So if both the House AND Senate become Republican majorities... how much damage would we see come out of that? I know anything progressive is off the table but would the Dem minority at least be able to stonewall any regressionist policy? I'm pretty terrified personally due to fears that we'd get into another government shutdown / debt default situation and without some sane people in charge of at least one chamber we'd have at best massive eviscerations of public services. I mean, hell, Paul Ryan's new budget turns medicaid into a block grant. He couldn't lay out a plan to kill more poor people if he were explicitly building gas chambers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Let me put it this way: Obama better buy a new 'VETO' stamp. Or he could use it to sell progressive priorities down the river for "Legacy" stuff like cutting medicare and social security.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How much more damage can these 5 do before one of them dies? This McCutchen case is just depressing as hell. Considering the decades each likely have before they'll retire or die it's pretty much incalculable unless the Democrats hold on to the Senate in November and Obama decides "gently caress these 5 assholes" and adds more judges to the bench. Which he won't because his own party would likely push back enough to ensure even going nuclear will lack votes. The better question is: what sort of damage is going to follow when they rule 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby? Aurubin posted:We went from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas. At this rate also the last black justice to be nominated to boot if voter suppression laws become entrenched. Don't worry, President Cruz will appoint someone like Allen West to the Supreme Court when Ginsberg retires/dies some time between 2017 and 2021. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Let's all open carry in front of the Supreme Court until the NRA lobbies lawmakers to prevent doing such a thing in front of federal buildings. Remember, they supported an open carry ban in California when the Black Panthers flaunted their rights to bear arms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought Nate Silver just said it was close to 50-50 with a lean to the Republicans. I'm probably wrong. No, he did. A lot of other outlets are releasing forecasts too, though, which might be what some other posters are referring too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The better question is: what sort of damage is going to follow when they rule 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby? Corporations declare themselves Christian Scientist, claim that medicine is the devil's work, and cancel all their employer-based health insurance coverage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Corporations declare themselves Christian Scientist, claim that medicine is the devil's work, and cancel all their employer-based health insurance coverage. Seriously though, why not have the Chairman/CEO become Christian Scientist and do that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
It seems like the only thing that would prevent something like that from happening would be public opinion and the mores of the people in charge of those companies. Not exactly the best things to act as a bulwark against venality of corporate executives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Seriously though, why not have the Chairman/CEO become Christian Scientist and do that? Oh, I'm serious as an out-of-pocket heart attack. Edit: do we have substantive reason to believe Kennedy will vote with the Decepticons? mdemone fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a wrong description of the reality of the US. Are you trying to argue for a policy change now? (Earlier you definitely made some sort of assertion about the Green's religious beliefs, but you've appeared to have dropped that). Stuff got busy irl and this is on a new topic (edit - last post by me ) but to clarify. There are two things religious meddlers like hobby lobby were *able* to block prior to the ACA. 1- by threatening to use another PBM they forced PBM's to give their employees fewer rebate/discounts *for the same membership fee*. Effectively stealing and shredding their employee rebate checks. 2 - by not covering the religiously verboten drug they also set their plan pay to zero. Forced coverage with no copayment stopped both actions ... Because of course when the discount/rebates are going into their personal pockets they want the PBM to collect and frontload them like they do for everything else. In the way hobby lobby is contesting the ACA they are trying to restore both methods of screwing with their employees private lives. However, they only have grounds to argue for one - the plan pay - which is the much smaller of the two. You can get a $60 BC pill pack down to $5 on rebate/discount alone. The religious beliefs of the person who withheld $10 of my compensation and sent it to a PBM to secure my access to rebates/discounts are a matter of no consequence whatsoever. The idea that the PBM should be bullied into denying me personally rebates that *I've paid for access to* because of the church the errand boy/employer who walked my membership fee from here to there is beyond absurd. Arguing about the plan pay portion is not absurd on its face as that involves active participation by the insurer. It's still bullshit for other reasons. I get that freedom of religion only prohibits government attempts to force religion on someone, not rich jerks. But making an exception to a generally applicable law to aid and abet rich jerks in forcing their religion on subordinates is a violation of the employees religious freedom since selectively not enforcing the generally applicable law that protected is a government action. But that is an argument you can only reasonably have over the plan pay. Rebate theft needs to stop. Period. McAlister fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Everything I've seen over the past week or two has said it's more of a 60-40 lean Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
There has been a lot of discussion about the Hobby Lobby case here lately. Is the ruling on this case expected to come soon, or is it more likely that they'll 'run out the clock' and wait until June, as they did for the same-sex marriage ruling last year? Hopefully this isn't a stupid question. I find SCOTUS very complicated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Yes, there is. In the first case, the black person trying to vote goes to jail. In the second, the registrar does. Either way there aren't any black people voting or women getting abortions, though. Women getting abortions is actually a great example - think of the laws that specify how clinics have to operate or where they can locate that get struck down because they lay an undue burden on women's right to an abortion. Generally speaking, restraining a right by attacking it at the recipient rather than the initiator isn't any less of a restraint for purposes of constitutionality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Huge Liability posted:There has been a lot of discussion about the Hobby Lobby case here lately. Is the ruling on this case expected to come soon, or is it more likely that they'll 'run out the clock' and wait until June, as they did for the same-sex marriage ruling last year? So, yes, the safe bet is that the Hobby Lobby opinions will be out in June, but that's because they are big cases that were argued just last week rather than some sort of strategy move on the Court's part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
McAlister posted:But that is an argument you can only reasonably have over the plan pay. Rebate theft needs to stop. Period. quote:In the way hobby lobby is contesting the ACA they are trying to restore both methods of screwing with their employees private lives. However, they only have grounds to argue for one quote:I get that freedom of religion only prohibits government attempts to force religion on someone, not rich jerks. But making an exception to a generally applicable law to aid and abet rich jerks in forcing their religion on subordinates is a violation of the employees religious freedom since selectively not enforcing the generally applicable law that protected is a government action.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Either way there aren't any black people voting or women getting abortions, though. Women getting abortions is actually a great example - think of the laws that specify how clinics have to operate or where they can locate that get struck down because they lay an undue burden on women's right to an abortion. There is a legal (and practical) difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:09
|
|