|
Kalman posted:... The cable companies do have to pay to retransmit OTA broadcasts, though. Kalman posted:I think the Justices are quite aware of the cloud storage issue, which is why they will center the whole thing on retransmission consent instead, find Aereo to be a MVPD, and thereby allow the broadcasters to demand fees for transmission ( your "free in a local market" thing is a misreading of must-carry - broadcasters can force MVPDs in their local market to carry them but are barred from receiving fees for it; otherwise, the MVPD has to pay the retransmission fees.)
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Eh, no explicit MPVD decision but they basically forced them into the same box. I will take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Is there a consensus yet on the likelihood of the NLRB ruling being one way or another?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Is there a consensus yet on the likelihood of the NLRB ruling being one way or another? based on oral argument it doesn't look good for Obama's side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:SCOTUSBlog prediction based on oral arguments and likely author was not well for the President. Question is how not well. I would be shocked if they ruled against recess appointments, presidents have been doing this poo poo since Washington. Ruling against it would tip the balance of power heavily towards Congress and away from the Executive branch (not that our unelected justices-for-life give a flying gently caress about that, they got theirs).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I would be shocked if they ruled against recess appointments, presidents have been doing this poo poo since Washington. Ruling against it would tip the balance of power heavily towards Congress and away from the Executive branch (not that our unelected justices-for-life give a flying gently caress about that, they got theirs). recess appointments are fine, but the court is probably going to say that the bullshit pro-forma sessions were not technically bullshit and so therefore congress was not in recess. Some of the more extreme arguments (only between congresses) are less likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:recess appointments are fine, but the court is probably going to say that the bullshit pro-forma sessions were not technically bullshit and so therefore congress was not in recess. Wouldn't that just mean that a senate that is hostile to the sitting president could call a three-minute pro-forma during recess in order to prevent appointments?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Don't forget that Canning is still outstanding in case you were betting on whether all NLRB regs for the past four years are null and void and whether almost all Obama recess appointees would be kicked out of office. Any of the ones left are gonna be kicked out in January anyway, and the only voided decisions would be ones with a current appeal (Buckley v. Valeo).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Wouldn't that just mean that a senate that is hostile to the sitting president could call a three-minute pro-forma during recess in order to prevent appointments? yep. Thats a political issue. The courts are not going to step in if they truly believe that a Senate can remain open for business by gavelling in every few days. The president will get at least one guaranteed recess to make any recess appointments he needs, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
I'm guessing at least one or two of the conservative lunatics will write a concurring opinion saying that the president can only make recess appointments during the gap in time between congresses or something similarly crazy, basically arguing that almost all recess appointments in history were illegal. I'm also predicting that the majority opinion, probably Roberts or Kennedy, will say that pro-forma sessions are enough to keep congress open, and since that is enough to decide the case that is before them today, they need not answer any of the other bigger questions at this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Wouldn't that just mean that a senate that is hostile to the sitting president could call a three-minute pro-forma during recess in order to prevent appointments? Or even the House, as both houses of Congress must assent to recess (In fact, that is what happened in this case. Senate was, and is, still Democratically held, but as the House refused to recess at the time, the Senate too could not recess, allowing Boehner to de-facto block nominations) EDIT: Note that this would also hurt the CFPB by proxy (incidentally, it was to prevent Cordray's nomination that the House refused to recess in the first place) EDITx2: Cordray was later officially confirmed, so it would only potentially effect CFPB actions between January 2012 and July 2013. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
I checked the scotusblog stats and the Hobby Lobby author is Roberts/Scalia/Kennedy/Alito. Rip
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I checked the scotusblog stats and the Hobby Lobby author is Roberts/Scalia/Kennedy/Alito. Rip Is there a rule that opinions are shared evenly? Or some other way to be sure of this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Oh, and McCullen is outstanding too, so I hope you baby-killers are ready to be yelled at all the way into your baby-killing blood-spattered  EDIT: And Harris v. Quinn! Oh boy, tomorrow is going to be fun! I hope you guys have stocked up on booze! ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 06:49
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:EDIT: And Harris v. Quinn! Oh boy, tomorrow is going to be fun! I hope you guys have stocked up on booze! Harris v. Quinn is my favorite case this year. Let's make Right to Work a nation wide thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is just wrong. Any plausible mathematical system contains a finite set of axioms which will produce a countable number of results from those axioms. Just wanted to point out this statement is hilariously wrong. One of the most basic sets of axioms are the Peano Axioms which formalize arithmetic. One of the most important results from these axioms is the generation of the Natural Numbers by repeated application of the successor axiom. By definition, the set of Natural Numbers is uncountable. Chuu fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I checked the scotusblog stats and the Hobby Lobby author is Roberts/Scalia/Kennedy/Alito. Rip Is there any reason for people to think the case isn't going to go for Hobby Lobby? Kennedy's all but certain to back Hobby Lobby because of abortion and I can easily see a 5 conservative decision that basically says "believing X causes abortion is good enough" while ALEC jerks itself off repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
The science isn't an issue here because HL's religious objections are identical to what the FDA has admitted the contraceptives can cause (artificial interference with implantation). It's a really complex case with a lot of different possible rulings; I have no idea what they'll do except that Conestoga will probably lose the 1A argument. In conclusion, enact single-payer and end employer health insurance silliness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Just wanted to point out this statement is hilariously wrong. One of the most basic sets of axioms are the Peano Axioms which formalize arithmetic. One of the most important results from these axioms is the generation of the Natural Numbers by repeated application of the successor axiom. By definition, the set of Natural Numbers is uncountable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:The natural numbers is definitely countable, are you using non-standard definitions of these terms? (edit: literally the first sentence on Wikipedia: "In mathematics, the natural numbers are those used for counting") From the wikipedia definition of a Countable Set: In mathematics, a countable set is a set with the same cardinality (number of elements) as some subset of the set of natural numbers. Chuu fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Chuu posted:From the wikipedia definition of a Countable Set: In mathematics, a countable set is a set with the same cardinality (number of elements) as some subset of the set of natural numbers. edit: Holy poo poo, from the same Wikipedia link you gave: Some authors use countable set to mean a set with the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers. twodot fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
scaevola posted:Is there a rule that opinions are shared evenly? Or some other way to be sure of this? It's less a rule, and more a guideline - if it turns out to be 5-4 against Hobby Lobby, it's not like Alito gets to write the opinion. And, if Roberts sees the wind blowing towards a decision against Hobby Lobby that he doesn't like, he can theoretically join the majority, assign himself the opinion, and write it as narrowly as possible. If you're into reading tea leaves, it's a reason to tilt a few percentage points in favor of "welp, guess I should start drinking at 10AM Eastern tomorrow." But it's by no means a sure thing. Chuu posted:From the wikipedia definition of a Countable Set: In mathematics, a countable set is a set with the same cardinality (number of elements) as some subset of the set of natural numbers. You need to brush up on your math. The natural numbers are a subset of the natural numbers, and the definition of a "countable" set includes countably infinite sets (those which can be mapped one-to-one to the natural numbers, such as the integers and rational numbers). It's pointless, though, because the set of patentable things isn't even countably infinite. It's finite. Given that the Planck length establishes some kind of "resolution" limit for the placement of subatomic particles, the existence of some finite number of subatomic particles (and energy equivalents) in the universe, and the requirement for any possibly patentable abstract ideas to exist on some storage medium, there are only so many patentable things. But we still allow patents. So can we please drop the derail?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Just wanted to point out this statement is hilariously wrong. One of the most basic sets of axioms are the Peano Axioms which formalize arithmetic. One of the most important results from these axioms is the generation of the Natural Numbers by repeated application of the successor axiom. By definition, the set of Natural Numbers is uncountable. At the risk of a derail, the natural numbers are by definition countable since a set is countable if it has the same cardinality as some subset of the natural numbers and there's obviously an invertible function between the natural numbers and themselves. (i.e. the identity function) So the question becomes whether it's possible for any computer program to assign a unique number to it. If you convert all of the characters in the program's text to numbers and then concatenate the digits, you end up with a unique and really big number. Therefore the set of all computer programs must be at most the same size as the set of natural number, so they're countable. edit: I think that horse is ready to make lasagna out of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess it's time to go to sleep.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Is there any reason for people to think the case isn't going to go for Hobby Lobby? Kennedy's all but certain to back Hobby Lobby because of abortion and I can easily see a 5 conservative decision that basically says "believing X causes abortion is good enough" while ALEC jerks itself off repeatedly. That "makes sense" to me but obviously I don't know a ton about how that actually works. Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
I will be so pissed if HL wins any of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh, and McCullen is outstanding too, so I hope you baby-killers are ready to be yelled at all the way into your baby-killing blood-spattered Maybe I'm a bit contrarian on McCullen, but isn't what that case comes down to really a statute that says a state can keep you out of a public place if you don't have business there? The opinion could easily be written in such a way that it applies just as strongly to the sidewalk in front of NYSE or within six blocks of a political convention as it does to the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic. Wouldn't the conservatives be likely uphold such a "content-neutral" law, or do we think they are so fickle as to decide it based on whether the plaintiffs are protesting abortion vs commodity traders?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented in noted bad decision Hill v. Colorado. They at least will say it's not content-neutral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Canning favors recess appointments, but the House is allowed to block Senate recesses and force pro forma sessions. Sorry Obama! Also, since Breyer wrote it, unions are basically boned on Harris. National right-to-work here we come!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Obama's recess appointments not legit according to SCOTUS in a unanimous decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Obama has lost on the NLRB case. Breyer wrote the opinion. Unanimous, with a concurring opinion. Recess appointments can be made during a intra-session recess, so the most extreme case has been avoided. However, the court has ruled that a 3-day recess is too short (and so therefore they also ruled that the pro-forma sessions were not bullshit). They do not spell out precisely how long a recess has to be, only that 3 days is too short, and 10 days would probably be good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Obama has lost on the NLRB case. Breyer wrote the opinion. Unanimous, with a concurring opinion. Also ruled that the vacancy doesn't have to start during the recess, which was the other ridiculous thing the DC circuit had ruled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
This seems less horrible after the nuclear option as triggered... It still enables republican obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
So it sounds like a narrow loss, since he can still do it but just not during a short recess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So it sounds like a narrow loss, since he can still do it but just not during a short recess. But the house can say, you're never going into recess...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:The owners of Hobby Lobby aren't paying for the health insurance out of their own pockets, the corporation Hobby Lobby is paying for it. I held out hope that maybe the Court would say that Hobby Lobby isn't a person and therefore can't exercise a religion, and so it can't have its religious beliefs burdened. Isn't part of the issue also that due to the way insurance works, by not allowing their employees to have access to birth control on their plans they are cut off from the negotiated lower prices that insurance agencies are able to get for drugs and procedures? So it forces the employees to not only pay out of pocket, but at a much higher cost than they would if they were paying 100% of the insurance policy price and with their low salaries they will effectively be unable to purchase it. That might not be something that the SCOTUS can or should consider but it seems like a huge problem with allowing religion to interfere with our employment based health care system where your boss can decide which medication you can purchase with your own money if you are paid low enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Quite clearly 3 days is too short and 10 is long enough, but it sounded like the real standard was whether the Senate has the capacity to conduct business. e: Holy crap look at Appendix A.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But the house can say, you're never going into recess... But the senate can set its own rules regarding recesses...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So it sounds like a narrow loss, since he can still do it but just not during a short recess. and after the nuclear option, a recess appointment is not necessary at all until the GOP takes the Senate. If they do that though, they can make sure a recess never occurs at all in his last 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Quite clearly 3 days is too short and 10 is long enough, but it sounded like the real standard was whether the Senate has the capacity to conduct business.  Breyer wrote out every single recess appointment in the history of the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:13
|
|