|
mcmagic posted:
Well, really the clinic buffer zone starts where the SCOTUS one ends. I assume none of this is a problem at clinics with parking lots. hobbesmaster posted:Doesn't look like it. I still don't completely follow that logic. Don't police frequently move protestors to the other side of the street? example 1 example 2 example 3 Is the difference just that one was a legislative enactment and the other was at the police's discretion?
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
axeil posted:I find it hard to agree with that when the decision was unanimous. Looking at the breakdown of both the recess appointments decision and the buffer clinics decision, they're the liberal justices agreeing to join with a conservative justice striking down the thing before them in exchange for a weaker holding. The unanimity is political. (note: Roberts has used this as a wedge before to make an initial, weak holding then extend it later on to the holding that was avoided by using the initial holding as precedent, so this may not have been wise. That said, I haven't read the decisions yet). evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
 Oh look, apparently John Roberts thinks that conversations between anti abortion lunatics and these women are "consensual" and "caring."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
The recess appointment case essentially says all recess appointments are valid, except those made while the Senate is still holding pro forma sessions, and that presumptively you can't use a recess shorter than 10 days. It's a slap on the wrist for Obama, but because he got his people through due to the nuclear option it's somewhat of a moot point. It also leaves intact the power of the President to recess appoint any amount of people in the five seconds between congresses. He also has this power, and I'm not sure why it wasn't used and why I've never heard of it, to adjourn Congress if the two disagree on when to adjourn to that the opinion specifically mentions is available. So assuming that he has one of the chambers on his side, that one can declare a recess, the other can throw a fit, and Obama can declare that there will be a recess...and then start with the appointing. It really confirms the President's recess appointment power for all but the one situation Obama used it in. And because they joined with Kennedy, not Roberts, it's not likely to be a wedge for future decisions like I suspect the abortion one is. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Pictured: a screaming lunatic. The reason Roberts said that is because whoever brought the case picked the most sympathetic plaintiffs they could find (just like in pretty much any other case).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Pictured: a screaming lunatic. And apparently John Roberts isn't smart enough to know that? (Or he does know that and doesn't care because of his ideology.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:And apparently John Roberts isn't smart enough to know that? (Or he does know that and doesn't care because of his ideology.) He thinks the screaming lunatics are handled under other laws and is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:He thinks the screaming lunatics are handled under other laws and is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:It would be so amazing if the end result of this case is that abortion protesters screaming at women get charged with, and convicted of, harassment or assault or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
I guess harassment is possible? Best possible outcome as the court could order the lunatic to stay away from abortion clinics, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
So when are we going to get Hobby Lobby? If employers are going to be able to push religion on their employees let's just rip this bandaid off already 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So when are we going to get Hobby Lobby? If employers are going to be able to push religion on their employees let's just rip this bandaid off already Monday should be the last day of the term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well, really the clinic buffer zone starts where the SCOTUS one ends. I assume none of this is a problem at clinics with parking lots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
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. If you're hoping this court wouldn't consider Hobby Lobby a person with religious beliefs you might want to go stock up on booze now. There's an absolute lock for 4 members considering corporations to have religious beliefs and unless Kennedy decided that actual science trumps a person's stupid and misguided personal opinion, he's going to side with HL because abortion. mcmagic posted:The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics. The actions of people like Scalia show the opposite to be true. You're severely ignoring the "gently caress your team" mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:The Supreme Court building a private building, or public like other government buildings? Public, but not open to unrestricted entry. There are quite a few government buildings that are public but not open to the public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Public, but not open to unrestricted entry. There are quite a few government buildings that are public but not open to the public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, but I'm not talking about entry, just the outside property. How is it acceptable to have a buffer zone around the SCOTUS building? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, but I'm not talking about entry, just the outside property. How is it acceptable to have a buffer zone around the SCOTUS building? Because they aren't performing abortions in there. Medical ones, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, but I'm not talking about entry, just the outside property. How is it acceptable to have a buffer zone around the SCOTUS building? Because the plaza is also limited access, being where SCOTUS security operates and where they do the pre-admission screening for people who visit the court. The sidewalk in front of SCOTUS is open access. The property itself is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The recess appointment case essentially says all recess appointments are valid, except those made while the Senate is still holding pro forma sessions, and that presumptively you can't use a recess shorter than 10 days. It's a slap on the wrist for Obama, but because he got his people through due to the nuclear option it's somewhat of a moot point. It also leaves intact the power of the President to recess appoint any amount of people in the five seconds between congresses. The presidential adjournment power was discussed fairly frequently in 2010-12 as I recall (I think there were a series of apoplectic posts on firedoglake using it to prove that Obama never wanted to fill those positions anyway), but I suspect not much became of it because no president has ever exercised it before and setting precedent, etc. Still, IMO if Obama really had wanted to play hardball on appointments with control of the Senate and not the House it would be pretty easy to do since Adjournment motions were never subject to the Filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:The presidential adjournment power was discussed fairly frequently in 2010-12 as I recall (I think there were a series of apoplectic posts on firedoglake using it to prove that Obama never wanted to fill those positions anyway), but I suspect not much became of it because no president has ever exercised it before and setting precedent, etc. Still, IMO if Obama really had wanted to play hardball on appointments with control of the Senate and not the House it would be pretty easy to do since Adjournment motions were never subject to the Filibuster. The fun part is that lets you play hardball with the House but not the Senate, which is currently still a problem if the Senate is controlled by the opposition and decides not to confirm anyone. But yeah that makes sense: ignoring the pro forma sessions was probably the better move at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The fun part is that lets you play hardball with the House but not the Senate, which is currently still a problem if the Senate is controlled by the opposition and decides not to confirm anyone. At least theoretically he could adjourn them both in the event of a disagreement ("adjourn them"), so it might still work if the House is D and the Senate is R. Not a practical concern in the near future, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:At least theoretically he could adjourn them both in the event of a disagreement ("adjourn them"), so it might still work if the House is D and the Senate is R. Not a practical concern in the near future, of course. The way it's worded, makes it sound like if the two chambers disagree, he can adjourn them to a time of his choosing, not necessarily what the House wants or the Senate wants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
If Obama adjourned congress by fiat it would turn the crazy conspiracy dial all the way to like eleventy-one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Obama adjourned congress by fiat it would turn the crazy conspiracy dial all the way to like eleventy-one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:
That whole section is full of crap. I've been on the receiving end of such a conversation at the clinic in question. The protesters were screaming directly in our faces and blocking our way long before we reached the buffer zone. It is completely untrue that the protesters didn't still have the ability to engage you. 6 feet was nothing, it should have been 100 feet. Edit: The real reasons for wanting the buffer zones removed is that they once again have the ability to block the doors. They also can be close enough to identify who is going to the clinic and not just walking down the sidewalk. Not that they wouldn't just scream at anyone on that block, if they thought you were going inside it would set them off and be much worse. size1one fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
How the gently caress does getting in someone's face and screaming that they're a murderer and should burn in hell not constitute assault? Like, I am not a lawyer, so please educate me. My layman's understanding of it is essentially that battery is physical violence and assault is creating the impression that someone is in physical danger, and I don't really get how "YOU DESERVE TO DIE AND BURN IN HELL" screaming in someone's face doesn't give reasonable grounds to believe you're in danger, especially considering the multiple times anti-choice folks have literally murdered pro-choice folks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Because abortion. -CJ Roberts
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Obama adjourned congress by fiat it would turn the crazy conspiracy dial all the way to like eleventy-one. Sounds like just the thing to do on November 5th then. Hopefully he sends out an email notification so I can stock up on beer and munchies before following that up with the recess appointment of a transsexual Muslim woman to whatever agency has a vacancy. Hopefully Homeland Security or one of the Intelligence agencies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Magres posted:How the gently caress does getting in someone's face and screaming that they're a murderer and should burn in hell not constitute assault? Same way shooting doctors and firebombing clinics to try and stop a legal practice they want changed isn't terrorism
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Same way shooting doctors and firebombing clinics to try and stop a legal practice they want changed isn't terrorism So the answer is basically "because our country is loving stupid" then, I take it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Magres posted:How the gently caress does getting in someone's face and screaming that they're a murderer and should burn in hell not constitute assault? But thats Roberts's point, its covered under laws that do not unnecessarily restrict other speech so the overall ban on anyone standing within 30ft of the door is too expansive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Magres posted:So the answer is basically "because our country is loving stupid" then, I take it? It's because they're doing it for the real god.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Magres posted:So the answer is basically "because our country is loving stupid" then, I take it? The answer is that John Roberts just calls ball and strikes. (Unless you're a dirty whore who wants to kill her baby.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Sorry, what I'm asking is less about the ruling itself and more on the law in general. I fail to see how the things anti-choice protesters do does not constitute assault, like if there's actually any legal grounds for that or if it's straight up just "no one wants to enforce the law here because then the loving nutjobs are going to start firebombing them too." As I understand it the Massachusetts law was very, very broad and striking it down is not the most unreasonable thing in the world. Hell of a lot more reasonable than the upcoming Hobby "I'm a corporation that has a religion" Lobby ruling 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Magres posted:Sorry, what I'm asking is less about the ruling itself and more on the law in general. I fail to see how the things anti-choice protesters do does not constitute assault, like if there's actually any legal grounds for that or if it's straight up just "no one wants to enforce the law because then the loving nutjobs are going to start firebombing them too." I believe it's more that the nutjobs are thought to be likely to be found not guilty in a jury trial and arresting them all is too much hassle. Plus you'd need to divert police there like 24/7, leaving you open to complaints of not fighting real crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Magres posted:How the gently caress does getting in someone's face and screaming that they're a murderer and should burn in hell not constitute assault?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Assault might be a little strong, but certainly they're committing disorderly conduct. Hell, just stepping in someone's way while they walk down the side walk, much less screaming at them is probably sufficient to get a conviction. Is the issue that the Boston Police just don't want to be as aggressive against abortion protesters as the NYPD does for OWS protesters?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
Gyges posted:I believe it's more that the nutjobs are thought to be likely to be found not guilty in a jury trial and arresting them all is too much hassle. Plus you'd need to divert police there like 24/7, leaving you open to complaints of not fighting real crime. If you are actually going to the clinic it's an embarrassing and emotionally difficult thing to go through even without the protesters and you just want it to be over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:05
|
|