|
Wife of nine whole days is crying sitting in our beautiful resort suite, thanks for ruining my honeymoon you loving shits.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
Lol scotusblog saying the govt can just by regulation provide coverage itself. Congratulations conservatives you just "won" and in return got a little more of your ultra-feared government provided healthcare. And if the GOP takes aim at that regulation they will just piss off more women which they really don't need to be doing at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The second quote makes it sound like Alito is basically asking for a case he can actually overturn Abood with. Yeah, that's my reading as well. The dissent also pointed out he randomly attacks Abood in dicta and there's certainly a reason for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'm shocked they didn't apply it to everyone. Alito wrote the thing I was preparing for the worst. I'm thinking this is what they could get Kennedy to go along with. And Alito gets to write it because Roberts wants to minimize his fingerprints on this mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
These 5 GOP hacks are basically the most powerful policy makers in the county right now and they know it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:Wife of nine whole days is crying sitting in our beautiful resort suite, thanks for ruining my honeymoon you loving shits. Turn off the internet you doofus. We will still be here after your honeymoon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Kennedy's opinion emphasizes that in this particular case, a mechanism for accommodating employers is "already in place" so that the majority opinion does not require the Govt to create "a whole new program or burden on the Govt" by krussell 10:26 AM Comment - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.4frqIWHA.dpuf Yeah the accommodation made it really hard to pass strict scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Kennedy's concurrence is trying to argue that it's super-limited, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Perhaps, but what's the logic behind that? Jehovah's really don't really want blood transfusions and they really believe that. What's different? Because this was about a specific provision involving contraception and it was not a general fight about RFPA vs ACA? I mean, SCOTUS could've expanded it to that, but thankfully they didn't despite everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Kennedy's opinion emphasizes that in this particular case, a mechanism for accommodating employers is "already in place" so that the majority opinion does not require the Govt to create "a whole new program or burden on the Govt" Strict scrutiny should not apply in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:So it only applies to contraception, not other religious beliefs like transfusions or vaccinations? I was hoping that if they were going crazy, they would at least go full-on That makes the decision even more absurd. At least if they opened it up to everything it'd be logically consistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Lol scotusblog saying the govt can just by regulation provide coverage itself. Congratulations conservatives you just "won" and in return got a little more of your ultra-feared government provided healthcare. Next up: Gov can not spend tax dollars on programs that sincere religious taxpayers object to. This holding is limited to only abortion and contraception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Seriously only having the ruling pertain to contraceptives is so blatantly enforcing their own prejudices it's disgusting. It's one thing if they just said corporations could hold religions because of some ridiculous legal reasoning but singling out a women's issue that conservatives specifically have an issue with is just them enforcing their own set of politics with no shame. What a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Turn off the internet you doofus. We will still be here after your honeymoon. She works in reproductive health rights (and I was referring to the court) . This is like her Waterloo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Gorilla Desperado posted:I'm thinking this is what they could get Kennedy to go along with. And Alito gets to write it because Roberts wants to minimize his fingerprints on this mess. As opposed to, you know, Roberts voting against it...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Next up: Gov can not spend tax dollars on programs that sincere religious taxpayers object to. This holding is limited to only abortion and contraception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
axeil posted:That makes the decision even more absurd. At least if they opened it up to everything it'd be logically consistent. My secret hope is Kennedy is advocating for single payer healthcare, but that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:As opposed to, you know, Roberts voting against it... He wants the decision, but is canny enough to know there's no way to write it that isn't idiotic. So Alito takes the fall, but he still gets his decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:As opposed to, you know, Roberts voting against it...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
axeil posted:That makes the decision even more absurd. At least if they opened it up to everything it'd be logically consistent. The only ethical religious tenet to support is my religious tenet --Alito, J. for the court
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
So corporations CAN find religion now, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:Seriously only having the ruling pertain to contraceptives is so blatantly enforcing their own prejudices it's disgusting. It's one thing if they just said corporations could hold religions because of some ridiculous legal reasoning but singling out a women's issue that conservatives specifically have an issue with is just them enforcing their own set of politics with no shame. 'But seriously guys, we're totally not partisan hacks'
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
anonumos posted:So corporations CAN find religion now, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Roberts' legacy of corporate fellatio would be so tarnished if he voted against it. I'd like to think that Roberts in one of the worst SCOTUSes in the last hundred years but I'm sure that's incredibly ignorant and naive. FlamingLiberal posted:It's really just Bush v. Gore 2.0 Yeah that's the feeling I got. "We know this ruling is bullshit. Don't base much on it, but we know you can't do anything so suck it up."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
quote:It's Bush v. Gore's "this decision has no precendential value because we're just basically picking Bush and we did it too quickly to be sure our rule is one we ever want to use again" all over again. Please tell me one of these chucklefucks has a heart condition and keeps defiantly smoking/eating red meat because gently caress you Michelle Obama you can't tell me how to be healthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
People wonder why I'm excited for President Hillary. Simply speaking, some of these fuckers have to die sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
anonumos posted:So corporations CAN find religion now, huh? Only if by finding religion they screw over women. Any other reason for finding religion doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
The first reactions from other news sources overread Hobby Lobby significantly. The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.P1oQmgbh.dpuf
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:My secret hope is Kennedy is advocating for single payer healthcare, but that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Ginsburg is dissenting from the bench
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
quote:More on the closely held question: We have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA's applicability to publicly traded corporations . The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations each owned and controlled by members of a single family and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.zZmLbbG8.dpuf "we'll decide that Wal-Mart is religious next year"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
anonumos posted:So corporations CAN find religion now, huh? My new tutoring corporation adheres closely to the strictures of Sharia law; this ensures that, unless our tutors have prehensile toes, no one embezzles twice!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd like to think that Roberts in one of the worst SCOTUSes in the last hundred years but I'm sure that's incredibly ignorant and naive. Nothing's ever really gonna top Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson or the one that said interning the Japanese during WWII was cool. So at least the Roberts Court won't be the worst in all of history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Anybody remember that clip from The Jerk where he details what you can win at his carnival game? "Everything above the stuffed animals but below the electronics, just to the left of the mugs and to the right of the beach balls, just under the noisemakers and on the shelf just above the picture frames. Now that includes the pencile erasers, but not the chiclets." What I'm saying is someone redo that scene but with various religious texts and Scalia as Steve Martin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Ginsburg is dissenting from the bench God bless and keep Our Lady of the Iron Doily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
The Notorious RBG.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
You know someone on scotusblog pointed out that by saying "well there is an acceptable exemption for nonprofits" the scotus is kind of saying that the argument by those same nonprofits that they shouldn't have to abide by the terms of that exemption (and provide certifications to their employees to allow them to go purchase the coverage elsewhere) isn't going to fly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
A large public company could transfer all employment contracts to a closely held subsidiary and then pay the closely held company a contract price to provide employment. Ta da.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
The majority opinion, by holding that the nonprofit accommodation is a less restrictive means for accommodating closely held for-profit business suggests (at least to me) that the non-profits who object to that process (because they don't want to have to certify that they object to providing contraceptive coverage) are in trouble. Seems unlikely the Court would say that this is a less restrictive means in this case, only to later hold that it is unconstitutional. But that's a very quick reaction. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.S683655x.dpuf Curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
euphronius posted:A large public company could transfer all employment contracts to a closely held subsidiary and then pay the closely held company a contract price to provide employment. Ta da. Can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:38
|
|