|
axeil posted: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. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Roberts may not be a spring chicken, but he's got some years left in him.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
evilweasel posted: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. Yep, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
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. Don't give them ideas! ElrondHubbard posted:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Roberts may not be a spring chicken, but he's got some years left in him. The Roberts court writing something worse than the Dred Scott "black people aren't people" decision would be pretty tough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Holy motherfucking poo poo. Justice Alito posted:Corporations are people, but their religious convictions only matter with relation to hoo-haas. Because reasons.  Facebook is going to be motherfucking insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
axeil posted:The Roberts court writing something worse than the Dred Scott "black people aren't people" decision would be pretty tough. "Racism is over" was a good first try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Because of the accommodation that already exists for religious nonprofits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
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. A S-Corporation can not be held by a C-Corporation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
axeil posted: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. Yeah I mentioned hundred years to factor out those two monstrosities, but I didn't know about the Japanese internment going to the Supreme Court so horray for Roberts, he still has some way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
axeil posted: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. No, but I'd argue the VRA decision is right up there. Radish posted:Yeah I mentioned hundred years to factor out those two monstrosities, but I didn't know about the Japanese internment going to the Supreme Court so horray for Roberts, he still has some way to go. That's the worst decision that has never explicitly been overturned, basically. Korematsu v. United States Korematsu's personal conviction was overturned because the government lied to the Supreme Court, but the actual holding of Korematsu has never explicitly been overturned despite widespread agreement it's wrong (and probably won't ever, mostly because nobody would dare rely on it anymore and give the court an opening).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
karthun posted:A S-Corporation can not be held by a C-Corporation. The S/C distinction isn't relevant to the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
karthun posted:A S-Corporation can not be held by a C-Corporation. There's gonna be some serious attempts to get around the restrictions on 'closely held,' or some non-closely-held company will bring suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No, but I'd argue the VRA decision is right up there. This plus the VRA decision are pretty out there. I'm not sure if they're in the Top 10 of Bad Decisions though because I don't know enough about law/SCOTUS though. Those 3 were the only really monstrous decisions I could think of. Bush v. Gore was bad too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Because of the accommodation that already exists for religious nonprofits. No. That is the excuse, but we shouldn't have even gotten to the excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:
No there's not because it's about one part of one law that only applies if you're self insuring. If it was an exemption on the ACA entirely maybe, but the effort to put this through will only exist for legitimate crazy people (and no, corporate overlords don't count).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:People wonder why I'm excited for President Hillary. Simply speaking, some of these fuckers have to die sometime. Anyone who says democrats and republicans are the same and you shouldn't vote should be smacked in the face with one of Robert's despicable 5-4's from the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. That is the excuse, but we shouldn't have even gotten to the excuse. RFRA already applied to nonprofits and HHS didn't argue that that was wrong. I don't see how you can read a split between the two into RFRA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
quote:With respect to implications for other kinds of religious-based discrimination, the Court writes that discrimination in hiring will not be permitted under RFRA because "The Government has a compelling interest in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal." Note that this leave open the question of whether the Government has a similarly compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.zZmLbbG8.dpuf
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Yea that's completely retarded. But of course its not mentioned because they'd have to explain how contraception totally isn't a women's issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
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. It wouldn't really save them any money. Contraception coverage on the margin is cheap and accidental pregnancies can be expensive so insurance companies aren't going to give much of a discount, if any. Hobby Lobby's self-insured so it can do whatever idiotic policies it wants even if it costs them more in practice. That's to say nothing of how an unplanned pregnancy can affect project timelines among other real world consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
So at this point is the Court just banking on the "legalize gay marriage nationwide" decision they'll have either next year or the year after being their legacy and what gets them on everybody's good side again? Because I don't think even that will work. This SCOTUS is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Just popping in to say that yes, this is one of the worst decisions SCOTUS could have handed down. The gymnastics these Conservative justices deploy is quite stunning, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:laffo I hate the Roberts court 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:laffo Silly Alito, Roberts says racism is dead!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Congress already covered it in Title 7quote:APPLICABILITY TO FOREIGN AND RELIGIOUS EMPLOYMENT
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:It wouldn't really save them any money. Contraception coverage on the margin is cheap and accidental pregnancies can be expensive so insurance companies aren't going to give much of a discount, if any. Hobby Lobby's self-insured so it can do whatever idiotic policies it wants even if it costs them more in practice. That's to say nothing of how an unplanned pregnancy can affect project timelines among other real world consequences. Yes but what if the sincerely held religious belief of the company is that unionism is evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:So at this point is the Court just banking on the "legalize gay marriage nationwide" decision they'll have either next year or the year after being their legacy and what gets them on everybody's good side again? Because I don't think even that will work. This SCOTUS is awful. Why do you think the GOP hacks care about their "legacy?" This has been their agenda their entire professional lives and they are carrying it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yes but what if the sincerely held religious belief of the company is that unionism is evil. Then nothing would happen because this decision is specifically about contraception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Hey friends, do some protest-donating to your local Planned Parenthood chapters. tia, they needed it anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then nothing would happen because this decision is specifically about contraception. I don't understand how this can be. What justification can there possibly be for limiting it to just contraception?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then nothing would happen because this decision is specifically about contraception. While this is true today, you honestly don't think these shills will knowingly expand this limitation if they can build a consensus in the future, and use this decision as a justification?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:RFRA already applied to nonprofits and HHS didn't argue that that was wrong. I don't see how you can read a split between the two into RFRA. Because the RFRA applying to non-profits is an expansion to cover something necessary to achieve Congress's intent. Covering for-profit corporations is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why do you think the GOP hacks care about their "legacy?" This has been their agenda their entire professional lives and they are carrying it out. Seriously. Roberts was trying to gut the VRA since the 80's when he worked for Reagan and finally was able to enact his dream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then nothing would happen because this decision is specifically about contraception. I am sorry I was following a line of posts that included the part where the Circuits will expand this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I don't understand how this can be. What justification can there possibly be for limiting it to just contraception? "Because we said so". It's a lovely reason but they specifically say it doesn't apply to other religious beliefs (like anti-vaxers or blood transfusions).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I don't understand how this can be. What justification can there possibly be for limiting it to just contraception? I'm pretty sure the court's justification is sticking its fingers in its ears and going LALALALALA loudly until people stop asking this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I don't understand how this can be. What justification can there possibly be for limiting it to just contraception? Jesus said so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I am sorry I was following a line of posts that included the part where the Circuits will expand this. No it wasn't, the quote chain began with you making a dumb hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Gun nuts who argue that the right to bear arms protects against a tyrannical government: I see some tyranny right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I don't understand how this can be. What justification can there possibly be for limiting it to just contraception? Could have sworn it was mentioned somewhere that they straight up said there was no compelling interest to cover birth control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
AhhYes posted:I don't understand how this can be. What justification can there possibly be for limiting it to just contraception?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:59
|
|