|
So is the paper the Constitution is written on flush-safe once the Roberts court is done wiping with it, or will it have to be disposed of in a bodily waste bag?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
So, I read about the outcome, 5-4 and that poo poo, but does that just mean that HL doesn't have to have insurance with birth control on it? And, isn't it going to be picked up by the government anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:So is the paper the Constitution is written on flush-safe once the Roberts court is done wiping with it, or will it have to be disposed of in a bodily waste bag? Well the decision actually expanded the Bill of Rights even though that expansion makes no sense. I'd argue they're making GBS threads on logic and common sense, not the Constitution. The VRA decision though, yeah. 14th Amendment apparently doesn't mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
gently caress the supreme court
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:So, I read about the outcome, 5-4 and that poo poo, but does that just mean that HL doesn't have to have insurance with birth control on it? And, isn't it going to be picked up by the government anyway? I think it's yes and yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I think it's yes and yes. And that means the decision doesn't have *insanely* bad consequences, just that the decision itself is incredibly bad in all ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
quote:For purists, it is important to note that this case was decided purely on statutory grounds (RFRA) and Alito closes the opionion of the Court by noting that they are not reaching the First Amendment claims raised by Hobby Lobby. What does 'not reaching' mean in this instance? That they are not commenting on? Or are they denying that HL has a First Amendment claim?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:04
|
|
Y-Hat posted:You think that the right-wing five give any fucks about a slippery slope argument? Whenever it suits them!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Activist Judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Lessail posted:gently caress the supreme court Obama needs to appoint 2 new Justices asap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted: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. Intent was extremely ambiguous here, as seen in the dueling arguments over the Crown Kosher case. But RFRA says what it says. It's dumb, but it's Congress's job to write laws, not the courts. Doctor Butts posted:Could have sworn it was mentioned somewhere that they straight up said there was no compelling interest to cover birth control. They said the opposite. axeil posted:Well the decision actually expanded the Bill of Rights even though that expansion makes no sense. No they didn't. This was a statutory case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What does 'not reaching' mean in this instance? That they are not commenting on? Or are they denying that HL has a First Amendment claim? It means the fuckers were self aware enough that if they touched the 1st amendment part it would require them to open the right wings flank to rhetorical devastation over the next decade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
has scotusblog tried to downplay a bad opinion like this before
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What does 'not reaching' mean in this instance? That they are not commenting on? Or are they denying that HL has a First Amendment claim? When the Court decides cases, they look at the underlying law in layers. In this case, it was decided that the RFRA law covered the issues being raised, so the court didn't even consider the 1st Amendment claims. So, in a hypothetical future when Congress doens't suck, a law could be passed the nullifies the part of the RFRA that affects this case, and then we'll have to do this whole exercise all over again when Hobby Lobby sues under 1st Amendment grounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Justice Kennedy, Concurring posted:In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief. It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or nonreligious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community. But in a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult. In these cases the plaintiffs deem it necessary to exercise their religious beliefs within the context of their own closely held, for-profit corporations. oh gently caress you, Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:When the Court decides cases, they look at the underlying law in layers. In this case, it was decided that the RFRA law covered the issues being raised, so the court didn't even consider the 1st Amendment claims. This is how its supposed to work but you just saw another example of how much this court cares about legal ramifications of stupid bullshit ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Lessail posted:gently caress the supreme court Pack the courts Obama!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Since the SCOTUS is extending the non-profit religious exemption to closely held corps, does that then allow the HHS to extend the no-cost requirement for contraceptives to women covered under the non-profit religious exemption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Obama needs to appoint 2 new Justices asap. When SCOTUS was gutting the New Deal FDR threatened to just keep adding Justices until they agreed with him. I can't even imagine the rage and vitriol that would happen if Obama did the same thing. Mr. Nice! posted:Since the SCOTUS is extending the non-profit religious exemption to closely held corps, does that then allow the HHS to extend the no-cost requirement for contraceptives to women covered under the non-profit religious exemption? SCOTUSBlog seemed to think Obama could issue an executive order to take care of it, meaning that this decision would have no practical impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Lessail posted:has scotusblog tried to downplay a bad opinion like this before I think they might have tried to downplay the VRA decision where Roberts pretty much said "racism is dead"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Intent was extremely ambiguous here, as seen in the dueling arguments over the Crown Kosher case. But RFRA says what it says. It's dumb, but it's Congress's job to write laws, not the courts. And the RFRA does not say what the Supreme Court said it does. It doesn't mention corporations at all, so it is entirely the Court's job to reasonably interpret it. I read the entire thing (it's short) before posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
axeil posted:When SCOTUS was gutting the New Deal FDR threatened to just keep adding Justices until they agreed with him. I can't even imagine the rage and vitriol that would happen if Obama did the same thing. The Court packing threat worked. It resulted in the most progressive era of SC rulings in the nation's history. We're back in a pre 1940s era court now though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Activist Judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:And the RFRA does not say what the Supreme Court said it does. It doesn't mention corporations at all, so it is entirely the Court's job to reasonably interpret it. I read the entire thing (it's short) before posting. It says “person”.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Pack the courts Obama! Nothing is stopping him other than tradition and congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:If you have a right wing friend who rants about "activist judges" on the left ruining the country, tell him to look at the Supreme Court for even worse activist judges. That wouldn't work, they'd just say that they're defending us from the imperial presidency blah blah blah fox news.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Wow, this decision makes me incredibly angry. gently caress that piece of poo poo Kennedy. I just can't believe that in this year, in this goddamned century, that we are still fighting AND LOSING to get people to be treated fairly and equally and with dignity. Humans are a disease and should be wiped out
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The Court packing threat worked. It resulted in the most progressive era of SC rulings in the nation's history. We're back in a pre 1940s era court now though. Are you seriously going to credit the Warren Court to court packing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
So will Hobby Lobby also deny Viagra coverage to unmarried male employees?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Activist judges indeed. Just such a lovely, lovely ruling. Scalia and Thomas can't die/step down soon enough. As far as the case stuff though, why do they still cover vasectomies, but not womens birth control? Why is that allowed for Hobby Lobby? Why wasn't this brought up in the case? Also what is a "closely held" corporation? How does that differ from another?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
McDowell posted:So will Hobby Lobby also deny Viagra coverage to unmarried male employees? I thought most plans didn't cover that already. Jastiger posted:Activist judges indeed. Just such a lovely, lovely ruling. Scalia and Thomas can't die/step down soon enough. It's my (possibly incorrect) understanding that Hobby Lobby will cover birth control but not Plan B or IUDs because they consider causing an implanted egg to be expelled from the body to be an abortion so a vasectomy wouldn't be infringing on that logic. Of course none of those things are designed to prevent pregnancies that way but since there is a non-zero chance they might we have to pretend that their logic isn't stupid. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Activist judges indeed. Just such a lovely, lovely ruling. Scalia and Thomas can't die/step down soon enough. According to IRS, it's a company that has at least 50 of it's stock owned by less than 5 individuals (Fried chicken looked it up in the US polithread)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
visceril posted:Wow, this decision makes me incredibly angry. gently caress that piece of poo poo Kennedy. Lets start with you (and your posting).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Lessail posted:has scotusblog tried to downplay a bad opinion like this before No you see it's a net win because it only the employees of Hobby Lobby (and other closely held companies) are getting their employer's religion forced on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
What criteria did they use to decide which religious convictions to honor and which ones to ignore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
quote:In these cases the plaintiffs deem it necessary to exercise their religious beliefs within the context of their own closely held, for-profit corporations. That is a hell of a statement. In context and out of context. ---- Even if "closely held" is defined now, 10 years of litigation is going to change it substantially. I believe there is an SEC definition, but I do not think that is terribly germane. Each state will have its own definition, if defined at all. And now we are going to add on top of that a bunch of federal quasi-constitutional litigation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:No you see it's a net win because it only the employees of Hobby Lobby (and other closely held companies) are getting their employer's religion forced on them. Hold your companies close and your employees closer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought most plans didn't cover that already. Yeah I think it usually falls outside of the scope. Although I remember reading it somewhere you can use it off-label to treat low blood pressure or something like that. That might be covered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Nothing is stopping him other than tradition and congress. And the fact that if he were to do it the next time we have a GOP president we'd end up with a 200 person supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
While there has been a lot of discussion about how horrible this thing is, I still hope it leads to the outcome that the dept of HHS covers places like hobby lobby exactly like the non-profits, that is that the women on the plan are able to get contraception at no cost to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|