|
Well, this is disappointing.  Way to keep being terrible Supreme Court.Restricting it only to contraceptives without any reason beyond "we say so" is maybe the most blatant horseshit excuse I've ever seen. I have a 3 year old nephew and his excuses are less transparent than this. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 30, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
visceril posted:Wow, this decision makes me incredibly angry. gently caress that piece of poo poo Kennedy. The thought of us being the peak of life in the universe is enough to drive anybody to suicide. I didn't think I could feel worse after a SCOTUS ruling than I did after the VRA gutting. Welp, I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
e: needlessly cruel.
computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Jastiger posted: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? evilweasel posted:Lets start with you (and your posting).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
So this is going to extend to the individual mandate right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Lessail posted:has scotusblog tried to downplay a bad opinion like this before It's a terribly reasoned opinion. However a lot of that is simply suggesting that all of the obviously bad results are exempted from it, and as a result the opinion is considerably less bad in its effects than people think it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Nothing is stopping him other than tradition and congress. Well that is actually quite a lot isn't it. Tradition in constitutional republics is virtually the same as the "written law".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Nothing is stopping him other than tradition and congress. Yesss hate on separation of powers more. That'll work great when we get Pres. Cyborg Santorum in 20XX.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:29
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
evilweasel posted:Lets start with you (and your posting). New 5-4 ruling: D&D is now LF
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Viagra was first approved for low blood pressure. There was a kid who was denied a prescription when the pharmacist started asking why a kid would need it. I would look up the story but its one of those search terms that are heavily polluted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
No commentary from the thread on Harris? So far it's looking like a direct sequel to Hobby Lobby in terms of this Court's judicial style. [5 page necro due to two big new decisions] McAlister, I don't understand how you think a unanimous Supreme Court ought to reverse on this. It might benefit you to read the entire opinion, because now you're also misinterpreting the parts I've quoted. You're really leaning over backwards to get to where you want to be on this, and to put me where you want me to be- it may be that your proximity to the issue is causing a degree of bias in how you frame and present the issue. It's making me feel it was a mistake to engage on this in the first place- or direct other folks to this thread to better understand the decision.[/5 page necro due to two big new decisions]
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted: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. We all joke about it but I think court packing would be a long-term Really Bad Thing for the country. A better idea is to just limit SCOTUS justices to something like 24 years (3 full Presidential terms).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No commentary from the thread on Harris? So far it's looking like a direct sequel to Hobby Lobby in terms of this Court's judicial style. Harris is bad, but it's largely bad in that it's saying they'll make the terrible decision we were worried about next year rather than today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
My Big Stupid SCOTUS Reform Idea (everyone with a law degree should have at least 1!) is to reduce the bench to three justices to increase individual accountability in outcomes and heighten individual scrutiny. On the other hand, I also think reasoning as bad as the stuff in this Hobby Lobby decision should be grounds for the removal of everyone who signed it, so 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Lessail posted:has scotusblog tried to downplay a bad opinion like this before Sure, happens all the time. As mentioned there are some really classic ScotusBlog opinions on the VRA, where they take the same "don't worry Obama will just wave a magic wand and fix everything!" stance as they are right now. quote:But who will be able to cut through these radically irreconcilable meanings of the Court’s decision and lead forward on these explosive issues? No one is better positioned than President Obama. Having taught about the VRA for years as a law professor, he knows these issues – their history, their legal and policy consequences – thoroughly. Having run for office, state and national, he understands them from the perspective of the democratic process on the ground. And his natural temperament, honed by years of reflection about exactly these issues, is to appreciate the pull of both sides of this symbolic and practical struggle. Many voters, white and of color, chose him precisely in hope of his potential to move us forward on these and similar issues. The rest of the article is pretty much straight cheerleading for the "it's been 40 years guys, American society has changed and our laws need to keep up!" position the conservative wing took. I've also seen some rather lovely stuff on patent law, where lawyers really lack an appreciation for just how obvious the claims are, and how destructive the whole thing is to innovation. Much like SCOTUS itself, the people who write SCOTUS are not always examining the full ramifications of their dumb legal game-playing - most especially when it keeps bread on their plates. Basically at the end of the day ScotusBlog is still written by lawyers, who are real people who can be lovely and right-wing and stuck in their own little navelgazing legal world too. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
On the plus side, this decision is the greatest victory for Sharia law in American history
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:On the plus side, this decision is the greatest victory for Sharia law in American history Scalia Law
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:We all joke about it but I think court packing would be a long-term Really Bad Thing for the country. A better idea is to just limit SCOTUS justices to something like 24 years (3 full Presidential terms). I like the idea of limiting justice terms, but think 24 years might be a bit long. Maybe 20 years. The possibility of seeing 5 Presidents elected in the span of a SCOTUS justice term seems fair and not excessive to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Sure, happens all the time. As mentioned there are some really classic ScotusBlog opinions on the VRA, where they take the same "don't worry Obama will just wave a magic wand and fix everything!" stance as they are right now. Also note that those are not opinions held by those that run SCOTUSblog, thats a guest column from a law professor. Pretty much all the non news content is from a guest law professor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:I like the idea of limiting justice terms, but think 24 years might be a bit long. Maybe 20 years. The possibility of seeing 5 Presidents elected in the span of a SCOTUS justice term seems fair and not excessive to me. This stuff really doesn't work out too well at the state level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My Big Stupid SCOTUS Reform Idea (everyone with a law degree should have at least 1!) is to reduce the bench to three justices to increase individual accountability in outcomes and heighten individual scrutiny. On the other hand, I also think reasoning as bad as the stuff in this Hobby Lobby decision should be grounds for the removal of everyone who signed it, so
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This stuff really doesn't work out too well at the state level. Limited terms is fine, it's re-election that's problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Limited terms is fine, it's re-election that's problematic. I suppose its kinda hard to disconnect the two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:I like the idea of limiting justice terms, but think 24 years might be a bit long. Maybe 20 years. The possibility of seeing 5 Presidents elected in the span of a SCOTUS justice term seems fair and not excessive to me. If a 24 year term limit applied now the following justices would have already retired: Scalia (appointed in 1986) Kennedy (appointed in 1988) Thomas would have to go next year, RBG in 2017 and Breyer in 2018. The next one would be Alito in 2030. There's a lot of veteran justices on the Court right now. Doesn't seem that unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Was wondering how this got 500 posts in one day. I pray the Lord Jesus that this bench hear some more 2A cases. I'm floored at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
axeil posted:If a 24 year term limit applied now the following justices would have already retired: You'd also implement something so the terms were evenly spaced out, so that each term or two was guaranteed an appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Life time appointments is not the boogieman. It is who is being appointed and approved by the senate and the lack of Congress's ability to pass laws which we like. Congress could fix most of the bad stuff the SC spits out. The SC really does not have a lot of power at all compared to Congress + Prez, but in long periods of divided gov, like we have now, they stick out because they are the only branch which affirmatively tackles tough issues and also Congress sets the Court up to tackle the tough issues and be the fall guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You'd also implement something so the terms were evenly spaced out, so that each term or two was guaranteed an appointment. Right, you'd not want the entire court getting replaced every 24 years. Structure it so every 2-term President gets 3 appointments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:What criteria did they use to decide which religious convictions to honor and which ones to ignore? Since lawyers love Latin, ex cathedra.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:However it's done, one thing is sure: lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices is a terrible loving idea. No term limits, just a constitutional requirement that they get no pages and have to walk to and from work every day  . (The discrimination cases alone would be fascinating)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I don't see how staggered term limits or whatever would "improve" the court. There are like a million Federalist clones of Roberts and Alito out there waiting in the wings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Would Hobby Lobby even be able to buy insurance plans without it? I don't imagine Blue Cross and the rest making a "religious/Hobby Lobby" plan when 99% of the country is mandated to have it. I'm not arguing a point here I'm just genuinely ignorant to how this would work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
A closely held corporation has 50% of its stock held by 5 people or 50 stock? Because, like....a lot of major companies have a few shareholders with majority stakes. Does that make them closely held?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Scalia Law Say 5 Jack Bauer's and 2 fine physical specimens my son.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:A closely held corporation has 50% of its stock held by 5 people or 50 stock? Because, like....a lot of major companies have a few shareholders with majority stakes. Does that make them closely held? They can't be publicly traded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Ginsburgs dissents are at least a consolation prize for this poo poo sandwich, emphasis in bold is mine:quote:Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA.13 The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819). Corporations, Justice Stevens more recently reminded, “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 466 (2010) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:A closely held corporation has 50% of its stock held by 5 people or 50 stock? Because, like....a lot of major companies have a few shareholders with majority stakes. Does that make them closely held? Fried Chicken posted:Oh and here is the IRS definition of a closely held corporation: at least 50% of shares owned by 5 or fewer individuals
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
TheReverend posted:Would Hobby Lobby even be able to buy insurance plans without it? I don't imagine Blue Cross and the rest making a "religious/Hobby Lobby" plan when 99% of the country is mandated to have it. I thought they said it was to be treated just like a religious non-profit corporation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I don't see how staggered term limits or whatever would "improve" the court. There are like a million Federalist clones of Roberts and Alito out there waiting in the wings. It would mean the Court more closely mirrored the other two branches as they exist now, rather than as they existed decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
I'm a little unclear on this point: if RFRA were repealed, would Hobby Lobby still be good law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:53
|
|