|
A Winner is Jew posted:So the Roberts court has Bush v Gore, Citizens United, VRA, and now this abortion of a ruling. John Roberts was appointed by GWB in 2005.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Judakel posted:Thank you! It still seems like such an arbitrary distinction, but at least there is now a clear line. That's just the IRS definition. That doesn't mean that is the definition that will be used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:So the Roberts court has Bush v Gore, Citizens United, VRA, and now this abortion of a ruling. Bush v Gore was Rehnquist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
redcheval posted:I've read that vasectomies are still covered for men, but does anyone have any information on whether or not Hobby Lobby would cover tubal ligation? Tubal ligation will still be covered. Out of 13 contraceptive methods only 4 were challenged as being de facto abortion (preventing implantation or development, not conception), anything preventing conception is still a-ok (for now), even by Hobby Lobby standards. The ones challenged were 2 "morning after" pills and 2 IUDs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
If Congress does not define it, "Closely Held" in the context of this ruling will probably end up being a factor test where the courts weigh the facts and the public interest.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:They explicitly say no in the decision but I can't see how they could defend the reasoning (of which there is literally none) if challenged. There isn't any reasoning as far as I've read (about halfway through). Abortion is special because their protesters don't face time-manner-place restrictions (Kennedy). Birth control is special because people who oppose it have a better religious objection than other religious objections (Alito). Drugs are special because commerce clause means nobody can have drugs (Scalia).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That's just the IRS definition. That doesn't mean that is the definition that will be used. I figured, but I didn't want to quibble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:Tubal ligation will still be covered. Out of 13 contraceptive methods only 4 were challenged as being de facto abortion (preventing implantation or development, not conception), anything preventing conception is still a-ok (for now), even by Hobby Lobby standards. The ones challenged were 2 "morning after" pills and 2 IUDs. That may be true of this case, but not necessarily in general. Next a Catholic employer will claim they oppose any contraceptive method because they per se violate the Catholic corporation's religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:This is good, because an employer denying someone blood transfusions would give that employer too much power over an employee's life. Also, if someone had the misfortune of working for an employer who was a Scientologist, forget psychiatric care. Of course, restricting women's access to contraceptives also gives an employer too much power over their employee's life. Women use contraceptives for more than preventing pregnancy. Even if it was only used for preventing pregnancy, preventing pregnancy is a pretty loving huge part of controlling a woman's life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:There isn't any reasoning as far as I've read (about halfway through). Abortion is special because their protesters don't face time-manner-place restrictions (Kennedy). Birth control is special because people who oppose it have a better religious objection than other religious objections (Alito). Drugs are special because commerce clause means nobody can have drugs (Scalia). Spoiler alert: you won't find any.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Even if it was only used for preventing pregnancy, preventing pregnancy is a pretty loving huge part of controlling a woman's life. Which is partly why the court assumed / conceded for sake of argument that providing free birth control was important and a compelling government interest. One of the key factors in the case is that the government implemented an alternative route with which to provide it - however Hobby Lobby and their employees could not access this route. This means that there existed a less-restrictive means available to achieving that goal. Basically, the court assumed that free birth control was really really important and still ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Hobby Lobby's employees's won't lose anything, HHS will extend the accommodation to them. That's why HL won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:That may be true of this case, but not necessarily in general. Next a Catholic employer will claim they oppose any contraceptive method because they per se violate the Catholic corporation's religion. Right. I'm only talking about this case and its immediate implications. It will require a new lawsuit to determine whether it holds true for other forms of birth control, however I'm fairly optimistic since the legal argument against birth control is consistently couched in accusing it of de facto abortion, by asserting life begins at conception. Given that many forms of birth control, including tubal ligation, do not involve conception occurring in the first place, there is no abortion argument to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Hobby Lobby's employees's won't lose anything, HHS will extend the accommodation to them. That's why HL won. Justice Ginsberg posted:And where is the stopping point to "let the government pay" alternative? Suppose and employer's sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage,...or according women equal pay for substantially similar work...? Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:Right. I'm only talking about this case and its immediate implications. It will require a new lawsuit to determine whether it holds true for other forms of birth control, however I'm fairly optimistic since the legal argument against birth control is consistently couched in accusing it of de facto abortion, by asserting life begins at conception. Given that many forms of birth control, including tubal ligation, do not involve conception occurring in the first place, there is no abortion argument to be made. What happens if they have sincere religious beliefs that tubal ligation does cause abortion, causality be damned?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
None of those things have an accommodation already in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Scalia Law New thread title.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
The core problem with Hobby Lobby is that Congress acted stupidly. They wrote a contraceptive exemption that only applied to nonprofits without any coherent reason (beyond "hey the Catholics are mad"), and they wrote a dumb clause into the RFRA that makes it automatically supersede all future legislation. The ruling was questionable, but this really shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The core problem with Hobby Lobby is that Congress acted stupidly. They wrote a contraceptive exemption that only applied to nonprofits without any coherent reason (beyond "hey the Catholics are mad"), and they wrote a dumb clause into the RFRA that makes it automatically supersede all future legislation. Technically the contraceptive regulation and the exemption were drafted by HHS/the executive/Obama. Congress only said "preventive care", the rest was Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Hobby Lobby's employees's won't lose anything, HHS will extend the accommodation to them. That's why HL won. HL had to win another part of the case to even come to that conclusion. RFRA plainly does not apply to for-profit corporations absent the insane nonsense notion that corporations are people. In the absence of RFRA covering a corporation, it doesn't matter if there is a less-restrictive alternative. There's really no covering for this loving travesty of a decision. The abuse of the court's power by the conservative wing is infuriating and sickening and should not be defended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
mdemone posted:What happens if they have sincere religious beliefs that tubal ligation does cause abortion, causality be damned? This seems like a huge problem. By extending the scope of these exceptions to for profit firms, it seems like the judiciary would need to start ruling on what is, or is not, a sincerely held religious belief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:None of those things have an accommodation already in place. No, the accommodation in place exists for non-profit religious orgs, not for-profit companies. New accommodations would have to be made, so the question remains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Technically the contraceptive regulation and the exemption were drafted by HHS/the executive/Obama. Congress only said "preventive care", the rest was Obama. How did I not know this O.o
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:HL had to win another part of the case to even come to that conclusion. RFRA plainly does not apply to for-profit corporations absent the insane nonsense notion that corporations are people. In the absence of RFRA covering a corporation, it doesn't matter if there is a less-restrictive alternative. 1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— … the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; CSPAN Caller posted:This seems like a huge problem. By extending the scope of these exceptions to for profit firms, it seems like the judiciary would need to start ruling on what is, or is not, a sincerely held religious belief. They already do this. Mo_Steel posted:No, the accommodation in place exists for non-profit religious orgs, not for-profit companies. New accommodations would have to be made, so the question remains. There's still a religious accommodation, which cracks strict scrutiny significantly (Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal). All Obama needs to do is extend a framework already in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The key thing is also that it only seems to apply to self-insured companies. Almost all large companies self-insure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
CSPAN Caller posted:This seems like a huge problem. By extending the scope of these exceptions to for profit firms, it seems like the judiciary would need to start ruling on what is, or is not, a sincerely held religious belief. This isn't new. Courts have ruled on sincerity for a long time (See: Clay v. United States). It's centrality that they don't get involved with. ElrondHubbard posted:Right. I'm only talking about this case and its immediate implications. It will require a new lawsuit to determine whether it holds true for other forms of birth control, however I'm fairly optimistic since the legal argument against birth control is consistently couched in accusing it of de facto abortion, by asserting life begins at conception. Given that many forms of birth control, including tubal ligation, do not involve conception occurring in the first place, there is no abortion argument to be made. That result would make the problem worse, not better, in my opinion. It really reinforces the idea that abortion is special and the views of people who object to it are privileged above other political views. That apparent privilege is what I objected to in McCullen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:This isn't new. Courts have ruled on sincerity for a long time (See: Clay v. United States). It's centrality that they don't get involved with. What do you mean by that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
(Not directed at anyone) As far as I can tell, the fact that it was pseudo-abortion didn't play in the decision at all - only that they were religiously opposed to it and there were other accommodations available. If the case were about literal abortion, I'm not sure what reasoning they would have used to strike it down. Abortion as a medical procedure seems to be lumped in with blood transfusions and vaccinations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
So how big of a party are we throwing when Roberts and/or Scalia dies? Cause I'm gonna throw a bitchin' shindig and anyone who wants to come toast to their demise is welcome. Also how bad is the Harris v Quinn ruling? Seems like they kind of sidestepped it while saying "please, give us a better case for gutting unions, we really want to and just need you to lob us an easy pitch to knock out of the park."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Roberts and Alito will never pay for their own drinks again at any Koch Brothers convention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:None of those things have an accommodation already in place. Justice Ginsburg posted:The courts determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.19 Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court's expansive notion of corporate personhood-combined with its other errors in construing RFRA-invites for-profit entities to seek religion based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:There's still a religious accommodation, which cracks strict scrutiny significantly (Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal). All Obama needs to do is extend a framework already in place. Would you argue then that if there had been no existing accommodation in place that Hobby Lobby should've lost their case? If HHS authors an exemption for religious non-profit organizations to not cover vaccination or transfusions would the comparison then be more valid somehow? Because it sure looks like a meaningless distinction that would be instantly goalposted if it weren't currently in place to something else like "well Congress can just cover it like they cover people below the poverty line" or "well small businesses already are accommodated so they should accommodate larger businesses too" or "well now the accommodate closely held for-profits so why not other for-profits". Not that goalpost shifting from this Court would be surprising in the least, given that they just demonstrated a willingness to provide utterly arbitrary distinctions for what is or isn't an acceptable religious objection to hold: only contraceptives (so far). Magres posted:So how big of a party are we throwing when Roberts and/or Scalia dies? Cause I'm gonna throw a bitchin' shindig and anyone who wants to come toast to their demise is welcome. I'll probably just play this on repeat for a week as it pretty much applies to them too: quote:Because there's one thing I know, I'd like to live Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Magres posted:So how big of a party are we throwing when Roberts and/or Scalia dies? Cause I'm gonna throw a bitchin' shindig and anyone who wants to come toast to their demise is welcome. That is not dead which can eternal lie And with strange lawsuits even death may die
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Would you argue then that if there had been no existing accommodation in place that Hobby Lobby should've lost their case? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Magres posted:Also how bad is the Harris v Quinn ruling? Seems like they kind of sidestepped it while saying "please, give us a better case for gutting unions, we really want to and just need you to lob us an easy pitch to knock out of the park." They spent almost the entirety of the oral arguments talking about unions. The fact that the Court released such a narrow opinion indicates these arguments were not convincing, especially since nobody wrote a concurrence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
It's interesting how RBG's dissent mirrors Scalias dissent in Windsor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Why? The Court makes no such distinction in it's decision; they even outright state that before offering the accommodation up as a third method to achieve their goal: quote:(2) The Government has failed to satisfy RFRA’s least-restrictive-means standard. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests. e: And further the Court argues: quote:HHS contends that RFRA does not permit us to take this option into account because “RFRA cannot be used to require creation of entirely new programs.” Brief for HHS in 13–354, at 15.37 But we see nothing in RFRA that supports this argument, and drawing the line between the “creation of an entirely new program” and the modification of an existing program (which RFRA surely allows) would be fraught with problems. Therefore the question Ginsburg raises about where this argument stops and the examples she gives are valid comparisons, existing accommodations or no. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What do you mean by that? Whether a religious belief is sincerely held is a question of fact that can be adjudicated at trial. The case I cited was one example where the sincerity of Muhammad Ali's religious objection to participating in a war for a non-Muslim state was one of the key issues. In the Hobby Lobby case, the government stipulated to sincerity, so it wasn't an issue in that case. If Walmart suddenly has a conversion some version of Santaria and can't permit health inspections at its meat suppliers, the government would be much less likely to concede that issue of sincerity. What courts typically don't get involved with is determining how important any one provision of a religion is to followers of that religion. So, if someone claims they have to run their candy factory kosher, the courts might look at whether the owners were consistently Jewish or only for this one law they don't want to follow. However they will not get into whether or not corn syrup is kosher for passover, or whether the corn syrup rule is one of the important kosher rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Magres posted:So how big of a party are we throwing when Roberts and/or Scalia dies? More likely Scalia or Kennedy since Roberts has around a good 20 years less age on both of them. Also, don't make party promises without intent to follow through. I've been known to drive hundreds of miles when bonfires, beer, and/or general revelry is involved, so you've been warned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Why? The Court makes no such distinction in it's decision; they even outright state that before offering the accommodation up as a third method to achieve their goal: They talked somewhat about the government paying for it, but most of it was simply pointing out that HHS had none essentially no defense on that point. It's a dumb part of the opinion, but it doesn't mean much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:29
|
|