|
Justice Ginsburg posted:...In the end, however, the Court is not so sure. In stark contrast to the Court's initial emphasis on this accommodation, it ultimately declines to decide whether the highlighted accommodation is even lawful. See ante, at 44 ("We do not decide today whether an approach of this choice complies with RFRA...."). moreover... Justice Ginsburg posted:Any First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim Hobby Lobby or Conestoga might assert is foreclosed by this Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990). In Smith,two members of the Native American Church were dismissed from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits because they ingested peyote at, and as an essential element of, a religious ceremony. Oregon law forbade the consumption of peyote, and this Court, relying on that prohibition, rejected the employees’ claim that the denial of unemployment benefits violated their free exercise rights. The First Amendment is not offended, Smith held, when “prohibiting the exercise of religion...is not the object of [governmental regulation] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision."..."an individuals religious beliefs [do not] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct the state is free to regulate". The ACA's contraceptive coverage requirement applies generally, it is "otherwise valid" it trains on women's well being, not on the exercise of religion, and any affect it has on religion is incidental. Quantum Cat fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jun 30, 2014 |
# ? Jun 30, 2014 19:30 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:20 |
|
Is she writing that just incase the RFRA gets amended? I don't understand why she's talking about the first amendment, much less Smith at all, since the privileges asserted here are RFRA privileges and the RFRA was passed specifically to overturn Smith.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 19:34 |
|
Clearly a non-profit church or religious university is different than a for profit company, but you can make a strong argument that Obama doomed this ruling by giving anyone an exemption in the first place. Once you admit that some groups should get an exemption on religious grounds, then the question becomes who should get that exemption, and the courts ruling then is not that surprising.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 19:48 |
|
Was it in here that someone did the effort posts on insurance providers and treatments and how drug costs are impacted by purchasing agreements? I haven't been able to find it.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 19:55 |
|
Little_wh0re posted:It's interesting how RBG's dissent mirrors Scalias dissent in Windsor. There's an easy fix: amend the RFRA (right?). But I cannot imagine anything getting through this Congress, especially when Republicans will cry bloody murder about how Democrats want to destroy your freedom to be Christian or whatever.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 19:57 |
|
kelvron posted:Was it in here that someone did the effort posts on insurance providers and treatments and how drug costs are impacted by purchasing agreements? I haven't been able to find it. Yes, it was in this thread. It was quite a ways back though. Probably around when cert was granted.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:00 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is she writing that just incase the RFRA gets amended? I don't understand why she's talking about the first amendment, much less Smith at all, since the privileges asserted here are RFRA privileges and the RFRA was passed specifically to overturn Smith. Justice Ginsberg posted:Lacking a tenable claim under the Free exercise Clause, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga rely on RFRA, a statute instructing that "[g]government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the the burden results from a rule of general applicability" unless the government shows that application of the burden is "the least restrictive means" to further a "compelling governmental interest. 2 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a),(b)(2). In RFRA, Congress “adopt[ed] a statutory rule comparable to
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:03 |
|
kelvron posted:Was it in here that someone did the effort posts on insurance providers and treatments and how drug costs are impacted by purchasing agreements? I haven't been able to find it. It was McAlister, during March. I don't think anything they wrote had any bearing on the actual legal case, though.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:11 |
|
So today could have been far worse. That's what I'm going to tell myself so I can sleep tonight.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:11 |
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So today could have been far worse. That's what I'm going to tell myself so I can sleep tonight. I thought we all drank a lot so we could sleep at night.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:14 |
|
Is it just me, or does this read like Ginsburg had to seriously debate whether or not to write "YOU IDIOTS" on the plaza in gasoline and light it ablaze as the entirety of her dissent?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:14 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is she writing that just incase the RFRA gets amended? I don't understand why she's talking about the first amendment, much less Smith at all, since the privileges asserted here are RFRA privileges and the RFRA was passed specifically to overturn Smith. Basically she's just, one after another, methodically kicking the legs out from under the avenues of reasoning by which the Court could and did rule for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:18 |
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Is it just me, or does this read like Ginsburg had to seriously debate whether or not to write "YOU IDIOTS" on the plaza in gasoline and light it ablaze as the entirety of her dissent? She always does that, it's nothing new
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:21 |
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Is it just me, or does this read like Ginsburg had to seriously debate whether or not to write "YOU IDIOTS" on the plaza in gasoline and light it ablaze as the entirety of her dissent? I'm only an interested layman when it comes to con-law, but it really reads like that. Quantum Cat fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 30, 2014 |
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:21 |
|
Quantum Cat posted:I'm only an interested layman when it comes con-law, but it really reads like that. She's 81 so that may have been the limiting factor.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:23 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Yes, it was in this thread. It was quite a ways back though. Probably around when cert was granted. esquilax posted:It was McAlister, during March. I don't think anything they wrote had any bearing on the actual legal case, though. Thanks. No bearing on the case, but possibly helpful in Facebook arguments.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:56 |
|
At least the Roberts Court did one thing that was borderline correct today: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/high-court-wont-hear-challenges-california-gay-the/ You can no longer make money off of gay conversion therapy for minors in California if you're a licensed professional. I thought for sure SCOTUS would hear it and then issue another poo poo ruling, so hooray for that I guess. Except we'll probably be seeing the same issue again next year when the loser of the Third Circuit case involving New Jersey's ban applies for certiorari. The Ninth Circuit's reasoning for upholding the ban was pretty shaky, because SCOTUS has reserved the right to declare certain types of speech unprotected (and the dissent from the appellate opinion treats Scalia and SCOTUS like some sort of angry volcano god that gets displeased when lower courts have the hubris to suggest that certain speech should not be protected without SCOTUS' say-so), but on the other hand, speech by a licensed professional in the course of treatment after getting paid to perform professional services should arguably be subject to restrictions (like when it's loving medical treatment lol). I get that it's a tough call from a precedent standpoint, but the proposition that licensed therapists should be able to use techniques that not only don't work but also gently caress with a kid's mind and then charge them for it just because of free speech is goddamn ludicrous from a policy standpoint.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:56 |
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth You're eliding over the key point.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 20:59 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is she writing that just incase the RFRA gets amended? I don't understand why she's talking about the first amendment, much less Smith at all, since the privileges asserted here are RFRA privileges and the RFRA was passed specifically to overturn Smith. Pretty much, because they also brought 1st Amendment claims and the majority specifically refused to evaluate them since they held the RFRA applied. Given how specious their reasoning is, I expect they'd have overturned Smith (and Scalia would have joined the opinion despite the niggling little problem he wrote Smith) if they had to. edit: Nevermind, of course they wouldn't have overturned Smith, they'd have just carved out a narrow exception just for birth control like they did here because overturning Smith would at least be somewhat intellectually coherent.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:03 |
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth evilweasel posted:You're eliding over the key point. Justice Ginsberg posted:RFRA's compelling interest test, as noted, see supra, at 8, applies to government actions that "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1(a) (emphasis added). This reference, the Court submits, incorporates the definition of "person" found in the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. §1, which extends to "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." See ante, at 19-20. The Dictionary Act's definition, however, controls only where "context" does not "indicat[e] otherwise." §1. Here, context does so indicate... look Kiwi Ghost Chips, I know you're busy running a hypothetical halal meat-atorium in the U.S. politics thread, but maybe you should take a moment to actually read the opinion and dissent.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:10 |
|
So it looks like Alito basically said that the home healthcare assistant program is staffed by people that don't quite qualify fully as public employees. Looks like labor is safe, for now. I can't help but think that opening opinion was really salty though. Like you could tell the guy was just looking for a reason to bring the hammer down. I feel sorta bad for the home healthcare workers though, doesn't this basically say they don't have any of the normal shop protections because of the structure of their employement? If anyone wants to read it: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:16 |
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:So it looks like Alito basically said that the home healthcare assistant program is staffed by people that don't quite qualify fully as public employees. Yeah, we all know, this was discussed in detail a bit ago - basically, Alito has invited any and everyone to bring the case to SCOTUS that will let him actually accomplish the worst-case-scenario.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:18 |
|
How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:25 |
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Is it just me, or does this read like Ginsburg had to seriously debate whether or not to write "YOU IDIOTS" on the plaza in gasoline and light it ablaze as the entirety of her dissent? Why waste the gasoline on pavement when she could light Scalia and Roberts on fire instead?
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:27 |
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Why waste the gasoline on pavement when she could light Scalia and Roberts on fire instead? Little known fact: Scalia is 80% asbestos. Wouldn't work.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:28 |
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)? The same way the declared racism to be over... by pulling the opinion out of their rear end to suit their ideological preference, reasonable interpretation of the loving law be damned.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:29 |
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)? Because the Scalia/Alito/Roberts branch has long since departed from giving a poo poo what the law actually says in favor of just following their ideological preference.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:32 |
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)? Just go back to the Lochner era. Scalia is already on the record defending it
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:33 |
|
Welp:
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:35 |
|
Quantum Cat posted:look Kiwi Ghost Chips, I know you're busy running a hypothetical halal meat-atorium in the U.S. politics thread, but maybe you should take a moment to actually read the opinion and dissent. Yes I know what she said. The context does not indicate a distinction, and that part of her dissent was willfully obtuse. Crows Turn Off posted:How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)? They didn't say anything like that.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:39 |
|
B B posted:Welp: Bobby Jindal had an equally tweet that a conservative friend of mine happily trolled me with. You can pretty easily find his "neener-neener-neener" tweet if you look him up.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:40 |
|
B B posted:Welp: Don't feed the trolls.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:40 |
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)? They cant/wont say they're unconstitutional. What they would be saying it they cant collect union dues as a condition for employment, hamstringing the unions financially. Unions could still assemble, but they wouldn't have the money for organizers, negotiators, mediators, lobbyists, etc., rendering them effectively powerless. Mind you, none of this has happened yet, but that appears to be the path. They'll have a much harder time enforcing this for private sector unions than they will for public sector ones.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:42 |
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:They didn't say anything like that.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:47 |
|
evilweasel posted:You're eliding over the key point. Context? Whats Context? -Roberts
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:50 |
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Yes I know what she said. The context does not indicate a distinction, and that part of her dissent was willfully obtuse. You're being willfully obtuse, not Ginsburg. First, that a for-profit corporation can have a religious belief is absurd. Second, the RFRA was passed in a specific context that is listed in its preamble, all of which you've willfully ignored because the history and context makes clear that what was being overturned was the rule that a law of general applicability was not a substantial burden on an individual's freedom of religion rights. It was not to make a new rule out of thin air and so your attempt to argue that the context of the words immediately surrounding it is all that one would look at is absurd. This is the context: quote:(a) Findings None of those cites, naturally, support a for-profit corporation being a "person" under this statute that is protected and make clear such a claim is absurd.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:55 |
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How can SCOTUS even say that unions aren't constitutional? I mean, it's an assembly of people, isn't that guaranteed by the First Amendment? Wouldn't they just be saying that workers cannot assemble? And, isn't that just the free market working as intended, without government intervention (whereas SCOTUS ruling IS government intervention)? People are skipping a few steps and using language that only makes sense if you understand what's going on. What the Supreme Court would do is rule is that public unions can't charge dues to non-union members. Which would make sense, except that the union is required to negotiate for all workers and can't just negotiate for its members. The court would not ban unions, but it would deliberately put them into a situation they can't function in where they're essentially a public good that has to beg for donations instead of having the beneficiaries of their work pay for it.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 21:59 |
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Why waste the gasoline on pavement when she could light Scalia and Roberts on fire instead? OAquinas posted:Little known fact: Scalia is 80% asbestos. Wouldn't work. Here, have a short article by Derek Lowe on just how loving nuts this stuff is. Sand won't save you this time posted:The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels. I'm posting about science because the actuality of these cases really sucks, and mad science is more fun than watching another 5-4 decision that screws us over come down the pipe. fade5 fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jun 30, 2014 |
# ? Jun 30, 2014 22:00 |
|
evilweasel posted:You're being willfully obtuse, not Ginsburg. First, that a for-profit corporation can have a religious belief is absurd. Second, the RFRA was passed in a specific context that is listed in its preamble, all of which you've willfully ignored because the history and context makes clear that what was being overturned was the rule that a law of general applicability was not a substantial burden on an individual's freedom of religion rights. It was not to make a new rule out of thin air and so your attempt to argue that the context of the words immediately surrounding it is all that one would look at is absurd. I don't see how the lack of tax exemption suddenly changes things for a corporation. As far as general going into business is concerned, I think the Boy Scouts certainly do have a religious message if they're selling popcorn or whatever. I'm aware that the goal of RFRA was restoring the pre-Smith decisions. Those decisions didn't explicitly say that for-profit corporations were covered, but they didn't say the opposite either. It was simply an undecided issue. The only (slight) indication one way or the other was the Crown Kosher case (yes).
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 22:01 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:20 |
|
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. Rick Perry, of all people, had a proposal like this back in 2012. That and his call for the creation of a cheap B.A. program were almost enough to make you forget he was grossly unfit for any position involving more responsibility than county dog catcher. It'll never happen of course, the right-wing has a vast infrastructure in place dedicated to cultivating movement conservative legal talent specifically because it gives them an opportunity to enact their policy agenda in a way that's completely unresponsive to democratic(small-d democratic) pressure.
|
# ? Jun 30, 2014 22:06 |