|
Discendo Vox posted:My understanding is that there was language in the majority opinion (which I can't find right now because in addition to posting I'm also watching a review lecture on Torts, a subject I haven't studied in four years) that indicated the holding was in fact limited to the four methods at issue in the case. The thread, and scotusblog, treated this as a narrowing of the scope, because a broader reading would be even more absurd and destructive and nonsensical than the arbitrarily narrow reading. Alito asserted it was limited to the contraceptive mandate (not necessarily just the 4 deemed onerous to hobby lobby), though he didn't really back up that assertion with any sort of legal arguments (other than denying that other plausible injuries exist, and acknowledging the truism that other issues may involve different government interests and/or different least restrictive means). Kennedy claimed in his concurrence that the existence of Obama's accommodation for religious organizations narrowly confined the ruling to solely the contraceptive mandate, but that's clearly Kennedy making poo poo up in an attempt to absolve SCOTUS from responsibility for the natural consequences of lovely decisions - nobody actually believes that this opens the door for a legal distinction between existing alternatives and plausible new alternatives in evaluating "least restrictive means". In other words, the expansion of the ruling beyond the four exemptions requested by hobby lobby isn't a "worry", it's a given, and SCOTUS has already issued three orders to lower courts where every contraceptive in the mandate is being objected to (and denied petitions by three additional lawsuits where the plaintiff already won the right to be exempt on RFRA grounds from every element of the contraceptive mandate). The worry here is that the logic applies even more broadly - for example, to the coverage of health care for transexual workers, or to the coverage of pre-exposure profelactics to gay men (a protection against HIV). Again, Alito asserts that this isn't the case, but that hasn't stopped people from arguing cases using the logic in Bush v. Gore despite the assertion there that the ruling didn't apply to any other circumstance.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
I see. God, this decision is the worst. I miss Bush v. Gore. So glad that once I pass the bar I'll not have to think about the details of case interpretation again (not that it will stop me  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Does it really matter if it specifically includes it or not? Can any reasonable lower-court judge look at a contraceptive case, apply Hobby Lobby and the RFRA test, see that contraceptives and the pseudo-abortifacients are part of the same regulation and have the same government provided accommodation, and rule differently? I guess we won't know for sure until the lower courts that were ordered to reconsider their decisions rule again, but my thinking is they probably can't. Even though it wasn't explicitly stated in the opinion, my guess is the ruling was made with the knowledge that there are other religious objections to other types of BC (like Catholics for all kinds of birth control) and so they would be accommodated as well. But I highly doubt the lower court rulings would be upheld, there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room in "the contraception mandate is unlawful." e: Vox seems to think that this issue isn't as settled as we think and will be percolating in the lower courts for a while longer w.r.t Catholic businesses, but if any of those cases go through, they'll for sure end back up at the Supreme Court, and we'll probably get the same outcome as in this case. sexy fucking muskrat fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
So would just adding the "this is exempt from RFRA" to the health care act render all this moot? Not that it'll happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Javid posted:So would just adding the "this is exempt from RFRA" to the health care act render all this moot? Not that it'll happen. It should make the mandate legal because of general applicability (the law isn't religious in nature) but who knows with this court. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5-4 decision that carves out an exception to general applicability just because it's abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Javid posted:So would just adding the "this is exempt from RFRA" to the health care act render all this moot? Not that it'll happen. This would essentially be a double-dog-dare for Kennedy to rule on first-amendment grounds rather than statutory grounds. On the other hand, as helpfully noted by Alito, single-payer healthcare would in fact render all this moot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Would be interesting if there were a birth control vaccine or blood transfusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Would be interesting if there were a birth control vaccine or blood transfusion. There's injectable birth control but I don't think it really counts for what you're aiming at here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:I guess we won't know for sure until the lower courts that were ordered to reconsider their decisions rule again, but my thinking is they probably can't. Even though it wasn't explicitly stated in the opinion, my guess is the ruling was made with the knowledge that there are other religious objections to other types of BC (like Catholics for all kinds of birth control) and so they would be accommodated as well. But I highly doubt the lower court rulings would be upheld, there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room in "the contraception mandate is unlawful." Vox is correct that the three lower court cases were all technically asked to reconsider their "total exemption" cases by examining the government interest, the burden to religious practice, and the "least restrictive means" particular to those cases. But all three of these things are literally identical to the facts decided upon in hobby lobby. Regardless of whether the objection is to four contraceptive or twenty contraceptives, the expressed government interest is the same (the contraceptive mandate), the burden to religious practice is the same (violating any part of the contraceptive mandate carries the same fine), and the alternative means is the same (the accommodation for religious organizations is a pretty unassailable argument that alternative means of pursuing the government's interests exist in a way that is less restrictive). Again, the extension of this ruling to the rest of the contraceptive mandate seems like a gimme to me (though I'm a total layperson when it comes to law). I think the real issues start to crop up when folks start applying the logic of the decision to other forms of currently illegal behavior (such as denying coverage of blood transfusions or sex-reassignment surgery in states where these things are legally protected).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Don't rely on my opinions on any of this- I was basing them off of some possibly equally erroneous quotations and opinions earlier in the thread and at scotusblog. I've only skimmed the decision, and I've been way too distracted/stressed to really get into it. On the other hand, if anyone wants my professional legal opinion of this freaking BarBri lecturer's tendency to put three prefacing statements before every standard in this torts lecture, I'd be happy to do so. edit: oh, that Vox. That's better then. I am not vox I am vox. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
That's Vox as in the website, not you, Vox the poster  Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything in the opinion that specifies why the ruling only applies to closely held corporations, is there? So in addition to the cases extending the RFRA to blood transfusions or whatever, it also seems inevitable that we're going to see cases from larger, publicly traded companies and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
So did they cover the test for what corporations are closely held, and what tests are required for "sincerely held" religious beliefs, for which religions its applicable, or is that more fun stuff we get to have clarified by order and mandate further down the road?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything in the opinion that specifies why the ruling only applies to closely held corporations, is there? So in addition to the cases extending the RFRA to blood transfusions or whatever, it also seems inevitable that we're going to see cases from larger, publicly traded companies and the like. In a large or publicly traded company, the decisions of the company need not be decisions of the owners. So there's no claim of religious principle to be made; the owners are passively allowing contraceptives to be provided, in precisely the same way that Catholic nonprofits passively allow the government to provide them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Can't say I am all that surprised. The thing that perhaps bothers me the most is that feelings and 'belief' trump scientific fact. In a perfect world, the court would tell Hobby Lobby to gently caress right off because their 'beliefs' are empirically wrong. Sorry, just because you believe that these contraceptive methods cause abortions, which they don't, does not mean you cannot cover them. And they are covering normal birth control pills, which if you took enough of, would have a similar effect as the morning after pill. But hey, I guess the rich people's ignorance trumps the poors healthcare needs. Plus on just a fairness level it's disgusting that you now have a system where it's OK for male things like Viagra to be covered but not contraceptives that only impact women. Can we all agree that this is the Anti-Warren Court or something? also does anyone know what the stakes are in the related Little Sisters case that is going to be decided soon? I have no idea if this is challenging the contraception mandate as a whole yet again or just the religious exception. The whole thing comes off as dumb to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
I said something similar in the Politoons thread (because I have too many threads open at once):Discendo Vox posted:The Hobby Lobby owners aren't the true villains in all this, as objectionable as I may find their views. It's the sophisticated group of political actors who persuaded them and manipulated them into an effective test case to advance a longer term legal and political agenda that really deserve our collective derision and fear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Plus on just a fairness level it's disgusting that you now have a system where it's OK for male things like Viagra to be covered but not contraceptives that only impact women. There's no viagra mandate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:This would essentially be a double-dog-dare for Kennedy to rule on first-amendment grounds rather than statutory grounds. On the other hand, as helpfully noted by Alito, single-payer healthcare would in fact render all this moot. Double dog dare in the other direction? One of the justices (I don't remember if it was Alito) made the same point in the individual mandate case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Too bad Obama's incapable of actual leadership otherwise he could use this insanity to either stack the court or push for UHC. That would require him to actually want UHC in the first place, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Too bad Obama's incapable of actual leadership otherwise he could use this insanity to either stack the court or push for UHC. That would require him to actually want UHC in the first place, though. "Obama should do the thing that the closest thing to the American Dictator tried and failed miserably at doing".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Stacking the court would require a vacancy. The only plausible retirement I can see in the next two years is RBG depending on what happens to the Senate in November.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Too bad Obama's incapable of actual leadership otherwise he could use this insanity to either stack the court or push for UHC. That would require him to actually want UHC in the first place, though. This is just so completely wrong because it ignores the structural limits of our system: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency-explained
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
It's actually more of a Power Ring Theory of the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
10-8 posted:This is just so completely wrong because it ignores the structural limits of our system: Our system is way out of date but it won't be rewritten in my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:So did they cover the test for what corporations are closely held, and what tests are required for "sincerely held" religious beliefs, for which religions its applicable, or is that more fun stuff we get to have clarified by order and mandate further down the road? There isn't a test for anything in their decision which is one of the reasons I think its poo poo. Just that it is, because reasons. Basically the court ruled that the contraceptive mandate, as a whole, is not the least restrictive means for the government to achieve its goal (which is a valid point). I don't even think they had a disagreement on whether or not this was a good thing for the government to accomplish. They also ruled that since non-profits are exempt, hey, why not regular companies too (this I don't agree with)? I just don't get why anyone was under the impression that this only applied to certain contraception. I don't remember reading a word in the court's decision where they describe Hobby Lobbies specific objection to certain contraceptives, and I don't remember the court specifying in their decision. But the ruling is poo poo because it takes no care to enact any sort of test to justify why, in this instance, it only applies to closely held companies. It also doesn't justify why, in this instance, it only applies to contraception. It's part of that open-door thing Ginsburg is worried about. There was no test for anything, just 'we rule as it is because we say so'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Basically the court ruled that the contraceptive mandate, as a whole, is not the least restrictive means for the government to achieve its goal (which is a valid point).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/ Religious Freedoms plz
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/ I'm afraid I don't quite grasp what it is they want or what it has to do with the Hobby Lobby case. What exactly is a "religious exemption" in regards to hiring gay people? Do gay people wear signs on their heads saying "I'm gay"? I don't last time I checked. Besides, aren't LGBT people already a protected class, thanks to the DOMA case decision last year? And what's more, would this forthcoming legislation apply to Christian schools that wish to hire gay teachers? I'm just very confused by this or what it has to do with the Hobby Lobby decision. If they want to reaffirm that it's okay for them to not hire LGBT people in the public/private secular sector, then all they're going to get is a losing court case. If they're afraid of being forced to hire gay people at their churches or religious shops, then fine by me, give them their "exemption". Not like any gay people would actually want to work for Biblethump Industries anyway. It's like those Christians who are terrified that gay people will want to marry at their random hick church in the middle of nowhere and they'll be forced to do so. Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:While I agree it would be nice to have had a test regarding closely held companies, I don't think it was really necessary, given that sincerity was not in dispute. The answer to your other complaint is in your own post. Contraceptives are obviously special, because the government went out of its way to make them special. I don't see why we need a second test to test least restrictive means. I am skeptical that the decision turned on Obama's accomodation with religious groups. Do you really think the court would have ruled the other way if he hadn't made an exemption in the first place? Because it sure looks to me like a convenient justification and that, given the majority's vagueness and lack of reasoning, they would have just shifted the ruling onto some other bullshit grounds. I mean, I agree that Obama should have never conceded that one person's religious views should dominate another persons healthcare or given these bible thumpers even the time of day when they whined about how it's no fun that they can't persecute sex-having women anymore, but it's hardly fair to blame him for a ruling that the assholes on the court were going to make anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am skeptical that the decision turned on Obama's accomodation with religious groups. Do you really think the court would have ruled the other way if he hadn't made an exemption in the first place? Because it sure looks to me like a convenient justification and that, given the majority's vagueness and lack of reasoning, they would have just shifted the ruling onto some other bullshit grounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am skeptical that the decision turned on Obama's accomodation with religious groups. Do you really think the court would have ruled the other way if he hadn't made an exemption in the first place? Because it sure looks to me like a convenient justification and that, given the majority's vagueness and lack of reasoning, they would have just shifted the ruling onto some other bullshit grounds. It's not a bullshit justification given that the court unanimously used similar reasoning against the CSA just a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:I'm afraid I don't quite grasp what it is they want or what it has to do with the Hobby Lobby case. What exactly is a "religious exemption" in regards to hiring gay people? Do gay people wear signs on their heads saying "I'm gay"? I don't last time I checked. "Stay in the closet and you won't be abused" is a pretty drat lovely argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's not a bullshit justification given that the court unanimously used similar reasoning against the CSA just a few years ago. It's a bullshit justification. The case you're citing there doesn't really do much work as it's the exact same case that sparked the initial RFRA, except with a different drug. It has no relationship to this case and does absolutely nothing to support that it's not a bullshit justification.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:This ruling is clearly predicated on the special treatment. Since we are talking about whether this ruling needed a test for why contraceptives are special, the answer to that question is "No, the government made it obvious contraceptives are special". Whether the majority would have found another way to the same opinion is just speculative fan fiction. I think you're ignoring the Roberts Court's strong precedent that women are property.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a bullshit justification. The case you're citing there doesn't really do much work as it's the exact same case that sparked the initial RFRA, except with a different drug. It has no relationship to this case and does absolutely nothing to support that it's not a bullshit justification. quote:And in fact an exception has been made to the Schedule I ban for religious use. For the past 35 years, there has been a regulatory exemption for use of peyote--a Schedule I substance--by the Native American Church. See 21 CFR §1307.31 (2005). In 1994, Congress extended that exemption to all members of every recognized Indian Tribe. See 42 U. S. C. §1996a(b)(1). Everything the Government says about the DMT in hoasca--that, as a Schedule I substance, Congress has determined that it "has a high potential for abuse," "has no currently accepted medical use," and has "a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision," 21 U. S. C. §812(b)(1)--applies in equal measure to the mescaline in peyote, yet both the Executive and Congress itself have decreed an exception from the Controlled Substances Act for Native American religious use of peyote. If such use is permitted in the face of the congressional findings in §812(b)(1) for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans practicing their faith, it is difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 547 (1993) ("It is established in our strict scrutiny jurisprudence that 'a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest 'of the highest order' ... when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited' " (quoting Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524, 541-542 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))). quote:In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections. Or as the Solicitor General explains: quote:But a defendant must demonstrate why any less restrictive alternative that is identified in the administrative grievance process would not adequately advance its compelling interests in the particular case. When the record reveals that other prisons or prison systems regularly employ less restrictive means of furthering their compelling interests, moreover, a defendant must explain why those less restrictive alternatives would not adequately further the government’s interests with respect to the particular plaintiff at issue. And when a prison provides an exception to a general rule for secular reasons (or for only certain religious reasons), the prison must explain why extending a comparable exception to a specific plaintiff for religious reasons would undermine its compelling interests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
I am by no means a lawyer, but whats now to prevent a business owned by Christian Scientist to not offer health insurance at all to it's employees? As their religious belief specifically states that prayer is ultimately the only viable option to illness? Or a business owned by a Jehovah's Witness etc...
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Or as the Solicitor General explains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith The RFRA was written to overturn that decision. The crux of that (unanimous) decision is basically "well that stuff is the same as peyote". The RFRA was explicitly intended to provide a defense for native americans using peyote: the regulatory structure is not necessary to that decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I am by no means a lawyer, but whats now to prevent a business owned by Christian Scientist to not offer health insurance at all to it's employees? As their religious belief specifically states that prayer is ultimately the only viable option to illness? They already can. Employers with under 50 employees don't have to offer health insurance, and larger companies don't have to either, they'll just be hit with a substantial fine. Now if they wanted to get out of it and not pay the fine, then they'd probably sue, but I think that would be a slightly different issue
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Obama should do the thing that the closest thing to the American Dictator tried and failed miserably at doing". Uh I'm pretty sure Jackson personally nullifying court decisions tops FDR threatening to stack the court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith O Centro held that DMT was like peyote, and that the exception that the DEA had already granted to the Native American Church undermined strict scrutiny. That exception long predated RFRA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Uh I'm pretty sure Jackson personally nullifying court decisions tops FDR threatening to stack the court. He probably never said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; if he did, it was in regards to Worcester v. Georgia, which did not order the President to take any action. He definitely didn't personally nullify any Supreme Court decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:33
|
|