|
How good is this as a rundown on the Hobby Lobby decision? http://fritterfae.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/its-about-bad-law/
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
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? The decision only applies to vaginas. Those other particular religious beliefs you mentioned aren't shared by Justice Alito and friends so they will be dismissed as kooky nonsense (really)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
I think the next thing is businesses denying healthcare to the LGBTQ community.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I think the next thing is businesses denying healthcare to the LGBTQ community. They would fail so badly I doubt it'd even reach SCOTUS. That would be overt discrimination and thus would make LGBT people a suspect class. In fact if anything I wish a company would try just so we could get the case establishing gay people as a protected class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I think the next thing is businesses denying healthcare to the LGBTQ community. I know there are people out there who advocate this seriously citing AIDS as their reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:I know there are people out there who advocate this seriously citing AIDS as their reasoning. Ever wonder why workplace health programs are so common? One reason is that insurers give discounts to companies that institute them. Follow the logic train and it's not too difficult to see companies having significant incentives to avoid hiring smokers, fat people, gays, women who might get pregnant, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:More generally, there is a pernicious problem with employer-provided healthcare. It just gives way too much profit motivation for many forms of discrimination. Almost as many states have specifically passed laws banning employment discrimination against smokers almost as have comprehensive ENDA laws 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
kelvron posted:How good is this as a rundown on the Hobby Lobby decision? Not very. I'm not going to bother with a detailed point-by-point takedown, but there are some clear mistakes here that should send your skeptic alarm ringing. Primarily, he A) says that the court "told the Executive Branch that they couldn’t possibly be serious about making sure that everyone got coverage" (a genuine interest was actually assumed by Alito), B) ignores the "context" provision of the dictionary act, C) recognizes that "all employees of a religious institution are members of that faith and adhere to the same principles of that faith" but fails to see this as a distinction from for-profit corporations, and D) seems to think that there is now a new test for "least restrictive means" whereby courts should determine whether alternative means literally already exists (which is clearly a preposterous standard. That admittedly didn't stop Kennedy from alluding to this as justification for a narrow decision, but Alito writing for the majority simply states that looking for other alternative means isn't necessary in this case because the exemption already exists). This bit, however, is spot on: quote:Move to Single Payer Health Insurance and End Employer Provided Health Care
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:I know there are people out there who advocate this seriously citing AIDS as their reasoning. Which is funny since AIDS care has dropped the infection and death rates among gays while heterosexual couples are now the prime vectors for the HIV virus. sauce (to rip off an imgur meme): http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hivs-biggest-moves-are-hetero-and-needle-free quote:Among diseases, HIV has a unique relationship with its risk factors. While pretty much any illness has a set of circumstances that make it more likely for a given individual to contract it—some diseases and individuals much more than others—HIV spent much of its named existence as something "of" certain populations. Inevitably then, risk factors comingled with identity, and stigma bloomed. anonumos fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Here's a particularly interesting take that was linked from SCOTUSBlog this morning. It asks the question of how a corporation, even if subsumed by the definition of "person", has legal standing to sue on religious grounds. The key here is that the religious belief is held by the individual owners, but the burden or injury is assumed by the corporation, which has no beliefs. We all agree that the owners had sincerely held religious beliefs, but that doesn't automatically give the corporation a concrete injury (and it clearly wouldn't make sense for a non-injured corporation to sue on behalf of religious owners who feel their rights are being impinged). Similarly, "just because the owners of a company have beliefs does not mean that they can sue on behalf of the company, which itself must comply with the law". The only way it would make sense for Hobby Lobby to have standing would be if we accepted that hobby lobby literally holds the religious beliefs of its owners (or that it meets the same sort of exemption that, for example, doctors get when suing on behalf of their patients). But just like Alito dodges the 1st amendment discussion, he also dodges Article III. So much for legal clarity!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Which is funny since AIDS care has dropped the infection and death rates among gays while heterosexual couples are now the prime vectors for the HIV virus. Nope, nope nope nope. Your source doesn't indicate any of that. It's talking about studies exclusively in NYC, apparently focusing on needle-users. What you're saying could be possibly true, but the source (which also isn't particularly reputable), doesn't have anything apposite to say on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Here's a particularly interesting take that was linked from SCOTUSBlog this morning. This is why the decision is limited to closely-held corporations. Since the entirety of the Hobby Lobby corporation is members of the same family, it's not unreasonable to assume, in this case at least, that restricting the practices of the corporation does, in fact, restrict the practices of the individuals. Personally, I feel that if you're going to incorporate (legally distinguishing the company from the individuals), then you should have to take the bad with the good, but I can understand the logic here. I don't like it or agree with it, but I get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Besides, aren't LGBT people already a protected class, thanks to the DOMA case decision last year? Absolutely not. It is state by state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:Personally, I feel that if you're going to incorporate (legally distinguishing the company from the individuals), then you should have to take the bad with the good, but I can understand the logic here. I don't like it or agree with it, but I get it. I kind of see what the court's getting at as well but frankly this isn't a case of them saying that the individuals are being infringed upon as the individuals aren't being required to pay for or purchase the medications they believe are wrong. The corporation is (as part of a compensation package for employees that is required by the state in exchange for tax breaks). If you are going to say that these individuals and the coporation they represent are so closely tied that the actions of one are equivalent to the actions of the other in a commercial sense then why the gently caress should the individuals get the beneficial tax status of being a corporation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The decision only applies to vaginas. Those other particular religious beliefs you mentioned aren't shared by Justice Alito and friends so they will be dismissed as kooky nonsense (really) Reminder that five Catholic men unsurprisingly found opposition to abortion was entirely unique as the foremost religious right in the entire world and that it was so uncontroversial as a special case that they frankly couldn't even imagine anyone could possibly apply the same reasoning to other, heretical beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Reminder that five Catholics unsurprisingly found opposition to abortion was entirely unique as the foremost religious right in the entire world and that it was so uncontroversial as a special case that they frankly couldn't even imagine anyone could possibly apply the same reasoning to other, heretical beliefs. Abortion and birth control!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Abortion and birth control! Those are considered the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Not very. I'm not going to bother with a detailed point-by-point takedown, but there are some clear mistakes here that should send your skeptic alarm ringing. Primarily, he A) says that the court "told the Executive Branch that they couldn’t possibly be serious about making sure that everyone got coverage" (a genuine interest was actually assumed by Alito), B) ignores the "context" provision of the dictionary act, C) recognizes that "all employees of a religious institution are members of that faith and adhere to the same principles of that faith" but fails to see this as a distinction from for-profit corporations, and D) seems to think that there is now a new test for "least restrictive means" whereby courts should determine whether alternative means literally already exists (which is clearly a preposterous standard. That admittedly didn't stop Kennedy from alluding to this as justification for a narrow decision, but Alito writing for the majority simply states that looking for other alternative means isn't necessary in this case because the exemption already exists). I don't need a point by point, just a general idea. Thanks for your advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
And now for something completely different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY1TJ8JazkQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:More generally, there is a pernicious problem with employer-provided healthcare. It just gives way too much profit motivation for many forms of discrimination. There is already discrimination. For my last job my wife and I had to get a blood test to prove we weren't smokers, had to have good blood work (cholesterol, blood sugar, etc.). If you didn't pass the tests your rates would go up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
NPR is reporting on a followup to Hobby Lobby, namely, that Wheaton College need not use the official forms to notify the government that it is electing to not provide contraceptive coverage (as doing so would "make it complicit in enabling contraception use"). Apparently it still must inform the government, but it's unclear how such notification would take place. Does anyone here have a better breakdown as to what this means? It seems to be significant enough to warrant a 17-page dissent from Sotomayer, Ginsburg, and Kagan so I was hoping someone might have more info.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:NPR is reporting on a followup to Hobby Lobby, namely, that Wheaton College need not use the official forms to notify the government that it is electing to not provide contraceptive coverage (as doing so would "make it complicit in enabling contraception use"). Apparently it still must inform the government, but it's unclear how such notification would take place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
It was just an injunction; not a full decision. The dissent distinguished LSP, but I hardly know anything about either case so I don't know how significant it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Little Sisters was about those nuns who were refusing to also sign that document saying they didn't want to provide contraception because they were a non-profit religious organization. Not exactly sure why these groups don't want to sign paperwork.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
This dissent is pretty funny, Sotomayor straight up calls SCOTUS a lying institution. I guess the school objected because signing the papers would trigger the government program to start providing birth control insurance to the students and employers, and that chain of events violated the institution's religious beliefs. The Court also essentially created a new regulation for the contraception "mandate." The dissent took this as the Court immediately expanding those two decisions, which were both premised on being as narrow as possible. Also, Scalia concurred with the outcome but not the logic. Edit: Also they pointed out how this exposes how deceptive Hobby Lobby was, because that was premised on the government having a good enough alternative to burdening the fake religious beliefs of a bunch of assholes. And then used an extraordinary procedural measure to interfere with a case because the government's birth control insurance procedure wasn't actually good enough. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:This dissent is pretty funny, Sotomayor straight up calls SCOTUS a lying institution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:This dissent is pretty funny, Sotomayor straight up calls SCOTUS a lying institution. SCOTUS has always supported whatever injustice this country indulges in. If Hobby Lobby leads to a bunch more cases of bullshit Christian favoritism then it'll just be remembered as another Lochner, and eventually Shelby County will be scorned as another Plessy but in the meantime we have decades of Very Serious People pretending that the decisions were made for any reasons but willful malice and prejudice to look forward to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Here is the good, no-nonsense explainer I've been waiting to see for hobby lobby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
I am not an expert. But it looks like the "slippery slope" is not only real, but working as intended. This particular decision doesn't seem earth-shaking in a vacuum (bad but not "wrong side of history" bad). Yet the poo poo it is stirring up and the questions that are now okay to ask that would have laughed at before are making me very uncomfortable. This sure is being treated by conservatives like the Supreme Court of the United States endorsed their particular religion wholesale not just for a narrow finding. All sorts of challenges are popping up. Realistically, what is the end game? Will we be a theocracy in all but name until we have a sane Supreme Court again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:This particular decision doesn't seem earth-shaking in a vacuum (bad but not "wrong side of history" bad). Yet the poo poo it is stirring up and the questions that are now okay to ask that would have laughed at before are making me very uncomfortable. quote:Gitmo detainees' lawyers invoke Hobby Lobby decision in court filing
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
So should we be afraid of that Obamacare case currently headed for SCOTUS that challenges the constitutionality of the insurance subsidies? Because if the courts rule against the government in this case Obamacare is basically dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Well the constitutionality of the subsidies isn't being challenged so not much. The dispute over the correct ACA interpretation is certainly a serious challenge, but it's too early to say much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So should we be afraid of that Obamacare case currently headed for SCOTUS that challenges the constitutionality of the insurance subsidies? Because if the courts rule against the government in this case Obamacare is basically dead. Maybe. I'd have been more worried before Obama got a majority on the full bench. If there's a crazy ruling by the current panel (a possibility), then they can seek an en banc review and get that reversed. After that, I cannot imagine that if Roberts could not stomach killing the ACA before it was implemented that he can stomach killing it after it's started working: the backlash will be exponentially worse as you'd actively be taking away health care from people. I'm not sure they'd even take the case (though four justices can take it so the dissenters might take it to get another crack at killing it and/or to spite Roberts).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So should we be afraid of that Obamacare case currently headed for SCOTUS that challenges the constitutionality of the insurance subsidies? Because if the courts rule against the government in this case Obamacare is basically dead. Somewhat. When I first heard of it it seemed a little spurious but when you dig into it they actually have a strong argument that the subsidies don't apply to federal exchanges. If it did, about 36 states would be affected, though I imagine a lot of the affected states would set up their own state exchanges to get the money. I'm pretty sure if they said you couldn't get subsidies on the federal exchagne, they would need to claw back the subsidies that people are receiving in 2014, but I think even republicans would agree to congressional action to keep from making Joe Sixpack pay back $6,000 that he already spent. It would probably kill it in republican stronghold states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It would probably kill it in republican stronghold states. I hate living in South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
I don't understand the political endgame here. In those states the Republicans would immediately be blamed for taking away people's health insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand the political endgame here. In those states the Republicans would immediately be blamed for taking away people's health insurance. I don't think I've ever heard a native of this state older than 30 blame the Republicans for anything. Damned Bible belt baby boomers. Fake edit: actually that wasn't true, my Dad blamed the Republicans for lots of things. He's the only one I can remember though. Love you Dad. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand the political endgame here. In those states the Republicans would immediately be blamed for taking away people's health insurance. The current Republican movement and political endgames don't jive well. See also: Debt ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand the political endgame here. In those states the Republicans would immediately be blamed for taking away people's health insurance. Most Republicans would consider this a feature, not a bug. Inflicting gratuitous cruelties on powerless people is part of their platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand the political endgame here. In those states the Republicans would immediately be blamed for taking away people's health insurance. In Georgia, we have a political candidate literally running on the fact that he has done and will continue to do everything in his power to block the ACA from being implemented in Georgia. Our state administration bragged about denying the Medicaid expansion, and our state Medicaid requirements are hilariously low. We have hospitals closing because they can no longer afford to operate, because of the idiotic restrictions our state government has put in place. And to top it off, the state legislature just passed a bill that will require that any future governor get approval from the legislature before accepting the Medicaid expansion, so that it can be blocked by the Republican majority we pretty much always have. They're going to win by huge margins in the next election. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:20
|
|
