|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:therefore Hobby Lobby was correctly decided While I suspect Mitt would say that, that has more to do with the owners being the People who control the hive mind than with the corporation being legally people. (If we took Mitt's statement in context, we could very easily use it to argue that the corporation cannot impose religion on the people who make up the hive.  )
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Sure they are, it's just that only shareholders are people. What about shares held by other companies, shares held by institutional investors, shares held by public organizations, shares held by governments, shared held by trusts and other legal entities? Sometimes there's a person on the other end if you dig through enough layers, sometimes there is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
It's all people in the end and the take away is wealth I guess deserved privileged expression. Seems dumb but thats the sc for you. Bear in mind this also was a huge boon for organized labor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What about shares held by other companies, shares held by institutional investors, shares held by public organizations, shares held by governments, shared held by trusts and other legal entities? Sometimes there's a person on the other end if you dig through enough layers, sometimes there is not. I'm trying to think of the scenario where there is not. Public sector shares like in the auto bailout or sovereign wealth funds? Point is there is democracy in these corporate bodies, just not for the employees by and large. They are not people in this respect. They are a cost to be minimized. Yet when we would ask who are the people of Exxon, most people would I suspect, say the employees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What about shares held by other companies, shares held by institutional investors, shares held by public organizations, shares held by governments, shared held by trusts and other legal entities? Sometimes there's a person on the other end if you dig through enough layers, sometimes there is not. I wonder if it would be possible to structure a corporation so that it owned itself through an oroborus of wholly owned shell corporations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Has there been no discussion on the incredibly odd order in the birth control ACA cases? The court asked the parties to brief a new issue: what remedy can we fashion that lets ladies get birth control from their issuers without the objecting employers paying for it or even knowing about it. I've never seen anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
"is relief even possible here or are we gonna non-prov this sucka"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Has there been no discussion on the incredibly odd order in the birth control ACA cases? The court asked the parties to brief a new issue: what remedy can we fashion that lets ladies get birth control from their issuers without the objecting employers paying for it or even knowing about it. I've never seen anything like that. Perhaps Roberts is sending McConnell a warning? "Quit screwing with the court our else you start losing on social issues"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I wonder if it would be possible to structure a corporation so that it owned itself through an oroborus of wholly owned shell corporations. That's basically the situation with the publicly traded banks. They all mostly own each other through their investment funds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
I half expect the organizations to take the absolute position and argue that anything that has the end result of their employees receiving birth control would be unacceptable and a violation of their faith. If buying insurance without birth control coverage automatically triggered the coverage to kick in through some roundabout mechanism they would just argue that meant buying insurance in the first place violated their beliefs because BC inevitably followed. Hell you could say that telling the government via IRS filings that they were not providing insurance would mean the employees would be eligible for subsidized exchange plans so that would be unacceptable too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Given that the conservatives have read the word "substantive" out of the phrase "substantive burden" in RFRA, big loving surprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Has there been no discussion on the incredibly odd order in the birth control ACA cases? The court asked the parties to brief a new issue: what remedy can we fashion that lets ladies get birth control from their issuers without the objecting employers paying for it or even knowing about it. I've never seen anything like that. I'm just interpreting it as the court slyly recognizing that the organizations don't want to be accommodated and are just doing whatever they can to gently caress with female employees and treat them like property. So rather than ruling that the executive needs to find a new accommodation only to be back here next year hearing these same assholes make the same arguments about how they're not out to deny anyone birth control but mean ol' Obama/Clinton is burdening their religious beliefs again, the court's just straight-up asking "what method wouldn't you consider a burden". If they propose something and Obama does it then then they will have no case next time. If they lay their cards on the table and say "nothing will be acceptable, we just want you to give up" then I guess the court can just find there is no less restrictive alternative to what the government is doing now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
I'm more surprised at the text of the order. It's like half the court is backtracking and Alito finally learned that "birth control only" insurance isn't a thing that exists. Another example of the massive change that Scalia's death has brought?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
It's very tempting to think the female justices pulled the rest aside after the hearing and went "Okay guys, this is how getting contraceptives works when you're a woman..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Antti posted:It's very tempting to think the female justices pulled the rest aside after the hearing and went "Okay guys, this is how getting contraceptives works when you're a woman..." "And sometimes, the mommy and daddy aren't financially ready yet to raise a baby, but they still love each other very much," Justice Sotomayor continued in her explanation to the four confused, republican-appointed Justices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Antti posted:The sufficient context for that quote is that it was said by Mitt Romney, to be honest. Do they take write in suggestions? "Single payer birth control coverage for all women." Done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
alnilam posted:"And sometimes, the mommy and daddy aren't financially ready yet to raise a baby, but they still love each other very much," Justice Sotomayor continued in her explanation to the four confused, republican-appointed Justices. "Not financially ready? Does that mean they can only afford one au pair?" -confused rich lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
I read that order as the court trying hard to avoid a 4-4 circuit split on what a federal law requires.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
The order is pretty simple. The system as it is now is they can fill out one slip of paper and that notifies the insurance company and government that they object to birth control and then it's provided free of charge to the women by the insurance agency. The order is telling the companies suing "tell us how the insurance company is going to get notice that you refuse to provide birth control without filing the one sheet of paper with them or the Feds?" It's a simple question with a simple answer (they can't notify them without filing something) and the court doesn't seem keen on it. I think this comes down 5-3 or maybe more saying that contraceptive coverage is required and the existing religious exemption system is sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I read that order as the court trying hard to avoid a 4-4 circuit split on what a federal law requires. Agreed. On this issue it looks like they're really trying. I can only imagine the negotiations that went into that order's language. I'm sure eventually a clerk will reveal something. What has happened to Scalia's clerks? I'm sure they're still working, and are probably doing a combination of cleaning up his papers for his estate and doing farm work for other justices. And I know tradition is that some of next terms clerks will be kept on (assuming a justice gets confirmed), but I think OT2017 has already been hired or was being hired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Agreed. On this issue it looks like they're really trying. I can only imagine the negotiations that went into that order's language. I'm sure eventually a clerk will reveal something. Maybe they were buried alive with him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Luis v. US is the only decision today. 5-3 split, Sotomayor, RBG, Breyer, and Roberts concurring, with Thomas concurring. Kennedy and Alito dissent, Kagan dissents alone. 11th circuit was reversed and case remanded. Case was regarding whether freezing financial assets can violate the 6th amendment right to counsel. The district court and 11th said "No", but the SCOTUS disagrees. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Luis v. US is the only decision today. 5-3 split, Sotomayor, RBG, Breyer, and Roberts concurring, with Thomas concurring. Such a bizarre split, even though it's because Kagan just wants to overrule Monsanto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Such a bizarre split, even though it's because Kagan just wants to overrule Monsanto. I kind of want to see how much Thomas intersects with the majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:Maybe they were buried alive with him. Their souls were dragged into the yawning maw of an angry void reclaiming it's dark benefactor. Where they went, nobody needs eyes to see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Their souls were dragged into the yawning maw of an angry void reclaiming it's dark benefactor. Where they went, nobody needs eyes to see. Transmuted into pure applesauce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Luis v. US is the only decision today. 5-3 split, Sotomayor, RBG, Breyer, and Roberts concurring, with Thomas concurring. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Since this is a 4-1-3 split (with Thomas concurring in the judgement) shouldn't his opinion be the controlling precedent? His concurring opinion tosses out the balancing-test of tainted/untainted funds that the majority opines. Rather he says flat out any freezing of funds that would restrict right to counsel is unconstitutional. It seems like this would effectively overrule the Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto cases the majority talks about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Since this is a 4-1-3 split (with Thomas concurring in the judgement) shouldn't his opinion be the controlling precedent? His concurring opinion tosses out the balancing-test of tainted/untainted funds that the majority opines. Rather he says flat out any freezing of funds that would restrict right to counsel is unconstitutional. It seems like this would effectively overrule the Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto cases the majority talks about. Not really, he comes to the conclusion that common law allows freezing of tainted assets but not untainted ones. Hes only really opposed to the balancing test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Since this is a 4-1-3 split (with Thomas concurring in the judgement) shouldn't his opinion be the controlling precedent? His concurring opinion tosses out the balancing-test of tainted/untainted funds that the majority opines. Rather he says flat out any freezing of funds that would restrict right to counsel is unconstitutional. It seems like this would effectively overrule the Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto cases the majority talks about. As I read the opinions (and I haven't carefully done so) it actually doesn't matter, the holding of the case is you cannot freeze untainted assets, and that's a bright-line rule. The court doesn't agree on why you can't, but they agree you can't. Now, if the plurality's "balancing test" would allow you to freeze untainted assets sometimes but not others, but Thomas allows you to freeze them never, the plurality's opinion controls because it is the narrowest - it rules on the specific issues before it but not the ones not before it, like Thomas's. Another way to think about it is in cases where the plurality and Thomas disagree, the plurality would agree with the minority and form a majority, so the plurality's opinion controls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
alnilam posted:"And sometimes, the mommy and daddy aren't financially ready yet to raise a baby, but they still love each other very much," Justice Sotomayor continued in her explanation to the four confused, republican-appointed Justices. You joke, but I remember when reading the oral arguments for Safford Unified School District v. Redding (school strip search of a thirteen year old) that all the old men on the court were reminiscing about dumb locker room antics. It really seemed like the case was going to rule the searches as constitutional and I think Justice Ginsburg must have spoken to them privately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
alnilam posted:"And sometimes, the mommy and daddy aren't financially ready yet to raise a baby, but they still love each other very much," Justice Sotomayor continued in her explanation to the four confused, republican-appointed Justices. I imagine it like the scene where Bart is trying to explain to Homer how Sideshow Bob is planning to kill Selma and it eventually devolves into hand puppets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Since this is a 4-1-3 split (with Thomas concurring in the judgement) shouldn't his opinion be the controlling precedent? His concurring opinion tosses out the balancing-test of tainted/untainted funds that the majority opines. Rather he says flat out any freezing of funds that would restrict right to counsel is unconstitutional. It seems like this would effectively overrule the Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto cases the majority talks about. There's a majority here in the 4 justice opinion. If it was 4-1-4 with Thomas concurring, then the judgment would control, but the rationale behind it wouldn't be very strong precedent. I think simple majority is all that matters, regardless of how many justices there are
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Luis v. US is the only decision today. 5-3 split, Sotomayor, RBG, Breyer, and Roberts concurring, with Thomas concurring. Somewhat odd split to my lay self, but I think I can see the reasoning behind the opinion (I guess?) - right to counsel means you have a right to retain counsel of your choice assuming you can afford it with clean (or not-provably-dirty) money. Freezing assets not provably connected to a matter under litigation gets in the way of that, even if there's the backup option of a public defender. A defendant is rightfully entitled to "clean" assets and that includes their use for counsel, and if there's no constitutionally-sound way of separating clean from dirty then a blanket freeze inherently violates the right to counsel by impairing the ability to retain counsel of choice with the clean money. Now if there's a way to pass otherwise-frozen assets into trust to cover the costs of their chosen counsel, would that clear up the question? Like quasi-frozen with certain exclusions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:There's a majority here in the 4 justice opinion. If it was 4-1-4 with Thomas concurring, then the judgment would control, but the rationale behind it wouldn't be very strong precedent. There is a majority for the holding because the vote on the holding is 5-3, but there is no majority opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:You joke, but I remember when reading the oral arguments for Safford Unified School District v. Redding (school strip search of a thirteen year old) that all the old men on the court were reminiscing about dumb locker room antics. It really seemed like the case was going to rule the searches as constitutional and I think Justice Ginsburg must have spoken to them privately. This is one reason diversity is so important .
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I wonder if it would be possible to structure a corporation so that it owned itself through an oroborus of wholly owned shell corporations. Sort of. If the holdings run through overseas companies that don't publish the information, the owner of those holding companies can maintain an additional level of privacy. You would just need lawyers and proxies to sign all of the US documents. Also, I believe a trust can exist in and of itself without ownership in any real person's hands. There will be a proxy in that case who can make decisions on behalf of the trust's ownership interests in any companies, but any shares held that way don't belong a person even in an abstract way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
What circuits are relatively liberal / left leaning these days? If the Senate, or a portion of the Senate large enough to sustain a filibuster, were to continue to refuse to confirm an acceptable candidate, would circuits of that kind cover a majority of the U.S. population? Just curious about what the likely practical outcome of declining to cave in to an unreasonable Senate caucus, and therefore having no deciding vote for an indefinite but prolonged period, would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Sheikh Djibouti posted:What circuits are relatively liberal / left leaning these days? The 5th through 8th circuits have a majority of Republican appointees. All other circuits, including the DC circuit and the Federal circuit (patents) have a majority of Democratic appointees. See below for what those correspond to. As you can see, there's a lot more red states in 'liberal' circuits than vice versa. 
evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Map set to scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Many thanks, EW, that's exactly what I was looking for. If I get a chance later today I'll total up the population covered by all circuits but 5-8 and post it, but just looking at the map I would think Democratic leaning circuits would cover a relatively substantial majority of the population. Still absurd not to have a deciding vote for the types of cases that are apt to be closely decided, but the outcome doesn't look quite as bad as it might have done with a different map. E: beaten? I can't see an image in the post above mine, but maybe it's just the device I'm on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:00
|
|