|
evilweasel posted:It won't because the petitioners will be replaced by new petitioners who challenge the new rules. Remember, the actual issue here is that the petitioners don't like obamacare or don't like contraception, an the government isn't giving away either of those. Virelli all but spells this out in one of his briefs too.
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Virelli all but spells this out in one of his briefs too. In the recent reply brief. quote:at no time in these lengthy proceedings have petitioners ever suggested that an alternative like the one posited in the Court’s order would allay their religious objections to the accommodation, and they have never urged such an arrangement as a less-restrictive means of advancing the governmental interests at stake. To the contrary, petitioners have taken pains not to endorse such an alternative. For example, counsel for the Zubik petitioners was asked at oral argument whether petitioners could accept any procedure in which their insurers provided separate contraceptive coverage to petitioners’ employees and their beneficiaries. Tr. 41-44. Counsel identified only one possibility, stating that if the government chose a single insurer such as Aetna “to provide contraceptive coverage to all women in this country” at the government’s expense, then petitioners “probably” would not object to Aetna providing separate coverage to their employees even if one or more petitioners also “happened to use Aetna” to provide the employees’ other health coverage.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
ulmont posted:In the recent reply brief. Yeah he said it a bunch of times in oral argument as well. That's what I was referring to when I said that Zubik&co significantly narrowed their claims. They did it pre-Scalia as well so that wasn't the impetus. clarification: oral arguments were post-Scalia but IIRC they narrowed it in their initial briefs esquilax fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Trump has released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Quoted from the Trump thread:zoux posted:Ok here they are
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Lot of GWB circuit court appointees, conservative state Supreme Court justices. Wouldn't have been surprised to see the same list come from Cruz.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Lot of GWB circuit court appointees, conservative state Supreme Court justices. Wouldn't have been surprised to see the same list come from Cruz. Yeah. Pryor in particular was a conservative judicial darling a while back, possibly because he said "that Roe was 'the worst abomination in constitutional law in history.'" Edit: John Yoo approves. quote:These names are a Federalist Society all-star list of conservative jurisprudence. In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I count several of them as colleagues and friends. It is a good sign that, on one of a president’s most important decisions, Trump clearly turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for advice. ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:30 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Justice Willett has a great twitter game, and thinks Lochner was correctly decided.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11703520/trump-supreme-court-twitter The best one is "Low-energy Trump University has never made it to #MarchMadness. Or even the #NIT. Sad! Twitter game is on point for sure. I wonder if adding him to the list is a weird counter-troll. I don't totally get what's happening to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I'm kind of surprised no one ever floated Easterbrook to replace Scalia. People really don't like new textualism
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
So does this mean Hillary is going to release her list of proposed NSF Grants to create Ginsberg-Sotomayor hybrid justices in response to Trump's list?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Trump has released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Quoted from the Trump thread: [/quote]  
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
One of the others is insane, though. William Pryor. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...n_recent_memory Also there's nude pictures of him floating around. Search for Bill Pryor and legalschnauzer and that should bring you to them. Pretty sure someone didn't do their due diligence and there is no way in hell Trump made this list himself.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:One of the others is insane, though. Definitely. Trump hadn't heard of any of these guys until minutes before that list went public.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Oklahoma passed an Abortion ban that makes it a felony to give an Abortion. Guys, unless Trump wins you are not overturning Roe. Nice wishful thinking, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oklahoma passed an Abortion ban that makes it a felony to give an Abortion. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oklahoma passed an Abortion ban that makes it a felony to give an Abortion. Is this just an effort to embezzle state funds defending their godawful laws to shitheels like Liberty Counsel? There's basically zero chance that they win these, even with a 8 member SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Is this just an effort to embezzle state funds defending their godawful laws to shitheels like Liberty Counsel? There's basically zero chance that they win these, even with a 8 member SCOTUS. That is a pretty good question - can the slimy-assed AG bill the state for defending or is it one of the duties they are supposed to do without extra pay?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That is a pretty good question - can the slimy-assed AG bill the state for defending or is it one of the duties they are supposed to do without extra pay? Greg Abbott spent 2.5 million suing the federal government on behalf of the state of Texas
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Greg Abbott spent 2.5 million suing the federal government on behalf of the state of Texas I assume it mostly got marked down as billable hours for whatever cloven-hoof piece of trash the state retained from the klan as counsel?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I assume it mostly got marked down as billable hours for whatever cloven-hoof piece of trash the state retained from the klan as counsel? It's the AG office that does it for Texas. "The AG's office withdrew eight cases, including a lawsuit over medical benefits for same-sex couples that was filed last March. " Also apparently it's been 5.1 million - https://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/31/texas-vs-federal-government I think in some states, if the state refuses/declines to pursue the manner, private parties can sue on the behalf of state citizens? Not sure.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
ABC News posted:Oklahoma lawmakers have moved to effectively ban abortion in their state by making it a felony for doctors to perform the procedure... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/oklahoma-lawmakers-bill-criminalizing-performing-abortion-39231148 I hope this leads to an even stronger ruling than Roe v. Wade.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I think in some states, if the state refuses/declines to pursue the manner, private parties can sue on the behalf of state citizens? Not sure. NC has been doing it this way. Our AG Roy Cooper has refused to defend/sue a bunch of things, so governor mcjerk has been letting private groups make the case instead.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oklahoma passed an Abortion ban that makes it a felony to give an Abortion. Guess all of those women with ectopic pregnancies are just going to have to bleed out and die!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Guess all of those women with ectopic pregnancies are just going to have to bleed out and die! Oh, it's okay! There's an exception for life of the mother, so nothing to worry about!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Oh, it's okay! There's an exception for Fixed. If anyone thinks that upper middle class and rich women aren't going to find a way to abort their children that person is very naive.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Radish posted:Fixed. If anyone thinks that upper middle class and rich women aren't going to find a way to abort their children that person is very naive. You didn't fix anything, you just made it about an entirely different point?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oklahoma passed an Abortion ban that makes it a felony to give an Abortion. Governor vetoed it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...form-abortions/
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Governor vetoed it. Good. Did they pass the trans bathroom bill?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
I have an idiot cousin who just got in trouble for her dumb hillbilly medicinal practice. Specifically, treating cancer with b17 with a "pastoral" licence. I assume this is the standard private certificate factory that holds no legal authority whatsoever. Family is asking me why she's getting arrested and I don't really have an answer as I thought that, while idiotic and repugnant, quackery like that was still legal especially within religious confines.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:I have an idiot cousin who just got in trouble for her dumb hillbilly medicinal practice. Specifically, treating cancer with b17 with a "pastoral" licence. I assume this is the standard private certificate factory that holds no legal authority whatsoever. Family is asking me why she's getting arrested and I don't really have an answer as I thought that, while idiotic and repugnant, quackery like that was still legal especially within religious confines. Why are they asking you?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
B17 taken by mouth can cause cyanide poisoning. Your cousin was poisoning people and in particular the use of B17 to treat cancer is something tracked and prosecuted by the FDA.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Just to be clear, "Vitamin B17" is not a vitamin. It's Laetrile. It occasionally kills people, especially children who get into pill bottles, but it never makes them better.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Why are they asking you? Because I'm the family's designated "smart person". I'm pretty sure lots of family's have that one poor sod who becomes the target of any complex question regardless of whether its reasonable for them to know anything about it. Mostly it comes down to being able to use google and filter out all of the lovely sources of bad information but google's failed me pretty hard in this instance. Although that's probably because of the way they framed it. I was looking for stuff on PMAs and their legality, but yeah it was probably more about the B17 stuff. Cranappleberry posted:B17 taken by mouth can cause cyanide poisoning. Your cousin was poisoning people and in particular the use of B17 to treat cancer is something tracked and prosecuted by the FDA. They're pretty predisoposed towards conspiracy theories. Once ranted at me for hours about mercury vortexes for some kind of scifi engine crazy people think exists. She probably legitimately thinks the government is suppressing cancer cures for nefarious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Because I'm the family's designated "smart person". I'm pretty sure lots of family's have that one poor sod who becomes the target of any complex question regardless of whether its reasonable for them to know anything about it. Mostly it comes down to being able to use google and filter out all of the lovely sources of bad information but google's failed me pretty hard in this instance. Although that's probably because of the way they framed it. I was looking for stuff on PMAs and their legality, but yeah it was probably more about the B17 stuff. Tell them that your cousin was giving patients  CHEMICALS that made them sick.Or perhaps TOXINS.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Because I'm the family's designated "smart person". I'm pretty sure lots of family's have that one poor sod who becomes the target of any complex question regardless of whether its reasonable for them to know anything about it. Mostly it comes down to being able to use google and filter out all of the lovely sources of bad information but google's failed me pretty hard in this instance. Although that's probably because of the way they framed it. I was looking for stuff on PMAs and their legality, but yeah it was probably more about the B17 stuff. If you post in the legal question thread you might luck into a defense lawyer. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659 Wtf is a pastoral license
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If you post in the legal question thread you might luck into a defense lawyer. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659 Well you see priests are basically the same thing as clerics so they have bonus points in the healing skill. Basically the same thing as medical school.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Well you see priests are basically the same thing as clerics so they have bonus points in the healing skill. Basically the same thing as medical school. But where do Druids and shamans fit in
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If you post in the legal question thread you might luck into a defense lawyer. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659 A pastoral license is more or less a certificate that shows an existing religion/denomination recognizes the person with the license as being a representative of their church. Basically it shows you're totally official and not just some dude who is the ordained cleric of the church of Larry. Which is ironic, because probably the vast majority of people who have a pastoral license did an online thing to become an ordained ministers. Officially becoming the ordaned cleric of the church of Larry. Also different religions/denominations have different rules as to whether or not a license even means anything. Judging by the description, the cousin is probably part of some faith based counseling thing that uses pastoral licenses as a "regulatory" method of showing that they're totally certified to spiritually offer alternatives to secular psychology, psychotherapy, and such. Basically organized quackery that gives an official veneer to the desire to cure the world with crystals and other such alternative healing techniques for the enlightened.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Gyges posted:A pastoral license is more or less a certificate that shows an existing religion/denomination recognizes the person with the license as being a representative of their church. Basically it shows you're totally official and not just some dude who is the ordained cleric of the church of Larry. Which is ironic, because probably the vast majority of people who have a pastoral license did an online thing to become an ordained ministers. Officially becoming the ordaned cleric of the church of Larry. Also different religions/denominations have different rules as to whether or not a license even means anything. A few states recognize Pastoral Certificates as 'alternatives' to medical practitioners, especially in states where alternative medicine is rampant.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Schizotek posted:Because I'm the family's designated "smart person". I'm pretty sure lots of family's have that one poor sod who becomes the target of any complex question regardless of whether its reasonable for them to know anything about it. Mostly it comes down to being able to use google and filter out all of the lovely sources of bad information... Wait a minute...are you me?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 03:14
|
|
