SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

axeil posted:

Yeah I just noticed that was an op-ed. My bad.

This is why I shouldn't just see links in the GOP thread and assume they say what they're reported to say.

Yeah, I was relying on that Guardian article as well, but it turns out that it's not true, sorry.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA posted:

Hobby Lobby�s insurance policies have long explicitly excluded � consistent with their religious beliefs � contraceptive devices that might cause abortions and pregnancy-termination drugs like RU-486.� The government does not dispute the sincerity of the Greens� beliefs.

Although I did find that the evangelical Wheaton college did actually admit that this happened to them.

The Christian Post posted:

"Wheaton doesn't know when or how its insurance coverage for emergency contraception came about. What we do know is that as soon as it was discovered Wheaton worked diligently with its insurer and plan administrator to exclude emergency contraception from its plans in order to be consistent with its long-standing sincerely-held religious convictions," Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund, told The Christian Post in an email..."The fact that emergency contraception was in the past included in its health plans � unbeknownst to Wheaton � does not change its longstanding and sincerely held opposition to these drugs as a religious matter," Smith wrote.

It seems Wheaton College didn't consider it important to make sure their insurance coverage didn't violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs" until after it hit the news that the government was mandating that coverage because no gently caress you, dad now I want to go to that concert that I didn't know was even happening until you told me I couldn't!

# ? Dec 3, 2013 21:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 21:08

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Amarkov posted:

And they were the 7 justices that ruled the same way on the 5-4 case, because oh my god that loving case. Broad overview (because I'm too lazy to effortpost right now):

Every justice except Ginsburg and Stevens agreed that the Florida recounts were unconstitutional, because the lack of a clear statewide ballot standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. Breyer and Souter argued that, to remedy this, the case should be remanded to Florida with instructions to establish a uniform standard and apply it.

But an old provision of federal law says that, if a state has made a "final determination" of its Electoral College representatives by six days before the meeting, those electors are locked in. The remaining five justices ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida had ruled that the Florida Legislature had intended pre-recount tallies in elections to be a "final determination". Since there was no time to complete a recount between the Supreme Court's decision on December 12 and the six day deadline on December 12, the original result had to be locked in as the final one.

Nah, Breyer was a Clinton appointee and Stevens was a Ford appointee, also Breyer and Souter made a patented Stephen Breyer strategic partial concurrence that they didn't really believe in to try and lure O'Connor or Kennedy to a middle ground position (note that this strategy actually worked in the PPACA case).

# ? Dec 3, 2013 21:50

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

FlamingLiberal posted:

I loved the provision that this ruling can't be used as future precedent or whatever it was that they threw in there as a compromise or something at the end.

Especially since it let everyone say the stupidest things.

REHNQUIST, C. J. posted:

No reasonable person would call it �an error in the
vote tabulation,� FLA. STAT. �102.166(5), or a �rejection of
legal votes,� FLA. STAT. �102.168(3)(c),4
when electronic or
electromechanical equipment performs precisely in the
manner designed, and fails to count those ballots that are
not marked in the manner that these voting instructions
explicitly and prominently specify.

4 It is inconceivable that what constitutes a vote that must be counted
under the �error in the vote tabulation� language of the protest phase is
different from what constitutes a vote that must be counted under the
�legal votes� language of the contest phase.

But you aren't disputing the per curiam opinion. Doesn't this mean the normal state election procedures also violate the Equal Protection Clause, and thus that you ordered certification of unconstitutionally determined election results? oh right the per curiam opinion says it doesn't apply to anything else ever

e:

quote:

Nah, Breyer was a Clinton appointee and Stevens was a Ford appointee, also Breyer and Souter made a patented Stephen Breyer strategic partial concurrence that they didn't really believe in to try and lure O'Connor or Kennedy to a middle ground position (note that this strategy actually worked in the PPACA case).

That they were. I'm a dumbass :eng99:

Amarkov fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 3, 2013

# ? Dec 3, 2013 21:53

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Amarkov posted:

But you aren't disputing the per curiam opinion. Doesn't this mean the normal state election procedures also violate the Equal Protection Clause, and thus that you ordered certification of unconstitutionally determined election results? oh right the per curiam opinion says it doesn't apply to anything else ever

I thought the issue at hand was that recount was manual and that different counties had different procedures for counting ballots with various states of chads present. If all the ballots were run through the same machine which sorted ballots with the same rules, there is no equal protection violation (which I believe was the case for the first count?).

# ? Dec 3, 2013 22:26

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah, I was relying on that Guardian article as well, but it turns out that it's not true, sorry.

Although I did find that the evangelical Wheaton college did actually admit that this happened to them.

It seems Wheaton College didn't consider it important to make sure their insurance coverage didn't violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs" until after it hit the news that the government was mandating that coverage because no gently caress you, dad now I want to go to that concert that I didn't know was even happening until you told me I couldn't!

Those "might cause abortions" medicines don't include all contraceptives, just a small subset of them. It's a small distinction, but fairly important.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 00:12

StarMagician: Jan 2, 2013; Query: Are you saying that one coon calling for the hanging of another coon is racist?

Check and mate D&D.

Amarkov posted:

And they were the 7 justices that ruled the same way on the 5-4 case, because oh my god that loving case. Broad overview (because I'm too lazy to effortpost right now):

Every justice except Ginsburg and Stevens agreed that the Florida recounts were unconstitutional, because the lack of a clear statewide ballot standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. Breyer and Souter argued that, to remedy this, the case should be remanded to Florida with instructions to establish a uniform standard and apply it.

But an old provision of federal law says that, if a state has made a "final determination" of its Electoral College representatives by six days before the meeting, those electors are locked in. The remaining five justices ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida had ruled that the Florida Legislature had intended pre-recount tallies in elections to be a "final determination". Since there was no time to complete a recount between the Supreme Court's decision on December 12 and the six day deadline on December 12, the original result had to be locked in as the final one.

I know this is the nitpickiest argument ever, but this is the Supreme Court thread so gently caress it. Stevens was nominated by a Republican, and Breyer (who voted with the 7, but not with the 5) was appointed by a Democrat.

e: JeffersonLives beat me to it

StarMagician fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 4, 2013

# ? Dec 4, 2013 00:23

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

joeburz posted:

Those "might cause abortions" medicines don't include all contraceptives, just a small subset of them. It's a small distinction, but fairly important.

Yeah, but those few are the ones at issue here. Hobby Lobby covers contraception methods that are scientifically acknowledged to operate only by preventing fertilization without any realistic potential of preventing implantation of a single ensouled cell.

10th Circuit majority posted:

There is an ongoing medical debate as to whether some of the contraceptive methods relevant to this case act by preventing implantation or fertilization. This is relevant because Hobby Lobby and Mardel object to forms of contraception that prevent uterine implantation, but they do not object to those that prevent conception. For purposes of this appeal, however, there is no material dispute. Both the government and the medical amici supporting the government concede that at least some of the contraceptive methods to which the plaintiffs object have the potential to prevent uterine implantation. See, e.g., Aple. Br. at 9 n.6 (noting that one of the three ways emergency contraceptive pills function is by �inhibiting implantation� (quoting 62 Fed. Reg. 8610, 8611 (Feb. 25, 1997))); Physicians for Reproductive Health et al. Amicus Br. at 16 (noting that some studies suggest the copper present in IUDs �can also alter molecules present in the endometrial lining,� which causes �alteration of the endometrial lining [that] prevents . . . implantation� (emphasis added)). Some of our colleagues suggest this debate extends only to intrauterine devices, not Plan B and Ella. See Briscoe Op. at 3. Whatever the merits of this argument, we need not wade into scientific waters here, given the above-noted agreement that some of the challenged devices function in a manner that Hobby Lobby and Mardel find morally problematic.

Now I think it's ridiculous bullshit that the majority acknowledges that there's no real debate that Plan B doesn't cause abortions and just handwaves it away because some of the treatments do (and the dissent calls them out on this crap), but on the other hand since I don't agree that Hobby Lobby should have the right to restrict methods like RU-486 that do cause abortions, I would prefer that the case weren't decided on those grounds anyway.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Dec 4, 2013

# ? Dec 4, 2013 00:30

StarMagician: Jan 2, 2013; Query: Are you saying that one coon calling for the hanging of another coon is racist?

Check and mate D&D.

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah, but those few are the ones at issue here. Hobby Lobby covers contraception methods that are scientifically acknowledged to operate only by preventing fertilization without any realistic potential of preventing implantation of a single ensouled cell.

I'm sure the answer is no, but do we have any concrete data on the rate of induced miscarriages due to prevention of implantation? Because I'm sure their insurance covers routine procedures that are much more risky to living fetuses, such as amniocentesis, which induces miscarriage roughly once in every 300-500 procedures.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 00:37

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

StarMagician posted:

I'm sure the answer is no, but do we have any concrete data on the rate of induced miscarriages due to prevention of implantation? Because I'm sure their insurance covers routine procedures that are much more risky to living fetuses, such as amniocentesis, which induces miscarriage roughly once in every 300-500 procedures.

What's the point of this reasoning? If Hobby Lobby prevails, you are just giving them more ammunition to restrict their health insurance, Hobby Lobby has no obligation to know precisely the risks of any given treatment and adjust their health insurance accordingly (if their insurance company would even allow such a specialized plan edit: I dimmly recall Hobby Lobby being self-insured so they could probably make an arbitrarily complicated plan if they wanted to/could legally do it).

twodot fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 4, 2013

# ? Dec 4, 2013 02:01

StarMagician: Jan 2, 2013; Query: Are you saying that one coon calling for the hanging of another coon is racist?

Check and mate D&D.

twodot posted:

What's the point of this reasoning? If Hobby Lobby prevails, you are just giving them more ammunition to restrict their health insurance, Hobby Lobby has no obligation to know precisely the risks of any given treatment and adjust their health insurance accordingly (if their insurance company would even allow such a specialized plan).

Insurance covers (or does not cover) a wide variety of procedures for pregnant or near-pregnant women, all of which carry some degree of risk to an unborn fetus/fertilized egg/baby. If they're covering amniocentesis, but not birth control, but it turns out that that procedure has more of a chance of killing a fetus than birth control does, it isn't really about the risk to the child. What level of risk/reward do they find acceptable before they allow coverage?

If anything this is an argument against them, that it's not actually, as they claim, about saving babies. It also illustrates just how complicated this issue really is.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 02:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

StarMagician posted:

If they're covering amniocentesis, but not birth control, but it turns out that that procedure has more of a chance of killing a fetus than birth control does, it isn't really about the risk to the child. What level of risk/reward do they find acceptable before they allow coverage?

If anything this is an argument against them, that it's not actually, as they claim, about saving babies. It also illustrates just how complicated this issue really is.

In this scenario they would likely just argue they should be allowed to not cover amniocentesis. You appear to be expecting them to have omniscient levels of understanding the risks of various medical procedures, when you yourself are unsure of some of them.

This argument is in no way about saving babies, and is entirely about specific procedures being forbidden by their religion. The fact that not covering these contraceptives might (would definitely) result in more actual abortions has no bearing on the discussion. You are at best illustrating they aren't medical professionals, which isn't proving anything.

You seem to be trying to make a substantial burden argument (the procedures that they want to not cover do not result in failing to implant a fertilized egg often enough to offer a substantial burden to them), but the frequency of miscarriage of amniocentesis (or of any other action) is unrelated to that argument.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 02:18

StarMagician: Jan 2, 2013; Query: Are you saying that one coon calling for the hanging of another coon is racist?

Check and mate D&D.

twodot posted:

You seem to be trying to make a substantial burden argument (the procedures that they want to not cover do not result in failing to implant a fertilized egg often enough to offer a substantial burden to them), but the frequency of miscarriage of amniocentesis (or of any other action) is unrelated to that argument.

Pretty much this. I think you understand my argument, but just to restate it, they use the danger to fetuses as an argument against covering birth control, but still cover a lot of other routine procedures that also present a danger, perhaps even a greater danger, to developing fetuses.

Their argument would ironically be much more logically consistent if they would just come right out and say that they oppose all forms of contraception outright for religious reasons, not because of any possible effects some versions might have on embryos that manage to slip through.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 02:30

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

StarMagician posted:

Pretty much this. I think you understand my argument, but just to restate it, they use the danger to fetuses as an argument against covering birth control, but still cover a lot of other routine procedures that also present a danger, perhaps even a greater danger, to developing fetuses.

(Earlier, I brought up the substantial burden test, in hindsight I think that's the wrong test)
Let's imagine the Supreme Court agrees with your argument. What do you think is the more likely ruling based on it?
Supreme Court: Ok Hobby Lobby, you do have RFRA rights, the ACA does substantially burden you, and the government failed to show the ACA was in furtherance of a compelling interest or that it was the least restrictive means of doing so. We rule that:
A) Your belief was sincere, you are allowed to not cover the contraceptives you sought to not cover and additionally don't have to cover the following procedures which possess a similar or greater risk:... (Obviously the Supreme Court wouldn't go literally overbroad like this but you get the point)

B) Your inability or unwillingness to coldly calculate the relative risks of literally every possible procedure invalidates your otherwise sincere religious beliefs. If you want to prevail in court you need to sue again, but next time list every possible procedure that could have a similar or greater risk as the procedures presented, dismissed.

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Dec 4, 2013

# ? Dec 4, 2013 03:06

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Couple of articles about the SupCt worth reading:

Supreme Court busy looking for cases � but finding fewer than usual

quote:

Instead of the usual 12 cases that the court has been hearing in recent years during its two-week block of oral arguments, the justices have only seven scheduled for what the court calls the February sitting .

It�s the result of a diminished docket at the court, one with the potential of a historic low. So far, the justices have found fewer cases than usual worthy of receiving full briefing and oral argument.

According to Scotusblog, the independent Web site that tracks the court�s proceedings, the justices are about 10 cases short of what they normally would have taken at this point of the term.

The court has almost total discretion over its docket and accepts about 1 percent of the petitions its receives. At least four of the nine justices must agree to take a case, and attorneys, law professors and legal experts love to speculate on why the court takes so few.

There�s the view that the law clerks who review the petitions are reluctant to suggest their bosses take a case, for fear the case might not turn out to be a good vehicle. There is a theory that the court�s deep ideological divide makes agreement difficult, or that the lack of major legislation from Congress gives the court less to interpret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ss=rss_politics

The Supreme Court confronts the line between free speech and security with protester�s case

quote:

The justices on Wednesday will hear the government�s plea that national security demands base commanders be able to keep people such as Apel, who have been formally banned from a military installation, from setting foot in any part of their domain � even the spots designated for protesters.

The 63-year-old Apel said he cannot believe his monthly vigils � he has been at it since 1997 � are worth all this trouble. �It�s surreal. It�s bizarre,� he said last month after showing a visitor the official protest spot. He is allowed there now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has overturned his most recent convictions.

�I can�t even imagine they took this thing to our local court,� he said. �I thought they�d just keep arresting me forever, hoping that someday I�d just finally stop.�

Apel�s is the first of several cases the Supreme Court will hear this term that raise important free-speech concerns. They will test the justices � and the public � on First Amendment protection for speech that both ends of the ideological spectrum might find objectionable.

In January, the justices will consider a Massachusetts law that expanded a buffer zone around abortion clinics. State officials said it was necessary to protect clinic workers and those entering the facilities from violence and harassment. People who oppose abortion say the law unconstitutionally silences their voices and makes it impossible to reach women who might be persuaded not to have an abortion.

And this past week, the justices decided to consider whether Secret Service agents may be sued if they treat those who are denouncing a president differently from those who support him. The case involves a decision by two agents to move a group of protesters slightly farther away from an appearance by President George W. Bush than those who were there to cheer him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ss=rss_politics

# ? Dec 4, 2013 16:43

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

I'd love to see a Hobby Lobby opinion written by Ginsberg, just to watch her lay into pro-life fucks, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if it had to be a dissent with the majority being the Carhart five. Congratulations on becoming a theocracy, America. :smith:

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:13

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

TinTower posted:

I'd love to see a Hobby Lobby opinion written by Ginsberg, just to watch her lay into pro-life fucks, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if it had to be a dissent with the majority being the Carhart five. Congratulations on becoming a theocracy, America.

Really with RFRA written the way it is I'm not sure what other way there is to rule? Its a mess entirely of congress's own doing.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:15

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

hobbesmaster posted:

Really with RFRA written the way it is I'm not sure what other way there is to rule? Its a mess entirely of congress's own doing.

Surprise 5-4 ruling, RFRA found to violate establishment clause, all religion banned and to be replaced with temples of the Glorious Invisible Hand of the Free Market (PBUH).

But seriously, Hobby Lobby's gonna be a mess. There's no way we get out of this clean and no way we get out of this without greatly empowering corporations.

What's the ETA on a for-profit corporation claiming religious tax exempt status?

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:20

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Teddybear posted:

What's the ETA on a for-profit corporation claiming religious tax exempt status?

1993.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:22

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Hobby Lobby is likely to be a narrow ruling one way or the other on interpretation of RFRA that carries little weight in other cases. Like with National Federation, the real problem with this case is that the PPACA was just a dreadfully drafted bill.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:24

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Teddybear posted:

But seriously, Hobby Lobby's gonna be a mess. There's no way we get out of this clean and no way we get out of this without greatly empowering corporations.

Sure there is, they could just kill it on lack of standing if they find that an incorporated entity does not constitute a "person" possessing a religious belief which may be burdened as required to claim judicial relief under 42 USC � 2000bb�1 [the RFRA].

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:45

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Shifty Pony posted:

Sure there is, they could just kill it on lack of standing if they find that an incorporated entity does not constitute a "person" possessing a religious belief which may be burdened as required to claim judicial relief under 42 USC � 2000bb–1 [the RFRA].

Which would be hard to square with the logic of the ruling in Citizens United. So, I mean, it could happen - but it's very unlikely.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 17:51

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Kalman posted:

Which would be hard to square with the logic of the ruling in Citizens United. So, I mean, it could happen - but it's very unlikely.

How? I see basically no connection between the cases outside of broad stroke media/interest group wailing, certainly no legal rationale. Citizens United is not substantively cited in any of the briefs in any of these cases, there's even only one errata citation to it in Clement's brief.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:09

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Kalman posted:

Which would be hard to square with the logic of the ruling in Citizens United. So, I mean, it could happen - but it's very unlikely.

Hobby Lobby isn't a first amendment free-speech case, Citizens United would be of limited applicability.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:15

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

jeffersonlives posted:

How? I see basically no connection between the cases outside of broad stroke media/interest group wailing, certainly no legal rationale. Citizens United is not substantively cited in any of the briefs in any of these cases, there's even only one errata citation to it in Clement's brief.

I think plenty of people see Citizens United as indicative that what may appear to be destined for a narrow decision may get pried open in argument/reargument, but I think they underestimate what a tortured process that was, really.

edit: Also what Kalman said.

The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 4, 2013

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:16

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

jeffersonlives posted:

How? I see basically no connection between the cases outside of broad stroke media/interest group wailing, certainly no legal rationale. Citizens United is not substantively cited in any of the briefs in any of these cases, there's even only one errata citation to it in Clement's brief.

Read CU carefully. CU's core logic deals with the concept that groups of persons (e.g., corporations) don't lose rights of those persons simply because they're a group. I'm not saying they'll cite to it - I'm saying expecting this court to distinguish between religious objections based on whether a person or a corporation exerts those objections is a dangerous expectation.

Citizens United posted:

Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens�those that have taken on the corporate form�are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:18

Not My Leg: Nov 6, 2002; AYN RAND AKBAR!

twodot posted:

(Earlier, I brought up the substantial burden test, in hindsight I think that's the wrong test)
Let's imagine the Supreme Court agrees with your argument. What do you think is the more likely ruling based on it?
Supreme Court: Ok Hobby Lobby, you do have RFRA rights, the ACA does substantially burden you, and the government failed to show the ACA was in furtherance of a compelling interest or that it was the least restrictive means of doing so. We rule that:
A) Your belief was sincere, you are allowed to not cover the contraceptives you sought to not cover and additionally don't have to cover the following procedures which possess a similar or greater risk:... (Obviously the Supreme Court wouldn't go literally overbroad like this but you get the point)

B) Your inability or unwillingness to coldly calculate the relative risks of literally every possible procedure invalidates your otherwise sincere religious beliefs. If you want to prevail in court you need to sue again, but next time list every possible procedure that could have a similar or greater risk as the procedures presented, dismissed.

The second one? Well, not the second one, it would actually be that the ACA does not substantially burden Hobby Lobby (or its owners). Hobby Lobby claims that its religious rights are substantially burdened because it requires them to provide coverage for procedures that pose a risk of aborting viable fetus. However, Hobby Lobby covers, without objection, many procedures that pose a higher risk of aborting a viable fetus. Therefore, Hobby Lobby's claim that its religious rights are substantially burdened by being forced to cover certain methods of contraception is not credible, because it has always provided coverage for procedures that pose a much greater risk of aborting a viable fetus.

Hobby Lobby cannot remedy this simply by changing its plans and bringing suit again, because the objection is not that Hobby Lobby failed to assert an exemption from certain procedures, but that it covered those procedures long before it was required to. If it covered those procedures by choice it doesn't have much of a claim that covering those procedures violates its deeply held religious beliefs.

Also, yes, if Hobby Lobby is claiming that covering a medical treatment that causes X is a serious violation of its religious beliefs, then Hobby Lobby should have an affirmative duty to determine what medical treatments actually cause X. Anything less literally puts the owner's immortal soul at risk.

Finally, just to be clear, I do not know whether Hobby Lobby actually covers procedures that pose a substantial risk of aborting a viable fetus, I am raising it for the sake of argument. Unlike Hobby Lobby, I have no religious objection to abortion and do not provide insurance to anyone, so I'm not really under any obligation to sort out the risks of various procedures.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:27

Patience: Jul 1, 2006; Success on someone else's terms don't mean a fucking thing.

If I work for Hobby Lobby and take a drug to prevent implantation or fertilization of a embryo, is that a religious act?

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:30

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

jeffersonlives posted:

How? I see basically no connection between the cases outside of broad stroke media/interest group wailing, certainly no legal rationale. Citizens United is not substantively cited in any of the briefs in any of these cases, there's even only one errata citation to it in Clement's brief.

The case law is here, from Professor Volokh. The quote here is a decent summary.

Kalman posted:

Read CU carefully. CU's core logic deals with the concept that groups of persons (e.g., corporations) don't lose rights of those persons simply because they're a group. I'm not saying they'll cite to it - I'm saying expecting this court to distinguish between religious objections based on whether a person or a corporation exerts those objections is a dangerous expectation.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 18:35

The X-man cometh: Nov 1, 2009

According to the SCOTUS website, the briefs were filed last month. Does anyone know where I can find them? Or are they not released until after the decision is made?

# ? Dec 4, 2013 19:19

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Kalman posted:

Read CU carefully. CU's core logic deals with the concept that groups of persons (e.g., corporations) don't lose rights of those persons simply because they're a group. I'm not saying they'll cite to it - I'm saying expecting this court to distinguish between religious objections based on whether a person or a corporation exerts those objections is a dangerous expectation.

Paul MaudDib posted:

The case law is here, from Professor Volokh. The quote here is a decent summary.

Right, but corporate personhood is not Citizens United, that's a bunch of cases decided long before Citizens United. What Citizens United says is that the corporate personhood concept extends at least X far in the context of electioneering constitutional free speech; that's a very specific thing. Here we're asking whether it extends at least Y far in the context of RFRA absent any real evidence that Congress intended it to or not to. This is mainly a statutory interpretation problem, not a constitutional one, and it's really kind of a weirdly cool statutory theory case than any of the stuff people are ascribing to it.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 19:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Not My Leg posted:

Also, yes, if Hobby Lobby is claiming that covering a medical treatment that causes X is a serious violation of its religious beliefs, then Hobby Lobby should have an affirmative duty to determine what medical treatments actually cause X. Anything less literally puts the owner's immortal soul at risk.

Are you trying to make a legal or moral argument? Your argument is wrong on both counts, but this makes me think you are attempting a moral approach despite many legal references.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 19:40

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

jeffersonlives posted:

Right, but corporate personhood is not Citizens United, that's a bunch of cases decided long before Citizens United. What Citizens United says is that the corporate personhood concept extends at least X far in the context of electioneering constitutional free speech; that's a very specific thing. Here we're asking whether it extends at least Y far in the context of RFRA absent any real evidence that Congress intended it to or not to. This is mainly a statutory interpretation problem, not a constitutional one, and it's really kind of a weirdly cool statutory theory case than any of the stuff people are ascribing to it.

Right. What CU says isn't at all on point, but WHY it said it does matter.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 19:49

Patience: Jul 1, 2006; Success on someone else's terms don't mean a fucking thing.

Patience posted:

If I work for Hobby Lobby and take a drug to prevent implantation or fertilization of a embryo, is that a religious act?

Feeling like a law professor in a room full of bug-eyed 1Ls here. I'll expand my point.

If I work for a business owned by Jews who practice kosher and eat a cheeseburger, is that a religious act?
If I work for a business owned by Hindus and eat beef, is that a religious act?
If I work for a business owned by Mormons and drink alcoholic or caffeinated beverages, is that a religious act?

Most people would say no, that an act that defies the conventions of a particular religion is not a religious act whether or not it is done while employed for a business that would have a religious objection to that act.

However, if SCOTUS were to agree with Hobby Lobby in the suit, they'd be showing a preference to the practitioners of one religion over others, in that a business can circumscribe the rights of their employees if they are not in accord with the tenets of the "business' religion" (what a weird thing to type).

I can recall a few Family law cases (a Mormon polygamist one and a Hindu divorce one) which ruled against the adherents to a religion and for settled law, in suits brought on essentially religious grounds. So maybe the Court will go that way again. But the recent rise of "right of refusal" and conscience clauses in what is essentially a way for religious groups to preserve their rights at the expense of others is an added concern.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...egislation.html

To play at Chicken Little, then all a business would have to do to get around any law would be to claim to practice a particular religion that was opposed to that law. What would stop a business that didn't want to pay for any of their employees healthcare costs from convert to Christian Scientists? Or invent a religion to circumvent government regulation of industry?

# ? Dec 4, 2013 19:51

Flappy Bert: Dec 11, 2011; I have seen the light, and it is a string

Don't we already have a precedent with draft laws and pacifists for how to treat beliefs as legitimate or not?

# ? Dec 4, 2013 19:53

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Kalman posted:

Right. What CU says isn't at all on point, but WHY it said it does matter.

I don't know that we should be pulling out thin strands from the increasingly tortured body of election law and imagining how that might apply to RFRA, which itself is a tortured area of law but in a hugely different way. The idea that corporations have some personal rights is not really at issue here.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 20:00

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

DerLeo posted:

Don't we already have a precedent with draft laws and pacifists for how to treat beliefs as legitimate or not?

Presumably, but to quote the 10th Circuit:

quote:

No one disputes in this case the sincerity of Hobby Lobby and Mardel�s religious beliefs. And because the contraceptive-coverage requirement places substantial pressure on Hobby Lobby and Mardel to violate their sincere religious beliefs, their exercise of religion is substantially burdened within the meaning of RFRA.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 20:04

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Patience posted:

What would stop a business that didn't want to pay for any of their employees healthcare costs from convert to Christian Scientists? Or invent a religion to circumvent government regulation of industry?

This brings up a point that I've been thinking a little bit about. A burden cannot exist if there is a non-burdensome alternative course of action. Hobby Lobby could simply offer an equivalent subsidy to its insurance plan, and then it would be morally free and clear as far as "its money" is concerned. The subsidy would be directly equivalent to compensation, and Hobby Lobby would thus have no more moral consequence than a Muslim owner of a gas station whose employees use some of their wages to buy alcohol.

Or for that matter they could simply not offer a health care plan and pay the fine. Fines can be burdensome on religion, but that burden can be balanced by other interests.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 4, 2013

# ? Dec 4, 2013 20:15

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

jeffersonlives posted:

I don't know that we should be pulling out thin strands from the increasingly tortured body of election law and imagining how that might apply to RFRA, which itself is a tortured area of law but in a hugely different way. The idea that corporations have some personal rights is not really at issue here.

But that wasn't the key to why CU went the way it did. The key was that quote I put in up thread - the Justices were suspicious of a rationale that gave rights to the individuals making up the corporation but took them away from the corporation.

You're looking for precedent, which isn't why I'm pointing at CU. I'm saying that it has predictive value because the justices think this way already with regard to first amendment rights of corporations and will likely continue to think this way when it comes to religious rights of corporations under RFRA.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 20:20

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Kalman posted:

But that wasn't the key to why CU went the way it did. The key was that quote I put in up thread - the Justices were suspicious of a rationale that gave rights to the individuals making up the corporation but took them away from the corporation.

You're looking for precedent, which isn't why I'm pointing at CU. I'm saying that it has predictive value because the justices think this way already with regard to first amendment rights of corporations and will likely continue to think this way when it comes to religious rights of corporations under RFRA.

The key question for me here is congressional intent/statutory interpretation; I don't think there's a Supreme Court case if RFRA specifically excludes or includes corporations. I don't see this case in a "First Amendment rights" past RFRA way at all, at least not the Hobby Lobby corporate rights side of it (and the Conestoga Wood half of the consolidation that reached more of the constitutional issues that get at Citizens United has huge standing problems because it asserts the constitutional rights of the owners to get there).

# ? Dec 4, 2013 20:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 21:08

Emanuel Collective: Jan 16, 2008; by Smythe

Paul MaudDib posted:

Or for that matter they could simply not offer a health care plan and pay the fine. Fines can be burdensome on religion, but that burden can be balanced by other interests.

You mean pay the tax! Thats one possible outcome I think gets overlooked-because the PPACA penalty is a tax, employers who fail to provide insurance effectively acts as one less tax break for businesses. The government wouldnt even be fining Hobby Lobby for its religious beliefs, its just denying them a tax break for voluntarily deciding not to offer a service.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 21:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »