|
The Entire Universe posted:Now instead of just using a fishy excuse (like dissipation of BAC) to compel a blood test without a warrant, it'll just make warrants the new throwaway step - instead of being able to claim you smelled weed after the fact in court, you just need to call a judge beforehand and say you smelled weed. Don't try to sell me on the idea that low level judges and the cops don't collude worse than family members on ebay. I can't tell if you're arguing that searches are never justified ever, or if warrants are worthless so might as well just save cops the step of calling a judge and let them search whenever they want.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
This is circling back to Hobby Lobby, but are there holes in this argument? Assumptions: 1 - Free practice of your religion is like the right to swing your fist. It ends at my nose. If your religion requires you give a non-believer a wedgie every full moon that doesn't mean you get to do this. No religious belief that involves violating the constitutional rights of *other people* is permitted constitutional protections. 2 - Medical treatments - even ones branded for a specific purpose - have off-label uses. You can't point at something and say, "Anytime this is used it is used to cause X". Viagra, for example, is also a blood pressure medication and that is in fact what it was initially developed for and sold as. The, ah, side effect, was discovered after it had been in use for awhile and they put it back through the FDA process to get it re-labeled as a boner pill. *But that doesn't mean that it isn't effective blood pressure medication or that it can't be used for that purpose*. 3 - Even on-label uses of items that are in theory proscribed can have situational applications where they are clearly the best moral/ethical options. It is medically dangerous, for example, for a new mother to get pregnant again too quickly. Say your middle manager's wife just delivered their firstborn after a touch and go pregnancy that had some scary complications. 2+ years of birth spacing is advised for her to recover her health. 9-12 months of breast feeding is also advised. Taking hormone treatments while breast feeding is not advised. It gets in the milk and thus into the baby. A copper IUD* doesn't put nasty hormones in babby's breast milk. Insisting your employee's wife be put on hormonal BC over the copper IUD is thus doing actual harm to an actual baby in the name of preventing imaginary harm to a potential fertilized egg. Per point number 1, you don't get a constitutional right to taint a child's milk in the name of your God. 4 - I as an individual have a right to doctor-patient confidentiality as well as general privacy that my employer may not breech. I may volunteer information if I choose but my employer has no right to this information. Self-insurance on the employers part does not entitle them to this information either. They are the insurer, not the doctor and not the patient. When a health condition effects an employee's ability to work the employer will find out of it as a matter of practicality. But since coverage is for entire families, not just employees, that is just a limited window to a tiny portion of lives covered. The spouses and children of employee's likewise have the right to privacy and confidentiality. Conclusions Due to the combination of 2, 3, and 4 my employer cannot make moral or ethical judgements about my treatments because they do not have adequate information to form such opinions and furthermore have no right to such information. They also, generally, lack the medical education to make informed judgements of that kind even if they had access to all the facts. They may not respond to this lack of information with wild-eyed supposition of immorality on the patient's part and seek to bar access to various medicines/techniques on religious grounds because doing so will cause harm to some statistical subset of patients and per assumption 1 the constitutional protections afforded their religious practices do not permit them to harm others. They can cover or not cover on *financial* grounds. But not on religious ones. And, of course, in order for what they are offering to qualify as health insurance it must meet minimum standards. If it doesn't they have to pay the penalty or provide real insurance. * The copper IUD works because copper (why copper? so weird) causes the womb and fallopian tubes to secrete a chemical that is lethal to sperm. It's like how sand irritates oysters and they secrete perl material in response. Copper makes human wombs secrete spermicide. People thought for awhile it was dislodging implanted zygotes but that would work even if it was, say plastic or stainless steel. It doesn't. Has to be copper. Some new ones are hormone impregnated plastic but thats the hormones doing stuff, not the plastic. The T shape is to keep the sucker from falling out. ** I've noticed that whenever this topic is tackled in debate everyone just assumes that the woman seeking birth control is the employee. This is inaccurate. She could be the employee's spouse. Phrasing it from the point of view of a husband seems to knock certain people off center because while they love vilifying "sluts" they tend to worship male sexuality and are strongly in favor of a dutiful dad coming home from a long day at work to an appreciative wife. Using a married male protagonist thus prevents them from suggesting abstinence as an alternative because they would not be comfortable suggesting years of abstinence to a man. Additionally, a man would face no negative social consequences for ridiculing that suggestion and thus can effectively laugh it off. These same people also tend to only be capable of seeing pregnancy as an economic issue when the point of view character is a man. They fundamentally don't acknowledge women as having economic lives and are willfully blind to the disruption an ill-concieved pregnancy has on our economic situations. Hell, they barely acknowledge its impact on our physical health and that only because maternal death stats prevent them from ignoring it entirely Fun fact, in 2006 bush had the CDC stop collecting maternal death statistics after Amnesty International did a report about how horrible ours are.. So that framing is much more effective when trying to get a listener to remember that employees have rights too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Due to the combination of 2, 3, and 4 my employer cannot make moral or ethical judgements about my treatments because they do not have adequate information to form such opinions and furthermore have no right to such information. So, your employer may not have a right to know why you were at a plastic surgeon, for instance, or even that you were at one, but the insurance company does if you ask them to pay for it, and the employer has a right to know what visits to a plastic surgeon will be paid for by the plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
All of the Hobby Lobby issues McAlister raised really circle back to, in the end, conservatives would have been happier with the public option than what we got -- although probably wouldn't admit it. e: Never mind. Found it. It's been so long I forgot it would be the SG's petition, which I guess was all-but guaranteed to be granted. I guess should be waiting on the merits briefs. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can't tell if you're arguing that searches are never justified ever, or if warrants are worthless so might as well just save cops the step of calling a judge and let them search whenever they want. I'm arguing that there ought to be a better structure around obtaining warrants so that when the cops and judges collude to gently caress with someone on a flimsy excuse it results in disbarment for the judge and a big ol' civil rights suit for the PD. Since the ability to just make poo poo up for a probable cause search has been complicated, the misbehavior moves up a step on the ladder, where cops are able to just call a friendly judge and tell them they smelled weed. How the hell you missed that is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I'm arguing that there ought to be a better structure around obtaining warrants so that when the cops and judges collude to gently caress with someone on a flimsy excuse it results in disbarment for the judge and a big ol' civil rights suit for the PD. Since the ability to just make poo poo up for a probable cause search has been complicated, the misbehavior moves up a step on the ladder, where cops are able to just call a friendly judge and tell them they smelled weed. How the hell you missed that is beyond me. I don't disagree that warrants should have stricter oversight or that judges should be disbarred for colluding with cops to issue warrants-on-demand. But you were complaining about a decision that upheld search warrant requirements, not one that weakened them. Given that the guy was drunk and failed several field sobriety tests, there's no way a warrant wouldn't have been justified here had a judge been awake. How else should Sotomayor have ruled, in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
I guess I am having trouble understanding the Hobby Lobby thing. To me, it seems like they are arguing that "we should not have to give our money to an insurance company (on behalf of our employees) that may then use said money to pay for contraception that goes against our religious beliefs." How is that different than saying "we should not have to give our money to an employee that may then use said money to pay for contraception that goes against our religious beliefs?" Or am I misunderstanding the healthcare law, and that Hobby Lobby would actually be specifically billed for contraception given to employees by their insurance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I guess I am having trouble understanding the Hobby Lobby thing. The PPACA establishes that a protected class of religious employers do not have to "give [their] money to an insurance company (on behalf of [their] employees) that may then use said money to pay for contraception that goes against [their] religious beliefs". I agree with you that this is a silly provision, but it exists. The question is whether or not Hobby Lobby has the right to be classified as a religious employer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I guess I am having trouble understanding the Hobby Lobby thing. What is covered under the benefit plans that employers provide to their employees is determined by the employer (or is collectively bargained). Employers have a wide leeway to choose to cover or not cover things like abortion, viagra, etc. Hobby Lobby is saying that the law violates their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it is forcing them to do something that they have religious qualms about. Any money that Hobby Lobby gives to employees is still allowed to be used to pay for contraception, Hobby Lobby has no control over that. They do have control over what the plan covers. It's only partially relevant to the case, but since Hobby Lobby has a self-insured insurance arrangement: yes, when an employee gets contraception Hobby Lobby specifically pays for it. Amarkov posted:The PPACA establishes that a protected class of religious employers do not have to "give [their] money to an insurance company (on behalf of [their] employees) that may then use said money to pay for contraception that goes against [their] religious beliefs". I agree with you that this is a silly provision, but it exists. The question is whether or not Hobby Lobby has the right to be classified as a religious employer. AFAIK they aren't claiming that they qualify as a religious employer under the PPACA exemption, they are making claims under the RFRA. esquilax fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
McAlister posted:This is circling back to Hobby Lobby, but are there holes in this argument? Ginsburg would almost definitely sign onto 2-4, given her dissents in the Carhart cases. You could probably be able to tie 1 in on previous 1A rulings too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Insurance companies already have that information and are explicit about their interaction with it in the plans, like their typical refusal to cover elective surgery and other options that the plan doesn't consider "medically necessary." We don't, actually. Have that information. I coded electronic claims processing software for three years as the data architect and there weren't any tables in our database for that level of detail. You had specific coverage events but not diagnosis details. HIPPA would make trying to obtain that information hella awkward. Edit to add info: The health insurance patient privacy act , HIPPA, means that even though hobby lobby self insures, mr. Green may not look at the claims histories of employees. This information is not rich detailed medical history to start with. Its jut claims. Jane went to an ob/GYN and got an Rx for pre-natal vitamins. We can infer from this that she's pregnant but we don't know. She may just be planning to get pregnant. Or it could be a fraudulent claim by the doc to get more money. But if mr green snoops ( say he's thinking of promoting jane and this info changes his mind ) and gets caught he can be fined up to $50,000 per record and face years of jail time. Just because insurers have to store claims data to operate their business doesn't mean that data can be shared, mined, sold, or perused. And god have mercy on your soul if you get hacked. So mr green faces a problem of schroedinger's slut. The woman in the hypothetical is a Madonna and a Whore at the same time. You don't know which one till you look and see. But he isn't allowed to look and see. The lack of this information means he isn't in a position to make ethical and moral decisions about these cases. His moral compass isn't much to start with but that doesn't matter because you can't apply any moral compass to situations when you don't know what the situation is. McAlister fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Ginsburg would almost definitely sign onto 2-4, given her dissents in the Carhart cases. You could probably be able to tie 1 in on previous 1A rulings too. Thanks. And I don't think they can counter with "I'm not harming, I'm just not helping" because, per the ACA, providing these things is a minimum standard. It's something their employees have a right to in their health insurance. Taking away help that someone is entitled to and would get anywhere else is clearly harming. My go-to analogy for people like the Greens is a religious pizza delivery man who wants to take the pepperoni off the pizza you ordered because he thinks pork is unclean. He's not the pizza shop. He's not the customer. He's just a middleman. He has no right to stick his nose in your pizza. Lots of ability but zero right. Yes he takes your money and gives it to the shop for you. That is a service he provides. It is at no point his money. Likewise hobby lobby pays for work. Period. That's all they pay for. Its real nice of them to deduct some of your compensation pre-tax to get that plan cheaper than you could have bought it post tax. But all they are doing is exchanging your money for coverage. Just like a pizza delivery man exchanges your money for pizza. If it were their money you wouldn't have to work for it. That's the difference between compensation and a gift.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
Hobby lobby self insures, they are the insurance company in this case. As far as I can understand it at any rate
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
McAlister posted:So mr green faces a problem of schroedinger's slut. The woman in the hypothetical is a Madonna and a Whore at the same time. You don't know which one till you look and see. If you wrote a book, I'd read it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Hobby lobby self insures, they are the insurance company in this case. As far as I can understand it at any rate And that doesn't matter because insurance companies don't have the information you think they have and mr green isn't allowed to look at the information they do have. He'd go to jail if he did. So he effectively doesn't have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And that doesn't matter because insurance companies don't have the information you think they have and mr green isn't allowed to look at the information they do have. He'd go to jail if he did. So he effectively doesn't have it. HIPAA seriously restricts data access, yeah. I would suspect they have the plan administration firewalled off somewhere inside HR - at my company my manager simply has no access to any of my benefits data, for example. We had someone go off on disability for what we thought might have been mental health issues; my manager candidly admitted that not only could she not discuss the issue, she literally did not know any salient details as it was all handled by HR. Some digging would probably turn up Hobby Lobby's corporate data privacy standards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And that doesn't matter because insurance companies don't have the information you think they have and mr green isn't allowed to look at the information they do have. He'd go to jail if he did. So he effectively doesn't have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
It's two separate arguments. Knowing that your insurance plan offers a certain medication or procedure doesn't mean you'll know which employee has actually used it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
e: /\ Hobby Lobby objects to their insurance being required to cover FDA-approved contraceptives because there's a infinitesimal likelihood a couple contraceptives might prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. It's not that they object to the use of contraceptives, but that they object to the infinitesimal possibility of a fertilized egg being prevented from implanting during the course of normal usage as prescribed. It's hypocritical because they don't give two shits about a bunch of stuff that could prevent implantation or cause spontaneous abortion despite such effect not being the expected outcome of normal operation. Take driving, for example. A woman could have just conceived, but her uterus gets all hosed up in a car crash, aborting the fertilized egg. This is why Hobby Lobby does not allow their female employees to drive.VitalSigns posted:I don't disagree that warrants should have stricter oversight or that judges should be disbarred for colluding with cops to issue warrants-on-demand. I wasn't complaining about the ruling so much as mourning that it would just cheapen the seeking of a warrant absent stricter oversight of the local judiciary charged with deciding whether to grant them to the cops requesting them. I think it's a good ruling, I just think there should be checks to ensure it doesn't result in collusion and rubber-stamping on part of the local judge. Which was outside the scope of the ruling. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
@AP BREAKING: Supreme Court justice halts birth control mandate in health care law for Catholic group. Happy New Year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Hobby lobby is going to win their court case unless a conservative justice dies/retires and gets replaced by Obama before then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
ufarn posted:@AP BREAKING: Supreme Court justice halts birth control mandate in health care law for Catholic group. Turns out it was Sotomayor what done it. She's not just dropping things in Times Square tonight!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Turns out it was Sotomayor what done it. She's not just dropping things in Times Square tonight! This looks like its for "real" religious groups; like the ones that can already op out of stuff like social security, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This looks like its for "real" religious groups; like the ones that can already op out of stuff like social security, yes? Yeah, this won't apply to Hobby Lobby - it's stayed for the groups that fall under the catholic exception in the PPACA rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah, this won't apply to Hobby Lobby - it's stayed for the groups that fall under the catholic exception in the PPACA rules. Does it broaden the definition of religious group/organization?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Does it broaden the definition of religious group/organization? I didn't read the stay order itself, but generally speaking, a court couldn't change that definition with a stay. (A court really couldn't change the definition even after a court case - what they could do is find that HHS's definition isn't acceptable and require them to come up with a new one. This has to do with the difference between administrative rules and legislation.) Update: per the text of the stay, it only temporarily bars enforcement against the Colorado nuns who brought the suit, not even other religious groups. (They could probably get their own stays, of course.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Does it broaden the definition of religious group/organization? The Associated Press posted:Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Also, in accord with Kalman's point, a temporary stay does not actually decide the merits of a party's appeal -- and therefore won't be changing any law. A temporary injunction simply stops enforcement of a law until the merits can be decided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
So this was just upheld as ok by a federal judge who wanted to back up Obama: https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone quote:Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders. quote:A federal judge today upheld a President Barack Obama administration policy allowing authorities along the U.S. border to seize and search laptops, smartphones and other electronic devices for any reason. I assume that will end up eventually being another 5-4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Probably a 9-0, honestly, if it ever even gets taken by the Court - the idea that you can search electronic devices at the border isn't going to be terribly controversial, since electronic device searches aren't controversial during arrest and border searches get extraordinary leeway, and the case isn't going to be about the 100 mile range (that one already got litigated and lost.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I don't know - extending federal authority to a non-originalist 100 miles from an airport is something that would set Thomas (maybe Roberts?) off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:the case isn't going to be about the 100 mile range (that one already got litigated and lost.) (Aside from the quiet cackle that it basically de-righted 2/3rds of the population with a barely-crafty excuse, and that privacy is a thorn in Obamas drone-loving side?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:How did they defend that? They can only border search at borders and international airports http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:They can only border search at borders and international airports http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 I skimmed it until the footnotes, but this jumped out at me regarding the tone: quote:Since neither this Court's automobile search decisions nor its administrative inspection decisions provide any support for the constitutionality of the stop and search in the present case, we are left simply with the statute that purports to authorize automobiles to be stopped and searched, without a warrant and "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States." It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution. But under familiar principles of constitutional adjudication, our duty is to construe the statute, if possible, in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment. "You are not allowed to do this, but we will try to find a way to allow it"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
More like "we presume laws were intended to be constitutional so we construe them so as to make them constitutional unless there's just no way."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:They can only border search at borders and international airports http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 Not quite right. They can do various searches in various different places, some of which are nowhere near the border - an electronic device imaging search probably wouldn't be okay at the Sarita checkpoint but almost certainly would be okay at the border itself. Where in between does it stop being okay? Fourth Amendment law is often pretty fact specific so the answer will basically be "it depends."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:More like "we presume laws were intended to be constitutional so we construe them so as to make them constitutional unless there's just no way." The SCOTUS equivalent of "Presumed Innocent." An example of this was Roberts' opinion on the Obamacare suit. Was that NFIB?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The SCOTUS equivalent of "Presumed Innocent." An example of this was Roberts' opinion on the Obamacare suit. Was that NFIB? The particular quote that FRINGE highlighted is a particular type of canon of statutory instruction whereby a court, when construing a statute, will construe it only in a manner that is constitutional. For example, if a broadly worded statute would appear to apply, on its face, to both Situation A and Situation B, but such an application to Situation B is unconstitutional, a court will simply say "this statute only applies to Situation A."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Gay marriage has been suspended in Utah as the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. Is it possible this could lead to a ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Gay marriage has been suspended in Utah as the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. Is it possible this could lead to a ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states? The 10th could just make a Utah specific ruling and courts further up refuse to hear the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Gay marriage has been suspended in Utah as the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. Is it possible this could lead to a ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states? Eventually, but the case will probably take about another year and a half to two years to filter up at a minimum unless SCOTUS decides it wants it sooner (and if they really wanted that they could have reached the merits in Perry), and maybe longer. There's still a lot of steps to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:37
|
|
