|
Green Crayons posted:Professor Volokh is using this week to write about the various legal issues implicated in the upcoming Hobby Lobby cases. Apart from knowing a whole bunch about the applicable area of law (First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act statute), I find his writing to be clear, easy to read, and enlightening on a rather dense subject area. Thanks for the links. Reading through these I'm wondering what abstract, out of left-field basis is going to be used for a ruling in the Hobby Lobby case in an attempt to minimize the aftershocks. edit: it seems there is going to be a lot of wiggle room for ruling in regards to the Burden in the RFRA, and i'm interested in seeing his discussion on the effect of the establishment clause w/r/t the Burden And The Warszawa, I could read the first post of this thread a thousand times and still enjoy every minute of it. esto es malo fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Dec 2, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Has SCOTUS already addressed concerns in previous cases about the federal government wielding "compelling interest" for the RFRA in a blunt fashion analogous to the Commerce Clause? That was a big deal during the individual mandate case, and I don't know enough case history to know if compelling government interest has been marked with the slippery slope broccoli stamp before or if I should look forward to Scalia's arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-supreme-court-to-hear-landmark-hobby-lobby-case-233481131.htmlquote:The Greens and their family businesses – who have no moral objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives required under the HHS mandate and do so at no additional cost to employees under their self-insured health plan – then took the unusual step in October of joining the government in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, despite the family's victory in the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. So, apparently it is 4 specific drugs or devices they are citing moral objections to providing, but still providing 16 others. Which would presume their objections are based on the merit of the claims that the drugs or devices terminate a pregnancy, rather than prevent it. Would evidence supporting that no such termination occurs in a common patient render their argument null, or is the science and facts irrelevant as long as their belief is such, as people have postulated in this and other threads?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine" talks about it a little bit, but I'm not sure if any book goes in depth on it. It should matter because proving the accuracy of one of those is feasible and has actually already happened. They just choose to consider the science to be inapplicable because it doesn't agree with their belief(assuming it isn't actually just malicious "ignorance" in order to push their inaccurate view).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, I was relying on that Guardian article as well, but it turns out that it's not true, sorry. 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
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The key to encourage people to pay union dues is for the union to offer benefits in exchange, I don't think anyone should be forced to pay union dues. I'm surprised that medical personnel in the US don't have powerful unions. In Denmark the nurses union is very powerful and can cripple hospitals with strikes or just the threat of strikes. One key aspect of unions in Scandinavian countries is that they offer unemployment benefits. If a nurse is fired he or she will receive 90% of her normal pay for up to three years until they find a new job. This is because it's advantageous to preserve their skill set in their sector, and it works because people with advanced skills generally want to work and will find new employment as soon as they can. Nurses have decent unions in some states that go a ways toward protecting the nurse's safety and liability(usually very intertwined). They seem to have limited "bargaining" power, considering the few I know of have had almost no improvements in wages over the last half decade, but I'm sure it's a lot better than if no such union existed. The sad thing is a lot of the nurses disregard the headway unions have made towards shift-limiting, mandatory breaks, etc. that protect them from overloading and/or potentially harming patients because of a combination of sense of duty and general compassion for keeping the patient's health more of a priority than their own. I think a lot of people don't realize how much effort and knowledge is required for nurses in critical care scenarios and just think of them like candy stripers as if medicine hasn't evolved since WWII. Doctors are still necessary, but well qualified nurses are the reason that doctors can handle far more patient loads nowadays. I have more respect for good nurses and teachers than any other type of worker.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Using seniority IS relying solely on data as an objective performance measurement, it's just using "years worked" as the sole data point. You don't have to be a pedant, everyone knows he meant student metrics as the data in question. As for the the notion that our analytical methods for measuring teacher performance are viable at the current time, I'd be interested to hear more about that position. It may or may not be true, but I'm wondering if there is anything in particular bringing you to that position or if it's just a gut feeling.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Do any other major state or federal courts have video feeds? The only ones I can recall seeing are the television entertainment courts and various local court clips on the news. And not to say that you're incorrect in your assumptions or attributions Rygar201, but the rationale for lack of video during oral arguments seems flimsy considering there is audio recording going on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Is "judicial activism" an actual thing in the legal domain, or is it just framing a court decision that you deny in a derogatory fashion? I tend to hear this phrase thrown around all the time whenever a case doesn't go the way of libertarian/ultra-conservative friends and it ultimately drifts into the domain of partisan noise. From a technical perspective, both ends of the political spectrum make decisions that can be interpreted as "judicial activism" if you consider it loosely based on existing law and being influenced mostly by political beliefs. Is it just stubborn, reactionary howling to the ever-changing interpretation of the law or is it seen as a serious issue in legal conversation?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
While the hypothetical Sotomayor court would be awesome, it still doesn't approach Obama replacing Scalia or Thomas levels of amazing. Edit: appointed by HRC, at that. esto es malo fucked around with this message at 16:56 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
quote:Integrity says it doesn’t owe the workers money because the screenings weren’t directly related to their jobs. “No court has ever held that ‘not breaking the law’ is a principal job activity for which compensation must be paid,” the company’s lawyers wrote in a brief last May. They literally wrote this in defense of not paying workers for a mandatory screening, when they are probably saving more than enough to pay for it due to reduction in losses from theft. It was noted that Amazon workers go through the same checks, but they failed to note if they were paid for their screening times. I'm assuming so, otherwise it would have been mentioned. So basically a staffing company is ripping people off and their excuse is "not stealing isn't part of your job description  ".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So yes. I admittedly stirred the pot to see if someone, anyone, would address this legal case in a legal framework. So far 2 people have. Or someone called out your garbage opinion that had no basis in reality and you've been backpedaling for pages and pages. Stop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And what opinion would that be? ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox is showing that he's understanding everything perfectly, it is just the entire thread other than some shitposter backpedaling that don't understand. If only you knew the secrets of law such as stating your immense knowledge without bothering to impart any of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Concern trolling: a made up term that means "I disagree with you but I'm too dumb to explain why". Except it was explained in detail through out the storm of shitposting, only to be met by some bizarre combination of back pedaling and supposed puppetry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:somewhat relevant to earlier snark on the "trigger warning" generation. quote:What is really behind the request for postponement of exams? I suspect it’s the fact that the students in question would rather protest with their friends and perhaps disrupt New York City than read cases, review lecture notes, or whatever it is that students do these days to prepare for exams. In addition, the students in question presumably want the law school to take their side on what they take to be a political question. In other words, this is, in part, a power play. Why is the author so butthurt about someone protesting an obviously hosed up situation? edit: oh wow he links to breitbart on the right hand side, guess that answers my question. quote:College administrators come and go, but for the past 45 years they can usually be counted on to take the path of least resistance when the left agitates. Even when doing so results in behavior and conduct that seem like self-parody.  when the left agitates
esto es malo fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Just some more reverse racism as the pure whites who didn't practice civil disobedience are at a disadvantage in liberal collegia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah it's telling that Columbia is developing the poo poo out of property it bought up for cheap once the city declared it blighted in Manhattanville and I'll bet not all the permits have cleared and the university doesn't want to be seen as "anti-city", plus the school's relationship with the NYPD has been tense. No poo poo, but the entire mindset behind this discussion of the policy is people basically taking that notion and wrapping it behind contemporary talking points to disguise or simply ignore the latent racism. Complaints against the government or the law are bad, unless they agree with it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
edit: nevermind not SCOTUS stuff
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I don't understand why a fuckton of morphine won't work. It's not like they don't have options, never mind a bullet to the head. Next up in Oklahoma death sentencing: the convicted criminal must ingest an entire bottle of extra strength tylenol. Miltank posted:Oxygen deprivation is probably the most humane way to take a life. Yes but the goal isn't a humane death in these states.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The Scalia dissent is filled with some truly fantastic butthurt phraseology. My favorites: This one was pretty dumb because basically all high profile cases could be stated as such.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Now do Thomas. Anita Hill shudders at the thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Guys, I'm not a fan of voter ID, just watch as I defend it to the death.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It did none of those things. Small businesses and local politicians aren't going to give a poo poo about independent expenditures. It didn't "fundamentally change" anything either. A few campaign strategists get to throw a lot more money at attacking each other, but anyone with a brain can tell you the marginal utility of a hundredth TV ad in a row is almost nothing. hmm yes tv ads are ineffective, great point i bet you have a lot of other excellent ideas
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Citizens United is not responsible for your illiteracy either I didn't mention citizens united, i just replied to your statement in that incorrect post because everything you say is garbage
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If you look at the actual discourse on the national stage about why we should get rid of teacher's unions, it's to get rid of bad teachers, not to make it easier to lay off teachers during budget crunches. Normally, there is actually a mechanism by which teachers can be laid off during actual times of budgetary need. lol if you actually believe this
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Roe is based on a "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights - privacy. Privacy rights seem like a quaint notion of late. It's particularly interesting in that the government may have full knowledge of every medical procedure that is covered by an insurer - especially with Obamacare in place. That would happen to so much gnashing of teeth from the dissent that it would make obergefell look like lockjaw
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I had dinner this evening with a gentleman who clerked under Garland on the DC Circuit. When asked to give the scoop on his legal temperament, he literally did the robot. My kinda judge. do clerks really get that much inside scoop compared to their public rulings? we can check out his lengthy record and i dont think anyone is under the delusions that garland is a "full communism sleeper cell waiting until the ripe age of late 60 whatever". theres also an endless horde of people from harvard and everywhere else with reports that mirror most of his judicial record
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Given that his clerks are writing a substantial port of his work I would imagine they get to see exactly what he wants as he chops and sends back revisions to them. yes but how different is that from reading what he allows as output? seems marginally different after any sort of lengthy term
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
holy poo poo stop saying petulant every time you post
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hahahah yah those loving lawyers screwing people over. agreed, OP
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
The laws of man aren't immutable to the degree of the laws of physics, so that is a terrible argument. As someone previously pointed out, when the simple makeup of the court can define whether something is interpreted one way vs another, you're not existing in a is/is not environment so stop acting like it.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Citing to dissents as your only evidence kind of suggests that you're wrong. Again you and others have been asking for a means to implement changes or supposing that the changes they (Heronymous Alloy and others) describe are impossible despite a very clear rationale for why it is possible, that is due to the make-up of a court being impermanent. Even describing it as a dissent simply means that your complaint only holds as long as the notion remains in the minority of the court, which is allowing an avenue for that to at some point become a majority. Are you going to fall back on the idea that "oh my it will just break too much stuff" now?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
actually she's wrong, and old
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
There has to be a godwin's law for this type of thing and bringing out dred scott case as an example that law really is just the enforced opinions of whoever has power. He's not wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Yeah, it's called Constitutional Law. which serves as a case in point
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Is there a word for stating something so obviously true that it doesn't need to be stated at all and simultaneously so obviously meaningless that it never should've been stated in the first place? If you had the biggest gun then your opinion would matter, great point there, really deep. its not really meaningless when you have people in this very thread's last two pages acting like law is in any real way objective rather than based on the biased viewpoints of those in power. it's an obvious fact when we get opposing, polarized opinions from upper echelons of legal bodies in the country. so when people walk in and say "well they followed the rule of law " that's the real meaningless statement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why don't the Democrats realize that they will pay no political penalty for obstruction? because theyre all spineless fucks
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Donald Trump shouldn't get a supreme court pick in the last year of his presidency
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hot take: public accommodations statutes in some states are really broadly worded and ladies night might conflict with them, but holy poo poo who cares chill. let me tell you about ethics in video game journalism
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 16:15
|
|