|
Green Crayons posted:Because I posted it at the very end of the last thread, I'll link it again. quote:The owners of the corporations believe for religious reasons that it is wrong to use any devices or products that sufficiently risk killing a fertilized embryo, including by preventing implantation of the embryo But birth control pills prevent ovulation, not implantation? These cases are all 
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:You make it sound as though birth control opponents have any interest in the science behind birth control. Scientific proof that birth control doesn't work the way they say it does has never stopped them, because they don't care about science. The only reason they ever even bring it up is to apply a thin veneer of moral legitimacy to their opposition of women having sex when and how they want. This is important for this case though. The FDA says the drug does X, the plaintiffs say the drug does Y and they're morally opposed to that. Thats chewbacca defense territory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Then, do they just want the government carte blanche to remove whatever drugs they want from their insurance's formulary?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The joke/line is usually "everything is obvious after it's invented." Its definitely true.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem is that the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture is medieval nonsense with as little inherent logic as charging a tree with murder because its branches fell and killed someone. The supreme court says thats a legislative decision not a judicial one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The Court has granted cert in Holt v. Hobbs, a case challenging the no-beard policy of the Arkansas Department of Corrections violates either the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and whether a 1/2-inch beard would satisfy the security goals of the policy. If the cert petition looks a bit strange, it's because Holt is representing himself and handwrote the whole thing. Is the court going to appoint someone to argue Holt's position?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It can't be just a government interest can it? I mean if my religion calls for me to walk up to random people on the street and punch them in the face every other Thursday, those people's right to not be punched in the face is competing with my religious freedom and their right would win in court I assume... The government has a legitimate interest in protecting other people from physical harm and the least restrictive way of going that still prevents you from punching people in the face.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Going by this TP article, it seems like Roberts may be inclined to think someone's belief that something causes an abortion is enough to count it as an abortion regardless of science and have it fall under religious exemption. It's problematic because RFPA protects religious beliefs and religious beliefs are not required to be rational or evidence based. It doesn't matter whether it is happening, it matters whether your religion says it is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The fact that they are calling something "an abortion" that factually isn't an abortion pretty much takes away their ability to cry sincerity. It's clearly a politically motivated case. (Not that that will matter in the way the court finds the case.) And Peyote merely induces a chemical reaction in the brain, not a connection to the spirit realm.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I happen to highly doubt that they are sincere and believe it's politically motivated. However there is no way to prove that and it's not going to part of the decision so I'll drop it. There are plenty of people that hold sincere beliefs related to misunderstandings of modern medicine. See anti vaccers and Jehovas Witnesses.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Can't we just find some poor sap that Hobby Lobby could pay that pesky half-billion in return for patiently explaining to them once a day how covering contraceptives positively impacts their female employees' quality of life? As I understand it they're only whining about the morning after pill. It works the same as the regular pill and in fact only works if fertilization has not occurred but Hobby Lobby says anything taken after the fact is an abortion according to their religion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:It sounds like the government has conceded that there is a minuscule chance that the morning after pill could cause a situation where an egg that had dropped before taking the pill met with a sperm and was impregnated, and then failed to attach to the uterine wall due to hormonal issues. They consider that an abortion and thus I can see their logic being valid (personally I disagree) although it doesn't sound like they looked very hard at other drugs that can cause similar fringe cases and unlikely side effects. I think the more important issue is that as a corporation that shields its owners from a lot of legal issues they really have no business telling their employees how their compensation for labor should be used so I don't care if it is an abortifacient or not. It should be pointed out that regular hormonal contraceptives do this too. Also like all anti inflammatories if I recall a doctor's rant on the silliness of the line of thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
This shouldn't be an unexpected outcome and directly follows from Citizens United logic. If money is speech then obviously they can't limit it. Its not like you can only spend so many minutes per election cycle talking about a specific candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Court has historically drawn a distinction on spending independent of candidates and giving candidates a big fat check directly, and been more willing to uphold restrictions on the latter. It is worrying they're weakening that and this is another step in the direction of abolishing campaign financing regulations entirely. The aggregate spending on all federal candidates is a big jump from citizens united. But I agree the individual limits are likely the next target and I wouldn't bet on the outcome there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:Yeah man, equal time is loving bullshit. You know what would be really awesome? The person with the most """Support""" gets the most time! We can quantify """Support""" as these nifty little green slips of paper that you may very well already have lying around your house or Swiss bank account! """Support""" bless America. This supreme court would waste no time in striking down some sort of equal time doctrine, yes. There is a difference between predicting supreme court decisions and what your personal opinions about good policy are you know.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:We went from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas. At this rate also the last black justice to be nominated to boot if voter suppression laws become entrenched. Nah, Hillary will get Barack through the senate. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It was a coin flip before this decision. The flood of money into Senate races will push the odds strongly in the Republicans favor. Sure helped president Romney.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:The first rule of using acronyms is to first establish what the acronyms means. YYNBBGFRT Uh, he did?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
But everybody and their brother files amici in Supreme Court cases. Could anyone rule on the case if that was the standard?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A general rule of thumb for any case in which Pom is involved is to root for the other guy. Pom are trying to do some really nasty things to the market via litigation, and they have a real track record of this sort of thing. The court should side with POM and just hand down a ruling that says "CHAOS REIGNS"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Affirmative action is dead if states want it to be. All hail our post-racial reality! All from SCOTUS Blog: "The plurality opinion stresses that the case is not about the constitutionality or the merits of race conscious admission policies in higher education. Rather, the question concerns whether and in what manner voters in a state may chose to prohibit consideration of such racial preferences." Is it a big deal? Is the other case decided a big deal other than bizarro world in make up? "Court holds in opinion by Justice Thomas that the traffic stop in this case complied with the Fourth Amendment because under the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck's driver was intoxicated. The decision of the California middle appellate court is affirmed. The Court is divided 5-4. Justice Scalia writes for the dissenters, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Well it does indirectly legitimize parallel construction (police can pull you over as long as they claim to have an "anonymous tip"), so there's that. Doesn't look too crazy? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove in court that an anonymous tip had been received? "The police dispatcher received a call at 1:35 AM..." Thomas points out that the call wasn't made anonymously, the call was recorded along with the caller id and the caller freely gave their name but the prosecution in the case proceeded as if it was an anonymous call because they didn't want to subpoena the 911 operator and the caller for a suppression hearing. Scalia obsesses over the fact that the tip was anonymous and nobody would anonymously report being in a traffic accident.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:This is a basic rule of appellate procedure. Because the parties treated the call as anonymous in the trial court, and because no party is challenging that designation on appeal, an appellate court must also treat the call as anonymous. Was the call itself part of evidence? Scalia was saying it wasn't credible because someone that wished to remain an anonymous victim of a crime isn't trustworthy. The caller didn't wish to be anonymous, that call was made by the police which breaks that part down. Also RE the aereo thing, rebroadcasting within the same local area is legal so it should be interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Basically, if you view this as like having your own antenna, or like trying to use a legal loophole involving a hardware workaround. It's actually sort of a hard case where the rules were all set with absolutely no idea that something like this was possible. You don't have to have your own antenna though. Retransmission within the local area is explicitly legal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Scalia is absolutely the best person to have replaced by a Democrat: Kennedy leans conservative, but he's not a sure conservative vote. Scalia is. You get much more milage out of replacing Scalia: you have a solid 6-3 majority for abortion rights and gay rights, for example. Thomas would be better. The ideal scenario would be for him to retire and reveal that his supreme court philosophy has been some sort of tolberone triangular deep troll or something because jfc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Redux Taft. Put Bill Clinton on the court. And then Barack.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Scalia's dissent is pretty amazing because you can see him try to twist his logic to suit his agenda. Hell, he even cites his own decision in a prior case incorrectly to support his dissent. “Too many important decisions of the Federal Government are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people’s representatives in Congress.” Unelected officials? Like say, supreme court justices?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:When do we get the hear the fish destruction of evidence case? Next term? Why did they charge him under SOX? Aren't there a lot of more logical obstruction charges?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:He destroyed tangible property. Which was evidence in a crime therefore surely theres other statutes that would work?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Transferring cargo at sea is very dangerous so I imagine this may come up more than you might think in maritime law.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:you're forgetting when she gets reappointed by mecha-Clinton in neo-DC in 2033 Appointed Chief Justice of megacity 1 you mean.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Prayer in government proceedings is okay! Uh, I'm pretty sure that the establishment clause was never intended to outlaw legislative prayers since they've been done since we first had legislatures in the US.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:To be fair, it doesn't seem like the appellees were arguing that it was never okay (acknowledging the chaplains in Congress), only that the nature of the prayer necessarily endorsed Christianity over other religions. The conclusions in II-B are more concerning, but even there, the decision mentions that the prayer is in the context of the ceremonial opening and not the actual content of the meeting. Yeah, the disagreement is about whether the town did enough to be prevent the opening prayers from being overly political, Breyer points out: quote:The U. S. House of Representatives, for example, pro- vides its guest chaplains with the following guidelines, which are designed to encourage the sorts of prayer that are consistent with the purpose of an invocation for a government body in a religiously pluralistic Nation: Basically they grabbed the list from the local chamber of congress which only contained christian churches, emailed them all and whoever replied was put on a list to be invited back later if they like. They didn't put any effort into reaching out to new people until they were sued. It seems more like they half assed it.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, speakers of all different sects of Christianity were invited. Such diversity. You can look up all the "acceptable" prayers to all the justices: http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/ Also, you can see the "diversity" of the US House Chaplaincy: http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html Not as much diversity as everyone would like in the guest chaplains here: http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/guest_chaplains.html However most of the prayers I've seen are pretty generic.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
But, Roberts upheld the ACA, that showed that he was apolitical!
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Clinton didn't get impeached for a blowjob. He got impeached for perjury. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Clinton instead just said "Yup, I did that thing." instead of lying. Republicans probably would have exploded.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Woah woah woah, oral arguments aren't just for Scalia to practice his jokes?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 01:23
|
|