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?

«‹›13 »

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

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 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.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 21:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 07:28

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Rust Martialis posted:

I am always amazed how US teachers don't have strong unions. The Ontario Teachers' Pension Fund is massive. New teachers make $45,709 to $55,404, rising to between $76,021 and $94,707 for a teacher with 10+ years service.

Politicians and the media like to scapegoat them here.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2014 21:13

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Looking forward to seeing how SCOTUS tries to screw this up

# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 14:49

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

They better not add more fuel to the ridiculous 'contraception=abortion' fire. It's 2014 people, we've had the pill for half a century now.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 21:23

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Has anyone mentioned that pre-ACA Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control?
Because they only suddenly changed their tune and sued after the law passed.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 14:04

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

mcmagic posted:

Even if they sincerely believe everything they are saying they are still paternalistic fucks for trying to force their thousands of female employees to share those beliefs and deserve zero benefit of the doubt.

I would also ask, are they refusing to cover Viagra? At least be consistent.

My main problem is an organization using religion as a shield for denying basic rights when it comes to health and reproduction.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 19:32

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I guarantee that whenever they get a case challenging the overall limit to one candidate they will take it out. I assume that will probably be soon, since Republicans are rushing to increase corporate power established in Citizens United before the balance of the court shifts again.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 15:34

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

mdemone posted:

Oh, I'm serious as an out-of-pocket heart attack.

Edit: do we have substantive reason to believe Kennedy will vote with the Decepticons?

He's been siding with 'corporate rights' the majority of the time recently.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 00:13

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

SCOTUS opted not to take on a case involving direct contributions to political candidates by corporations today. Not sure if that will be the case in a few years though.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2014 19:08

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I have to think Ginsberg, with her health issues, is probably the next to leave. Unfortunately O'Connor retiring very early is what gave the Roberts court so much influence, since before that the court leaned slightly more liberal.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2014 15:14

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Replacing Kennedy would end the 5-4 decisions giving corporations more rights. He has continuously sided with 'corporate rights' since Roberts took over

# ¿ Apr 26, 2014 01:20

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of James Risen, the reporter who was threatened with jail time because he wouldn't testify against his source who leaked him classified information that he later published. The Federal Appeals court ruling went against him.

The DoJ claims that they will not prosecute Risen for not complying with the court.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2014 16:35

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

McDowell posted:

They are really going to announce their Hobby Lobby decision at the last possible minute, aren't they? You're killing me, Roberts Court.

I didn't expect anything less.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 03:30

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Is there a consensus yet on the likelihood of the NLRB ruling being one way or another?

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 03:41

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

So it sounds like a narrow loss, since he can still do it but just not during a short recess.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 15:10

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Because abortion. -CJ Roberts

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 21:43

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Radish posted:

Seriously only having the ruling pertain to contraceptives is so blatantly enforcing their own prejudices it's disgusting. It's one thing if they just said corporations could hold religions because of some ridiculous legal reasoning but singling out a women's issue that conservatives specifically have an issue with is just them enforcing their own set of politics with no shame.

What a joke.

It's really just Bush v. Gore 2.0

'But seriously guys, we're totally not partisan hacks'

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:32

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

ZenVulgarity posted:

Haha Jesus Christ was a terribly reasoned opinion.

Yes, but it's more about the result for them than the process (see also: VRA, Citizens United).

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 17:33

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Dapper Dan posted:

Can't say I am all that surprised. The thing that perhaps bothers me the most is that feelings and 'belief' trump scientific fact. In a perfect world, the court would tell Hobby Lobby to gently caress right off because their 'beliefs' are empirically wrong. Sorry, just because you believe that these contraceptive methods cause abortions, which they don't, does not mean you cannot cover them. And they are covering normal birth control pills, which if you took enough of, would have a similar effect as the morning after pill. But hey, I guess the rich people's ignorance trumps the poors healthcare needs.

The worst thing to me about all of this is that until very very recently they covered this stuff with no controversy. It really wasn't until this legal group convinced them to sign on as the Plantiffs in the case that suddenly this was a giant problem for them.

Plus on just a fairness level it's disgusting that you now have a system where it's OK for male things like Viagra to be covered but not contraceptives that only impact women.

Can we all agree that this is the Anti-Warren Court or something?

also does anyone know what the stakes are in the related Little Sisters case that is going to be decided soon? I have no idea if this is challenging the contraception mandate as a whole yet again or just the religious exception. The whole thing comes off as dumb to me.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 04:41

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

ComradeCosmobot posted:

NPR is reporting on a followup to Hobby Lobby, namely, that Wheaton College need not use the official forms to notify the government that it is electing to not provide contraceptive coverage (as doing so would "make it complicit in enabling contraception use"). Apparently it still must inform the government, but it's unclear how such notification would take place.

Does anyone here have a better breakdown as to what this means? It seems to be significant enough to warrant a 17-page dissent from Sotomayer, Ginsburg, and Kagan so I was hoping someone might have more info.

Isn't this also the exact argument in the Little Sisters case? I'm very confused by this because I thought they were done issuing opinions for this term.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 04:42

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Little Sisters was about those nuns who were refusing to also sign that document saying they didn't want to provide contraception because they were a non-profit religious organization. Not exactly sure why these groups don't want to sign paperwork.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 05:14

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

So should we be afraid of that Obamacare case currently headed for SCOTUS that challenges the constitutionality of the insurance subsidies? Because if the courts rule against the government in this case Obamacare is basically dead.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 20:06

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Stultus Maximus posted:

Tell me more about these super liberal democrats.

Yeah that pretty much never happens since there's never the pressure from the left that there is from the right

# ¿ Jul 8, 2014 00:14

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

So for someone who doesn't have a law background, what are the pros and cons to going en banc here? If the full circuit rules to uphold the law, what does that accomplish?

# ¿ Jul 23, 2014 00:44

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

KIM JONG TRILL posted:

That means it would be consistent with the 4th circuit opinion which would make it less likely that SCOTUS would grant cert. En banc would get you a majority democrat appointed (which isn't dispositive of anything, but is still pretty highly suggestive) court, likely overturn this decision, and keep you out of the conservative SCOTUS. There really isn't any con to appealing en banc. Even if they somehow affirm this decision, you can still appeal that to the Supreme Court as a last resort.

Thanks, that makes sense.

I just wonder if Roberts really wants another Obamacare case like this on his hands.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2014 13:32

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I think next Spring?

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 14:49

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

That gun law and doctor bill is gross. So basically you're criminalizing doctors doing their job. Great work.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2014 13:24

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Evil Fluffy posted:

Detroit: It may be one step away from being a Fallout expansion but it's still better than Florida.

The last time I checked my faucet the water was still working down here, so...

# ¿ Aug 8, 2014 13:43

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I'm not sure where you were staying because I've never had that issue. We actually do have great water quality down here from what I've read (compared to the national quality).

# ¿ Aug 9, 2014 15:17

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Also some of those people legitimately believe that a national ID heralds the coming of the Antichrist.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 16:48

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Yeah it's not a good sign that they are taking that case in the face of lower court agreement.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 18:54

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

VitalSigns posted:

In God We Trust, and Mohammed is His Prophet

(PBUH)

# ¿ Oct 4, 2014 05:47

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Is that the whole list? I thought 7 petitions were denied.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 15:14

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

The question is what kind of timetable are we looking at for those other states in the circuit since they weren't directly struck down? I'm assuming it could be awhile.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 16:04

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Someone on SCOTUS Blog pointed out that this is more than likely a strategy by the conservatives on the court to put the breaks on nationwide SSM a bit longer, which is ultimately what this decision does.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 19:00

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I'll be more shocked if they DON'T strike down those laws.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 00:55

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Of course it's those three.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 01:41

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

So what happens with this case after this? I assume it gets appealed to the full court for review?

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 02:07

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

VitalSigns posted:

The SCOTUS thread is where we share drink recipes to booze ourselves into insensibility while slurring about the downfall of human civilization that will follow quickly on the heels of the latest decision, right?

Or am I confusing this with another thread.

That's every D&D thread.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2014 02:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 07:28

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

SCOTUS is holding a hearing Friday to determine if they will hear the Obamacare subsidies case. They will act before the DC Circuit rehearing occurs.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 20:34

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

«‹›13 »