|
The pope could come out and say "Hobby Lobby covering contraceptives doesn't make the owner a bad Christian" and it wouldn't matter to the people fighting to deny coverage.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Humanity hasn't been 'sliding to unlock' for centuries. Chain locks, car door locks, old door latches, etc. Old bolt locks are literally a bar of metal you slide to lock/unlock the door. Sliding to unlock a screen instead of a door is a new use of the function, but the function itself is by no means new.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:There once was a time when people rented bell-owned telephones and men were free... Well I guess it's a good thing these companies don't charge $5-10 a month to rent a single cable box or modem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Would the SCOTUS even take up this case rather than just point to the recent Windsor ruling and let all the lower court bans remain in place? I can't imagine these ending in a 5-4 split. Surely at the very least Roberts would cross the aisle and side with the liberal justices + Kennedy. I could just as easily see it end 1-8 with Scalia being the lone(or definitely the loudest) voice against it. Further immortalized in court records as the shithead everyone knows him to be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:No cert on Wolfe v. Clarke is a tragedy: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/another-chance-for-the-justices-to-say-no-to-prosecutorial-misconduct/283731/ How tare these people not in prison? What they did is so insane they should be taking Wolfe's place on death row considering this doesn't even appear to be the first times these people have gotten in trouble for loving around and their violations are so blatant the face that they weren't frogmarched out of their offices and in to a cell speaks volumes about the excessive leeway people involved in our justice system get and that it's not just cops who can get away with murder. Even if the SCOTUS would hear this it'd almost certainly still end up 5-4 against Wolfe though, but perhaps with an amazing dissent from Sotomayor. Wasn't it Scalia that said evidence of innocence wasn't enough to free a man sentenced to die because a court found him guilty?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How much more damage can these 5 do before one of them dies? This McCutchen case is just depressing as hell. Considering the decades each likely have before they'll retire or die it's pretty much incalculable unless the Democrats hold on to the Senate in November and Obama decides "gently caress these 5 assholes" and adds more judges to the bench. Which he won't because his own party would likely push back enough to ensure even going nuclear will lack votes. The better question is: what sort of damage is going to follow when they rule 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby? 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. Don't worry, President Cruz will appoint someone like Allen West to the Supreme Court when Ginsberg retires/dies some time between 2017 and 2021. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
esquilax posted:No because that's a quid pro quo arrangement. And yet groups like Norhquist's still exist, when they were made for such purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/jack-abramoff-supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_5169510.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics quote:Urging the Supreme Court Justices to reconsider their recent ruling, Abramoff said, "They've got to recognize that when a politician gets money in any amount from somebody who wants something back, that itself is bribery. That itself is corruption. They would never put up with it for themselves. They would never allow somebody who had a case in front of them to give them a campaign contribution or buy them dinner. Why in the world are they allowing it for politicians?" I could easily see some members of the SCOTUS accepting gifts from someone who had a case before them at some point. Not sure what fantasy world this guy lives in. I could see someone like Scalia taking gifts from Hobby Lobby without a second thought.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The president is given power by Article II section 2 to appoint supreme court justices, ambassadors, etc with the "advice and consent of the senate." At the least, consent would imply a majority voting to support the judge being put on the bench. A POTUS couldn't just say "hey Senate what do you think of this person? Ok well I'm putting them on the bench thanks for the chat!" The filibuster is dumb as poo poo and the next time either party controls both houses of congress and the presidency it will hopefully be wiped out completely even if the senate minority doesn't play obstructionist games. It'd be nice to see whomever the next justice is would be a life-long defense attorney, or even from somewhere other than the usual Ivy League schools. A justice who has had a long career of "this justice system works in the hope that all are guilty and fucks those without the money to fight back the hardest" would be nice. Hell I'd settle for Thomas getting investigated and potentially charged with ethics violations from his inability to recuse himself from cases involving parties he and/or his lobbying wife have varying relationships with. It's not quite as bad as enemy companies buying judges in West Virgina but he's got time to reach that point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you feel about the labeling of cotton candy ice cream? What %age of lemon should be in a lemon meringue pie? How should we label salt-and-vinegar chips? Orange Crush? Blueberry Jelly Bellies? If the items you listed don't actually contain those things then they need to be labeled as "[whatever]-flavored" and include a little disclaiming stating the product contains no actual [whatever] in it. Or just require something to contain x% or more, and if it has less it has to be labeled 'flavored' with the aforementioned disclaimer. Blueberry Jelly Bellies have (almost) zero blueberry in them? They are now required to be called Blueberry Flavored Jelly Bellies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I checked the scotusblog stats and the Hobby Lobby author is Roberts/Scalia/Kennedy/Alito. Rip Is there any reason for people to think the case isn't going to go for Hobby Lobby? Kennedy's all but certain to back Hobby Lobby because of abortion and I can easily see a 5 conservative decision that basically says "believing X causes abortion is good enough" while ALEC jerks itself off repeatedly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:The owners of Hobby Lobby aren't paying for the health insurance out of their own pockets, the corporation Hobby Lobby is paying for it. I held out hope that maybe the Court would say that Hobby Lobby isn't a person and therefore can't exercise a religion, and so it can't have its religious beliefs burdened. If you're hoping this court wouldn't consider Hobby Lobby a person with religious beliefs you might want to go stock up on booze now. There's an absolute lock for 4 members considering corporations to have religious beliefs and unless Kennedy decided that actual science trumps a person's stupid and misguided personal opinion, he's going to side with HL because abortion. mcmagic posted:The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics. The actions of people like Scalia show the opposite to be true. You're severely ignoring the "gently caress your team" mindset.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Is it just me, or does this read like Ginsburg had to seriously debate whether or not to write "YOU IDIOTS" on the plaza in gasoline and light it ablaze as the entirety of her dissent? Why waste the gasoline on pavement when she could light Scalia and Roberts on fire instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Too bad Obama's incapable of actual leadership otherwise he could use this insanity to either stack the court or push for UHC. That would require him to actually want UHC in the first place, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I disagree that the majority's arguments are "specious." Unless otherwise clarified in the law, "the State" can and often does mean the government as a whole. "The State" referring to the US itself is not unique to this law and if this ruling were upheld on the notion that "the State" means "one of the 50 states" it could gently caress with a lot of laws. If it meant individual breakdowns it'd be "a State" or "the States" as those mean more than one entity, not just the entirety of the government. Or maybe when someone's considered an "enemy of the state" it means they're actually only an enemy of certain states and not the country.  SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. (a) ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.— https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1311 It exists to provide assistance to states to create an exchange. In the case of states doing nothing because they're spiteful fucks, it means doing everything for them. e: vvvv in Federal law "the State" can and often does mean the Federal government. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:US legal question for you lot, how can you be convicted of both murder and manslaughter at the same time if there's only one victim? Detroit: It may be one step away from being a Fallout expansion but it's still better than Florida.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Here is the always awesome Lyle Denniston explaining the Ohio early voting situation in light of the constitutional implications: Looking forward to the 5-4 ruling where the SCOTUS decides votes cast any day other than election day are unconstitutional and they gut the VRA even further while Democrats just hem and haw about it and watch the GOP win the white house in 2016 through the lowest voter turnout in history.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Radish posted:How bad would a Supreme Court decision need to be for it to be ignored reverse Andrew Jackson style or result in some some of their removal? Nothing the SCOTUS can do will ever get Obama to move against them. They could decide the VRA in its entirety is unconstitutional and he'd just sit there and take it. Judges in general can get away with tons of poo poo and even if a conservative justice was caught killing someone in cold blood you'd have the Republicans fighting against their removal by any and all means (until they control the senate and white house). e: vvvv You should just drink now because it's about 90% certain the conservatives are going to throw out all that precedent and 100% certain the Democrats will in no way attempt to fight back beyond the usual hot air and empty complaints. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Our currency literally says "In God We Trust" on it, I don't see how this is controversial. Because that slogan was added as part of the Red Scare and in no way is connected to the founders or founding documents? e: vvvv It'd also be easier to pass a new law that allows for more justices to be appointed to the court, turning the lovely majority in to an irrelevant minority. If the Democrats somehow manage to take both chambers and the white house in the next decade they need to do exactly that (they won't). Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Everyone look at this fool who hasn't read the Constitution I know that the bolded part you added is  and all but it's still a dumb joke.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't add a thing bro, if we can mention God in the Constitution, we can sure do it on money. You bastard. I didn't even notice the 'Federal Government' part at first, or that you deliberately didn't say US Constitution otherwise I'd have caught on quicker.  e:He's quoting the Confederacy's Constitution Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:He was probably thinking of the part added to the Pledge. Apparently it's been on coins longer, while it didn't appear on paper currency until 1957 and was made the (new) motto in 1956. Its push in the 1950s was directly due to Godless Commies and the Red Scare. Either way there's a grand total of zero mentions of God in the US Constitution and was responding to twodot's post about a known, vocal, and proud theocratic justice. I'm curious what his thoughts on are on why Article 6 specific prohibits any sort of religious test being a part of qualifying for office if he believes there's no freedom from religion inherent in the founding documents. The only other mention of religion is in the First Amendment. Scaila doesn't care though because he's a racist theocrat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
joeburz posted: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. Even the DoJ and DoL are siding with Integrity too. I'm looking forward to seeing the SCOTUS majority's reasons why mandatory security screening like this should be an off the clock thing. This seems even more open and shut that one of the precedent cases for battery factory workers, whom I can easily see Scalia addressing with a "you don't have to wash off that lead and acid" argument. Considering Amazon's now included in the case due to other lawsuits being rolled in to this, and that Amazon's warehouses are as close to sweatshops as they can get away with, I'd be amazed if they're being paid during the security screening.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
".
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Could conceivably be Thomas. I can see him reasoning his way into letting the states and their judiciary sort poo poo out on their own in this. That or they know there's 5 in favor of marriage equality so they want to avoid hearing the case and letting SSM get a favorable ruling. Given the spite of guys like Scalia I'd pretty much expect this to be the case. Any state with a conservative-run government is going to be smart to simply not try and pass any laws prohibiting SSM for now, as they can simply try to wait and hope for shifts on the courts to favor them rather than getting a ban struck down and having no way to prohibit it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
If Busk doesn't lose I'll be stunned. If he loses and it isn't 6-3 or worse I'd be surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:NPR mentions a few other cases on the docket including: Looking forward to Roberts proudly ruling that it's unconstitutional to prohibit judges from taking donations because of course the judiciary should be the final say on policing the judiciary. euphronius posted:I can't imagine Congress not rectifying any damage SC may do here. You're funny.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'll be more shocked if they DON'T strike down those laws. It's a given that Roberts is a vote to do exactly that. Money is
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Timby posted:The Supreme Court just vacated the 7th Circuit's ruling that Wisconsin's voter ID law is constitutional, hence blocking its implementation. Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented. Right wing groups will 'accidentally' send out mailers informing people in Democrat-heavy areas that if they don't have ID they can't vote. Hasn't photo ID been upheld by the SCOTUS before though? I haven't read through the decision yet but is the fact that the law simply can't be properly implemented in time a big reason why it lost with only the three primevals dissenting? If photo ID voting laws end up getting struck down by 6, or even 5, justice majorities when the law doesn't fall over itself to ensure every last person can get ID easily and freely that'll be nice if it can help stem the upcoming Dem losses and help against the GOP in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Thank the various gods... I'm curious if Roberts was part of the 6 because it's such a blatant attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade that he's just not going to put up with legislatures trying to undermine the power of the SCOTUS, or if he (and Kennedy) simply decided that allowing it to go in to effect would mean that even if it's overturned the damage will be irreversible. Allaniis posted:Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg dissented on a case where a jury acquitted, but the judge used discretion and sentenced the defendants anyway. How the hell could the SCOTUS not take up a case where a judge sentenced defendants using a charge a jury had just acquitted them of? I'd love to know why Sotomayor(or Kagan) was one of the 6 that didn't want to hear it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Don't forget that admitting privileges appears to be entirely up to the hospitals as well. Oh all the hospitals within 300 miles are Catholic institutions? Looks like you're poo poo out of luck buddy and your clinic has to close now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
45 posts. I thought maybe Scalia died from an overdose of pure evil but nope, just some idiot nitpicking about abortion because they can't grasp that states pass these laws as a direct means of undermining Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortions indirectly.SedanChair posted:Nobody's buying it. It's like the abortion version of "I'm not racist, but..."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Supreme Court leaves California foie gras ban intact I think you're misunderstanding that ruling. I'm all for bans on the hellish meat factory setups major producers use though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:yeah, there's a lot of monday morning quarterbacking going on here, but I think they hosed themselves by not going hard on the as applied argument. Still, at the end of the day, the only part I think will be upheld is the admissions requirement, with the "within 30 miles" part cut. Admissions is not something hospitals are required to give. Allowing it to remain intact effectively bans abortions in the state (which is the goal) because catholic-run hospitals are never going to willingly give admitting privileges to abortion providers and the Hobby Lobby case has made it clear there's no chance in hell of them ever being forced to do so either. Admitting privilege itself is a de-facto abortion ban in right wing states. The people who crafted this law have not hidden the fact that they want to outlaw abortion, but can't do so directly because Roe v. Wade would prohibit it. Let me put it another way that should be easy for everyone to understand: Lee Atwater, abortion edition posted:You start out in 1970 by saying, “ban abortion, ban abortion, ban abortion.” By 1973 you can’t say “ban abortion”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, mandatory ultrasound, admitting privileges, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about women's safety, and all these things you’re talking about are totally well-being things and a byproduct of them is, abortion is restricted. ... “We want women to be safe,” is much more abstract than even the mandatory waiting period thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “ban abortion, ban abortion.” Again: admitting privileges is an indirect means of banning abortions in a state and if it's allowed then the remaining clinics will simply be hit with even more requirements until they can't meet them all and the state ends up with zero providers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:All that concern trolling and this wasn't brought up....? Yet another day in wishing for Scalia and co to suffer unspeakably painful deaths. e: Congrats Texas GOP on ensuring the state remains red for an extra decade? Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Alito's the last one I'd want replaced for that exact reason. Replace Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas and watch Alito freak the gently caress out as he's constantly the lone dissenter in 8-1 decisions and see how long it takes for his mind to shatter and he ends up in a corner babbling and eating his own poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah, the argument is that according to the letter of what is in the ACA, if a state refused to set up their own exchange, people in that state who have to use the federal exchange instead should not be allowed to get their plans subsidized. They claim the law says that a state exchange is the only way you can get your plan subsidized, which is ludicrous. But there are several right wing groups suing over Obamacare on issues like this because they believe if they find just the right weakness in the legislation, SCOTUS will act and then decimate the bill. Obviously if they decide to take this, it's not a good sign. But it would be kind of odd if Roberts did, since he basically saved the law from death two years ago. Let's see what Obama and the dems have been saying about this recently, what with the elections and all. ... ... ... ....yeah I can't imagine why the dems are seen as ineffectual political garbage. Radish posted:Also it sounds like the most blatantly political rules-lawyering that would make them an absolute laughing stock if they actually cared about that. IANAL so maybe it has merit but from a layman's perspective the argument is absolutely absurd, especially considering the guy that wrote it says they are wrong (yes that wouldn't be the first time). I'd be shocked if more than a couple justices care about what the guy says beyond "write better next time" and I can't imagine his claim is going to be what sways anyone one way or the other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
I'd be utterly stunned if we don't get a 5-4 decision, or worse, that strikes down the subsidies for the ACA. Considering there would be no split to the en blanc hearing it seems rather unlikely that the SCOTUS moved to hear it just so they could agree with the courts when there's no split.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:How would this bill even work without the subsidies? Without the subsidies it's just mandated insurance, right? It'd royally gently caress people in GOP-held states, and the GOP can then turn to all of them and say "look at how Obamacare's loving you over, now do the right thing and vote Republican in 2016 so we can get rid of this terrible Obamacare." It will work. The Democrats couldn't capitalize on the shutdown and they won't capitalize on the GOP loving millions of people on subsidies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
mdemone posted:poo poo, I saw 50 new posts since I last read the thread two hours ago, and I was sure RBG had either kicked the bucket or stabbed Roberts. "While the defendant did the deed we find them not guilty via jury nullification."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 18:37
|
|