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?

«‹›2 »

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

The X-man cometh posted:

What circuit is Utah in? If it's the 9th, will they repeat the same reasoning as in Perry v. Schwarzenegger?

No, Tenth.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2013 03:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 19:32

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

falcon2424 posted:

What bugs me about the case is that I think there's a sane argument for corporations being able to get some kind of religious exemptions.

Suppose (to avoid the specific merits of birth control) the regulation were something like, "certain classes of stores must be open on Saturday mornings." To keep this from being totally arbitrary, we could invent a mildly compelling interest like, 'this ensures that teachers can buy classroom supplies'.

That regulation would effectively deny religious Jews the ability to come together an open a business. And one of the points of the RFRA is to prevent situations where religious-minorities get shut out of participation in society.

The whole situation seems like a mess.

Are religious Jews forbidden from hiring non-Jews?

# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 15:24

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

falcon2424 posted:

So, I'm really sympathetic to the idea that citizens should be able to form ideologically-influenced groups. My issue with the status quo is that we're letting corporations claim to be entirely separate from their owners and also entirely an extension of their owners. We should really force organizations to pick one side of the fence or another.

That is, in my opinion, the heart of the problem. If my corporation makes faulty seatbelts, it's the corporation's responsibility and the corporation's money that gets taken in wrongful death lawsuits, not mine. If my corporation dumps toxic waste, it's the corporation's responsibility and the corporation's money that gets taken in environmental cleanup lawsuits, not mine. But then if the corporation's money is required to be spent on health care it's suddenly the same as making me spend my money on health care? Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Also if you form an ideologically influenced group you can be a non-profit and operate under those privileges and restrictions. For-profit corporations should not get the privileges of a non-profit without the restrictions. More having your cake and eating it too BS.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 16:25

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ThirdPartyView posted:

Does that mean that he'll be Supreme Court Justice Emeritus? Will he still be allowed to hang out at the Supreme Court like Benedict does at the Vatican?

Already happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas#Retirement

# ¿ Apr 26, 2014 04:41

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

FilthyImp posted:

Sounds like a job for Pope Francis.

He already excommunicated the Mafia so multinational corporations wouldn't be too different.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 17:59

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

A Winner is Jew posted:

So the Roberts court has Bush v Gore, Citizens United, VRA, and now this abortion of a ruling.

I mean any of those taken on their own aren't as bad as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Korematsu v. United States, but combined I think it's fair to say that Roberts has been the worst Chief Justice of all time.

Bush v Gore was Rehnquist.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 18:03

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

razorrozar posted:

My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this?

Unemployment rate > 0

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 00:53

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

razorrozar posted:

He's not normally this much of a shithead, I swear. I don't know why today has become lovely Opinion Day in our apartment.

His main reasoning is that by forcing the corporation to provide medical care that violates the owners' religious beliefs, they are violating the First Amendment rights of the owner. He refuses to differentiate between the owner as a person and the corporation as an entity.

*unless it's a matter of liability, of course.

It's lovely opinion day everywhere. I have read too many Facebook posts wondering if Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists will stop offering blood transfusions and vaccinations.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 01:17

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

razorrozar posted:

I just brought this up and he said he thinks the owner SHOULD be liable. So I guess his argument has internal consistency if nothing else.

So basically he thinks corporations shouldn't exist?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 01:25

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Northjayhawk posted:

OK.... so, I agree that the decision was not just wrong, but based on idiotic and weak reasoning, but...

... why is this being treated as such huge earth-shaking news, and why are we devoting hundreds of posts to it? This ruling impacts almost no one. (If you are a largish private company aside from Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A, you won't do this, and if you are a small employer, you wont be big enough for the insurance companies to cater to your weird contraception requests)

In the bigger picture, yes this will be inconvenient for a very small number of women, but democrats are probably going to hold the white house for the forseeable future and as soon as one of the old conservatives die, this will be reversed.

This morning I was more focused on the labor union decision. I was mildly annoyed at the SCOTUS making a dumb decision about this contraception thing, but I'm shocked at how big of a deal this is becoming in the news.

To me, it's a big deal because it's the first time the door has been opened to grant for-profit corporations 1st Amendment religious freedoms.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 04:22

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ShadowHawk posted:

This didn't happen though -- the first amendment wasn't part of the majority opinion. An act of congress (the RFRA) was. The Supreme Court merely said that the RFRA law applies in this case.

The act of Congress, RFRA, did not explicitly apply to corporate persons. This court decision applied RFRA to corporate persons, granting corporate persons religious rights for the first time.
From Ginsburg's dissent:

quote:

Indeed, until today religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in the commercial, profit-making world.

Corporations now have religious rights which we can assume will be protected by the 1st Amendment.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 13:26

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Real hurthling! posted:

So apparently HL had 73 million invested in companies that make iuds and emergency contraception when they filed their case.

Well that's the corporate entity's money, not the owners' money.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 15:46

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

UberJew posted:

Of course, you can't gerrymander senate or presidential elections.

The Republicans who are gung ho about destroying Obamacare don't give a poo poo about those elections, though.

The Constitution gerrymandered the Senate.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 21:39

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ShadowHawk posted:

That's one method of gerrymandering. Another is incumbent gerrymandering, where 4 competitive districts are turned into 2 giant republican wins and 2 giant democratic wins. The end result of that is the only thing that matters is primary elections, meaning you get nothing but super conservative republicans and super liberal democrats who can't ever agree on anything except approving the next incumbent gerrymander.

That's basically the death spiral California was in for 3 decades until a recent initiative.

Tell me more about these super liberal democrats.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2014 00:14

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Could someone fill me in using small words how somebody demonstrated injury by being subsidized and got standing for this in the first place?

# ¿ Jul 22, 2014 19:19

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

haveblue posted:

The guy's income level interacts with the ACA framework in such a way that not buying health insurance will cost him a lot of money. He also holds a belief that he should not have to buy health insurance just because the government said so. Thus, injury.

Well the individual mandate was upheld so...? I don't get it.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2014 19:26

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

VitalSigns posted:

"Waxing my car isn't an integral and indispensable part of your job as a Warehouse Packing Technician so you don't get paid for it, but if you don't do it every Friday afer work, you're fired."

Or as the lawyers for Busk put it

quote:

He argued that under Integrity Staffing�s logic, if the company ordered an employee to mow the lawn outside the Amazon warehouse for 25 minutes after his 12-hour shift, the company would not have to pay for that work because it would not be considered �integral and indispensable� to his principal activity of tracking down goods ordered online.

Also what the gently caress

quote:

The Obama administration has filed a brief backing Integrity Staffing. Signed by lawyers from the Labor and Justice Departments, the administration�s brief said the Ninth Circuit�s focus on whether antitheft checks were done for the employer�s benefit was �an insufficient proxy for determining� whether they were integral and indispensable to a principal activity.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 22:00

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

fosborb posted:

Lucky. At my Thomas meet and greet all I got was a crummy can of coke.

You sound kind of nutty.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2014 01:21

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ActusRhesus posted:

Why not just give them all As. It would be like that urban legend about having a roommate die...but no one has to die!

Um...

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 16:07

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ActusRhesus posted:

PTSD by proxy is a thing now?

Well, law students are kind of delicate.

Stultus Maximus fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Dec 8, 2014

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 16:16

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

The Warszawa posted:

The reason the law doesn't and shouldn't rank protests on validity is that for a long, long time, the eyes of the people saw the Klan march as more valid.

However as a private institution, Columbia can prioritize and endorse certain activities over others in order to project the image and biases that they wish to project.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 17:28

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Maarek posted:

I hate the term skeleton warrior. I'm not sure exactly where it comes from (my friend seems to think it was invented to make fun of weird people on tumblr) but I sure do know where it is now: a thing that assholes call people. Social justice is a good thing and non-crazy people like the idea of it, considering how MLK is practically a 20th century protestant saint. Calling someone a skeleton implicitly suggests that being in supportive of social justice is a silly or ridiculous thing. The same people who complain about 'political correctness' are the people swinging around skeleton and now when I hear someone called that I don't think of a tumblr nerd who is angry about fursecution but instead someone who supports feminism or cops not choking black people to death.

It sounds like the person arguing that case was a sanctimonious grandstander. Maybe misguided and naive if you want to be charitable. Whatever flaws he had weren't related to what he thought about gays in the military, hell, the rest of the military seemed to agree. Calling blowhards Skeleton Warriors kind of demeans people who have literally died or been violently injured fighting for actual social justice. I wish Cool People would stop doing it, but I guess this thread is not the place for that discussion.

"skeleton"?

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 19:24

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Maarek posted:

After 9/11 we should have rebuilt the World Trade Center to look exactly like it did on 9/10, we should have tried the 'enemy combatants' in Federal court, and we should have taken Bin Laden alive and dragged his rear end into court clean shaven and in an orange jumpsuit just like a common criminal. If we had done those things we could have pretended we are still a nation that believes in the rule of law and one that isn't afraid of terrorists.

The WTC was pretty ugly, tbqh.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2014 16:19

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ActusRhesus posted:

No. Not at all.

Huge price tag aside, law school is a glorified trade school that exists to prepare law students for the passage of the bar and the practice of law. It's not "anti-intellectual" to recognize that a professor who has substantive experience in the legal field may have a better foundation of knowledge as to how the law actually works.

Colleges of education are the same way. Once in a while you get a good instructor but for the most part you have professors who haven't set foot in a K-12 classroom in 30 years trying to tell you how to teach. It's pretty bullshit

# ¿ Dec 25, 2014 19:45

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Discendo Vox posted:

That's kinda my point- even in the wackiest postmodern continental humanities, peer review is still a cornerstone of the academic publishing process. Law reviews are often people trying to speak to an empty room, and receiving the feedback and scrutiny of an empty room. Even when there is a legal academic discourse, the professional rhetoric of the field (which is a whole separate black hole of terror I've actually published and taught on a little bit) makes legal theorists talking to each other rather than around each other a rare phenomenon.

(I understand most european law reviews are academic rather than student organizations, and there is peer review there- I haven't looked into it, though.)

Yeah, sure.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2014 00:30

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

KernelSlanders posted:

I still can't wrap my head around why these states don't just use pentobarbital. When I asked the same question (I think in this very thread) the answer was because there's concern over changing a protocol with previous case law, but now they're changing the protocol. Why not go with something that is simple to administer and widely accepted to be not painful?

Because they manufacturers of pentobarbital don't want their products to be used to murder people.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2015 22:14

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Trabisnikof posted:

Several states even lied and/or illegally imported drugs to get a last few doses before the company could institute effective controls.

Well if they didn't break the law then they couldn't enforce the law.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2015 22:29

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

FlamingLiberal posted:

From what I understand worldwide helium reserves are pretty low, since it's not something that naturally occurs on Earth much.

It's a product of petroleum refinement but it's light enough to escape into space unless intentionally captured, and it's only captured if it's economical.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2015 05:24

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

tetrapyloctomy posted:

Yeah, it frustrates me to no end that we have to walk some stupid line where execution doesn't damage the participants and yet is guaranteed NOT to be quick and painless for the condemned. For God's sake, give them 50 mg of Dilaudud, 50 mg of Ativan, and wait for painless, anxiety-free apnea and subsequent cardiac arrest. Maybe we should just add a dose of succinylcholine and tell our blood-thirsty viewers that the depolarizing twitches 45 seconds in are the soul undergoing its final judgment.

Or we can STOP KILLING PEOPLE. A man in North Carolina was just exonerated after FOUR DECADES in prison. Surely there's some point where a reasonable person can come to no other conclusion that it's better to eliminate the death penalty altogether because we suck too much at determining guilt? Maybe the death penalty should be opt-in for prisoners in for life who undergo comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and counseling regarding it.

Once again, the problem that death penalty states are facing now is not that they don't k now what drugs will work it's that no reputable drug manufacturer will supply them with murder drugs.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2015 17:17

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Is there anything productive I can do to keep from going insane over this until the ruling in June?

Think about Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission instead. :shepicide:

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 23:24

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Perhaps they could compromise, with a fraction even.

# ¿ May 27, 2015 03:34

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ActusRhesus posted:

The Confederate flag is the symbol of a treasonous movement that resulted in more American casualties than any other war. I say let people display it, and then detain them and question them regarding the extent of their treasonous activity.

Also if you have the stars and bars next to a "united we stand" bumper sticker you are either an idiot or a master troll.

How many of those have I seen on base...

# ¿ Jun 18, 2015 18:10

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

VitalSigns posted:

When the South wins Civil War 2 then they will get the power to define themselves not-traitors-but-patriots just like we did, sorry losers.

Regarding the discussion on whether King is stupid or evil, looks like D. Vox got the better of me

This is your brain on Fox.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2015 19:56

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

StandardVC10 posted:

You kind of have to be. The only people who want to go through our idiotic parade of fundraising, photo-ops, more fundraising, advertising, and getting hounded by the media about incredibly dumb poo poo rather than actual positions, are people who are very, very sure that they're the best for the job.

And that job is running the richest, most powerful nation on earth. They actually think they're fully qualified to do that over everyone else.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2015 21:46

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah this is why I'm with D. Vox now. It's just absolutely gross how the lawyers and the Heritage foundation or whoever is bankrolling this stupid case are reassuring and cajoling these dupes into going along with it by promising them no one's health care is being taken away, that there's a nonexistent plan to deal with it and it's all just about reining in Obama's executive overreach that's all. Even your rubes don't want to take subsidies from anyone, you have to lie to your own side in order to get them to go along.

It's why it's almost funny to see the freak-out happening now that Republicans are realizing they actually have a slight chance of winning this case and they have no plan to deal with the fallout because this was all about grandstanding and sticking it to Obama. Except it's not funny, because they probably won't be able to agree on anything in congress, and it's going to gently caress over millions of people while Republicans do their best to pin it all on Obama.

Well that's why we have gerrymandering.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2015 03:03

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SLOSifl posted:

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314 [Arg: 3.2.2015]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. � 2a(c) permit Arizona�s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit.

I haven't been following this one for months. Is there any hope of it going well?

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 14:29

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

there's a strain of black conservatism along the lines of "white people can't bring me down" that he comes from

it's orthogonal to the normal liberal vs. conservative discourse

D&D hero Ta-Nehisi Coates had a very interesting article about black conservatism back in 2008.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 17:07

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Vertical Lime posted:

So

Do conservatives now try to out the Supreme Court as unconstitiutional

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/in-iowa-ted-cruz-denounces-gay-marriage-lauds-indiana-religious-liberty-bill.html/

quote:

On his first Iowa stop as a presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz warned Wednesday that a Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide would be �fundamentally illegitimate.�

He reiterated his vow to press for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the power of state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the high court does legalize gay marriage nationwide, he added, he would prod Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, a rarely invoked legislative tool.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 17:58

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

computer parts posted:

In the sense that Obama will veto anything like that, yes.

It wouldn't even get out of committee. Jurisdiction-stripping the Supreme Court is the most insubstantial of hot air.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 19:32

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

DeusExMachinima posted:

The dynamic duo's idea that all capital punishment violates the 8th's prohibition on cruelty is a very politicized joke. Does anyone seriously think a good hangman snapping your neck at the end of the fall or N2 gassing or if we really want to get out there, a rifle caliber headshot, inflict pain?

It's like the two justices were looking for a way to say they don't like the death penalty but were pissy the Constitution doesn't care about their personal dislike.

"cruel" and "unusual" are culturally relative terms. When the Constitution was written, flogging was acceptable as a punishment and execution was acceptable for non-homicide crimes. Neither of those have been considered constitutional for quite some time now. Cultural norms change.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2015 19:16

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

«‹›2 »