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?

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

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. :smith:

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 17:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 22:10

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

And you're going to have to find the Fifth Justice who's going to rule against Hobby Lobby; Kennedy hasn't joined the pro-choice side since Casey and Roberts has a murky history on abortion access in the lower rings too.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2013 00:37

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

jeffersonlives posted:

This isn't an abortion case at all. It's not even a little bit about abortion in the facts that don't really mean a whole lot except to the extent that the religious right attempts to conflate contraception and abortion, it's only about contraception coverage.

That's exactly why it is an abortion case. At the very least, it's a proxy war.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2013 20:57

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

This is probably going to be a more discussed question once the marriage equality suits go their way (and maybe even before then depending on what Chelsea Manning does): as a trans person (even one who doesn't live in the US, but has a healthy interest in US politics), I'm aware that governments both state and federal are both rather restrictive on transgender recognition. When it comes to administration and healthcare, how much would those laws and procedures be able to withstand judicial review?

For example, you can't get funding for surgery often under the excuse it's "experimental" or "cosmetic". But it's anything but, with the medical community saying that it's an essential procedure, and often the reasons for the original denial are obviously out of animus (see: Jesse Helms and Janice Raymond in the 1980s). And cases regarding prisoners (such as Michelle Kosilek) often end up with rulings under the Eighth.

Then again, given the media outrage and the unwillingness of at least four Justices to depoliticise healthcare provision, I can't see any good news practically. :smith:

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 04:24

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

McAlister posted:

This is circling back to Hobby Lobby, but are there holes in this argument?

Assumptions:

1 - Free practice of your religion is like the right to swing your fist. It ends at my nose. If your religion requires you give a non-believer a wedgie every full moon that doesn't mean you get to do this. No religious belief that involves violating the constitutional rights of *other people* is permitted constitutional protections.

2 - Medical treatments - even ones branded for a specific purpose - have off-label uses. You can't point at something and say, "Anytime this is used it is used to cause X". Viagra, for example, is also a blood pressure medication and that is in fact what it was initially developed for and sold as. The, ah, side effect, was discovered after it had been in use for awhile and they put it back through the FDA process to get it re-labeled as a boner pill. *But that doesn't mean that it isn't effective blood pressure medication or that it can't be used for that purpose*.

3 - Even on-label uses of items that are in theory proscribed can have situational applications where they are clearly the best moral/ethical options. It is medically dangerous, for example, for a new mother to get pregnant again too quickly. Say your middle manager's wife just delivered their firstborn after a touch and go pregnancy that had some scary complications. 2+ years of birth spacing is advised for her to recover her health. 9-12 months of breast feeding is also advised. Taking hormone treatments while breast feeding is not advised. It gets in the milk and thus into the baby. A copper IUD* doesn't put nasty hormones in babby's breast milk. Insisting your employee's wife be put on hormonal BC over the copper IUD is thus doing actual harm to an actual baby in the name of preventing imaginary harm to a potential fertilized egg. Per point number 1, you don't get a constitutional right to taint a child's milk in the name of your God.

4 - I as an individual have a right to doctor-patient confidentiality as well as general privacy that my employer may not breech. I may volunteer information if I choose but my employer has no right to this information. Self-insurance on the employers part does not entitle them to this information either. They are the insurer, not the doctor and not the patient. When a health condition effects an employee's ability to work the employer will find out of it as a matter of practicality. But since coverage is for entire families, not just employees, that is just a limited window to a tiny portion of lives covered. The spouses and children of employee's likewise have the right to privacy and confidentiality.

Conclusions

Due to the combination of 2, 3, and 4 my employer cannot make moral or ethical judgements about my treatments because they do not have adequate information to form such opinions and furthermore have no right to such information. They also, generally, lack the medical education to make informed judgements of that kind even if they had access to all the facts. They may not respond to this lack of information with wild-eyed supposition of immorality on the patient's part and seek to bar access to various medicines/techniques on religious grounds because doing so will cause harm to some statistical subset of patients and per assumption 1 the constitutional protections afforded their religious practices do not permit them to harm others. They can cover or not cover on *financial* grounds. But not on religious ones. And, of course, in order for what they are offering to qualify as health insurance it must meet minimum standards. If it doesn't they have to pay the penalty or provide real insurance.

* The copper IUD works because copper (why copper? so weird) causes the womb and fallopian tubes to secrete a chemical that is lethal to sperm. It's like how sand irritates oysters and they secrete perl material in response. Copper makes human wombs secrete spermicide. People thought for awhile it was dislodging implanted zygotes but that would work even if it was, say plastic or stainless steel. It doesn't. Has to be copper. Some new ones are hormone impregnated plastic but thats the hormones doing stuff, not the plastic. The T shape is to keep the sucker from falling out.

** I've noticed that whenever this topic is tackled in debate everyone just assumes that the woman seeking birth control is the employee. This is inaccurate. She could be the employee's spouse. Phrasing it from the point of view of a husband seems to knock certain people off center because while they love vilifying "sluts" they tend to worship male sexuality and are strongly in favor of a dutiful dad coming home from a long day at work to an appreciative wife. Using a married male protagonist thus prevents them from suggesting abstinence as an alternative because they would not be comfortable suggesting years of abstinence to a man. Additionally, a man would face no negative social consequences for ridiculing that suggestion and thus can effectively laugh it off.

These same people also tend to only be capable of seeing pregnancy as an economic issue when the point of view character is a man. They fundamentally don't acknowledge women as having economic lives and are willfully blind to the disruption an ill-concieved pregnancy has on our economic situations. Hell, they barely acknowledge its impact on our physical health and that only because maternal death stats prevent them from ignoring it entirely Fun fact, in 2006 bush had the CDC stop collecting maternal death statistics after Amnesty International did a report about how horrible ours are.. So that framing is much more effective when trying to get a listener to remember that employees have rights too.

Ginsburg would almost definitely sign onto 2-4, given her dissents in the Carhart cases. You could probably be able to tie 1 in on previous 1A rulings too.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2013 01:26

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Kennedy has joined the "not soulless assholes" side in Hall v. Florida, holding that the execution of someone resides in the margin of error to be determined mentally deficient is unconstitutional.

# ¿ May 27, 2014 21:27

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Assuming Hill still stands, would the MA Legislature just be able to pass a floating buffer zone law instead of the static one?

# ¿ Jun 28, 2014 03:39

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

So, how valid are the arguments for using Title VII to protect a woman's healthcare options instead of the contraceptive mandate?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 01:32

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

The Warszawa posted:

Maybe Thomas, but it's a long shot. There's a better shot of Roberts voting for gay marriage than Scalia.

I think everyone was surprised when Windsor ended up as a decision on the Fifth rather than the Tenth, because the Tenth Amendment argument for striking down DOMA is so well known and even accepted by near everyone it was featured on the fuckin' West Wing.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 13:45

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

evilweasel posted:

Yeah, Thomas isn't malevolent he just has what I consider an extremely bizzare idea of how the law works. But he follows it pretty much no matter what, even when it's obvious his personal preferences would go the other way - in contrast to what I view as what Scalia does, where he very rarely winds up ruling in favor of something he personally dislikes.

Which is part of the reason for at least me being surprised that Windsor wasn't a Tenth decision: Thomas would've probably written the majority opinion.

That, and a 7-2 on Tenth grounds (if we're bringing aboard a legacy-obsessed Roberts) would've been hilarious to see the Scalia dissent.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 18:39

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Scalia continues to be awful by saying that he doesn't know what Article of the Constitution the CIA's torture program would contravene.

I'm pretty sure even the Framers would find shoving hummus up a man's rear end "cruel and unusual", before even going into whether the Convention Against Torture applies through Article Six.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2014 00:21

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says that prisoners of war, or anyone else in the custody of the United States, aren't afforded constitutional rights. Clearly if the Framers didn't want them protected by the Constitution, they would've said so. :colbert:

Despite that, despite the Bush Administration's legal chicanery to not afford them Geneva Convention rights, there is a customary international prohibition against torture, and one that derives itself from English and American constitutional law (specifically, the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Eighth Amendment), so� :shrug:

# ¿ Dec 13, 2014 00:34

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

:scaliatears:

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:27

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Chamale posted:

Poor Roberts, he never learns. His dissent has a lot of "send it to Congress" in it. Also, he says that the principles allowing same-sex marriage would also allow polygamy, does that mean we're about to see a bunch of circuit courts legalizing that?

In a post-Lemon context, the Morrill Act would almost certainly fail to pass constitutional muster.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:48

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

The President could nominate Vladimir Putin, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Taft considered putting himself on the bench, but backed away as it was dodgy on separation of powers grounds.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2016 23:20

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

https://twitter.com/MrAWFULsuits/status/698628959517413376
https://twitter.com/DooleyJordan/status/698639074672836609
https://twitter.com/00_anabel/status/698640159961698304
https://twitter.com/ttocsnesor/status/698636262777974784
https://twitter.com/97Salisbury/status/698634130720976897
https://twitter.com/aintroketscienc/status/698633499104903168
https://twitter.com/ProNaif/status/698631168275513344
https://twitter.com/RealTrillBill/status/698629397285314561

# ¿ Feb 13, 2016 23:55

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

FAUXTON posted:

I want this to be chiseled into that motherfucker's headstone. I don't have any issue with the SCOTUS having the responsibility of correcting erroneous state interpretations of the constitution, albeit I think Kansas was right in blocking the killing of those prisoners, but saying you're empowering states by dropping a big sack of nopesauce on them is some toontown bullshit.

This quote might be better:

Antonin loving Scalia posted:

Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2016 17:41

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Lol if you think republicans wouldn't be screeching if it was Ginsburg. Everything he has done as president has been declared totally illegitimate, since day one.

The most hilarious thing from the birthers back when it was an issue was the contention that the entire ticket was illegitimate, so Biden would not be allowed to succeed Obama if he was removed from office on the grounds of ineligibility.

Which would've meant President Pelosi. :getin:

Incidentally, I imagine that even were Obama ineligible, there'd be some common law procedural quirk that meant that being sworn in meant that he couldn't be removed on grounds of ineligibility. Like how Hansard in the UK is the authoritative record on parliamentary proceedings even in the case of factual error.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 21:29

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Not mad posted:

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevita�ble product of the textualist school of statutory interpreta�tion championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court�s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Jus�tice Scalia excoriated��the theory that courts should �up� date� old statutes so that they better reflect the current val�ues of society.

Totally not mad posted:

The arrogance of this argument is breathtaking. As I will show, there is not a shred of evidence that any Member of Congress interpreted the statutory text that way when Ti�tle VII was enacted.

So which is it Sammy boy? :thunk:

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 16:48

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Jethro posted:

Plus, it's not the impeachment as much as the pending probable presidential electoral pasting that, I think, would give Roberts pause when it comes to enacting the conservative agenda. Throw some bones to the Dems now, instead of pissing people off and giving ammunition to the "pack the court" movement. Better to take a strategic L and keep his 5-4 majority than take a W which leads to a 6-5 minority.

Probably the big test would be a narrow ruling in June Medical that "we see nothing substantively different to the circumstances here that differ from Whole Woman's Health"; it's something I could see Roberts possibly swinging on as a new switch-in-time-to-save-nine.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 16:24

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Groovelord Neato posted:

Conservatives are such whiny assholes.

It's a shame that Bostock didn't drop two weeks sooner, because the howls of outrage over something that's really been a foregone conclusion since Price Waterhouse would've been a perfect capstone to Meltdown May.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 16:30

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

If the Democrats had any balls, they�d say any attempt to push a nominee in before the election, or even worse, after the election (if Trump loses), would be met with expanding the court to eleven justices.

Sadly, they don�t.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2020 23:26

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Hobby Lobby getting ready to ban the gays from using the passport photo booths.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2023 15:49

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

If it makes y'all feel any better, it's not just the American courts that stretch the meaning of standing to its breaking point in order to let bigots continue to discriminate against LGBT+ people.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1676891416713125890

# ¿ Jul 6, 2023 18:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 22:10

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Evil Fluffy posted:

LGB Alliance is a TERF group so I hope they eat poo poo at every turn tbh.

Agreed.

But alas, the tribunal has interpreted standing in this case to be so narrow as to make decisions of the charity regulator effectively immune to judicial review.

So the LGB Alliance can continue to do bigot poo poo under the cover of charitable purposes even though they probably would've lost the case if Mermaids did have standing.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2023 22:34

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