|
Hobby lobby self insures, they are the insurance company in this case. As far as I can understand it at any rate
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Justices Ginsburg says she doesn't want cameras covering oral arguments because she doesn't want people to get the impression that oral arguments are the deciding factor of the cases. Which backs my theory that they are largely for grandstanding (IANAL)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Congressional rules have nothing to do with the president. There are certain things they can't set themselves, such as the ability to dismiss representatives at a whim, but the houses make their own rules otherwise. Things like the senate filibuster are 100% senate rules and the house or president have zero ability to change or directly influence. It means that when l one party has control of every veto point of law making, the filibuster will be written out of the rules. Sure, that could happen with just control of the Senate as neither the executive branch or the house needs to approve Senate rule changes but it wouldn't gain you anything then.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:IIRC the Roberts court hasn't "given corporations more rights" except using a tortured reading of that phrase. Then you aren't remembering correctly, full stop. Between their expansion of money as speech, restricting the definition of corruption, and clamping down on Class Actions they absolutely have been expanding the power of corporations
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:So the Supreme Court just put out an amended Scalia dissent in Homer City, removing the erroneous citation. Some clerk is having a bad day I thought Scalia mostly wrote his own opinions?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Javid posted:Having had vote by mail here since before I can remember, it amazes me that some/most states force you to physically go to a place to vote like it's 1862. I'm pretty sure something like 48 States require you physically go to a polling place
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
So how worried should I be about this ruling on a scale of cheap beer to the Whiskey Sour, the Shelter from the Storm? http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/02/3575079/the-supreme-court-will-hear-a-case-that-could-obliterate-fair-housing-law/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
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? They would have to defang the 13th Amendment
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted: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. Isn't Ginsburg on the record as not wanting to outrun public opinion too quickly? I know she thinks Roe went too far too fast
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Oh man, 200 hundred posts in the SCOTUS thread? John Roberts must have struck down disparate impact in housing! Sam Alito was finally caught murdering minorities at Princeton! Oh, nope. Just pages and pages of concern trolling
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think "who is a competent authority to testify whether a law addresses the essential aspects of the legitimate government interest at issue" is a pertinent question? Geeze Vital, you just have to be more Civil to the concern troll.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Awww yeeeaah, the Sixth Circuit Splits on SSM. The Dissenting judge even joked that the majority may have issues their opinion just to send it to the Supremes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:
From a Layman's perspective Fisher looked for all the world like a salty mediocre white girl who was angry that her first choice school said no. So what's up with the DC court telling Priests for Life to file for a BC exemption? Are the Supremes going to take it up and permits Chaos to Reign through unbridled RRFA claims?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good breakdown of the DC Circuit's ruling on Priests for Life though? I think the Thinkprogress breakdown is sensible but I probably wouldn't know the difference
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
So what is objectively reasonable?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"I disagree with you about what parts of this argument are important" == "you are a concern troll". I now think that the concept of "concern trolling" and its invocation do more damage than actual concern trolling, and possibly trolling as a whole. This is an awesome post/avatar combination. So King v Burwell is, in all likelihood, going against the plaintiffs? I keep seeing media outlets treat it as a serious case, and not a blatantly ideologically driven attempt to allow red state governments to cut off some more of their nose to spite their face.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So Gay Marriage and Executions... Sotomayor says torturing folks to death is bad, while the majority basically agreed with the lower court's finding that No, That's Totally Not What Those Drugs Do, right? I'm a layman, so I just read summarizes and hope I'm not being lied to
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Those antis, polluting the discourse with their irrational "don't kill people we can't be sure are guilty" deontological response. Hey man, it may turn out to be cheaper to just execute that guy to deter other criminals, despite his dubious guilt. Finding out for sure would just cost too much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Last Week Tonight is popular in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Join us as we go now to a video in which RBG answers there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine of them. She's been saying that for years, and it's amazing every time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Abigail Fisher has filed for another Cert Petition 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Forgive the possibly basic bitch question, but can the Court punt on standing if the issue is brought up in Amicus briefs?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes. Without standing they cannot decide the case. Even if both parties insist they have standing, the Court must determine for itself that they have standing if it has any reason to doubt it. However if they were concerned they'd have told the parties to brief the issue and possibly appointed someone to argue they did not have standing. What happens if the Court just rules regardless of the standing? There is literally no recourse, correct?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
My understanding is that blue States and non insane Red ones will form state exchanges or simply declare the federal one to be their state exchange, thus further turning the ACA into an even greater transfer from red States to blue ones despite Congress's original intention.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Is it right for the SCOTUS and the administration to just gloss over the standing issue?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Could you explain why? From what Evilweasel is saying, they may not have been legally able to take this case
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Thanks, that helps a lot. I see why that's the way it works, it's just odd to me that this case could theoretically have huge ramifications and the plaintiffs may never have had grounds to sue at all. ^Yeah, I'm waiting to see this start-up again^
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:The court has ruled that its not their job to fix the mistakes of the legislature. If the law is hosed and Congress won't fix it, that's their own fault. Yeah, but I wouldn't miss the opening for that  either
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
So I pre ordered this today Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=1zgzBQAAQBAJ It looks to be a history of how the Supreme Court deep dicked the American people for the vast majority of our history. It's probably of about zero use for the lawyers ITT, but I can't be the Layman reading this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
There have been more than a few articles on left websites about how none of the plaintiffs have demonstrated valid standing, yet the government hasn't really hit on that so far.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:McConnell and his people have been planning to hold the subsidies hostage for some time now. The last thing I heard was him arguing for a temporary extension of the current subsidies (but not a permanent fix) in exchange for something the GOP really wants, like killing Net Neutrality or Obama authorizing the Keystone Pipeline immediately. If the SCOTUS fucks up, Obama is just going to tell McConnell to gently caress himself. He's alllll out of fucks at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Why do you need preclearance for that? You can challenge that poo poo in court. Because the other sections of the VRA require the plaintiffs to show discriminatory intent and are thus difficult to win because you can literally just find and replace Minorities/Blacks with Democrats and it's magically legal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Alright, since Vox mentioned it: Lawgoons, if Kennedy is "legislating from the bench" in Obergefelle how is Loving any different? Is it? Is this good or bad?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:My hope is that the nativist appeals to the birthright citizenship amendment leads to calling for a convention that lead to all kinds of shenanigans. I think that if the States actually convened a Convention now, that it wold be a disastrous poo poo show and probably lead to actual crisis. IIRC, the rules just require 2/3 of the Legislatures to call one, they then determine the delegates, the convention itself sets its rules, and then any amendments are ratified by 3/4 of the Legislatures? That sounds like an unworkable poo poo show to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Scalia, and Thomas skip papal address to Congress It's really only Alito, Scalia, and Thomas that surprised me. I figured they'd attend even if he is a bleeding heart Jesuit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
When was the CRA gutted? The VRA got gut shot, but I don't recall Alito saying that Whites Only restaurants were permissible again.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Can we talk about what a sad human being Abigail Fisher is? Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:On The Media had a whole show on SCOTUS and one of the features is how clients go shopping around for the most favorable case and face for their cause. Fisher is no-poo poo focus group tested to be the perfect face for their argument. A homely, uncompelling, academically mediocre ginger? I wonder why that's the winning combination
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've been out of touch with news, but wasn't Fisher argued last year? Why's it back? The court punted last time, and sent it back to the lower court to be argued under a different standard. Fisher lost again, and they're still four Justices who want to axe AA so they granted the cert petition, again, and here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Well, the 5th Circuit clearly needs to review this case again until the correct facts are found
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 16:11
|
|