|
Deadulus posted:They specified what this applied to, in advance. They have established that yes religion is an argument for (some) companies to make in court. Then stated, but this only applies to a certain religious belief. I assume because they had the self awareness to understand they just opened a line of argument that could negate virtually any law. Because that's not what they said. There was nothing about relative validity of religious beliefs.
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Two of the people who concurred in part and dissented in part in a seperate, linked case held that: And Douglas did not. The point is that there was at least some for-profit invocation of the Free Exercise Clause, and it wasn't dismissed as frivolous. quote:No. I am saying the legal fiction exists for a reason, and you must understand the reason it exists to understand when it does and does not apply. Your analysis starts and stops with the legal fiction and at no time deals with why the law says something we all know is false - that a non-profit organization has a religion - and at no point understands it. Someone posted earlier in the thread where the majority opinion at least recognizes this is a fiction, but then simply ignores the differences between a for-profit corporation and a not for profit organization as it applies to if the organization should be said to have a religion. I understand the fiction just fine. There's no coherent reason to distinguish between the two: quote:Is it because of the corporate form? The corporate form alone cannot provide the explanation because, as we have pointed out, HHS concedes that nonprofit corporations can be protected by RFRA. The dissent suggests that nonprofit
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Farking Bastage posted:That worked. I'm pretty sure there isn't a vasectomy mandate. quote:Also, does this unbelievably horrible ruling also allow Jehovah's Witnesses to object to blood transfusions, Scientologists to object to antidepressants, and Muslims, Jews, and Hindi's to object to pig derived treatments such as anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin? If the government provides an accommodation for religious non-profits, probably. quote:De-coupling healthcare coverage from employment would have prevented all of these problems Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I might be wrong, but I thought Hobby Lobby covers vasectomies, which people were pointing at as a ridiculous anti-woman contradiction. Right, the bee in their bonnet is artificial pre-implantation pregnancy termination.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Except the fact that one of those situations involves a corporation that was founded specifically for the furthering and exercise of religion, and the other one - this one - involves a corporation that was founded to sell crafting supplies and tchotchkes of dubious quality and value. That in and of itself is a coherent reason to distinguish between the two - the fact that one of those entities is governed by laws that recognize it as a religious entity and the other is not. Hobby Lobby also had documents stating their religious mission. Unless they lived in a really weird jurisdiction, HL has the authority to do “any lawful purpose.” It should be obvious why rights shouldn't be tied to whether or not you've been granted a tax exemption.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:I'm really having a hard time bending my mind into whatever tangle you've managed in which "the owners have a religiously-based mission for their store" somehow makes them equal with an actual loving church. I can only agree with Ginsburg here - Hobby Lobby does not itself engage in the actual practice of religion as defined in the RFRA, and having a religious owner or some vague religious "mission" does not change the fact that they don't actually operate in a religious capacity. I said religious non-profit, not church. The Boy Scouts would have already been eligible for RFRA claims, for example. quote:But you just keep on bangin' that tax exemption drum or whatever you're on about, and ignore the fact that this supposed "sincerely held belief" didn't crop up as a matter of company policy until 2012, when the pills they used to cover were suddenly evil abortifacients that the owners held deep objections to. If their religious beliefs weren't sincere, HHS had ample opportunity to challenge them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, I found an AP article Not at all, it's standard leave similar cases pending and then GVR them afterwards. And I don't see why people thought it was limited to the 4 procedures, nothing about the ruling hinged on conception.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted: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. There's no viagra mandate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am skeptical that the decision turned on Obama's accomodation with religious groups. Do you really think the court would have ruled the other way if he hadn't made an exemption in the first place? Because it sure looks to me like a convenient justification and that, given the majority's vagueness and lack of reasoning, they would have just shifted the ruling onto some other bullshit grounds. It's not a bullshit justification given that the court unanimously used similar reasoning against the CSA just a few years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a bullshit justification. The case you're citing there doesn't really do much work as it's the exact same case that sparked the initial RFRA, except with a different drug. It has no relationship to this case and does absolutely nothing to support that it's not a bullshit justification. quote:And in fact an exception has been made to the Schedule I ban for religious use. For the past 35 years, there has been a regulatory exemption for use of peyote--a Schedule I substance--by the Native American Church. See 21 CFR §1307.31 (2005). In 1994, Congress extended that exemption to all members of every recognized Indian Tribe. See 42 U. S. C. §1996a(b)(1). Everything the Government says about the DMT in hoasca--that, as a Schedule I substance, Congress has determined that it "has a high potential for abuse," "has no currently accepted medical use," and has "a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision," 21 U. S. C. §812(b)(1)--applies in equal measure to the mescaline in peyote, yet both the Executive and Congress itself have decreed an exception from the Controlled Substances Act for Native American religious use of peyote. If such use is permitted in the face of the congressional findings in §812(b)(1) for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans practicing their faith, it is difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 547 (1993) ("It is established in our strict scrutiny jurisprudence that 'a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest 'of the highest order' ... when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited' " (quoting Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524, 541-542 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))). quote:In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections. Or as the Solicitor General explains: quote:But a defendant must demonstrate why any less restrictive alternative that is identified in the administrative grievance process would not adequately advance its compelling interests in the particular case. When the record reveals that other prisons or prison systems regularly employ less restrictive means of furthering their compelling interests, moreover, a defendant must explain why those less restrictive alternatives would not adequately further the government’s interests with respect to the particular plaintiff at issue. And when a prison provides an exception to a general rule for secular reasons (or for only certain religious reasons), the prison must explain why extending a comparable exception to a specific plaintiff for religious reasons would undermine its compelling interests.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith O Centro held that DMT was like peyote, and that the exception that the DEA had already granted to the Native American Church undermined strict scrutiny. That exception long predated RFRA.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
It was just an injunction; not a full decision. The dissent distinguished LSP, but I hardly know anything about either case so I don't know how significant it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Well the constitutionality of the subsidies isn't being challenged so not much. The dispute over the correct ACA interpretation is certainly a serious challenge, but it's too early to say much.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
UberJew posted:It almost doesn't matter what the Republicans do or don't do in those states, because the 2010 census gerrymander was comprehensive. The earliest what Republican candidates do will significantly matter to their election chances is 2022 and there's a good chance the fix will still be in even then. That ignores the parts of the federal government currently Democrat-controlled (the same parts Republicans are already having a hard time fighting for in 2014 and 2016).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Of course, you can't gerrymander senate or presidential elections. They had better be if they actually want to destroy the ACA rather than continue looking like idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Precambrian posted:Justice Thomas actually does believe that Loving was unconstitutional, that he would have dissented, and that, without federal intervention, those laws would have been repealed naturally. He is perfectly content with throwing everyone in America under the bus, including himself, to uphold his strict originalism. No he doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Corporations are people. Yes, that is literally correct.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Otherwise, Alito- I'm very concerned by a libertarian streak in his reasoning. Which decisions? He was the lone dissenter in United States v. Stevens, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
No idea, but that article is pretty lovely.quote:The Court’s conservatives began to reject the capacious understanding — arrived at during the New Deal — of Congress’ ability to regulate economic activity at the state level, striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act and part of the Violence Against Women Act. (Exceptions were made for Congress’ ability to pursue conservative policy objectives, such as using federal law to undo state-level efforts to liberalize drug laws.) quote:It’s not too late — it’s never too late — to join in the search for a politics in which judicial interference with democracy is not only unnecessary but unthinkable. "gently caress the Bill of Rights, I can't think of any repercussions except full communism, of course."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Could Roberts just want to punt this thing on standing? Standing in this case was never very clear to me. The 4th circuit agreed that they have standing, it's weird but it's solid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 16:09
|
|