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?

«‹›3 »

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

esquilax posted:

No, because "you can't use your compensation for this" is not an accurate description of Hobby Lobby's actions. Employees are still allowed to buy birth control, and if they have a health savings account they are still allowed to spend that money on birth control.

What would happen in that a small number of "non-religious" employers would choose to not cover birth control on their company plans.

Isn't the real potential impact of the case (besides for the obvious BC issue) going to be to what extent an incorporated business is actually separate from the people running it? I mean if at a certain point and under certain ownership arrangements a company is so fundamentally the same as its owners such that it takes on their religion, would the inverse not be true? You could end up with a really really nasty mess with regard to corporate veil piercing for criminal or civil liability.

edit: I mean wouldn't it be the case that were a corporation found to be so closely linked to the person(s) owning it that many of the legal assumptions of it being a separate legal person become strained or broken?

Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Dec 3, 2013

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 19:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:54

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

esquilax posted:

Well yes, it is an important case and it will have a big impact on that sort of thing, though I don't think it will completely undermine the concept of corporations as you are implying.

I don't mean it would completely undermine it, just that we could look forward to years and years of lower courts trying to hash out where the line is and that means there could be some cases where the company exercising a religious BC objection could be the deciding factor in determining whether the company and the person are truly separate. It has the potential to really rattle corporate law in an unpredictable way and that's generally not something that the money likes.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 20:28

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Teddybear posted:

But seriously, Hobby Lobby's gonna be a mess. There's no way we get out of this clean and no way we get out of this without greatly empowering corporations.

Sure there is, they could just kill it on lack of standing if they find that an incorporated entity does not constitute a "person" possessing a religious belief which may be burdened as required to claim judicial relief under 42 USC � 2000bb�1 [the RFRA].

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 17:45

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Kalman posted:

Which would be hard to square with the logic of the ruling in Citizens United. So, I mean, it could happen - but it's very unlikely.

Hobby Lobby isn't a first amendment free-speech case, Citizens United would be of limited applicability.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 18:15

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

How about a discussion about the just released Pom decision that Lanham act actions are permissible against deceptive food labeling? It has the potential to really shake up the food labeling industry which has been quite active in deceiving customers while hiding behind "it meets FDA requirements!"

I expect "blueberries" will become less ubiquitous in the future.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 19:01

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

hobbesmaster posted:

Grab some popcorn, this going to result in some interesting lawsuits.

Wouldn't the ruling logically extend to qualified health claims? It would be a bloodbath if overextending a study to imply health benefits or just applying a flawed one might have a competitor sue.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 20:03

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Discendo Vox posted:

I haven't read the decision yet, but if Pom prevailed, it's going to be a Very Bad Thing. The company is known for their own deceptive and overly broad health effect claims; these most recent suits have been specifically over applying flavor labeling in a way the FDA hadn't intended- which is, again, a Bad Thing. They'll be using it to prevent anyone else from marketing juice blends or artificial flavored products in a way that will really badly disturb food labeling law. If it has the effect of cleaving FDA and FTC positions on these practices, that's even worse.

The ruling was that just because a label meets FDA requirements doesn't mean that it is exempt from the requirements of the Lanham Act with regard to being deceptive, not that the juice blend label was deceptive. But Pom probably was the only food company large and litigious enough to push this through to that conclusion because the rest of the food industry either loves being deceptive as gently caress with their labeling or is too small to not get squished.

As an aside food labeling has clearly passed beyond puffery and into deception. With the combination of the naming and the prominence of the pomegranate and blueberries the label was clearly implying to a customer that those juices made a substantial portion of the blend and not 0.3% and 0.2% respectively. Even Justice Kennedy indicated he was fooled.

Net good, but due to the wrong reasons perhaps?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:32

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

VitalSigns posted:

Uh, maybe by not trying to deceive anyone? I mean, come on, it's not like Coke was trying to act in good faith here and the court is arbitrarily slapping them down over size 14 vs size 14.5 font or something.

Remember this is the same company who defended labelling enriched sugar water as a health drink with "it's not deceptive because looking at the amount of sugar should tip anyone off that we're full of poo poo, so it can't be fraud if we're obviously lying our asses off"

The label has not been ruled deceptive yet. The ruling is not on the label itself. The only thing that the court said is that Pom (godawful assholes that they are) can attempt to prove that the label is deceptive in court and that Coke cannot use "well we followed FDA rules" as an absolute defense against that claim.

Proving that labeling and marketing is deceptive is pretty darn hard because people expect some level of puffery and exaggeration. It will be very interesting to see what comes out in discovery and open court however because I think it is highly likely that Coke intentionally made the label design imply it was filled with pomegranate and blueberries, and there is likely a goldmine paper trail there.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 23:03

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

gently caress yes, Alice Corp got decided as Patent ineligible. Gonna read this one...

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 15:13

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

quote:

Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite "specific hardware" configured to perform "specific computerized functions." Brief for Petitioner 53.But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware - a "data processing system" with a "communications controller" and "data storage unit" for example, see App. 954,958, 1257 - is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a "communications controller" and "data storage unit" capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims. See 717 F. 3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers." Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U. S., at 610â€“611).

Well that's gonna have some serious ripple effects.

Edit: one thing that I don't like is the apparent mix of novelty tests and 101 tests. From the characterization of Diehr they indicate that part of the patentability was in a novel inclusion of a specified thermocouple, but from the following it almost reads like if that thermocouple had been widely used as a computer control input, Diehr would fall under this decision:

quote:

Using a computer to create and maintain "shadow" accounts amounts to electronic record keeping - one of the most basic functions of a computer. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U. S., at 65 (noting that a computer" operates . . . upon both new and previously stored datac). The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are "well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]" previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.

Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jun 19, 2014

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 15:35

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

The giant elephant in the room is the question of if a generic computer programmed a particular way can impart structural novelty to the invention.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 16:12

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Kalman posted:

The law does not give a gently caress about computational theory. Nor should it.

The "all programs are algorithms" argument hasn't succeeded yet in court, and it probably never will. (And it shouldn't.)

Right. While an interested line of thinking, I believe this isn't a productive one for the courts to explore. Yes computers can be represented as an abstract algorithm, but in the same way a house or car can be represented as a mass of statics equations.

Where I think modern patent claim interpretation goes wrong is in the weight given to the arrangement of electrons or magnetic fields in non-volatile storage. If I grab two identical system-on-a-chip devices and put two different control programs onto them with different sensor feedback coefficients, as far as present patent interpretation goes they are now no longer the same. This is, IMO, stupid as poo poo. A person of skill in just about every field would not ever consider such an interpretation a reasonable one. In my view this is the same situation as what was decided in In re Ngai: a claim should be able to claim printed instructions (a program stored in a ROM) and to anticipate the prior art should also have instructions, but the CONTENT of the instructions should not be able to patentably differentiate the claim from the prior art.

Even were that not the case, should the programming of an integrated soc or controller in any manner which operates the various subsystems which it is connected to to merely perform what they are recognized to be used for (such as a variable speed motor being speed-controlled, an electrically triggerable fuel injector being triggered, a display being driven to display an image, a touch screen monitored for inputs, etc) be presumed to be simply a matter of routine optimization and skill, absent some unexpected synergy or complete lack of indication that anybody ever considered it something to be optimized? The entire point of such cpus/controllers is to be programmed in any way to user desires, shouldn't the presumption be that merely doing that is just routine engineering? To go back to the house analogy: would anyone consider the placement of the windows and interior walls in a house anything but a matter of routine optimization of the building to the purpose in which it is intended to be used? This would also have the benefit of leaving open the door to the possibility that someone comes up with a way to use a device in a completely new way contrary to accepted thought at the time.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 13:44

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

I submitted a 1-reference optimization 103 to my sig panel because I'm insane like that. Didn't hear a peep.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 14:37

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

I wonder if the buffer zone ruling will cause problems for the buffer zones that most states have set up around voting locations.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 15:31

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Ugh the waiting is the worst part.

Besides for the completely asinine rulings of course.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 14:59

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

axeil posted:

All corporations required to register a religion.

SEC filings will be replaced by private confessions to the Pastor at the Church of Reagan.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:09

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

I am really hoping that Alito writes some out-of-left-field opinion shooting down Hobby Lobby for the purposes of keeping the corporate veil as strong as possible.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:15

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

CommanderApaul posted:

So now we get to quibble over the definitely of "closely held". Wonderful.

Beats the alternative.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:18

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

evilweasel posted:

laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl

"This only applies to things that correspond with MY religious beliefs: you had better be able to cite the new testament for whatever you're arguing"

Christian Nation!!!! :freep:

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:21

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Doctor Butts posted:

This is the most retarded loving thing.

I'm betting that they had to narrow it to keep Kennedy on board leading to all sorts of restrictions on the decision, logic be damned.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:23

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Lol scotusblog saying the govt can just by regulation provide coverage itself. Congratulations conservatives you just "won" and in return got a little more of your ultra-feared government provided healthcare.

And if the GOP takes aim at that regulation they will just piss off more women which they really don't need to be doing at the moment.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:26

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

You know someone on scotusblog pointed out that by saying "well there is an acceptable exemption for nonprofits" the scotus is kind of saying that the argument by those same nonprofits that they shouldn't have to abide by the terms of that exemption (and provide certifications to their employees to allow them to go purchase the coverage elsewhere) isn't going to fly.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 15:36

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Spiffster posted:

Nothing is stopping him other than tradition and congress.

And the fact that if he were to do it the next time we have a GOP president we'd end up with a 200 person supreme court.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 16:27

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Rygar201 posted:

They would have to defang the 13th Amendment

Or somehow strike the 21st amendment.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 20:33

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

ComradeCosmobot posted:

[*] and (heard today) whether the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies to evidence acquired during a routine traffic stop undertaken by mistake.
[/list]

I actually am a bit hopeful about this one. Scalia is odious on just about any issue but he has been pretty good about illegal search.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 13:53

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Thank the various gods...

quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday barred Texas from enforcing an abortion regulation that left only seven clinics open in the state.

The regulation, requiring clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers, was declared unconstitutional in August by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who ruled that the requirement was designed to limit access to abortion by shutting down clinics, not improve women�s health as legislators had argued.

After Texas appealed, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 9 that the state could enforce the regulation while its appeal continued.

Late Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower appeals court � barring Texas from enforcing the surgical-center regulation � in a 6-3 order that did not elaborate on the court�s reasons. The order added that Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have denied the request to overturn the 5th Circuit Court, filed last week in an emergency motion by abortion providers.

gently caress you Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 01:04

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Forever_Peace posted:

^^ lol

Some analysis out today from Rodriguez v. United States arguments.

Looks to be headed towards a decision that a person can't be detained (in this case, to wait for a suspicionless drug-dog sniffs) after the 4th amendment justification has resolved.

But everybody evaded the issue of whether suspicionless drug-dog sniffs should even be constitutional in the first place (i.e. whether drug-dog sniffs are a "search").

Just saying you can't extend a stop to allow for a dog sniff will put a dent in the all too common fishing expedition because you'd have to have another officer there with the dog ready to go do the sniff while the first does the normal traffic stop stuff.

That of course would set things up for a pure challenge of whether the sniff is a search or not because such a setup would require either stupid luck or more likely planning by the officers before the stop was even made.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2015 23:40

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Fried Chicken posted:

Maybe I'm overly cynical but at this point I don't think the law or precedent matters as any thing other than a fig leaf over a partisan decision. Politics will determine the outcome, not the facts.

After the Hobby Lobby decision I'm forced to take the same view.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 19:13

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

evilweasel posted:

Yeah, I think the original decision was an atrociously bad decision but I also don't really agree with this sort of attempt to evade it. But that rule applies generally: if anything seeks to get in the way of a company dictating arbitration terms, it's voided.

It does look like the CFPB might ban mandatory arbitration clauses (or at least ones blocking class actions) in contracts of adhesion for consumer financial products.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2015 21:54

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Reading through it it seems like even if the dog were there already it can't be used unless it literally would not have added another second to the time required to issue the citation. You'd need for the officer to be riding with a partner who would perform the sniff while the first did the ticketing. Even then I wonder if you could argue that two officers working together could have finished the stop faster.

thefncrow posted:

Yes, but, correct me if I'm misremembering, but the officers only needed reasonable suspicion to search the car anyway. If they have reasonable suspicion and they want to search, they can do that without holding you for the dog.

The big tactic with the dog sniff was to threaten to hold you while the dog comes, unless you want to just consent to a search now, turning a suspicion-based search into a consensual one. If they decline, the dog alerting can give you instant suspicion that you don't really have to back up on your own.

Now, if they need the same level of suspicion to hold you for the dog as they need to just do the search in the first place, that will fix that particular problem. With that same suspicion, you can either hold for the dog, or you can just do it yourself, but neither scenario is going to get you out of having to explain what was suspicious.

They will still threaten to convince people to allow a search. An officer is allowed to lie.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2015 16:44

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

FlamingLiberal posted:

The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded.

I have to wonder: if it were permissible to do it the way they want it to be done (by eligible/registered voter) instead of total population and that were something that benefited the GOP... why hasn't Texas already done it?

# ¿ May 26, 2015 20:19

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

a weighted graph is literally math; it's like saying "do it with addition"

e: not that Bilski was clear about how to handle a novel abstract idea, given the way they said "well this has been known for a long time, and it's a computer, so non-statutory"

Bliski and Alice both are handwaving as hell as to what constitutes an "abstract idea" because the SCOTUS was trying to make 101 do the lifting of 102 and 103 and to a lesser extent 112. Alice in particular has sections where it reads more like an exploration of the novelty of programmed computers and the obviousness use of software to implement a method than it does a test of what is an "abstract idea". They also discuss how things can cover every implementation of an "abstract idea" while not having much detail or structure, which reads a heck of a lot like a problem with scope of enablement.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

There should be a separate court only for patents...some kind of different circuit. But here's the catch: nothing gets sent up to scotus.

We have something similar to that now and it is what got us into this mess. The CAFC was extraordinarily expansive in what they considered patentable and non-obvious until the SCOTUS started smacking them down. They have also ratcheted up the burden of proof for Examiners to reject a patent over the years.

# ¿ May 29, 2015 20:20

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials

These are the memos we got

And they are just as muddled as the source opinions they are based on. I asked five different people about Alice and this one application I was examining and somehow got six answers. It is a really poo poo-show.

I'm surprised that Ultramercial doesn't get more attention than just a "this claim found invalid" example honestly.

# ¿ May 30, 2015 03:25

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

6-3 in Zivotofsky that the Executive has exclusive authority to recognize a foreign country and thus Congress can't make the State department issue passports with Jerusalem indicated as being Israel.

Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are very grumpy about it saying passports are not recognition and Thomas has his own concurring in part opinion which goes into Thomas legal theory land.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2015 15:17

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

dpbjinc posted:

Ronald Mann writing up the Spider-Man case is a great coincidence.

E: How the gently caress does Disney have a patent on Spider-Man? Design patent or something?

The patent was for a certain string-shooting toy design.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2015 15:09

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

But hey we got exciting raisin law!

The hotel one could have a big impact as well depending on how broadly it is written. The court has been on a bit of a tear with regard to knocking down what police are able to do without a warrant.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2015 15:18

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Oh thank the various gods they didn't gut the FHA.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 15:03

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Chamale posted:

In a 5-4 decision, Kennedy siding with the liberal justices, the decision in the housing act case is that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. This is a big deal, but how widely does this set a precedent?

Sounds like it is more of a statutory finding which would limit it to FHA claims.

Wooo Healthcare is a go and subsidies are OK!

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 15:09

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Oh Republicans got hosed today

Lol Scalia wrote the dissent. That's gonna be a fun read.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 15:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:54

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

How do lawyers read these things so fast?

They are quite easy to read. If you already have a handle on the case you can skip the introduction and go straight to the meat of the decision. If you are in areal hurry you can skim along and you can pick out citations you know to quickly figure out the logic applied and read more to see exactly how it is applied.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 15:23

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

«‹›3 »