|
If SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in the Hobby Lobby case, wouldn't that open up all kinds of problems with employers dictating what their employees can and cannot use their compensation for? I'd expect a very narrow ruling from them or telling Hobby Lobby to get hosed but this court has, with the exception of the ACA ruling, proved to not give a drat what the consequences of their major rulings are.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Not if they tell everyone it doesn't set a precedent a la Bush v Gore. Oh god I forgot about Bush v. Gore. What was the actual rationale they gave for that one beyond "the recount needs to stop because this is silly." Or if you're more cynical "the recount needs to stop because we have 5 Republican-appointed justices and stopping it allows a Republican to win the White House."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I've never heard this. Do you have a source that supports your claim that they offered contraceptive coverage before the ACA mandate? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/27/obamacare-contraception-supreme-court-religious-freedom The Guardian posted:
edit: The source is a column so, ya know, might be total bullshit axeil fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
esquilax posted:A source that isn't an op-ed, which often get facts wrong. This is an extremely relevant fact and I would expect it to be mentioned in the court opinions. My understanding is that they added it to the plan to comply with the mandate and sued to get it removed. Yeah I just noticed that was an op-ed. My bad. This is why I shouldn't just see links in the GOP thread and assume they say what they're reported to say.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No chance till new justices. Is Congress able to write legislation they know is going against a court ruling to specifically attempt to get a new ruling on an issue? Something akin to Andrew Jackson's "now let the court enforce it's decision  " moment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but does that seem likely? Not now no, but I'm talking about a hypothetical future Congress that wanted to re-enact all the campaign finance stuff SCOTUS has overturned.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
ScotusBlog has their usual liveblog of decisions today. http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_19_2014
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:gently caress yes, Alice Corp got decided as Patent ineligible. Gonna read this one... Unanimously too. It may also have invalidated all software patents. From the decision: This looks to be the key to Alice: the claims "do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. An instruction to apply the abstract idea ofintermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer is not “enough” to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id., at ___. Pp. 14–16." axeil fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nah, but it invalidated "unpatentable obvious idea, but with a computer". Oh okay. So will this end the patent wars between Microsoft/Apple/Google/Samsung/Everyone Else or does nothing much change?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Obama's recess appointments not legit according to SCOTUS in a unanimous decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Quite clearly 3 days is too short and 10 is long enough, but it sounded like the real standard was whether the Senate has the capacity to conduct business.  Breyer wrote out every single recess appointment in the history of the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics. I find it hard to agree with that when the decision was unanimous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Ugh the waiting is the worst part. SCOTUSBlog says there's 3 boxes of opinions. Since I think we only have 2 cases today we either have a lot of dissents, or some really long opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Alito wrote both. Start drinking everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
"This is a substantial obstacle to expanding public employee unions, but it does not gut them." "The Court does not overrule Abood. That opinion has questionable foundations, so we reverse to extend Abood to the situation here." From SCOTUSBlog
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
"The Court recognizes a category of "partial public employees" that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees." So it's not as bad as it could've been.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So since Alito is writing Hobby Lobby, the question now is just how many corporations have rights under RFRA: does just Hobby Lobby, or does Wal-Mart as well? All corporations required to register a religion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is very surprising that Roberts didn't take one of them. I'm sort of wondering if that means something strange is going to happen in the Hobby Lobby case. Every corporation in America being given "religious rights" would be pretty strange!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
"How shocked would you be, on a scale of 1 to Andy-Kaufman-Is-Alive, if Justice Alito writes an opinion where Hobby Lobby loses?" SCOTUSBlog commenters trying to keep things light.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Why? What is the basis for this? The law applies to corporations. I'm shocked they didn't apply it to everyone. Alito wrote the thing I was preparing for the worst.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:So it only applies to contraception, not other religious beliefs like transfusions or vaccinations? I was hoping that if they were going crazy, they would at least go full-on That makes the decision even more absurd. At least if they opened it up to everything it'd be logically consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd like to think that Roberts in one of the worst SCOTUSes in the last hundred years but I'm sure that's incredibly ignorant and naive. Nothing's ever really gonna top Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson or the one that said interning the Japanese during WWII was cool. So at least the Roberts Court won't be the worst in all of history.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:A large public company could transfer all employment contracts to a closely held subsidiary and then pay the closely held company a contract price to provide employment. Ta da. Don't give them ideas! ElrondHubbard posted:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Roberts may not be a spring chicken, but he's got some years left in him. The Roberts court writing something worse than the Dred Scott "black people aren't people" decision would be pretty tough.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No, but I'd argue the VRA decision is right up there. This plus the VRA decision are pretty out there. I'm not sure if they're in the Top 10 of Bad Decisions though because I don't know enough about law/SCOTUS though. Those 3 were the only really monstrous decisions I could think of. Bush v. Gore was bad too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:laffo I hate the Roberts court 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:So is the paper the Constitution is written on flush-safe once the Roberts court is done wiping with it, or will it have to be disposed of in a bodily waste bag? Well the decision actually expanded the Bill of Rights even though that expansion makes no sense. I'd argue they're making GBS threads on logic and common sense, not the Constitution. The VRA decision though, yeah. 14th Amendment apparently doesn't mean anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Obama needs to appoint 2 new Justices asap. When SCOTUS was gutting the New Deal FDR threatened to just keep adding Justices until they agreed with him. I can't even imagine the rage and vitriol that would happen if Obama did the same thing. Mr. Nice! posted:Since the SCOTUS is extending the non-profit religious exemption to closely held corps, does that then allow the HHS to extend the no-cost requirement for contraceptives to women covered under the non-profit religious exemption? SCOTUSBlog seemed to think Obama could issue an executive order to take care of it, meaning that this decision would have no practical impact.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought most plans didn't cover that already. Yeah I think it usually falls outside of the scope. Although I remember reading it somewhere you can use it off-label to treat low blood pressure or something like that. That might be covered.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted: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. We all joke about it but I think court packing would be a long-term Really Bad Thing for the country. A better idea is to just limit SCOTUS justices to something like 24 years (3 full Presidential terms).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:I like the idea of limiting justice terms, but think 24 years might be a bit long. Maybe 20 years. The possibility of seeing 5 Presidents elected in the span of a SCOTUS justice term seems fair and not excessive to me. If a 24 year term limit applied now the following justices would have already retired: Scalia (appointed in 1986) Kennedy (appointed in 1988) Thomas would have to go next year, RBG in 2017 and Breyer in 2018. The next one would be Alito in 2030. There's a lot of veteran justices on the Court right now. Doesn't seem that unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You'd also implement something so the terms were evenly spaced out, so that each term or two was guaranteed an appointment. Right, you'd not want the entire court getting replaced every 24 years. Structure it so every 2-term President gets 3 appointments.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Maybe it'll ruin healthcare beyond repair, giving the government the chance it's wanted all along to step in and totally take over are healthcare just as planned That'd be some great cosmic irony if the King suit ends up causing what the conservatives most fear because it makes the insurance market collapse with insurers failing all over the place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
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? Without disparate impact it's impossible to prove racial discrimination in housing unless someone literally says "I'm not renting/lending to you because of your race." It's huge.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I don't understand this part of Thomas's dissent. "I wish we still lived in 1870"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The Arizona legislature does have standing to sue, but they lose on the merits. A commission can be used for redistricting. Holy poo poo. Did not see that coming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They already cannot spend compulsory dues on political lobbying. The argument from plaintiff is that since they are employed by the government, any negotiation done by the union, whether for pay/benefits or not, is de facto political lobbying. Thus no union dues can compulsory. then by that logic isn't every company that has a government contract actually a lobbyist? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Yes and? gonna laugh for when this destroys unions and as a last measure the unions get every major corporation in america classified as lobbyists. Gerund posted:You can even expand this logic and say that all non-consumption taxes are a restriction on free speech, because less money = less speech. you joke, but i bet we'd see a constitutional challenge to the income tax if it wasn't already enshrined as an amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
as if 2016 wasn't crazy enough yet with the election going on. just watch there be another recession and government shutdown too, because poo poo ain't crazy enough yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Its because it's not actually superior to any other justice and just has extra administrative overhead. Almost like gifting someone a white elephant. Congrats you're on the Supreme Court! Also you now have to deal with tons of administrative bullshit that no one will help you with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 03:03
|
|