|
Green Crayons posted:The appeals process.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Burp. Wrong. EW quoted it himself: Wrong. The secretary established the exchange, on behalf of the state. Any state exchange was established on their behalf by some individual with the authority to act on behalf of the State. A state isn't a person, it cannot do anything on its own behalf. But even if it can: I can, as someone's authorized agent, sign things with their name on their behalf and they are signed by that person. They are not signed by me: they are signed by the person on whose behalf I am acting. Like if you give me power of attorney, I can go scrawl "Green Crayons" on all sorts of contracts and they are signed by you. Not by me. That section empowers the Secretary to establish the exchange on behalf of the State, not on behalf of the Federal Government. The ambiguity being introduced is our common imprecision about discussing exchanges as "federal" exchanges because we all know what that means, but that's not a legal argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
EW: I concede that I was quite incorrect about the law, based on my assumption that the portion you quoted was found in 1311 and not 1321. I would expend several hundreds of words to further disagree with you w/r/t whether the provisions providing for the Federal Government to establish an exchange is tantamount to an agency relationship, but as my argument would be based on my imaginary version of what the law says, it therefore would be as equally wrong as my previously asserted statutory interpretation analysis, I'll spare us all.twodot posted:Federal judges can be impeached. There's also a procedure for complaining about a judge's conduct, but you are specifically not allowed to complain about rulings using that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Does the Gov't want to en banc and drag this out or go straight to SCOTUS? It'll probably get reversed en banc since I think DC is mostly Democrat appointed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Does the Gov't want to en banc and drag this out or go straight to SCOTUS? It'll probably get reversed en banc since I think DC is mostly Democrat appointed. They've already said they're going en banc, and it's the right move. En banc they will win, and then lower courts are uniform in rejecting this argument which makes it more likely that the (unfriendly) Supreme Court will even take the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
So for someone who doesn't have a law background, what are the pros and cons to going en banc here? If the full circuit rules to uphold the law, what does that accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So for someone who doesn't have a law background, what are the pros and cons to going en banc here? If the full circuit rules to uphold the law, what does that accomplish? That means it would be consistent with the 4th circuit opinion which would make it less likely that SCOTUS would grant cert. En banc would get you a majority democrat appointed (which isn't dispositive of anything, but is still pretty highly suggestive) court, likely overturn this decision, and keep you out of the conservative SCOTUS. There really isn't any con to appealing en banc. Even if they somehow affirm this decision, you can still appeal that to the Supreme Court as a last resort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
I didn't see this mentioned earlier, but maybe I missed it. The Congressional Budget Office report, which is the "what does this cost" report stapled to every piece of legislation, made their cost calculations assuming everyone, in all the states, got the subsidies. So, the understanding of the people who read (or didn't) and voted on the legislation was that everyone would be covered. This was wiped out by Roberts when he invalidated the part where states had to comply to receive Medicare money. Nobody was prepared for states to refuse until that ruling made the penalty way less onerous. So, the intent of Congress is pretty clear. On the other hand, Roberts' specialty is invalidating part of a law or precedent, and then using that as leverage to further destroy it. So who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:That means it would be consistent with the 4th circuit opinion which would make it less likely that SCOTUS would grant cert. En banc would get you a majority democrat appointed (which isn't dispositive of anything, but is still pretty highly suggestive) court, likely overturn this decision, and keep you out of the conservative SCOTUS. There really isn't any con to appealing en banc. Even if they somehow affirm this decision, you can still appeal that to the Supreme Court as a last resort. I just wonder if Roberts really wants another Obamacare case like this on his hands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They've already said they're going en banc, and it's the right move. En banc they will win, and then lower courts are uniform in rejecting this argument which makes it more likely that the (unfriendly) Supreme Court will even take the case. I think the longer the administration is able to drag this out, then the better chance of them winning at the Supreme Court level. Ripping subsidies from people may be harder for Justices to do after a year of giving them out, but hey, portions of VRA got invalidated. The SCOTUSBlog commentary is pretty good, if people want a five minute distillation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Thanks, that makes sense. Even if he did (which seems silly since this doesn't appear to be a constitutional question so much as one about the wording of a real specific passage of this law) when is the earliest the Supreme Court could take the case? I hate to get political about the healthcare of millions of people, but if the possibility of removing subsidies comes up close to the 2016 elections than any candidate running for pres. isn't going to be named 'Obama' and would probably have more leeway to run on altering parts of the law that people don't like. And having premiums increase by 76% cause of ambiguous wording about subsidies seems like something that people wouldn't like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I think next Spring?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA *deep breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What's that about geese and gander, and what's good for them? Astute people have pointed out that this would only overturn informed consent laws in states that have passed a state RFRA, but cursory wiki'ing shows 19 deeply conservative states have done so, the exact ones most likely to have 'informed consent' laws. How do I donate to the Church of Satan? They are truly doing God's work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Everblight posted:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA The likely outcome for this is dismissed for failure to state a claim, affirmed in a 2 page order at circuit court, cert. not granted. Basically, they're hoping to get lucky with a sympathetic district court or circuit court judge who forces an en banc circuit court or the Supreme Court to have to write an opinion distinguishing the case from Hobby Lobby and therefore get some news coverage out of it; it's 99% certain that they're not going to win the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Doesn't really matter - they aren't trying to win, but if they keep it tied up in court it gives sympathetic doctors a fig leaf when their patient walks in and says "I am a member of the CoS and it's against the law to read me that paragraph." At least until it's resolved, that's all a doctor (who is likely to be on their side anyway) an excuse to ignore the ridiculous informed consent laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:The likely outcome for this is dismissed for failure to state a claim, affirmed in a 2 page order at circuit court, cert. not granted. Basically, they're hoping to get lucky with a sympathetic district court or circuit court judge who forces an en banc circuit court or the Supreme Court to have to write an opinion distinguishing the case from Hobby Lobby and therefore get some news coverage out of it; it's 99% certain that they're not going to win the case. It's still a good troll and could possibly raise awareness of those anti-abortion propaganda laws or at least of the Satanists themselves. The Satanists are the kind of atheist activists I like, rather than the Bill Maher/Richard Dawkins "Feh religious people are all maroons am i right" type atheist public figures. I'm just curious, why haven't laws like those been struck down on First Amendment grounds? I know the real reason but I'm curious what the legal argument is because that seems to severely restrict the free speech rights of the abortion providers. Then again the Eleventh Circuit just upheld a similarly retarded Florida law, that apparently forbids medical practitioners, including pediatricians, from asking parents what kind of safety precautions do the parents take in securing their firearms. The Eleventh Circuit held 2-1 that Florida is exercising legitimate regulation of the medical profession. Astounding. EDIT: I'm sure Kiwi will defend the gun decision or possibly both these practices. double EDIT: I did not read the decision I read a slate article about it that was not by Dahlia Lithwick so my characterization of the law may be inaccurate. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:It's still a good troll and could possibly raise awareness of those anti-abortion propaganda laws or at least of the Satanists themselves. That you are forced to disclose something if you hold certain jobs or provide certain services is hardly unique to doctors. It's just that usually the stuff you have to disclose makes sense (like say a judge recusing himself due to bias if he personally knows a defendant) and is not political propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:I'm just curious, why haven't laws like those been struck down on First Amendment grounds? I know the real reason but I'm curious what the legal argument is because that seems to severely restrict the free speech rights of the abortion providers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Everblight posted:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA So what does this have to do with Hobby Lobby? It's individuals making claims (not corporations), and its against state RFRAs (not the federal one). Wouldn't their argument be just as good if Hobby Lobby came out the opposite way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
It's a really bad argument, and an abuse of the first amendment, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
esquilax posted:So what does this have to do with Hobby Lobby? It's individuals making claims (not corporations), and its against state RFRAs (not the federal one). Wouldn't their argument be just as good if Hobby Lobby came out the opposite way? Yeah, it's a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
That gun law and doctor bill is gross. So basically you're criminalizing doctors doing their job. Great work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That gun law and doctor bill is gross. So basically you're criminalizing doctors doing their job. Great work. No, they're protecting the precious second amendment from nosy doctors and their puppet masters in the gun theft government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
She sees us! She likes us!  Ginsburg on Notorious R.B.G.: “It’s something that I enjoy”
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
drat, just came here to post that. I love how she corrects Katie right from the get-go "Uh, look here, bitch - I've been a big deal on the Internet for a while now."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Part of the Hobby Lobby decision rested upon the court's judgment that the HL's owners' belief that certain contraceptives were abortifacients was the compelling issue (not whether or not the drugs actually are abortifacients). I believe they're trying to make a connection between that and the CoS's sincere belief that the "informed consent" abortion laws are bullshit. Hobby Lobby really didn't rest on the owners' beliefs about how certain contraceptives acted. The United States conceded that the four contraceptive methods in question could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg when used correctly. 10th Circuit posted:There is an ongoing medical debate as to whether some of the contraceptive methods relevant to this case act by preventing implantation or fertilization. Compare e.g., Physicians for Reproductive Health et. Amicus Br at 12-13 with rear end'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons et al. Amicus Br. at 12 and n21. This is relevant because Hobby Lobby and Mardel object to forms of contraception that prevent uterine implantation, but they do not object to those that prevent conception. For purposes of this appeal, however, there is no material dispute Both the government and the medical amici supporting the government concede that at least some of the contraceptive methods to which the plaintiffs object have the potential to prevent uterine implantation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:She sees us! She likes us! Made me check the referenced Tumblr page and I saw this:  Which timed nicely with a Vox article. The portraits on dollar bills are decided by the Secretary of the Treasury so I think the only way to oppose a change would be to pass a law. C'mon Obama, give the Treasury Secretary the order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
The CoS's suit is also doomed because Alito was quite clear that the religious exemption only applies to beliefs that he, Sam Alito, happens to share. None of that kooky nonsense about blood transfusions, or vaccines, or haram or anything else that those weird cults which aren't Catholic or mainline Protestant believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Hobby Lobby really didn't rest on the owners' beliefs about how certain contraceptives acted. The United States conceded that the four contraceptive methods in question could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg when used correctly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Hmm...not sure where I got that idea then. My mistake. It's been repeated uncritically in many op-eds and even some news articles on the topic. This LA Times article for instance. quote:Medical experts say that while this is in the realm of scientific possibility, it is not how such contraceptives work. They are designed to prevent fertilization in the first place. But, as the court said, only the Greens’ beliefs matter here. I would hardly fault anyone for believing the media, although it's quite common for SCOTUS reporting to miss what was and wasn't actually at issue in a case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Hmm...not sure where I got that idea then. My mistake. I don't blame you, that characterization is really popular in blogs, clickbait and news sources. In general, when a story might fit a popular narrative (in this case "conservatives are anti-science and anti-woman"), it's more important than the actual facts of the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
It's worth noting that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons is a bunch of reactionary cranks who nobody in the medical establishment, research or otherwise, takes seriously and so their amicus brief being cited by the 10th circuit as evidence of one side of an "ongoing medical debate" is kinda sad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Isn't their chance of stopping implantation on the same level of how certain over the counter medicines can also stop implantation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Isn't their chance of stopping implantation on the same level of how certain over the counter medicines can also stop implantation? I'm not sure about exact chances but yes stuff like Ibuprofen can also do it. That's why the government admitting that there's a chance is like Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber getting excited for his one in a million chance with Mary only this time it's taken as a legitimate reason to oppose something that actually reduces abortions in a statistically significant way instead of being comically idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm not sure about exact chances but yes stuff like Ibuprofen can also do it. That's why the government admitting that there's a chance is like Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber getting excited for his one in a million chance with Mary only this time it's taken as a legitimate reason to oppose something that actually reduces abortions in a statistically significant way instead of being comically idiotic. The FDA label on Plan B literally says that it can prevent implantation though. Ibuprofen's does not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
The FDA's probably shouldn't. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 It's like climate control where the debate has been muddied to the point where you have the scientific side and the "I believe it's this way" side and we have to pretend that they are equivolent and then it gets political. Legally it may be much more in favor of Hobby Lobby but realistically it's very clear that the case for being against Plan B because it causes potential abortions is incredibly bad and is only being held because of the ridiculous belief argument and the RFRA allowing people to get around facts in order to enforce their beliefs (this being a misogynistic agenda) on others. I really don't see how logically it's not like saying you won't pay for any medication that has a non-zero chance of killing the patient through extreme complications since you are against suicide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
If anyone that hated McCullen v. Coakley wanted some silver lining to the ruling, here you go: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/03/4048491/wake-judges-ruling-to-dismiss.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
The government had a sound legal strategy for conceding the effects of the drugs at issue. Not everything need be analogized to a Jim Carrey film. The N&O article should probably also be taken with a grain of salt- it's mostly wishful thinking from civil libertarians. It's historically been a pretty easy task to distinguish government legislatures from generic public property in terms of the public interest being served by speech/protest restrictions. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
US legal question for you lot, how can you be convicted of both murder and manslaughter at the same time if there's only one victim?  Jury rejects self-defence claim, convicts Detroit homeowner of murdering Renisha McBride
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
A single act can break multiple laws. The general idea of going for multiple charges is that if they couldn't get murder, they might still get manslaughter, which is easier to prove. Conversely a conviction of murder doesn't preclude a lesser conviction as well. There's also stacking as much poo poo as possible to gain leverage for a plea bargain and probably other reasons I don't even know about
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:10
|
|
