|
DeusExMachinima posted:I was cruising the Wiki on the Hobby Lobby case and ran across this gem: The RFRA was passed in response to that case in order to overturn it.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
duz posted:Since they aren't stopping their employees from using their paychecks to buy contraceptives, I think it's a safe guess that the Green's only care what they do and not what others do. Then they and people like them wouldn't be leveraging their position as gatekeeper to PBMs to cripple membership for their employees such that their serfs pay the same for membership as everyone else but get less benefit from their membership than everyone else. People like that absolutely do care about what their employees spend money on. Just paying in script is illegal and there isn't any wiggle room there so they have limited ability to do anything about it. They absolutely do champion laws that allow them to fire people for discovering they did something the owner doesn't like on their own time. Like being gay or getting divorced or voting democrat. That's as close as they can come to company script.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The RFRA was passed in response to that case in order to overturn it. Gonzales v. Paraguayan hallucinogenic tea was after RFRA, and upheld the gubmint's interest in cracking down on obscure native religious practices as part of the drug war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
sullat posted:Gonzales v. Paraguayan hallucinogenic tea was after RFRA, and upheld the gubmint's interest in cracking down on obscure native religious practices as part of the drug war. Do you mean Brazilian? And the gubbermint lost. evilweasel posted:The RFRA was passed in response to that case in order to overturn it. So posters think Scalia will have changed his tune because Congress changed the law, okay. So it really seems like as long as the RFRA stands, HL can make a very strong argument out of existing law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:39
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
twodot posted:For as long as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exists, yes we should continue to apply its restrictions to laws which fail to exempt themselves. Policy-wise, I think both the ACA and RFRA are pretty lovely laws that are putting our courts in no-win situations. I would certainly prefer a single payer set up that avoids all of these issues. I am asserting that it doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are as they are trying to constrain the actions of other people who do not share their beliefs in a manner that is financially harmful to those other people. The patient must overpay or go without. The pharmacy loses business from those who go without. The PBM loses spread and volume from all the transactions they are forced to reject. If you want to continue society loses out because unplanned/unwanted pregnancies are increased. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I am asserting that it doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are as they are trying to constrain the actions of other people who do not share their beliefs in a manner that is financially harmful to those other people. duz posted:Since they aren't stopping their employees from using their paychecks to buy contraceptives, I think it's a safe guess that the Green's only care what they do and not what others do. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Religious belief really complicates legal matters doesn't it
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
baw posted:Religious belief really complicates legal matters doesn't it In an ideal world, it shouldn't, because the government and the law should be 100% secular. If your chosen deity is going to get all kinked up about following the law, you can be strong in your faith and go to prison or you can go get yourself another god. There are thousands to choose from, or you can just build your own!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:In an ideal world, it shouldn't, because the government and the law should be 100% secular. If your chosen deity is going to get all kinked up about following the law, you can be strong in your faith and go to prison or you can go get yourself another god. There are thousands to choose from, or you can just build your own! You could've just shortened this to "in an ideal world all of the religious people would be locked up".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
So, thread regulars, what are the expected cases to be opinioned Wednesday? I'm hoping for the Hobby Lobby case (I have a bet riding on the outcome) but I'm sure it isn't going to happen. I assume that we're going to see the NLRB case, if anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:So, thread regulars, what are the expected cases to be opinioned Wednesday? I'm hoping for the Hobby Lobby case (I have a bet riding on the outcome) but I'm sure it isn't going to happen. I assume that we're going to see the NLRB case, if anything. You have 100% lost your bet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Oral arguments for those cases were just last week. There's a 0% chance that an opinion -- which will undoubtedly be authored by Kennedy, though perhaps Roberts -- is coming down the pipeline as quickly as tomorrow. Not if it's a bet on the outcome and not the date 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Oh, I see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You could've just shortened this to "in an ideal world all of the religious people would be locked up". Nice strawman. No, they would follow the laws in the same manner as any other citizen, and practice privately instead of trying to exploit the legal system to force their beliefs onto others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Nice strawman. No, they would follow the laws in the same manner as any other citizen, and practice privately instead of trying to exploit the legal system to force their beliefs onto others. They are following the law. In this case, Congress passed a law that says all Federal statutes have a religious exemption unless the law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:They are following the law. In this case, Congress passed a law that says all Federal statutes have a religious exemption unless the law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest. Congress also passed a law saying that birth control will be included in a health plan offered by a company if they wish to avoid various penalties. There's no reason to be so drat obtuse, if it were really that clear cut do you think SCOTUS would have granted cert?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Nice strawman. No, they would follow the laws in the same manner as any other citizen, and practice privately instead of trying to exploit the legal system to force their beliefs onto others. Does this also presume a world where the majority won't hide behind "general applicability" to pass laws that gently caress with reigious minorities? "Look buddy, stop trying to get special treatment. I can't wear a turban into a federal building either, and you don't see me complaining about it. If your goofy hat is so important to you, then keep it on and give up any right to seek justice through the courts. Not hard."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Congress also passed a law saying that birth control will be included in a health plan offered by a company if they wish to avoid various penalties. Didn't the lower court rule the other way? If so, they'd want to grant cert if it were crystal clear that the circuit court ruled in error.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
How much more damage can these 5 do before one of them dies? This McCutchen case is just depressing as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
So just to make sure I have this straight, McCutcheon didn't address the individual candidate limit, but the overall limit you could give to multiple candidates? I.e. before this case you could give the maximum amount to individual candidates until you hit the 46,200 limit, and then give another 70,000 and change to the national party directly, but now you can give the maximum amount to an unlimited number of candidates and an uncapped amount directly to the national party? While I agree it's a horrible decision, doesn't this really just change the divide in where the rich put their money rather than increasing the amount of money they can give. They previously could give 117,000 to candidates and the party directly, and unlimited amounts to SuperPACs and other soft-money groups, and now they can just give effectively unlimited amounts directly to the candidates (up to 5k each) and the party (unlimited)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:So just to make sure I have this straight, McCutcheon didn't address the individual candidate limit, but the overall limit you could give to multiple candidates? I.e. before this case you could give the maximum amount to individual candidates until you hit the 46,200 limit, and then give another 70,000 and change to the national party directly, but now you can give the maximum amount to an unlimited number of candidates and an uncapped amount directly to the national party? It doesn't change much but it's just another brick in the wall this court is building to protect the practice of buying elections based on the shocking stupidly that money in politics doesn't cause corruption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
I guarantee that whenever they get a case challenging the overall limit to one candidate they will take it out. I assume that will probably be soon, since Republicans are rushing to increase corporate power established in Citizens United before the balance of the court shifts again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
This court LOVES people's right to buy elections and hates their right to vote. Tools of the plutocracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Congress also passed a law saying that birth control will be included in a health plan offered by a company if they wish to avoid various penalties. Did you read the comment I was replying to and the comment it was replying to? SCOTUS granted cert to determine the scope of that exception and who is allowed to claim it. That's very different than saying religious people don't have to follow the law. Moreover, if Congress didn't want the RFRA to apply to the law saying birth control will be included in a health plan they could have said "notwithstanding any other provision of law." Congress chose not to. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
This shouldn't be an unexpected outcome and directly follows from Citizens United logic. If money is speech then obviously they can't limit it. Its not like you can only spend so many minutes per election cycle talking about a specific candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This shouldn't be an unexpected outcome and directly follows from Citizens United logic. If money is speech then obviously they can't limit it. Its not like you can only spend so many minutes per election cycle talking about a specific candidate. The Court has historically drawn a distinction on spending independent of candidates and giving candidates a big fat check directly, and been more willing to uphold restrictions on the latter. It is worrying they're weakening that and this is another step in the direction of abolishing campaign financing regulations entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Court has historically drawn a distinction on spending independent of candidates and giving candidates a big fat check directly, and been more willing to uphold restrictions on the latter. It is worrying they're weakening that and this is another step in the direction of abolishing campaign financing regulations entirely. The aggregate spending on all federal candidates is a big jump from citizens united. But I agree the individual limits are likely the next target and I wouldn't bet on the outcome there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This shouldn't be an unexpected outcome and directly follows from Citizens United logic. If money is speech then obviously they can't limit it. Its not like you can only spend so many minutes per election cycle talking about a specific candidate. Yeah man, equal time is loving bullshit. You know what would be really awesome? The person with the most """Support""" gets the most time! We can quantify """Support""" as these nifty little green slips of paper that you may very well already have lying around your house or Swiss bank account! """Support""" bless America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:Yeah man, equal time is loving bullshit. You know what would be really awesome? The person with the most """Support""" gets the most time! We can quantify """Support""" as these nifty little green slips of paper that you may very well already have lying around your house or Swiss bank account! """Support""" bless America. This supreme court would waste no time in striking down some sort of equal time doctrine, yes. There is a difference between predicting supreme court decisions and what your personal opinions about good policy are you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Is there any way to write new legislation to regulate campaign financing without running afoul of the court's current view on the issue? Or is buying elections now a feature, not a bug?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This shouldn't be an unexpected outcome and directly follows from Citizens United logic. If money is speech then obviously they can't limit it. Its not like you can only spend so many minutes per election cycle talking about a specific candidate. Following that analogy and assuming a 180 day election cycle, the Koch brothers have 312 million minutes an election cycle to talk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This supreme court would waste no time in striking down some sort of equal time doctrine, yes. It's all just so infuriating 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Is there any way to write new legislation to regulate campaign financing without running afoul of the court's current view on the issue? Or is buying elections now a feature, not a bug? An Amendment, a Constitutional Convention, or new Justices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Is there any way to write new legislation to regulate campaign financing without running afoul of the court's current view on the issue? Or is buying elections now a feature, not a bug? No chance till new justices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:Yeah man, equal time is loving bullshit. You know what would be really awesome? The person with the most """Support""" gets the most time! We can quantify """Support""" as these nifty little green slips of paper that you may very well already have lying around your house or Swiss bank account! """Support""" bless America. This isn't actually an argument. The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich and poor from begging under bridges, so the sort of principle you're looking for has no basis in law in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
axeil posted: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? Sure, but does that seem likely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
axeil posted: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? Yes, they are. But the Supreme Court doesn't have to take it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Also, the Supreme Court is only effective because the rest of the country abides by its rulings. Undercutting that may not be a good thing. An amendment to fix this would be great, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but does that seem likely? I can only see this happening if a Ross Perot 2.0 decides to throw a couple billion to the Libertarian party or an actual Tea Party and scares the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:01
|
|