|
Something makes me think I should have brought Baileys with me today to work for my morning coffee.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:3 boxes for opinions + 2 opinions + First opinion is only 70 pages (opinion + dissent) = crazy Hobby Lobby shenanigans? Heller was hundreds of pages IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Maybe they found a backdoor to overturn Roe v Wade with Hobby Lobby?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
It's here. Brace yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:= crazy Hobby Lobby shenanigans? Ginsburg in her dissent rises from her seat and attacks Alito with a machete declaring "The beast must die" e: HERE IT COMES
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.S683655x.dpuf
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
So now we get to quibble over the definitely of "closely held". Wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:So now we get to quibble over the definitely of "closely held". Wonderful. Beats the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:So now we get to quibble over the definitely of "closely held". Wonderful. I dunno man. EDIT: only for contraception. Jehovah's witnesses, Christian scientists, you're out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:So now we get to quibble over the definitely of "closely held". Wonderful. It can be pretty well defined. Not traded on a market. Owners are also managers. etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
quote:Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.zZmLbbG8.dpuf 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"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
^^^^^  "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.BSotkERN.dpuf" lol because reasons
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Kennedy: "The government should pay for it, not the religious!  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Edit - Beaten twice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. Why? What is the basis for this? The law applies to corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
quote:Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.VlToVcmW.dpuf quote:Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.VlToVcmW.dpuf
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
This is the most retarded loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl Christian Nation!!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Three dissents oh boy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl So they know their decision is wrong, but they want it badly enough?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.BSotkERN.dpuf" It'd be like the anti-Windsor dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl beats the alternative
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Never mind. Everything is terrible. WElp thanks for ruining my week first thing Monday morning SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Could it be as simple as "contraception only" because that is what was being disputed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Old-rear end religious people support old-rear end religious company...I'm shocked =/
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:^^^^^ "Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." Only until the next case once President Cruz replaces notable swing-vote Kennedy... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Three dissents oh boy. Yeah, this seems like such a bad decision everyone wants a piece of it. I'll be interested to see just how much they call this "we made up a rule for contraception that applies to nothing else" poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Could it be as simple as "contraception only" because that is what was being disputed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Ginsburg says it's of "startling breadth." So it won't be her, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
This ruling is a joke. If you are saying religious beliefs should be followed then all should be. By limiting it to contraceptive only you are opening it to ANOTHER challenge for more overreach by corporations to claim religious freedom. Screw this...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:"Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." Hahaha Congress and the SC already gave religious corps the right to unlawfully discriminate in employment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Perhaps, but what's the logic behind that? Jehovah's really don't really want blood transfusions and they really believe that. What's different? And abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Perhaps, but what's the logic behind that? Jehovah's really don't really want blood transfusions and they really believe that. What's different? New Testament only, weirdos. e: OUR understanding of the NT only, weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Could it be as simple as "contraception only" because that is what was being disputed? We'll have to wait and see, but I doubt it. The reason this is a monumentally stupid decision is because any rationale creates absurd outcomes elsewhere. They've apparently resolved it just by saying that it doesn't apply to any of those other ones. It's Bush v. Gore's "this decision has no precendential value because we're just basically picking Bush and we did it too quickly to be sure our rule is one we ever want to use again" all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Perhaps, but what's the logic behind that? Jehovah's really don't really want blood transfusions and they really believe that. What's different? Judicial conservatism, hahaha. The SC only has jurisdiction of actual disputes. It will be up to the Circuits to extend everything though and they will dont worry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:25
|
|