Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Anyone that just comes on to stalk others so they can call them names is about the pussyest thing I can think of.
lol!
could also end up in the court house!!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
Danger sign: The Supreme Court has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision
The Supreme Court wasted no time in delivering a message to anyone who thought its Hobby Lobby ruling was limited to religious objections to coverage of purported abortion methods:
You're wrong.
The day after handing down the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, the court issued orders pertaining to six pending cases in which employers claimed religious objections to all contraceptive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The court either ordered appeals courts to reconsider their rejection of the employers' claims in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, or let stand lower courts' endorsement of those claims.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
So this SCOTUS expansion of the decision is EXACTLY the slippery slope of which Lollie wrote.
So how do you conservatives now feel about the SC decision to abolish insurance payment for ANY contraceptives??
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
There is no slippery slope. I've been repeatedly instructed as such in the gun threads.
F*#k Hobby Lobby.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 3, 2014 - 12:30am PT
|
sullly, I missed BOTH mine, have to reschedule for them.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, or In What Time Zone Am I?
|
|
Original intent from OP:
A thread for women's rights and stuff like that. (Post positivity too!)
Now we are on to who Farouk really is, Tennessee Jews etc. Why do I even get surprised anymore??
Guess I have some bedtime reading to catch up on to figure it all out.
Continue on....
Susan
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
The map is interesting.
Really. I saw it, and the way this ISIS, just swept across a big chunk of the earth, and I'm feeling a lot better about the second ammendment.
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
This is what happens when you take the Boob Thread away, Scalia was a big fan.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
I'm taking a poll:
Who takes the responsibility for preventing procreation in your relationship?
 Having no sex at the moment.. This has been a standing rule for many more years than needs to be mentioned here for the safety of the innocent.
Have you ever been in a long term relationship where you always wore a condom as well as collaborated with your partner using a spermicide to raise the effectiveness of conds to resemble the effectiveness of birth control?
Yes - I have been in a long term relationship in the past... We were young and dumb so no on condoms and no collaboration with the CP...
If your female partner and you are sure you are finished having children why havent you had a vasectomy if you havent?
I have never had the urge to procreate. I've never felt that I was knowledgable or confident enough to raise a child...
If men bore equal responsibility for prevention of pregnancy there wouldnt be any resistance to providing women this prescription. It isnt about finances. Finances are a smoke screen.
I agree 100%. Strange that we are not talking about the religious freedom to not pay for any vasectomies... Not to mention that women do not have as easily accessible contraception (condoms are in the locker room in HS these days, I don't remember seeing any in my school days), it the roles were reversed and men had to do what women are expected to do to get contraception? They'd be shittin mad, I suspect.
A while back a pharmacy in el paso tx refused to fill contraception rx for women. This scotus interpretation is coming from that same rationale.
How many women should stop supporting that pharmacy?
Cheers all
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
Isn't Shariah law a sincerely held religious belief? Would a closely-held Islamic Fundamentalist corporation be allowed to lop off hands of thieves?
Someone mentioned that this law doesn't apply to Walmart, why not?
Religious opposition to war and defense spending is a poor comparison because the ruling doesn't address all the things the gov. pays for with our money.
We need single payer national health care for economic reasons, not to support socialist ideals. If it's a better system for all citizens, economically, would you oppose it based on spite of a perceived "free ride"? And it would also solve the problem with this ruling.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
-(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Article III.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
funny, I can't find a mention of "closely held companies" in Article III
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2014 - 01:37am PT
|
There's so many good points in this thread. (No, I don't mean you, scrubbing bubbles)
And Ed, that's a very interesting question. What if the Supreme Court takes a decision which doesn't have support by law? That's the end, isn't it? The law has to be clarified instead?
That's what happens here. For instance, there's been a extremely stupid decision with unwanted consequences about building and zoning, so now we're preparing an altering of a paragraph so it can't be any question about how it is meant. They didn't think far enough. With one stroke they made a lot of until now legal buildings illegal, which can cause much trouble for regular citizens. We don't doubt the Riksdag will pass that change but with complete unanimity. But since the court ruled like it did, there's no other choice.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Lollie,
here, it really depends. the vast majority of the decisions the US SC makes, are on Constitutional issues, so the only way to change that, is to amend the Constitution, an appropriately very difficult and time consuming process. Interestingly, the only ones approved since 1947 have had to do with elections.
However, the case under discussion is NOT a constitutional questions, it is a conflict between laws, so the offending law can simply be repealed or amended. That won't happen while the Repugs control either house of congress or the Presidency, but it will happen at some point. It could also happen if there is a replacement of a conservative justice with a liberal one. (or another woman, likely)
You are correct in that once the SC has spoken, that's the end of court cases, unless they've simply sent it back down for retrial.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
By the way, the current HBO documentary "The Case Against 8", is amazingly powerful.
It's about the 5 year process of overturning Prop 8 from California. David Bois and Ted Olson are amazing.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
|
When you give birth under a blanket.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
funny, I can't find a mention of "closely held companies" in Article III
Ed, if you care to explain why you think it's funny that you don't find a mention of "closely held companies" in Article III, perhaps I can try to explain or at least give my view.
It doesn't seem "funny" to me, under any definition of "funny."
The power of federal courts to decide the type of controversy that existed in the Hobby Lobby case is obvious and isn't questioned by anyone (at least by anyone who knows anything about American law).
Why the the Court in Hobby Lobby decided that the opinion only applied to closely held companies is harder to explain. (And note that the decision doesn't define "closely held," although comments made by Chief Justice Roberts at oral argument almost certainly show that the Court does not view the decision as applying to public corporations.)
One slightly interesting point of law is that courts only decide the cases before them, and every case comes with a bundle of facts. Later cases that involve other facts aren't necessarily bound by the view of the court that decided a prior case. Although, the courts (and the Supreme Court in particular) have some discretion to state how broadly they at least think their decisions should be applied, and courts sometimes make explicit what facts guide a decision.
The Hobby Lobby case involved only closely-held corporations, at least as that term seemed to have meaning to the Supreme Court, and so it wasn't out of the ordinary for the Court to state that its decision only applies to closely-held corporations. Of course there has to be some connection between the facts of the case and the rule of law in the decision; it's not as if Court or someone else could legitimately argue that the Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies with the initials "HL."
If you really want to understand the Hobby Lobby decision, I trust you have actually read the decision? If so and you still have questions, feel free to post up and we'll see if I or anyone else here can shed any light.
If your question is why the Court expressly limited its holding to closely held companies, that's a good one and doesn't have a simple answer, at least that I can give. Perhaps it's some sort of compromise whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should apply to corporations at all--perhaps legitimate views could be advanced that it shouldn't apply to any corps and or that it should apply to all corps, and the decision that it should apply to closely held corps just tickled the Hobby Lobby majority's fancy as a compromise. But there may be some legitimacy. For example, it was deemed significant whether the corporation's beliefs were "sincerely held." It's relatively easy to see how a closely-held corporation (one generally defined as having a limited number of owners) can have a sincerely-held belief--every owner could declare what his or her belief is. It's somewhat harder to see how a corporation having an unlimited number of owners that change all the time (e.g., a public corporation such as Walmart) could have a sincere belief.
Whether that's a good basis to make a distinction can certainly be argued; it would be reasonable to say that whatever the corporation (acting through its officers) says its beliefs are is the end of it, and who cares how many owners there are. But again, as a matter of jurisprudence, having a court state that its decision is limited to a certain fact of facts that were at issue in the case is a completely unexceptional occurrence.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Good job handling the latest troll, lollie
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
funny = odd
in my usage,
and subsection (c) refers to Article III of the constitution
now I totally understand there is law governing the standing of corporations, etc...
but the law says a determination has to be made based on "a compelling governmental interest" and be implemented in "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
since the interest of the government is providing essential health care to half the US population of real people against the dubious interests of a "corporation" (which is not a real person) it is difficult to see how the ruling was arrived at.
The law in question does not interfere with the ability of that business to engage in commerce in any way.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for the health care of its workers, it can choose not to. But I don't see how they get to essentially re-write the law based on the business owner's beliefs, and claim that those beliefs are held by the fictitious "corporation/person"
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."
and apparently this wasn't a very narrow ruling, we now have Wheaton College...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html
not a "closely held" anything...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!