If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Justice Scalia: "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 386
    More: Obvious, Justice Antonin Scalia, for-profit corporations, Affordable Care Act, U.S. Court of Appeals, religious denomination  
•       •       •

5729 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Dec 2013 at 11:31 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



386 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-01 10:11:48 AM
I seem to recall court decisions where Christian Scientists were found not guilty for not seeking medical care for their children. Am I not remembering that correctly?
 
2013-12-01 10:45:56 AM
I believe you're right, but did those cases go all the way to SCOTUS?
 
2013-12-01 10:50:08 AM

NewportBarGuy: I seem to recall court decisions where Christian Scientists were found not guilty for not seeking medical care for their children. Am I not remembering that correctly?


There were state cases, a couple that made national news never made it to the Supreme Court. MA Case involved Christian Scientists and a dead kid as well as this form WI

In MA, they were found guilty of a criminal act, the WI case was a civil wrongful death suit.
 
2013-12-01 10:58:17 AM

dr_blasto: NewportBarGuy: I seem to recall court decisions where Christian Scientists were found not guilty for not seeking medical care for their children. Am I not remembering that correctly?

There were state cases, a couple that made national news never made it to the Supreme Court. MA Case involved Christian Scientists and a dead kid as well as this form WI

In MA, they were found guilty of a criminal act, the WI case was a civil wrongful death suit.


The McKown thing was appealed to the SCOTUS; it was a $9mm penalty to the Church of Christ, Scientist. In that case, the boy had parents who were divorced. Father was not Christian Scientist, mother was. Boy had teh diabeetus and died because prayer doesn't regulate insulin production. Mother had custody. The award was a lot, considering. By refusing to hear the case, the SCOTUS pretty much upheld the concept that you could point your arsenal of lawyers at the crazy ex's nutter church and fire away.
 
2013-12-01 11:21:16 AM
Though if Scalia isn't willing to consider the ACA "an otherwise valid law"....
 
2013-12-01 11:31:25 AM
And if I believed that Scalia's opinions were based on internally consistent logic, and not merely crafted to reinforce the decision he wants to make, I'd be heartened by that statement.
 
2013-12-01 11:33:57 AM
Uh-oh. That's probably not good.
 
2013-12-01 11:35:15 AM

abb3w: Though if Scalia isn't willing to consider the ACA "an otherwise valid law"....


We'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
 
2013-12-01 11:36:41 AM
What are the religious precedents for corporations?
 
2013-12-01 11:37:00 AM
Now I have to go look up whether or not SCOTUS ruled on pharmacists who wouldn't hand out Plan B. . .
 
2013-12-01 11:37:13 AM
Also, ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would directly overturn the Supreme Court's previous ruling in US v. Lee (1982):

"Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees."

Replace "social security taxes" with "health insurance" and the argument is identical.
 
2013-12-01 11:38:41 AM
the Greens said that some forms of contraception - diaphragms, sponges, some versions of the pill - were fine by them, but others that prevented embryos from implanting in the womb were not.

I can't find any of these phrases in any version of the bible.
 
2013-12-01 11:39:25 AM

nmrsnr: And if I believed that Scalia's opinions were based on internally consistent logic, and not merely crafted to reinforce the decision he wants to make, I'd be heartened by that statement.


THIS, right here.
 
2013-12-01 11:40:42 AM
Justice Scalia makes no sense. If the law is "otherwise Valid", then by implication it is not valid.
 
2013-12-01 11:40:49 AM

Peki: Now I have to go look up whether or not SCOTUS ruled on pharmacists who wouldn't hand out Plan B. . .


Nope. . . only Ill. state Supreme Court. . .

All right, sounds like Scalia wins that one. Even a broken watch. . .

dr_blasto: By refusing to hear the case, the SCOTUS pretty much upheld the concept that you could point your arsenal of lawyers at the crazy ex's nutter church and fire away.


That might explain TomKat's quick divorce.

/could see Scientology getting a little squirrely at the idea of that kind of publicity, and Katie knew it
 
2013-12-01 11:41:33 AM
On the surface, this looks pretty cut and dried, having been settled in the wake of passage of the 16th Amendment.
 
2013-12-01 11:41:54 AM

FC Exile: Justice Scalia makes no sense. If the law is "otherwise Valid", then by implication it is not valid.


I think you may need to go back to English class.
 
2013-12-01 11:42:06 AM
It would have gone the other way if that slut hobby lobby tried to use birth control when taking in candy cane lane.
 
2013-12-01 11:49:35 AM
Like I should listen to an asshole like Scalia.
 
2013-12-01 11:50:28 AM
Hobby Lobby is just a bunch of cheap assholes hiding behind a guise of religion.

They don't give a fark, really.
 
2013-12-01 11:51:06 AM
I really don't even understand why this made it to the supreme court. Free excercise of religion does not equal do whatever you want. It never has.
 
2013-12-01 11:51:22 AM
Corporations CANNOT believe.

And sorry, but if you want your business to adhere to your own PERSONAL principles, then you shouldn't be able to hide behind an incorporation when it comes time to sue you for violating the religious beliefs of others.
 
2013-12-01 11:51:37 AM
FTA: It will be interesting to see whether Scalia still believes that now that he's being confronted with a case where the religious beliefs in question may be closer to his own.

Scalia is a troll that wears black robes.  Never forget that.
 
2013-12-01 11:55:02 AM
I remember reading somewhere that not too long ago (before Obamacare), Hobby Lobby offered health care insurance that included contraceptives and birth control to its employees. Of course, that was before this whole issue blew up on the right.
 
2013-12-01 11:56:23 AM

nmrsnr: And if I believed that Scalia's opinions were based on internally consistent logic, and not merely crafted to reinforce the decision he wants to make, I'd be heartened by that statement.

In that 1942 decision, Justice Scalia writes, the Supreme Court "expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by ruling that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."
[...]
Justice Scalia's treatment of the Wickard case had been far more respectful in his judicial writings. In the book's preface, he explains (referring to himself in the third person) that he "knows that there are some, and fears that there may be many, opinions that he has joined or written over the past 30 years that contradict what is written here." Some inconsistencies can be explained by respect for precedent, he writes, others "because wisdom has come late."


These days, Scalia conducts himself as if his two middle fingers were extended, that's all.  Everything else is secondary.
 
2013-12-01 11:58:01 AM
That's it.  I'm  moving to Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-12-01 11:58:26 AM

maniacbastard: Hobby Lobby is just a bunch of cheap assholes hiding behind a guise of religion.

They don't give a fark, really.


yep.
 
2013-12-01 11:58:38 AM

dr_blasto: By refusing to hear the case, the SCOTUS pretty much upheld the concept that you could point your arsenal of lawyers at the crazy ex's nutter church and fire away.


Thanks for the reply. I was aware of some state cases, but nothing that went all the way up.
 
2013-12-01 11:59:16 AM
Perhaps the majority can reconsider the harm they caused to the body politic in Citizens United and craft a thoughtful result that mitigates that damage.

Yup, I said that without cracking up
 
2013-12-01 12:02:42 PM

pootsie: Perhaps the majority can reconsider the harm they caused to the body politic in Citizens United and craft a thoughtful result that mitigates that damage.

Yup, I said that without cracking up


lucky you, but my eyeballs damn near rolled out of my head about half way though reading your comment.
 
2013-12-01 12:08:02 PM
I wonder which corporation will be the first to claim a religious objection to the minimum wage.
 
2013-12-01 12:08:32 PM
Sort of a fine line here. I don't like the AHA being force on the country and honestly i don't even agree that health insurance be required to provide birth control. None of my feelings on those issues are driven by my religion.

I've never been in a hobby lobby but a quick look at their website I notice the have a halloween link. Hmm really if you are touting Christinan standards for not obeying the law maybe it's best not to sell items for a satanic holiday (okay i'm embellishing a little here)

I think if you run a Religious company where you sell/produce only religious goods/services the law should provide some leeway.  I can't see forcing a Muslim or Christian bookstore to have to hire someone who isn't muslim/christian. 

but if you serve the public in general and provide common goods/services most of that leeway goes away.  Even more so if you are a major corporation.
 
2013-12-01 12:09:11 PM

Captain Dan: I wonder which corporation will be the first to claim a religious objection to the minimum wage.


all of them if this nonsense stands.
 
2013-12-01 12:11:43 PM

Waldo Pepper: I don't like the AHA


What is the AHA?
 
2013-12-01 12:11:57 PM
SomeoneDumb: I remember reading somewhere that not too long ago (before Obamacare), Hobby Lobby offered health care insurance that included contraceptives and birth control to its employees. Of course, that was before this whole issue blew up on the right.

Things done changed when the blah man entered the room.
 
2013-12-01 12:12:50 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Corporations CANNOT believe.


Can a person believe?
How about two people?
How about ten people, who form a congregation?
How about a congregation of 500 people, that does some other non-profit activities on the side?
How about a congregation of 500 people that also has some for-profit activities?

Contrary to Farkistan belief, Citizens United did not say that corporations are people, it said that free speech applies to groups of individuals, regardless of organization. It was also about that other forgotten freedom in the first amendment, the freedom of association.
 
2013-12-01 12:13:51 PM

DarnoKonrad: Captain Dan: I wonder which corporation will be the first to claim a religious objection to the minimum wage.

all of them if this nonsense stands.


They've got their lawyers on speed-dial in case the case goes for Hobby Lobby.
 
2013-12-01 12:14:07 PM
I'm in favor of corporations being considered people if they can be arrested for their crimes and, in the person of their chief executives, thrown into jail.

Once again, may I propose that all federal prisons be closed (as a cost saving measure) and white collar criminals housed in the state penitentiaries of the venue in which they were convicted. I believe that the prospect of a roommate named Bubba, rather than a stay in Club Fed, will go a long way towards ending white collar crime in this country.
 
2013-12-01 12:14:09 PM

Waldo Pepper: i don't even agree that health insurance be required to provide birth control. None of my feelings on those issues are driven by my religion.


 Then what is your opinion "driven" by?  This basically comes down to economics.  Unwanted pregnancies are much more expensive to cover than a little contraception benefit.  It's win/win for everyone involved except people who think every sperm is sacred.

No one is forced to use contraception and no one is forced to provide it.  Because let's be clear, this is paid for by premiums, not employers.  Even if the employer picks up most of the premium cost, that's still compensation for work.
 
2013-12-01 12:15:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: What is the AHA?


Swedish guys who sang "Take On Me" back in the 80s. I wouldn't want them to be forced on the country, myself.
 
2013-12-01 12:16:39 PM

clambam: I'm in favor of corporations being considered people if they can be arrested for their crimes and, in the person of their chief executives, thrown into jail.


If you're considering the corporation to be a person, then why are you throwing the CEO in jail? If I commit a crime, you don't get sent to jail.
Why not just charge the CEO?
 
2013-12-01 12:16:58 PM

NewportBarGuy: dr_blasto: By refusing to hear the case, the SCOTUS pretty much upheld the concept that you could point your arsenal of lawyers at the crazy ex's nutter church and fire away.

Thanks for the reply. I was aware of some state cases, but nothing that went all the way up.


I remember the WI case being a big deal, making national news. I'm not sure if the SCOTUS hasn't really taken any case like this because they've been mostly decided "right" in the lower courts or if it's because they're not keen to deal with that hot potato(e).

I can't really see Hobby Lobby coming out with a win here, all the precedence points to them having to eat shiat. The only reason we even see it this far is because there are some nutty lower courts.
 
2013-12-01 12:17:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Waldo Pepper: I don't like the AHA

What is the AHA?


A-HA
 
2013-12-01 12:18:44 PM

theorellior: DarnoKonrad: Captain Dan: I wonder which corporation will be the first to claim a religious objection to the minimum wage.

all of them if this nonsense stands.

They've got their lawyers on speed-dial in case the case goes for Hobby Lobby.



After Citizens United they turned it up to 11 with cigarette companies claiming they had a 1st Amendment right to sell their cancer sticks to children.  If SCOTUS now gives corporations a religious right, shiat is going to get farking insane in this country.  Not that it isn't already.
 
2013-12-01 12:19:13 PM

DarnoKonrad: Waldo Pepper: i don't even agree that health insurance be required to provide birth control. None of my feelings on those issues are driven by my religion.

 Then what is your opinion "driven" by?  This basically comes down to economics.  Unwanted pregnancies are much more expensive to cover than a little contraception benefit.  It's win/win for everyone involved except people who think every sperm is sacred.

No one is forced to use contraception and no one is forced to provide it.  Because let's be clear, this is paid for by premiums, not employers.  Even if the employer picks up most of the premium cost, that's still compensation for work.


I didn't say I don't understand why insurance companies provide birth control. I simply said I don't believe they should be forced to provide the coverage.  My understanding under the ACA birth control must be part of the coverage.
 
2013-12-01 12:21:06 PM

SomeoneDumb: I remember reading somewhere that not too long ago (before Obamacare), Hobby Lobby offered health care insurance that included contraceptives and birth control to its employees. Of course, that was before this whole issue blew up on the right.


They currently offer it in like 32 states, iirc.  See, a lot of farking STATES already require that you offer contraceptive coverage.  Oddly, Hobbylobby didn't have a problem with the states doing this.

I suppose that next no one will have a problem with employers banning their employees from consuming alcohol, having sex out of wedlock, marrying those of other faithes, etc?
 
2013-12-01 12:21:07 PM

clambam: I'm in favor of corporations being considered people if they can be arrested for their crimes and, in the person of their chief executives, thrown into jail.

Once again, may I propose that all federal prisons be closed (as a cost saving measure) and white collar criminals housed in the state penitentiaries of the venue in which they were convicted. I believe that the prospect of a roommate named Bubba, rather than a stay in Club Fed, will go a long way towards ending white collar crime in this country.


No.

It has to be the whole Board of Directors or the primary owner of a private corporation.
 
2013-12-01 12:21:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: What is the AHA?


It's short for ACA Homologous Acronym
 
2013-12-01 12:22:02 PM

Waldo Pepper: honestly i don't even agree that health insurance be required to provide birth control. None of my feelings on those issues are driven by my religion.


What else could that opinion be driven by?  Hatred of women?  Knee-jerk libertarianism?  Please explain.
 
2013-12-01 12:22:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Waldo Pepper: I don't like the AHA

What is the AHA?


wow look you are trying to be snarky over a typo.  you know exactly what I meant.
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report