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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Five huge cases facing the Supreme Court this June   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 226
    More: PSA, Supreme Court, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Aereo, strict scrutiny, campaign finance, Massachusetts law, Justice Antonin Scalia  
•       •       •

4543 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2014 at 9:35 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-12 08:22:41 AM  
That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

I'm kind of getting tired of Justice Kennedy's reputation as a swing voter.  Seems to me (without doing the research) that he has voted with the conservative block of the Court in every major decision over the last several years.
 
2014-06-12 08:25:06 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

I'm kind of getting tired of Justice Kennedy's reputation as a swing voter.  Seems to me (without doing the research) that he has voted with the conservative block of the Court in every major decision over the last several years.


You should maybe do a little research.
 
2014-06-12 08:53:11 AM  

ginandbacon: You should maybe do a little research.


Other than DOMA, I honestly can't remember a decision he didn't vote with the conservatives over the past 5 years or so.  It's just an impression, though.
 
2014-06-12 09:30:41 AM  
But Justice Antonin Scalia expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Someone's been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.
 
2014-06-12 09:42:35 AM  
This is the main reason the GOP will be extremely upset when HRC wins the presidential nomination in 2016. Can the right-leaning justices last until 2024 and possibly longer?
 
2014-06-12 09:43:29 AM  
Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.
 
2014-06-12 09:47:31 AM  
The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech. be a total coont.

Fixed that typo for them. See what happens when you fire all of the proofreaders and editors, people?
 
2014-06-12 09:47:49 AM  
Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.
 
2014-06-12 09:48:13 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.


They still have to figure out my pass code anyways.
 
2014-06-12 09:48:37 AM  
It occurs to me that, by default, EVERY case that faces the Supreme Court is huge. Whether or not it will directly affect someone would likely account for individual perceptions of the hugeness of the case, of course.
 
2014-06-12 09:50:28 AM  
WWABW

//What Would a Billionaire Want
 
2014-06-12 09:50:52 AM  

Pfern: This is the main reason the GOP will be extremely upset when HRC wins the presidential nomination in 2016. Can the right-leaning justices last until 2024 and possibly longer?


They betting that new technology comes along to let them live forever.

img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-12 09:50:59 AM  
"The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech."

fark you you piece of shiat. Take your religious farking bullying bullshiat the fark away from woman who are already making a tough farking decision. You motherfarkers are one of the lowest forms of life you farking asshole motherfarking farks. Go fark yourself with a farking rusty motherfarking spoon.
 
2014-06-12 09:51:15 AM  
A huge case isn't a huge case when the outcome is already expected. If it's concerning big government and big business, it's already been decided. Just shut up and go back to work.
 
2014-06-12 09:53:39 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: But Justice Antonin Scalia expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Someone's been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.


Does Bruce Willis mention Exigent Circumstances in his movies?
 
2014-06-12 09:55:55 AM  
re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.
 
2014-06-12 09:56:15 AM  

JPINFV: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

They still have to figure out my pass code anyways.


If it turns out that they're free to search the phone when you're arrested, they may charge with obstruction if you don't provide the password.
 
2014-06-12 09:56:18 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

I'm kind of getting tired of Justice Kennedy's reputation as a swing voter.  Seems to me (without doing the research) that he has voted with the conservative block of the Court in every major decision over the last several years.


You've never met Mrs Kennedy.
 
2014-06-12 09:57:48 AM  

thamike: Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.


They often pale in comparison to union picket lines.

JPINFV: They still have to figure out my pass code anyways.


Police have access to automated devices that bypass pass codes.
 
2014-06-12 09:58:48 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


The white house should point out in its defense that the constitution sets out the things that are supposed to require 60 votes in the senate, and that appointments to bureaucracy are not among those things.
 
2014-06-12 09:58:55 AM  
Hobby Lobby case - I disagree, but I know which way court will go.
Recess Appointee: I don't care much. When congress becomes a total douche, there isn't any option really.
Abortion clinic: We restrict free speech in many places. I'll be really surprised if court somehow finds way to disagree with the defendant.
Cell phone: how is that even possible without violating the 4th? I don't know, but my guess is, they will.
Aereo: no way.
 
2014-06-12 09:59:15 AM  
But Justice Antonin Scalia, an , expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Fun Fact: anyone double parking, crossing the double yellow line, speeding or being black just might be a bomber and should have their phone confiscated and checked and rechecked.
 
2014-06-12 09:59:21 AM  
i think pro-choice activists should picket Eleanor McCullen's work and home with signs calling her a total coont, as is their First Amendment right.
 
2014-06-12 09:59:54 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.


define sufficient.  I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.
 
2014-06-12 10:00:37 AM  
An abortion protestor's right to free speech does not mean they can block access to a clinic and prevent a woman from exercising their right to an abortion.  Which is the point of having them stand on the other side of the street.

And if you've ever been to a clinic, you know damn well that the protestors "speech" carries over much more than thirty-five feet.
 
2014-06-12 10:02:40 AM  

Saiga410: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

define sufficient.  I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.


Sufficient: having enough probable cause that a judge signs a warrant.
 
2014-06-12 10:03:35 AM  

Lord_Baull: i think pro-choice activists should picket Eleanor McCullen's work and home with signs calling her a total coont, as is their First Amendment right.


The problem is that the people who would do that have jobs and lives, whereas that is her job and her life.
 
2014-06-12 10:04:44 AM  

Saiga410: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

define sufficient.  I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.


And if the police can prove they've got evidence of a crime and the information is on the phone, they can get a warrant to search the phone. They don't get to search whatever they want, whenever they want because someone "may have information" or is "highly likely to have evidence".
 
2014-06-12 10:04:58 AM  

RowdyRough: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

The white house should point out in its defense that the constitution sets out the things that are supposed to require 60 votes in the senate, and that appointments to bureaucracy are not among those things.


I do not think that was argued.  These have gone through oral, this is just waiting on judgements.
 
2014-06-12 10:05:36 AM  
The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

Outlook: grim for Massachusetts. Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk. That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.


Concerning abortion clinic protesters, there is no such thing a peaceful or quiet talk.
 
2014-06-12 10:05:41 AM  

Karac: An abortion protestor's right to free speech does not mean they can block access to a clinic and prevent a woman from exercising their right to an abortion.  Which is the point of having them stand on the other side of the street.

And if you've ever been to a clinic, you know damn well that the protestors "speech" carries over much more than thirty-five feet.


...neither of which matters, constitutionally.

My guess as to the outcome: They don't have the right to block the entrance, but they do have the right to stand right next to the entrance and shout obscenities at everybody coming and going.
 
2014-06-12 10:08:55 AM  

Saiga410: RowdyRough: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

The white house should point out in its defense that the constitution sets out the things that are supposed to require 60 votes in the senate, and that appointments to bureaucracy are not among those things.

I do not think that was argued.  These have gone through oral, this is just waiting on judgements.


Bummer, I guess I missed that these have already been argued.
 
2014-06-12 10:11:47 AM  

Geotpf: ..neither of which matters, constitutionally.


The first one does. You don't have a Constitutional right to prevent others from exercising their rights.
 
2014-06-12 10:13:07 AM  

Saiga410: These have gone through oral, this is just waiting on judgements spankings.


pet peeve
 
2014-06-12 10:13:55 AM  

Mikey1969: The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech. be a total coont.

Fixed that typo for them. See what happens when you fire all of the proofreaders and editors, people?


I'm interested to see if the outcome of this case could be used for/against so-called 'Free Speech Zones'.  If buffers around abortion clinics are ruled a violation of the first amendment, wouldn't the same also apply to those stupid zones?
 
2014-06-12 10:14:13 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: ginandbacon: You should maybe do a little research.

Other than DOMA, I honestly can't remember a decision he didn't vote with the conservatives over the past 5 years or so.  It's just an impression, though.


Unlike the conservatives, he considers international law in his rulings, which causes him to side with the liberals on anything involving prisons, habeas corpus and capital punishment.

And on some social issues he will break with the liberals.
 
2014-06-12 10:15:19 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


The appointments were blocked and unfilled from when the democrats blocked Bush from appointing certain judges.

Most of the empty judicial seats are carryovers from the Bush administration.
 
2014-06-12 10:15:25 AM  
I am so glad I don't live in the US.
 
2014-06-12 10:15:36 AM  
Contraception Mandate: 5-4 majority on whatever grounds Kennedy decides gives Hobby Lobby the power to not cover contraception, probably that they're an S corp.
Recess Appointments: 5-4 majority that the Senate decides when it is in recess and (possibly) that intrasession recesses do count as recesses for the clause.
Aereo: I have no clue because the case hinges on how well SCOTUS understands technology, and I don't have faith that they understand it very well.
Cell Phone Searches: Scalia-authored majority that these searches are unconstitutional without a warrant.
Abortion Clinic Buffers: 5-4 (possibly 6-3 or 7-2) that the buffers are unconstitutional. Potentially will get overturned in the future after an abortion clinic protestor assaults/murders a woman going in for an abortion.
 
2014-06-12 10:17:32 AM  

Ivandrago: Lord_Baull: i think pro-choice activists should picket Eleanor McCullen's work and home with signs calling her a total coont, as is their First Amendment right.

The problem is that the people who would do that have jobs and lives, whereas that is her job and her life.



Well, f*ck.
 
2014-06-12 10:17:48 AM  

Karac: The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

Outlook: grim for Massachusetts. Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk. That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

Concerning abortion clinic protesters, there is no such thing a peaceful or quiet talk.


There's an abortion clinic near my house; the protestors try to get as close and in the face of the women as legally allowed.
 
2014-06-12 10:17:50 AM  

sprawl15: Saiga410: These have gone through oral, this is just waiting on judgements spankings.

pet peeve


I thought the spankings came first for the crime of displaying a grail shaped beacon.
 
2014-06-12 10:21:42 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.
 
2014-06-12 10:22:26 AM  

JPINFV: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

They still have to figure out my pass code anyways.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-06-12 10:23:41 AM  

thamike: Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.


Plus, if they are going to let cops search phones because there is a tiny probability that someone may detonate a bomb, there is an even higher probability that physical violence with be done to the clinic, its workers, or its patients. Kind of a double standard, I think.
 
2014-06-12 10:24:21 AM  

Saiga410: sprawl15: Saiga410: These have gone through oral, this is just waiting on judgements spankings.

pet peeve

I thought the spankings came first for the crime of displaying a grail shaped beacon.


that appointment's still an open item
 
2014-06-12 10:24:39 AM  

Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.



Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.
 
2014-06-12 10:24:41 AM  
Over the last 5-10 years, I've lost all faith in, and respect for, the Supreme Court.  They've stopped being honest arbiters of what the Constitution says, and have become partisan hacks.

Scalia is the worst.  I don't wish death on people as a matter of course, so I'll just wish a debilitating but totally curable disease on him so he's forced to retire.
 
2014-06-12 10:26:42 AM  

DeaH: Plus, if they are going to let cops search phones because there is a tiny probability that someone may detonate a bomb, there is an even higher probability that physical violence with be done to the clinic, its workers, or its patients. Kind of a double standard, I think.


You act as if the Court's opinion will be based on the law, or logic, or reason.
 
2014-06-12 10:29:07 AM  

Serious Black: Aereo: I have no clue because the case hinges on how well SCOTUS understands technology, and I don't have faith that they understand it very well.


I disagree -- I think they completely understand the issue. It's pretty straightforward copyright law, which is why the lower courts have ruled in Aereo's favor.

The issue for SCOTUS is if they want to own the fallout of upholding the lower court's ruling, which would be the networks and especially sports leagues removing all of their content from broadcast TV and only making it available through cable.
 
2014-06-12 10:31:41 AM  
So it's all crap that won't help us as a society. Call me when the SCOTUS does something smart. Like get rid of Scalia.
 
2014-06-12 10:33:44 AM  

Slackfumasta: Mikey1969: The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech. be a total coont.

Fixed that typo for them. See what happens when you fire all of the proofreaders and editors, people?

I'm interested to see if the outcome of this case could be used for/against so-called 'Free Speech Zones'.  If buffers around abortion clinics are ruled a violation of the first amendment, wouldn't the same also apply to those stupid zones?


Good point... The 'Free Speech Zones' are often not even at the venue where the political activity is going on, while the abortion protesters ARE at the clinic. Maybe they'll keep Free Speech Zones and make the abortion protesters relocate like that? There really could be a link...

Regardless, what this chick wants to do is stop up and down emotionally on anyone's soul she can get ahold of, and she needs to be able to block the door to the abortion clinic to do so.
 
2014-06-12 10:38:08 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.
 
2014-06-12 10:44:36 AM  

Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.


Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.
 
2014-06-12 10:45:34 AM  

Lord_Baull: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.


Gotta love someone who resorts to name-calling when his argument has no merits.

Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

And no, President Obama is not the first President who has tried this maneuver.
 
2014-06-12 10:48:00 AM  

Gary-L: Lord_Baull: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Gotta love someone who resorts to name-calling when his argument has no merits.

Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

And no, President Obama is not the first President who has tried this maneuver.


And you believe the Supreme Court should abrogate itself the power to determine whether or not a house of Congress is in session?
 
2014-06-12 10:48:49 AM  

Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.


The problem is that the Constitution says Congress gets to write its own rules, and SCOTUS is reluctant to dictate to either branch how to interpret its powers (except when they start pissing on each other's lawns).

So it'll probably hinge on whether "Congress makes its own rules" means Congress can simply will itself into session, or whether - as you say - being "in session" is an objective state of being where Congress could conceivably conduct actual business. I'm hard-pressed to figure a way for SCOTUS to agree with Obama (other than maybe those bullshiat 5-second gavel-banging sessions); though I seem to recall a session of 3 voting to extend life support to a certain brain-dead Florida woman, and if Congress can empanel 3-member groups to conduct minor business and gavel a "session" in to do it, I doubt SCOTUS will say that's not a "real" session.

Too toe-steppy for the Legislature.
 
2014-06-12 10:49:38 AM  

Gary-L: Lord_Baull: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Gotta love someone who resorts to name-calling when his argument has no merits.

Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

And no, President Obama is not the first President who has tried this maneuver.



I wasn't calling you a name. I was referring to teabagger congressmen that don't understand their jobs. Stop getting defensive, get off your high horse and assuming regular people haven't read the Constitution. And as for all your pointless quotes, my originaI p0st was essentially calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would address congress' lack of job doin's.
 
2014-06-12 10:54:02 AM  
A picture of the cases involved:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-12 10:57:35 AM  
Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?
 
2014-06-12 11:00:29 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: ginandbacon: You should maybe do a little research.

Other than DOMA, I honestly can't remember a decision he didn't vote with the conservatives over the past 5 years or so.  It's just an impression, though.


Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, which was pretty strong on the liberal side. He's also gone along with the liberal side in quite a few criminal justice cases (things like capital punishment for minors and the mentally challenged).

Kennedy's thing is that he's either conservative or liberal on any given issue -- in contrast to Sandra Day O'Connor, who (for good or ill) thought both sides always had a point and sought out the mushy middle on everything. Kennedy, by contrast, will let you know where he stands. That's almost always on the conservative side on economic and regulatory issues.

On other issues, it's hard to pin him as conservative or liberal -- for example, he almost always comes down in favor of people exercising First Amendment rights, which led him to protect flag burners and that "bong hits 4 Jesus" kid, but also to join the Citizens United majority (and, I'm guessing, will lead him to join a 5-4 majority protecting abortion clinic protesters).
 
2014-06-12 11:02:45 AM  

qorkfiend: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Gotta love someone who resorts to name-calling when his argument has no merits.

Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

And no, President Obama is not the first President who has tried this maneuver.

And you believe the Supreme Court should abrogate itself the power to determine whether or not a house of Congress is in session?


In general, that sort of thing (determining the rules of procedure for a house of Congress) is considered a "political question" and the Supremes therefore announce they have no jurisdiction.
 
2014-06-12 11:03:04 AM  
Well, shiat. After posting, I looked up that "bong hits 4 Jesus" kid and found I was wrong about how Justice Kennedy voted. So, scratch that one. Still, Kennedy's reputation is generally for being pro-free speech.
 
2014-06-12 11:07:15 AM  

qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


They may have granted cert after the DC Circuit's opinion ruled that the president could only make recess appointments during intersession recesses AND that only vacancies that opened during such intersession recesses could be fill with recess appointments.
 
2014-06-12 11:07:27 AM  

Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?


Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.
 
2014-06-12 11:11:58 AM  

thornhill: Serious Black: Aereo: I have no clue because the case hinges on how well SCOTUS understands technology, and I don't have faith that they understand it very well.

I disagree -- I think they completely understand the issue. It's pretty straightforward copyright law, which is why the lower courts have ruled in Aereo's favor.

The issue for SCOTUS is if they want to own the fallout of upholding the lower court's ruling, which would be the networks and especially sports leagues removing all of their content from broadcast TV and only making it available through cable.


Yeah. It's pretty clear to everyone involved (including Aereo, though their lawyer wouldn't admit it during oral arguments) that Aereo is taking advantage of a legal loophole created by the earlier Cablevision case. It's even mentioned in the article:
Outlook: trouble for Aereo. Justices appeared to agree that Aereo was taking advantage of a kink in the law that didn't anticipate the advent of new technologies that the startup is utilizing.

Thing is, if there's a kink in the law, then that's Congress' job to address, not SCOTUS. But, sadly, I don't see them making the right decision, which would be to say that this violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it, and affirm the 2nd Circuit with a pointed suggestion to Congress that they get their thumbs out of their asses and fix the loophole.
 
2014-06-12 11:14:05 AM  

Gary-L: Lord_Baull: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Gotta love someone who resorts to name-calling when his argument has no merits.

Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

And no, President Obama is not the first President who has tried this maneuver.


So can a chamber of Congress make a rule that says they are officially in session with a single member in the room banging the gavel? I ask this because the immediately prior clause to this one says "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."
 
2014-06-12 11:14:13 AM  

Geotpf: qorkfiend: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: Gary-L: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Teabaggers should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Gotta love someone who resorts to name-calling when his argument has no merits.

Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

And no, President Obama is not the first President who has tried this maneuver.

And you believe the Supreme Court should abrogate itself the power to determine whether or not a house of Congress is in session?

In general, that sort of thing (determining the rules of procedure for a house of Congress) is considered a "political question" and the Supremes therefore announce they have no jurisdiction.


Right, which is why I was more than a little surprised that the Court agreed to hear the case.
 
2014-06-12 11:15:34 AM  

Gary-L: Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."


But if the House's rules say that they're never "in Recess", then does Art. 2, §2, cl. 3 have any meaning? Did the Founders intend that power to be de facto willed away?
 
2014-06-12 11:16:40 AM  

qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Going forward this is going to be needed.  The Exec and Legis branches couldn't decide, so the SCOTUS must set a precedent.
 
2014-06-12 11:17:47 AM  
In what sane secular country would a women's health be held secondary to a faith based disagreement?

Oh, wait, I answered my own question.
 
2014-06-12 11:18:49 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


But but, then what will the right wing do to meet their quota of being total hypocrites?  I mean this gives them so much of their quota, they can complain about how he doesn't fill necessary seats, and complain about when he has to assign temporary powers to a "Zar" outside of their review and complain about how departments are scandel filled when leadership positions are empty and then there is the ultimate hypocrisy of complaining he doesn't enforce laws he doesn't like all while filibustering any vacancies for Labor Relations Boards and EPA departments because they don't like the lawful enforcement of those laws.

I mean seriously do you know how much they would have to do to fill their quota's without such a handy too? They already took such a huge hit due to the nuclear option, if we did that they'd be forever crippled in their capabilities of crippling the power of the president to do his job.
 
2014-06-12 11:19:55 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.

Going forward this is going to be needed.  The Exec and Legis branches couldn't decide, so the SCOTUS must set a precedent.


Disagree strongly.
 
2014-06-12 11:22:47 AM  

Snarfangel: A picture of the cases involved:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]


Someone likes Winco.
 
2014-06-12 11:24:36 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: But Justice Antonin Scalia expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Someone's been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.


Keep in mind his reasoning behind justifying torture.  He thinks 24 is a documentary that we need to base our legal system on.
 
2014-06-12 11:24:55 AM  

asquian: It occurs to me that, by default, EVERY case that faces the Supreme Court is huge. Whether or not it will directly affect someone would likely account for individual perceptions of the hugeness of the case, of course.


Not particularly. Many are simple clarifications, but those tend not to get big press.

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


Talk to Harry Reid. He's the one who invented pro forma sessions.

Karac: Saiga410: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

define sufficient.  I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.

Sufficient: having enough probable cause that a judge signs a warrant.


More along the lines of the public safety exception to Miranda. They must have reasonable suspicion that an imminent threat exists that examining the phone can prevent.

qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.
 
2014-06-12 11:26:02 AM  

qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.


The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.
 
2014-06-12 11:28:17 AM  

ArkAngel: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.


I ask you the same question I posed earlier: can Congress create a rule that says they are in session when there is no feasible way for Congress to actually conduct business according to the quorum rules?
 
2014-06-12 11:30:21 AM  

Geotpf: The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.


No, they're just shareholders.  If they wanted more control, they should have kept it as a LLC or even sole ownership.

Hate the legal hoops we let people go through so that they can still "own" a corporation without "owning" it.
 
2014-06-12 11:30:42 AM  

Geotpf: The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.


That being said, what business do they have determining how their employees interact with a third party company?  You might have a point if the owners of the Hobby Lobby actually had to go to the drug store and purchase birth control pills for their female employees.  But that's not the case.  They're engaging a private insurance company to administer the health care costs of the employees, the owners of the Hobby Lobby shouldn't even have knowledge of the medical concerns of their staff.
 
2014-06-12 11:31:52 AM  

qorkfiend: Cat Food Sandwiches: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.

Going forward this is going to be needed.  The Exec and Legis branches couldn't decide, so the SCOTUS must set a precedent.

Disagree strongly.


The executive branch says the law means one thing.
The legislative branch says it means something else.

Who do you think should solve this conundrum?  A magic eight ball?
 
2014-06-12 11:32:21 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: They often pale in comparison to union picket lines.


Yes, lots of white folks.
 
2014-06-12 11:33:43 AM  

Serious Black: ArkAngel: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.

I ask you the same question I posed earlier: can Congress create a rule that says they are in session when there is no feasible way for Congress to actually conduct business according to the quorum rules?


Yes, because the Constitution gives them that power. Federal courts and the Executive branch have no power to change Congressional rules
 
2014-06-12 11:34:27 AM  

DeaH: thamike: Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.

Plus, if they are going to let cops search phones because there is a tiny probability that someone may detonate a bomb, there is an even higher probability that physical violence with be done to the clinic, its workers, or its patients. Kind of a double standard, I think.


Uh, I wasn't even talking about the cell phone searches.
 
2014-06-12 11:37:24 AM  

Saiga410: I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.


Freedom of association? I think "associating with this group means we don't need a warrant to search you" may be a wee bit unconstitutional.
 
2014-06-12 11:39:02 AM  

Theaetetus: thornhill: Serious Black: Aereo: I have no clue because the case hinges on how well SCOTUS understands technology, and I don't have faith that they understand it very well.

I disagree -- I think they completely understand the issue. It's pretty straightforward copyright law, which is why the lower courts have ruled in Aereo's favor.

The issue for SCOTUS is if they want to own the fallout of upholding the lower court's ruling, which would be the networks and especially sports leagues removing all of their content from broadcast TV and only making it available through cable.

Yeah. It's pretty clear to everyone involved (including Aereo, though their lawyer wouldn't admit it during oral arguments) that Aereo is taking advantage of a legal loophole created by the earlier Cablevision case. It's even mentioned in the article:
Outlook: trouble for Aereo. Justices appeared to agree that Aereo was taking advantage of a kink in the law that didn't anticipate the advent of new technologies that the startup is utilizing.

Thing is, if there's a kink in the law, then that's Congress' job to address, not SCOTUS. But, sadly, I don't see them making the right decision, which would be to say that this violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it, and affirm the 2nd Circuit with a pointed suggestion to Congress that they get their thumbs out of their asses and fix the loophole.


Yeah, it's an issue for Congress.

But I imagine they also don't want to own the issue. Anything involving TV is something all voters care about. And on the flip side, the media companies are huge campaign contributors.

You see the same thing with Net Nuetrality. Congress wants to mess with people's Netflix, but Comcast donates a crap ton of money.
 
2014-06-12 11:39:46 AM  

ArkAngel: Karac: Saiga410: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing. Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

define sufficient. I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge. That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone. The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.

Sufficient: having enough probable cause that a judge signs a warrant.

More along the lines of the public safety exception to Miranda. They must have reasonable suspicion that an imminent threat exists that examining the phone can prevent.


In one of the cases as question, Riley v. California, the cops pulled a guy over, found some guns in the car, and decided to root around in his cell phone because why the hell not?  No exigent circumstances or imminent threat there.
 
2014-06-12 11:41:42 AM  

Geotpf: qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.

The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.


A company cannot have a religion, nor should its owners be able to force theirs upon the employees.
 
2014-06-12 11:42:36 AM  

ArkAngel: Serious Black: ArkAngel: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.

I ask you the same question I posed earlier: can Congress create a rule that says they are in session when there is no feasible way for Congress to actually conduct business according to the quorum rules?

Yes, because the Constitution gives them that power. Federal courts and the Executive branch have no power to change Congressional rules


Black's argument is that the constitution says that they have to have a quorum to do business.  Therefore, if they've adjourned, and they don't have a quorum because only one guy's showing up, then they don't have a quorum to reopen for business, and are therefore still adjourned.

Each house can make their own rules, but those rules still have to abide by the ones set out in the constitution.
 
2014-06-12 11:44:30 AM  

ArkAngel: Serious Black: ArkAngel: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.

I ask you the same question I posed earlier: can Congress create a rule that says they are in session when there is no feasible way for Congress to actually conduct business according to the quorum rules?

Yes, because the Constitution gives them that power. Federal courts and the Executive branch have no power to change Congressional rules


Under this reading of Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, Congress today can rule that they are never out of session except for the very brief moment after one session ends on January 3 at 12:00:00 pm and the next one begins on January 3 at 12:00:30 pm. In effect, that would make the Recess Appointment Clause completely useless. Do you propose that the Framers of the Constitution wanted Congress to be able to effectively amend the Constitution and strike that clause without going through the supermajority-required amendment process?
 
2014-06-12 11:45:54 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: But Justice Antonin Scalia expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Someone's been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.


Ahhh the old 24 defense.... Anything is legal if the clock is ticking.
 
2014-06-12 11:49:06 AM  

Karac: Black's argument is that the constitution says that they have to have a quorum to do business. Therefore, if they've adjourned, and they don't have a quorum because only one guy's showing up, then they don't have a quorum to reopen for business, and are therefore still adjourned.

Each house can make their own rules, but those rules still have to abide by the ones set out in the constitution.


Yes, that's the jist of my argument. But to be perfectly clear, I don't mean to suggest that Congress is in recess when everyone has left for the day and is coming in the next day. In that case, if somebody made a quorum call, it wouldn't take more than a couple of hours for enough people to show up that they could do business. But if virtually every one of the chamber's members was away from DC, it would presently be impossible for those members to respond to a quorum call in sufficient numbers to conduct business since we don't have Star Trek transporters or Harry Potter apparators.
 
2014-06-12 11:50:18 AM  

Theaetetus: Saiga410: I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.

Freedom of association? I think "associating with this group means we don't need a warrant to search you" may be a wee bit unconstitutional.


Or better yet: Saiga, was is the need for police to do it RIGHT THEN.  If he's already in custody, what's the exigent circumstances to search the phone?  Why would you even suspect the phone would have information on the gun or an unrelated crime?  You can get a warrant to search the phone with a phone call or do it back on the station.

No one is disputing the right to search the phone of someone in custody, it's just that we'd like them to at least have a warrant to do so.
 
2014-06-12 11:51:40 AM  

Karac: ArkAngel: Karac: Saiga410: State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing. Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.

define sufficient. I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge. That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone. The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.

Sufficient: having enough probable cause that a judge signs a warrant.

More along the lines of the public safety exception to Miranda. They must have reasonable suspicion that an imminent threat exists that examining the phone can prevent.

In one of the cases as question, Riley v. California, the cops pulled a guy over, found some guns in the car, and decided to root around in his cell phone because why the hell not?  No exigent circumstances or imminent threat there.


No, so the evidence should be thrown out.

Karac: ArkAngel: Serious Black: ArkAngel: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.

I ask you the same question I posed earlier: can Congress create a rule that says they are in session when there is no feasible way for Congress to actually conduct business according to the quorum rules?

Yes, because the Constitution gives them that power. Federal courts and the Executive branch have no power to change Congressional rules

Black's argument is that the constitution says that they have to have a quorum to do business.  Therefore, if they've adjourned, and they don't have a quorum because only one guy's showing up, then they don't have a quorum to reopen for business, and are therefore still adjourned.

Each house can make their own rule ...


Congress can be in session and not be able to do business.

Serious Black: ArkAngel: Serious Black: ArkAngel: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

I agree with this sentiment, though this choice would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS can do. If I were in the court, I'd base my ruling on the quorum rules. Regardless of whether Congress has declared it is in session or not, are there enough people present in the Senate to conduct regular business? If so, then they're in session. If not, they can't do anything, so they aren't in session.

Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session. I'm more than a little surprised that they agreed to hear the case.


Except lower courts have already ruled. What they should do is invalidate the appointments under Article I, Section 5, which states that each house of Congress has sole control of it's own rules.

I ask you the same question I posed earlier: can Congress create a rule that says they are in session when there is no feasible way for Congress to actually conduct business according to the quorum rules?

Yes, because the Constitution gives them that power. Federal courts and the Executive branch have no power to change Congressional rules

Under this reading of Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, Congress today can rule that they are never out of session except for the very brief moment after one session ends on January 3 at 12:00:00 pm and the next one begins on January 3 at 12:00:30 pm. In effect, that would make the Recess Appointment Clause completely ...


No, but there's plenty the Founders never intended that our government now does.
 
2014-06-12 11:51:58 AM  

thamike: Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.


Nor inside....Flowbee's are noisy...
 
2014-06-12 11:52:40 AM  

Geotpf: qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.

The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.


Are they not registered as a corporation? I don't see any reason they should be treated any differently from any other corporation, regardless of whether or not the owners are members of a single family. The family, after all, is still free to practice their religious beliefs. They just can't a) transfer those beliefs (or, more accurately, a carefully selected subset of those beliefs that just happen to exempt them from their responsibilities under the law) to the corporation and claim that the corporation holds them sincerely and b) enforce those beliefs on their employees.
 
2014-06-12 11:55:19 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


Congress's job is not to rubber-stamp Obama's appointments.....which is what you want.
 
2014-06-12 11:55:46 AM  

Serious Black: it would presently be impossible for those members to respond to a quorum call in sufficient numbers to conduct business since we don't have Star Trek transporters or Harry Potter apparators.


Out of the 435 voting members of the House of representatives, 283 of them are from states that are east of Kansas City. That's more than a majority, and with charter jets, you could get all 283 of them back to DC in a matter of hours. Perhaps I am mistaken, but does the constitution or other statute stipulate how long a quorom call can last before it is determined to have failed?
 
2014-06-12 11:58:29 AM  

Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.


The job isn't only to approve. It's also to disapprove. Either way Congress is doing its job.
 
2014-06-12 11:59:01 AM  
So how about this for confirming cabinet members and various executive branch jobs.

If there is no up or down vote within 90 days, they can serve until the Senate says otherwise.

That wouldn't work for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, but at least it would be something.
 
2014-06-12 11:59:45 AM  

ArkAngel: Congress can be in session and not be able to do business.


Except that's not what we're talking about.  They weren't in session, they were starting the session.

If you define "going into session" as "doing business", then the one guy they had show up to start a session and immediately adjourn in less than a minute never the authority to start the session which prevented the recess appointments.
 
2014-06-12 12:03:57 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Serious Black: it would presently be impossible for those members to respond to a quorum call in sufficient numbers to conduct business since we don't have Star Trek transporters or Harry Potter apparators.

Out of the 435 voting members of the House of representatives, 283 of them are from states that are east of Kansas City. That's more than a majority, and with charter jets, you could get all 283 of them back to DC in a matter of hours. Perhaps I am mistaken, but does the constitution or other statute stipulate how long a quorom call can last before it is determined to have failed?


I believe both chambers' rules currently say a quorum call, much like the roll call for a vote on a resolution, lasts fifteen minutes.
 
2014-06-12 12:04:30 PM  

xkillyourfacex: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

The job isn't only to approve. It's also to disapprove. Either way Congress is doing its job.



They are doing neither.
 
2014-06-12 12:07:53 PM  

ferretman: thamike: Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.

Nor inside....Flowbee's are noisy...


Don't even get me started on the Cuisinart mixers.
 
2014-06-12 12:09:34 PM  

Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Serious Black: it would presently be impossible for those members to respond to a quorum call in sufficient numbers to conduct business since we don't have Star Trek transporters or Harry Potter apparators.

Out of the 435 voting members of the House of representatives, 283 of them are from states that are east of Kansas City. That's more than a majority, and with charter jets, you could get all 283 of them back to DC in a matter of hours. Perhaps I am mistaken, but does the constitution or other statute stipulate how long a quorom call can last before it is determined to have failed?

I believe both chambers' rules currently say a quorum call, much like the roll call for a vote on a resolution, lasts fifteen minutes.


So, even if all of the members were in the immediate DC area, it might take more than 15 minutes to get a majority required for a quorum.
 
2014-06-12 12:11:24 PM  

Theaetetus: Gary-L: Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

But if the House's rules say that they're never "in Recess", then does Art. 2, §2, cl. 3 have any meaning? Did the Founders intend that power to be de facto willed away?


I don't understand why this isn't the crux of the argument. Congress gets to pass a procedural rule that invalidates a portion of the constitution? Sounds incredibly fishy...
 
2014-06-12 12:13:30 PM  
I fully expect religious views to win out on the contraception and abortion clinic cases. And, I fully expect Scalia to throw away privacy because OMG TERRORISTS!
 
2014-06-12 12:17:10 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Geotpf: The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.

No, they're just shareholders.  If they wanted more control, they should have kept it as a LLC or even sole ownership.

Hate the legal hoops we let people go through so that they can still "own" a corporation without "owning" it.


Here's the part I don't get. The Hobby Lobby case is (as far as I understand it) that the owners don't want their money paying for something that their beliefs say is wrong.

But it isn't their money. It's the corporation's money. Just as the corporation's debts are not their debts - that separation of liability is (as I understand it as a non-lawyer) pretty much the whole reason for incorporating.

If it was some kind of general partnership then sure, it's their money. But it's not. You want the corporate veil to shield you from liability, then the funds held by the corporation are not yours. Same reason the Rigas family got in trouble with Adelphia - they were using corporate funds for personal use, and it wasn't their money.

But if it was that cut and dried, this wouldn't be before SCOTUS, so I must be missing something.
 
2014-06-12 12:17:14 PM  

Antimatter: Geotpf: qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.

The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.

A company cannot have a religion, nor should its owners be able to force theirs upon the employees.


Yeah, but a person can.  And a person can run a business.  And that person, while performing his business, can refuse to do things contrary to his religion.

The issue here (legally) is if you get a few people to run a business who all have the same beliefs, do they lose the rights to their religious beliefs merely because more than one person owns the business?  I'm guessing the Supremes will say no.  I'm also guessing this will be limited to closely held companies where all the owners share the same religious beliefs (IE, not publicly traded companies).
 
2014-06-12 12:20:48 PM  

thamike: DeaH: thamike: Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.

Plus, if they are going to let cops search phones because there is a tiny probability that someone may detonate a bomb, there is an even higher probability that physical violence with be done to the clinic, its workers, or its patients. Kind of a double standard, I think.

Uh, I wasn't even talking about the cell phone searches.


No, but the courts are hearing both cases. The logic of one does not jibe with the logic of another. If we can majorly infringe on the 4th Amendment because of a miniscule risk of violence, why can't we we say, "Have all the free speech you want, as stated in the 1st Amendment, just do it 37 feet away from the clinic because there is a large risk of violence."
 
2014-06-12 12:22:09 PM  

qorkfiend: Geotpf: qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.

The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.

Are they not registered as a corporation? I don't see any reason they should be treated any differently from any other corporation, regardless of whether or not the owners are members of a single family. The family, after all, is still free to practice their religious beliefs. They just can't a) transfer those beliefs (or, more accurately, a carefully selected subset of those beliefs that just happen to exempt them from their responsibilities under the law) to the corporation and claim that the corporation holds them sincerely and b) enforce those beliefs on their employees.


Under this logic, if a guy runs a business, and doesn't incorporate, his religion matters; but if the same person incorporates the same business, he has to ignore his religious beliefs.

I just can't see the Supremes ruling that merely becoming an LLC or S Corp means you lose your First Amendment rights in terms of the business.

(Obviously, then there's the second step from "one" person to "a few" people, but I don't think that will matter either, assuming everybody in "a few" has the same religious beliefs.)
 
2014-06-12 12:22:35 PM  

thornhill: Karac: The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

Outlook: grim for Massachusetts. Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk. That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

Concerning abortion clinic protesters, there is no such thing a peaceful or quiet talk.

There's an abortion clinic near my house; the protestors try to get as close and in the face of the women as legally allowed.


http://tosh.cc.com/video-clips/3qeh02/tosh-s-beats-by-dre-commercial
 
2014-06-12 12:23:14 PM  

BMFPitt: So how about this for confirming cabinet members and various executive branch jobs.

If there is no up or down vote within 90 days, they can serve until the Senate says otherwise.

That wouldn't work for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, but at least it would be something.


That's a fine rule, but the argument is over what the constitution says.  You would need to amend it to change it.
 
2014-06-12 12:23:56 PM  

ferretman: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

Congress's job is not to rubber-stamp Obama's appointments.....which is what you want.


Couldn't be more wrong.

Their job is to put appointments up for a vote, which they are refusing to do because they know the person will be confirmed or they will be made out to be obstructionist asshats when their reasons for not confirming are shown to be nonsense partisan hackers.

So they hold up the vote.

Care to try again?
 
2014-06-12 12:24:32 PM  
Outlook: bad for the White House. Justices liberal and conservative were very skeptical that the president can define pro forma sessions as "recess" when the Senate does not define them so. If the justices agree with an appeals court decision, the power could be curtailed even further.


If they rule against Obama would the appointments made stand?
 
2014-06-12 12:26:01 PM  

PawisBetlog: ferretman: Lord_Baull: re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.

Congress's job is not to rubber-stamp Obama's appointments.....which is what you want.

Couldn't be more wrong.

Their job is to put appointments up for a vote, which they are refusing to do because they know the person will be confirmed or they will be made out to be obstructionist asshats when their reasons for not confirming are shown to be nonsense partisan hackers.

So they hold up the vote.

Care to try again?


Hackery

Stupid autocorrect
 
2014-06-12 12:26:15 PM  

PawisBetlog: Theaetetus: Gary-L: Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

But if the House's rules say that they're never "in Recess", then does Art. 2, §2, cl. 3 have any meaning? Did the Founders intend that power to be de facto willed away?

I don't understand why this isn't the crux of the argument. Congress gets to pass a procedural rule that invalidates a portion of the constitution? Sounds incredibly fishy...


Congress, at the time, had to deal with part-time Congressmen. Men who went home after the session and took up their regular jobs, only to convene at certain points in time. Recess appointments permitted the President to appoint someone in this time frame rather than waiting months for Congress to reconvene. Now that Congressman is a full time job, perhaps the recess appointments clause is unnecessary as it pertains to how it originally operated. Members can be compelled to return to the chamber and can do so quite quickly. The members were compelled to return in 2005 by a certain date and time. There is no reason to believe that they could not be recalled again.

The recess appointment clause has been used, by both sides, rather judiciously to appoint persons that the executive feels could not pass the Senate's advice and consent. It is more of a political tool than a necessary one now.
 
2014-06-12 12:27:17 PM  

Geotpf: BMFPitt: So how about this for confirming cabinet members and various executive branch jobs.

If there is no up or down vote within 90 days, they can serve until the Senate says otherwise.

That wouldn't work for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, but at least it would be something.

That's a fine rule, but the argument is over what the constitution says.  You would need to amend it to change it.


If the Senate is allowed to make a rule saying that they're in session when one person comes into the chamber, bangs a gavel one minute to open, and bangs it again the next to close, then why can't the Senate make a rule that they've provided consent for a nominee's appointment if there is no up-or-down vote from the full chamber within X number of days from their submission to the relevant committee?
 
2014-06-12 12:27:38 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Now that Congressman is a full time job


BWAHAHAHAHAH!
 
2014-06-12 12:27:46 PM  

DeaH: No, but the courts are hearing both cases.


Which still doesn't mean that one has f*ck-all to do with the other.
 
2014-06-12 12:28:27 PM  

MisterRonbo: Here's the part I don't get. The Hobby Lobby case is (as far as I understand it) that the owners don't want their money paying for something that their beliefs say is wrong.

But it isn't their money. It's the corporation's money. Just as the corporation's debts are not their debts - that separation of liability is (as I understand it as a non-lawyer) pretty much the whole reason for incorporating.


i'm pretty sure i remember reading something saying the case being made by hobby lobby is that the corporation itself has religious freedom that is being infringed

i'll have to do some digging to verify, could just be shiatty blogs
 
2014-06-12 12:28:50 PM  

Geotpf: The issue here (legally) is if you get a few people to run a business who all have the same beliefs, do they lose the rights to their religious beliefs merely because more than one person owns the business?


This line of argument is complete bullshiat. Someone who can't enforce their personal religious beliefs on their employees through a corporation hasn't lost anything. They are still free to practice their personal religious beliefs without interference.

Geotpf: he has to ignore his religious beliefs.


Um, no. He doesn't have to ignore anything, unless you're suggesting that someone who incorporates somehow loses the right to practice their personal religion. What he can't do is transfer his religious beliefs to a separate organization that he has created specifically to separate himself from his business.
 
2014-06-12 12:31:17 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Theaetetus: Saiga410: I think the case in hand was a known gang member and a simple traffic stop that led to a firearms charge.  That might be sufficient with a long chain of whatifs and maybe to explain the actions to jailbreak the phone.  The person is highly likely to have evidence of a crime and may had information on where they got the gun.

Freedom of association? I think "associating with this group means we don't need a warrant to search you" may be a wee bit unconstitutional.

Or better yet: Saiga, was is the need for police to do it RIGHT THEN.  If he's already in custody, what's the exigent circumstances to search the phone?  Why would you even suspect the phone would have information on the gun or an unrelated crime?  You can get a warrant to search the phone with a phone call or do it back on the station.

No one is disputing the right to search the phone of someone in custody, it's just that we'd like them to at least have a warrant to do so.


Actually they did not do it right then.  They booked him and then later in the day decided to rifle the phone.  I think the state is in the bad on this one but a definition of what the circumstances are to search the phone are needed.
 
2014-06-12 12:33:30 PM  

Geotpf: Antimatter: Geotpf: qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.

The issue that might sway things here is that Hobby Lobby is apparently a closely held, family-owned company, whose owners apparently all have the same religious beliefs.

A company cannot have a religion, nor should its owners be able to force theirs upon the employees.

Yeah, but a person can.  And a person can run a business.  And that person, while performing his business, can refuse to do things contrary to his religion.

The issue here (legally) is if you get a few people to run a business who all have the same beliefs, do they lose the rights to their religious beliefs merely because more than one person owns the business?  I'm guessing the Supremes will say no.  I'm also guessing this will be limited to closely held companies where all the owners share the same religious beliefs (IE, not publicly traded companies).


If you cannot preform the actions of your business, you don't need to be in business.  You cannot use your faith to deny other peoples rights or access to medical care.  The cooperation has a responsibility to its employees, regardless of the faith of the person filling out the paperwork.
 
2014-06-12 12:33:46 PM  

Karac: The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

Outlook: grim for Massachusetts. Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk. That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

Concerning abortion clinic protesters, there is no such thing a peaceful or quiet talk.


maybe some of those women,doctors or nurses need to stand their ground if they feel threatened.
 
2014-06-12 12:36:04 PM  

sprawl15: MisterRonbo: Here's the part I don't get. The Hobby Lobby case is (as far as I understand it) that the owners don't want their money paying for something that their beliefs say is wrong.

But it isn't their money. It's the corporation's money. Just as the corporation's debts are not their debts - that separation of liability is (as I understand it as a non-lawyer) pretty much the whole reason for incorporating.

i'm pretty sure i remember reading something saying the case being made by hobby lobby is that the corporation itself has religious freedom that is being infringed

i'll have to do some digging to verify, could just be shiatty blogs


nailed it dot jpg

from reading the first few pages of argument, clemens comes right out the gate arguing that corporations should be considered persons under the RFRA
 
2014-06-12 12:36:05 PM  

MisterRonbo: Here's the part I don't get. The Hobby Lobby case is (as far as I understand it) that the owners don't want their money paying for something that their beliefs say is wrong.

But it isn't their money. It's the corporation's money. Just as the corporation's debts are not their debts - that separation of liability is (as I understand it as a non-lawyer) pretty much the whole reason for incorporating.

If it was some kind of general partnership then sure, it's their money. But it's not. You want the corporate veil to shield you from liability, then the funds held by the corporation are not yours. Same reason the Rigas family got in trouble with Adelphia - they were using corporate funds for personal use, and it wasn't their money.

But if it was that cut and dried, this wouldn't be before SCOTUS, so I must be missing something.


Like I said, I dislike the fact we allow "fake" corporations to exist.  They behave exactly like they were still a sole ownership but with all the legal protections of being a corp.  They run the businesses like a sole ownership, they take the profits like them, but anything negative happens and they're just a corporation, they swear!

I guarantee you that Hobby Lobby's owners are using corporate money for their own benefit, because as far as they're concerned it's THEIR money.  They just have to be smart enough to disguise it as "compensation" for their jobs with the corp.

qorkfiend: Geotpf: The issue here (legally) is if you get a few people to run a business who all have the same beliefs, do they lose the rights to their religious beliefs merely because more than one person owns the business?

This line of argument is complete bullshiat. Someone who can't enforce their personal religious beliefs on their employees through a corporation hasn't lost anything. They are still free to practice their personal religious beliefs without interference.


And to add on:
Under that logic, were do you draw the line of how much control you have over your employees use of compensation?
 
2014-06-12 12:37:18 PM  

thamike: DeaH: No, but the courts are hearing both cases.

Which still doesn't mean that one has f*ck-all to do with the other.


Really? Cases that deal with the Bill of Rights in relation to violence have nothing to do with each other? Logic is logic. Deciding to bend or break an amendment because there is a threat of violence is the same kind of thinking, sets the same kind of precedence. If the justices are willing to break the 4th Amendment (actually remove the protection) because, at some point in the future, a violent event might happen, they damned well better use that same precedent to bend the 1st (no one is stopping her free speech - just asking her to move 37 feet to do it, where it can still be seen and heard) because actual violence has already happened - a lot.

To pretend there is no relationship between these two cases is obtuse to the point of absurdity.
 
2014-06-12 12:38:53 PM  

jst3p: Outlook: bad for the White House. Justices liberal and conservative were very skeptical that the president can define pro forma sessions as "recess" when the Senate does not define them so. If the justices agree with an appeals court decision, the power could be curtailed even further.


If they rule against Obama would the appointments made stand?


The appointments shouldnt and all the rule and regs developed under them should also be thrown out.....  but that is an even larger furrball so they are going to punt and Bush v Gore it and say just this one time the rulings and regs stand while the appointees are no longer serving.
 
2014-06-12 12:39:36 PM  

sprawl15: arguing that corporations should be considered persons under the RFRA


Absent contextual definitions to the contrary, US statutes revert to the "Dictionary Clause," 1 USC 1, which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-
...the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;


So, unless there is a definition within RFRA to define persons, it reverts to the standard definition of person, which includes corporations. To my knowledge, RFRA does not define persons.
 
2014-06-12 12:41:01 PM  
5 issues that don't mean squat but to a handful of folks.
 
2014-06-12 12:44:19 PM  

ArkAngel: Talk to Harry Reid. He's the one who invented pro forma sessions.


Moooooom!  He hit me first!
 
2014-06-12 12:45:45 PM  

Mercutio74: That being said, what business do they have determining how their employees interact with a third party company? You might have a point if the owners of the Hobby Lobby actually had to go to the drug store and purchase birth control pills for their female employees. But that's not the case. They're engaging a private insurance company to administer the health care costs of the employees, the owners of the Hobby Lobby shouldn't even have knowledge of the medical concerns of their staff.


They don't, but that isnt the question being asked in this case.  You are supposing a scenario where one group infringes another group's right to healthcare.  The problem is that under the law of the US, there is no such right to healthcare.

Instead the issue is this - can the government force a group to do something that that group says is against their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Note, the employees are not in this equation, because of the way obamacare is written they are not granted any rights.  Companies are instead given an obligation to provide insurance covering certain treatments, including those that the company feels are violative of their faith.

Which is, alas, yet another reason why Single Payer would have been a better idea
 
2014-06-12 12:46:19 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: PawisBetlog: Theaetetus: Gary-L: Article 1, Section 5. Clause 2:  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3:  The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Each House determines its rules.  The Executive office cannot tell a House, "Hey, you guys were recessed so what I say goes."

But if the House's rules say that they're never "in Recess", then does Art. 2, §2, cl. 3 have any meaning? Did the Founders intend that power to be de facto willed away?

I don't understand why this isn't the crux of the argument. Congress gets to pass a procedural rule that invalidates a portion of the constitution? Sounds incredibly fishy...

Congress, at the time, had to deal with part-time Congressmen. Men who went home after the session and took up their regular jobs, only to convene at certain points in time. Recess appointments permitted the President to appoint someone in this time frame rather than waiting months for Congress to reconvene. Now that Congressman is a full time job, perhaps the recess appointments clause is unnecessary as it pertains to how it originally operated. Members can be compelled to return to the chamber and can do so quite quickly. The members were compelled to return in 2005 by a certain date and time. There is no reason to believe that they could not be recalled again.

The recess appointment clause has been used, by both sides, rather judiciously to appoint persons that the executive feels could not pass the Senate's advice and consent. It is more of a political tool than a necessary one now.


Sure, I'd agree that the original purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is fairly irrelevant now that being in Congress is a full-time job and members of Congress can feasibly return to DC to conduct business within a day or two.

But consider the Electoral College. It was originally designed as a way to get the slave and free states on board together when slave states wanted to count their slaves for apportionment but not for voting and free states didn't want them to count for apportionment if they couldn't vote. That original purpose is completely irrelevant today now that the Thirteenth Amendment has banned slavery. Try to get rid of the Electoral College and you'll hear all kinds of arguments for why it's still necessary today that were never once brought up during talks about ratification.

I think the ability to make recess appointments is still necessary in cases where Congress simply refuses to hold an up-or-down vote on a nominee and leaves the position empty, like we saw with the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the seats on the DC Circuit Court. That denies the executive branch the ability to carry out the duly passed and signed laws of the country which is its constitutional duty.
 
2014-06-12 12:46:55 PM  

qorkfiend: Um, no. He doesn't have to ignore anything, unless you're suggesting that someone who incorporates somehow loses the right to practice their personal religion. What he can't do is transfer his religious beliefs to a separate organization that he has created specifically to separate himself from his business.


Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business?  I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.
 
2014-06-12 12:47:41 PM  

DeaH: Really? Cases that deal with the Bill of Rights in relation to violence have nothing to do with each other? Logic is logic. Deciding to bend or break an amendment because there is a threat of violence is the same kind of thinking, sets the same kind of precedence. If the justices are willing to break the 4th Amendment (actually remove the protection) because, at some point in the future, a violent event might happen, they damned well better use that same precedent to bend the 1st (no one is stopping her free speech - just asking her to move 37 feet to do it, where it can still be seen and heard) because actual violence has already happened - a lot.

To pretend there is no relationship between these two cases is obtuse to the point of absurdity.


There is nothing about how you are trying to change the subject of my post that has to do with my post.  You want to make a statement?  Make it on your own and stop riding mine.
 
2014-06-12 12:48:19 PM  

Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.


As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.
 
2014-06-12 12:49:03 PM  

MisterRonbo: But if it was that cut and dried, this wouldn't be before SCOTUS, so I must be missing something.


Unlike Adelphia, Hobby Lobby isn't a publicly traded company.  It is privately held.
 
2014-06-12 12:49:59 PM  

elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.


As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.
 
2014-06-12 12:50:13 PM  

thornhill: The issue for SCOTUS is if they want to own the fallout of upholding the lower court's ruling, which would be the networks and especially sports leagues removing all of their content from broadcast TV and only making it available through cable.


For the time being, at least.  The digital television standard used in North America, ATSC, was updated a few years ago to include a new standard for portable handheld receivers: ATSC-M/H.  One of the things they included in it was support for encrypted over-the-air television.

Guess what network is now available as encrypted M/H channels in some cities?  The NFL Network.

The reason this is kinda important is because within the next decade, the ATSC standard is going to be updated for UHD.  And support for encryption is expected to be mandatory for all televisions.  In order to watch NFL games using an antenna, you may be required to purchase decryption keys for your television.  And they'll probably make it so that you can only install keys for "trusted devices" that can secure content from end to end, which'll probably mean you can't record that content using a standard DVR.

I could see some networks requiring a key just for regular programming, but not charging for it, just to make their channel incompatible with systems like Aero TV.
 
2014-06-12 12:50:18 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Absent contextual definitions to the contrary


given the way the RFRA specifically is designed to roll back the clock to previous constitutional law (the sherbert test), what constitutes the proper context seems to be what they've been arguing about for the first 20 pages or so
 
2014-06-12 12:51:36 PM  

mrshowrules: elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.


As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.
 
2014-06-12 12:53:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: I guarantee you that Hobby Lobby's owners are using corporate money for their own benefit, because as far as they're concerned it's THEIR money. They just have to be smart enough to disguise it as "compensation" for their jobs with the corp.


Again, Hobby Lobby isn't publicly traded.  There are no stockholders so corporate money IS their money.
 
2014-06-12 12:54:14 PM  

Geotpf: The issue here (legally) is if you get a few people to run a business who all have the same beliefs, do they lose the rights to their religious beliefs merely because more than one person owns the business? I'm guessing the Supremes will say no. I'm also guessing this will be limited to closely held companies where all the owners share the same religious beliefs (IE, not publicly traded companies).


That is not the question presented per se, but such a ruling is not unlikely.  The present distinction that is being argued is for-profit vs not-for-profit, which if you look at it is a terrible distinction. 

The reason it is one of the bases of dispute is that there is long precedent that corporations can have sincerely held religious beliefs - there are many federal cases involving incorporated churches, religious charities, hospitals and the like.    Thus it cannot be argued that incorporation defeats such a claim.  So the government has been forced to argue that RFRA somehow has a hidden meaning that incorporates a profit based difference between corporations. 

The better argument, in my opinion, is similar to the one you fronted: that corporations can have sincerely held religious beliefs, but that on the whole they usually dont.  Determining whether a belief is sincerely held is a fairly common test for a federal court, and many times people fail it for the simple fact that the purported belief is a dodge or hustle to get around some law that the individual doesnt like.  The same is much more likley to be true w/r/t companies.  Thus, in the vast majority of the cases that could come up a publically traded company couldn't have a sincerely held belief because most such beliefs would violate the company's responsibility to its shareholders.
 
2014-06-12 12:56:34 PM  

thamike: As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.


As noted - this is one of the major flaws of the mandate especially given the massive protections given a sincere religious belief under RFRA.

/generally, in law, adding parties to a required relationship makes enforcement of that relationship harder
 
2014-06-12 12:57:59 PM  

Teiritzamna: Thus, in the vast majority of the cases that could come up a publically traded company couldn't have a sincerely held belief because most such beliefs would violate the company's responsibility to its shareholders.


I should also note that this could not be argued in the case of Hobby Lobby because the government screwed the pooch and conceded without argument that the company had a sincerely held belief (even though there is lots of evidence that it does not)
 
2014-06-12 12:58:19 PM  

Teiritzamna: thamike: As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.

As noted - this is one of the major flaws of the mandate especially given the massive protections given a sincere religious belief under RFRA.

/generally, in law, adding parties to a required relationship makes enforcement of that relationship harder


As a Mormon, you've had too much coffee.
 
2014-06-12 12:58:22 PM  

mrshowrules: elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.


By definition, almost all religious beliefs are fairly silly if you think about them logically.  (There's an invisible man in the sky that watches over us and protects us except when he doesn't?  And he had a kid that was murdered and then became a zombie a couple days later?  If you eat pork a slightly different invisible guy in the sky will be mad at you?  If you are a woman and don't dress up like a blackface version of Caspar the Friendly Ghost a slightly different invisible guy in the sky will be mad at you?)

That doesn't change the fact that the First Amendment exists and protects them.
 
2014-06-12 12:59:49 PM  

Teiritzamna: Thus, in the vast majority of the cases that could come up a publically traded company couldn't have a sincerely held belief because most such beliefs would violate the company's responsibility to its shareholders.


Right.  No matter what the result of the Hobby Lobby case, IBM or GE or GM will never be found to have sincerely held relgious beliefs.
 
2014-06-12 01:00:42 PM  

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Absent contextual definitions to the contrary

given the way the RFRA specifically is designed to roll back the clock to previous constitutional law (the sherbert test), what constitutes the proper context seems to be what they've been arguing about for the first 20 pages or so


But yet that has nothing to do with the definition of a person as it relates to the RFRA. If there is not explicit textual definition for person within the RFRA, then it reverts to the definition given at 1 USC 1, which includes corporations.
 
2014-06-12 01:01:04 PM  

Geotpf: That doesn't change the fact that the First Amendment exists and protects them.


Protects their freedom of speech and protects everybody else from their religious oppression in the workplace, you mean.
 
2014-06-12 01:01:49 PM  

Teiritzamna: Teiritzamna: Thus, in the vast majority of the cases that could come up a publically traded company couldn't have a sincerely held belief because most such beliefs would violate the company's responsibility to its shareholders.

I should also note that this could not be argued in the case of Hobby Lobby because the government screwed the pooch and conceded without argument that the company had a sincerely held belief (even though there is lots of evidence that it does not)


OOF, did they really do that?  Bad lawyer, no ambulance chasing for you.
 
2014-06-12 01:02:16 PM  

Geotpf: Teiritzamna: Thus, in the vast majority of the cases that could come up a publically traded company couldn't have a sincerely held belief because most such beliefs would violate the company's responsibility to its shareholders.

Right.  No matter what the result of the Hobby Lobby case, IBM or GE or GM will never be found to have sincerely held relgious beliefs.


Mostly because I can't believe that the AUSA's office will ever waive that again.
 
2014-06-12 01:03:18 PM  

Geotpf: qorkfiend: Um, no. He doesn't have to ignore anything, unless you're suggesting that someone who incorporates somehow loses the right to practice their personal religion. What he can't do is transfer his religious beliefs to a separate organization that he has created specifically to separate himself from his business.

Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business?  I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.


Corporate Personhood has been supported by the courts as "..merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." I would be surprised if they voted a different way.
 
2014-06-12 01:03:24 PM  

Karac: ArkAngel: Congress can be in session and not be able to do business.

Except that's not what we're talking about.  They weren't in session, they were starting the session.

If you define "going into session" as "doing business", then the one guy they had show up to start a session and immediately adjourn in less than a minute never the authority to start the session which prevented the recess appointments.


Sessions and business are separate things. The session is the entire period during which Congress has a record. Business is anything passed during that time period
 
2014-06-12 01:04:10 PM  

Geotpf: OOF, did they really do that? Bad lawyer, no ambulance chasing for you.


Yeah they seriously farked up because they thought the "its a company: argument was a slam dunk. 

It apparently wasn't. 

and that, children is why you dont waive arguments.
 
2014-06-12 01:04:18 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: But yet that has nothing to do with the definition of a person as it relates to the RFRA. If there is not explicit textual definition for person within the RFRA, then it reverts to the definition given at 1 USC 1, which includes corporations.


wow i dont know why clements just didnt argue that then would have been p fast

i thought he was supposed to be good
 
2014-06-12 01:10:44 PM  

Gary-L: You should make an effort to read and understand the Constitution and how it pertains to the separation of powers.

Get over it.


Why should he get over it? That's not a completely unreasonable solution, and would probably only require a Senate rule change to make consent implied if a vote is not held within a certain time frame. Meanwhile, it doesn't remove any of the Senate's power, and doesn't grant the President any additional power. Plus, if the time frame is reasonable, it reduces non-controversial candidates taking up floor time that could be spent actually doing something productive.
 
2014-06-12 01:10:47 PM  

thamike: DeaH: Really? Cases that deal with the Bill of Rights in relation to violence have nothing to do with each other? Logic is logic. Deciding to bend or break an amendment because there is a threat of violence is the same kind of thinking, sets the same kind of precedence. If the justices are willing to break the 4th Amendment (actually remove the protection) because, at some point in the future, a violent event might happen, they damned well better use that same precedent to bend the 1st (no one is stopping her free speech - just asking her to move 37 feet to do it, where it can still be seen and heard) because actual violence has already happened - a lot.

To pretend there is no relationship between these two cases is obtuse to the point of absurdity.

There is nothing about how you are trying to change the subject of my post that has to do with my post.  You want to make a statement?  Make it on your own and stop riding mine.


Ah, so you post in a public forum and you think you can control how people react and reply to your statements. Says a lot. Your statement was about the article. The article discussed both cases. You mentioned the one, and I related it to the other. All of this is allowed. If you do not like it, perhaps you should blog with the comments turned off.

Frankly, I don't understand your reaction. Why is it so offensive to your sensibilities to compare one case to the other? Your original statement was, "There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line." I concurred - violence being the opposite of peaceful and all. I related it to another case before the court, found in the same article, and you are reacting as if I stole your puppy. Are you having a really bad day, and you just need to take it out on someone? If that's the case, happy to be of service. we all have those days.
 
2014-06-12 01:11:02 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.


Absolutely not. If you're looking for evidence, you can get a damned warrant. Warrantless searches are meant to be exceptions for when there isn't time to wait for a warrant. In fact, the side-of-road frisk is an unacceptable stretch of the exceptions designed to allow police to frisk for weapons. The "oops, I just happened to find drugs which I totally wasn't looking for (wink) in the first place" should be disallowed.

Searching a phone if there is probable cause to believe it contains the location of a kidnapped and buried-alive girl who needs rescue right the f*ck now, or the disarming codes for a nuclear weapon, or some such exigent and time-sensitive situation that only happens on TV, is A-OK in my book, but the police shouldn't be allowed to put on a show of doing this to everyone they stop so they can accidentally find evidence of other crime.
 
2014-06-12 01:12:38 PM  

DeaH: "There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line." I concurred - violence being the opposite of peaceful and all.


That settles that then, yes?
 
2014-06-12 01:14:17 PM  

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: But yet that has nothing to do with the definition of a person as it relates to the RFRA. If there is not explicit textual definition for person within the RFRA, then it reverts to the definition given at 1 USC 1, which includes corporations.

wow i dont know why clements just didnt argue that then would have been p fast

i thought he was supposed to be good


As far as I remember, this is a part of the arguments that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga presented.
 
2014-06-12 01:14:46 PM  

Geotpf: mrshowrules: elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

By definition, almost all religious beliefs are fairly silly if you think about them logically.  (There's an invisible man in the sky that watches over us and protects us except when he doesn't?  And he had a kid that was murdered and then became a zombie a couple days later?  If you eat pork a slightly different invisible guy in the sky will be mad at you?  If you are a woman and don't dress up like a blackface version of Caspar the Friendly Ghost a slightly different invisible guy in the sky will be mad at you?)

That doesn't change the fact that the First Amendment exists and protects them.


There is only one God.  The creepy voyeur guy with the zombie kid.
 
2014-06-12 01:16:33 PM  

sprawl15: wow i dont know why clements just didnt argue that then would have been p fast


Its the first argument mentioned in the Summary Of Arguments and the first argument made . . . . See Brief for Respondents at 13-14 ("The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects Respondents' religious exercise. RFRA covers any "person's exercise of religion," 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), but it does not separately define "person." The Dictionary Act thus supplies the meaning of the term, which is specifically designed to include both natural persons (like the Greens) and corporations (like Hobby Lobby and Mardel)."); Id. at 16-19.
 
2014-06-12 01:27:01 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Keep in mind his reasoning behind justifying torture. He thinks 24 is a documentary that we need to base our legal system on.


As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Scalia. We NEED structure government in such a way that it's possible to drive across Los Angeles at noon in less than 20 minutes.
 
2014-06-12 01:31:39 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Scalia. We NEED structure government in such a way that it's possible to drive across Los Angeles at noon in less than 20 minutes.


2.bp.blogspot.com

EVERYWHERE IN L.A. TAKES TWENTY MINUTES!

 
2014-06-12 01:36:03 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: As far as I remember, this is a part of the arguments that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga presented.


it sort of is, but it absolutely hinges on the argument that prior to smith the status quo was that for-profit corporations had the capability to exercise religion, that the ppaca is a substantial burden on that capability, and how to possibly have a justicable standard without having to sit down and sort out sincerity. the extant case law regarding groups/corporations relates entirely religious entities

hell of interesting reading but slow going what with all the googling
 
2014-06-12 01:39:33 PM  

qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.


I'm rather hoping it doesn't and they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. Employers determining what healthcare their employees can get based on that corporations own 'religious beliefs' is the fastest way of driving us toward introducing a public option that bypasses all those shenanigans. Sure it'll be a clusterfark for a while, but that pretty much defines everything to do with the provision of healthcare in America anyway.

This may yet prove to be the master-stroke of Obamacare - as it collapses under the weight of its own flaws it can bring down the absurd structure we currently have and leave single payer as the viable alternative.
 
2014-06-12 01:42:58 PM  

thamike: mrshowrules: elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.


As a Druid, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers mistletoe-and-orgy-based healing.
 
2014-06-12 01:47:49 PM  

Dinjiin: thornhill: The issue for SCOTUS is if they want to own the fallout of upholding the lower court's ruling, which would be the networks and especially sports leagues removing all of their content from broadcast TV and only making it available through cable.

For the time being, at least.  The digital television standard used in North America, ATSC, was updated a few years ago to include a new standard for portable handheld receivers: ATSC-M/H.  One of the things they included in it was support for encrypted over-the-air television.

Guess what network is now available as encrypted M/H channels in some cities?  The NFL Network.

The reason this is kinda important is because within the next decade, the ATSC standard is going to be updated for UHD.  And support for encryption is expected to be mandatory for all televisions.  In order to watch NFL games using an antenna, you may be required to purchase decryption keys for your television.  And they'll probably make it so that you can only install keys for "trusted devices" that can secure content from end to end, which'll probably mean you can't record that content using a standard DVR.

I could see some networks requiring a key just for regular programming, but not charging for it, just to make their channel incompatible with systems like Aero TV.


But is that just for those portable receivers?
 
2014-06-12 01:51:05 PM  

The Numbers: This may yet prove to be the master-stroke of Obamacare - as it collapses under the weight of its own flaws


While you would probably see this as a good thing whereas I see it as a horrible one, from a strategy standpoint I completely agree.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the plan from the start was to create a system so terrible it would fail and thus lead to single payer.
 
2014-06-12 01:51:10 PM  
I read the headline and just thought, "Five ways we're about to be farked."
 
2014-06-12 01:54:27 PM  

JustGetItRight: The Numbers: This may yet prove to be the master-stroke of Obamacare - as it collapses under the weight of its own flaws

While you would probably see this as a good thing whereas I see it as a horrible one, from a strategy standpoint I completely agree.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the plan from the start was to create a system so terrible it would fail and thus lead to single payer.


So why are most Democrats satisfied with the plan according to polls and cheering that millions more people today have health coverage than last year? If they thought that the plan was supposed to be terrible to pave the way for Medicare for All, why would they not grouse about the ostensible success so far?
 
2014-06-12 01:54:58 PM  

qorkfiend: Fireproof: Obvious point about Hobby Lobby that no one seems to have brought up: What if the business owner is Jehovah's Witnesses or somesuch that doesn't believe in any medical care whatsoever? Does that mean that providing medical insurance in even a life-or-death situation would be violating their freedom of religion?

Believe me, that point has been brought up many, many times during the Fark threads on the subject. But yes, I think the possibility of exactly these sorts of shenanigans, plus the whole absurd idea of allowing a corporation to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" in the first place (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid) is the only thing that might stay the Court's hand. Hopefully John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy will have serious reservations about opening this particular can of worms.


Except that the conservative members of the court -- especially Scalia -- delight in attempting to rationalize why it's ok to enforce Christian beliefs but not other religions.
 
2014-06-12 01:55:32 PM  

TopoGigo: thamike: mrshowrules: elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.

As a Druid, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers mistletoe-and-orgy-based healing.


All of these reasons are why employer provided insurance will probably disappear within the next decade.  Instead, I expect that 1) we'll see a special tax-free spending account that employers will pay into so that employees can buy their own insurance on the market or 2) we'll move to a single-payer plan by slowly expanding Medicaid and Medicare until it covers everyone, eliminating employer involvement in insurance completely.

The RomneyCare 2.0 Affordable Care Act was a horrible piece of legislation.  Both progressives and conservatives hate it for their own valid reasons.  It would have been easier to have just bumped the wage ceiling for Medicaid up by $2000/year.
 
2014-06-12 01:57:16 PM  

Dinjiin: TopoGigo: thamike: mrshowrules: elchip: Geotpf: Well, that is basically the question here: If I own a business, do my First Amendment rights transfer to that business? I'm thinking the Supremes (probably in a 5-4 ruling) will say yes.

As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.

As a Druid, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers mistletoe-and-orgy-based healing.

All of these reasons are why employer provided insurance will probably disappear within the next decade.  Instead, I expect that 1) we'll see a special tax-free spending account that employers will pay into so that employees can buy their own insurance on the market or 2) we'll move to a single-payer plan by slowly expanding Medicaid and Medicare until it covers everyone, eliminating employer involvement in insurance completely.

The RomneyCare 2.0 Affordable Care Act was a horrible piece of legislation.  Both progressives and conservatives hate it for their own valid reasons.  It would have been easier to have just bumped the wage ceiling for Medicaid up by $2000/year.


Except that when we did that in ObamaCare, SCOTUS said that it was economic coercion and ruled that states could not be forced to expand Medicaid at the risk of what they had already created.
 
2014-06-12 01:58:22 PM  

Mikey1969: The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech. be a total coont.

Fixed that typo for them. See what happens when you fire all of the proofreaders and editors, people?


Well, the anti-choice movement certainly picked a great spokesperson for this challenge with McCullen. After all, she's a grandmotherly white woman, toward the bottom of the visual threat scale. (It's no coincidence that people who are mad that the TSA isn't exclusively targeting Muslims often bring up the poor elderly woman at the airport who had to be patted down.) And she only wants to give those poor women a second chance through calm, polite discussion! Who could possibly condemn that! She would certainly never call those women whores or sluts, or hold up signs of aborted fetuses, or film every woman going into the clinic. You know, like many other abortion protestors do. If she can get closer to those women and the clinic, so can those other protestors.
 
2014-06-12 01:59:35 PM  

thamike: DeaH: "There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line." I concurred - violence being the opposite of peaceful and all.

That settles that then, yes?


Yes, that's was my point from the beginning. Again, I am confused by your reaction, but that's okay.
 
2014-06-12 01:59:58 PM  

qorkfiend: (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid)

Also this is fundamentally untrue

, as determining Sincerely Held Belief IS the test to determine the scoipe of the Free Exercise clause and thus the RFRA.

What you are thinking os is a determination of whether a religious belief is true - which courts will not do.  that is exactly the reason that the sincerely held belief test was invented: we wont ask what you believe, but we will check that you actually believe it.
 
2014-06-12 02:01:42 PM  

thornhill: Except that the conservative members of the court -- especially Scalia -- delight in attempting to rationalize why it's ok to enforce Christian beliefs but not other religions.


You have a citation on a supreme court case, especially, but not necessarily, a Scalia one which involves either the refusal to enforce a non-christian practice under the Free Exercise clause because it is non-Christian, or vice versa?
 
2014-06-12 02:06:20 PM  

Teiritzamna: qorkfiend: (this in turn places the government in general, and the Court in particular, in the position of having to determine what is and isn't a "sincerely held religious belief", which is exactly the sort of situation the Founders were hoping to avoid)

Also this is fundamentally untrue, as determining Sincerely Held Belief IS the test to determine the scoipe of the Free Exercise clause and thus the RFRA.

What you are thinking os is a determination of whether a religious belief is true - which courts will not do.  that is exactly the reason that the sincerely held belief test was invented: we wont ask what you believe, but we will check that you actually believe it.


How are they supposed to adjudicate that without asking what you believe? Also, how is simply taking someone's word for it that they're exempt from their responsibilities under the law a good idea?
 
2014-06-12 02:08:41 PM  

Geotpf: Teiritzamna: Thus, in the vast majority of the cases that could come up a publically traded company couldn't have a sincerely held belief because most such beliefs would violate the company's responsibility to its shareholders.

Right.  No matter what the result of the Hobby Lobby case, IBM or GE or GM will never be found to have sincerely held relgious beliefs.


"Sure, they'll rule this way, but we can rest assured this precedent won't be used or abused by anyone else"?
 
2014-06-12 02:08:50 PM  
Dinjiin: The digital television standard used in North America, ATSC, was updated a few years ago to include a new standard for portable handheld receivers: ATSC-M/H.

thornhill: But is that just for those portable receivers?


For the most part.  Seems that most M/H channels are broadcast in 240p, which is too low for big screens, so none of them support it.  I've only seen it supported in handheld TVs, USB dongles, automotive receivers and those mobile hotspots.
 
2014-06-12 02:12:19 PM  

Serious Black: It would have been easier to have just bumped the wage ceiling for Medicaid up by $2000/year.

Except that when we did that in ObamaCare, SCOTUS said that it was economic coercion and ruled that states could not be forced to expand Medicaid at the risk of what they had already created.


If the Feds pick up the bill for the expansion, that restriction goes away.  No different than if the Feds started lowering the age to qualify for Medicare to meet the same goal.
 
2014-06-12 02:13:53 PM  

qorkfiend: How are they supposed to adjudicate that without asking what you believe? Also, how is simply taking someone's word for it that they're exempt from their responsibilities under the law a good idea?


No, what i was saying is that a Court is not supposed to adjudicate what you believe (i.e. well Judaism is obviously wrong, so you can't possibly get protection for requiring that your butchers obey kosher rules) only the sincerity of the belief (i.e. well you say you are devoutly Jewish, but you eat pork, never go to temple even on high holidays, run a shrimp truck and have an anteater for a penis rather than a mushroom - i think your attempt to get out of obeying with this law prohibiting X is a sham).

Its a pretty common analysis, especially in prison cases where prisoners suddenly become Rastafarian and need weed or something
 
2014-06-12 02:17:37 PM  

Teiritzamna: thornhill: Except that the conservative members of the court -- especially Scalia -- delight in attempting to rationalize why it's ok to enforce Christian beliefs but not other religions.

You have a citation on a supreme court case, especially, but not necessarily, a Scalia one which involves either the refusal to enforce a non-christian practice under the Free Exercise clause because it is non-Christian, or vice versa?



None of the justices would be stupid enough to outright say they're refusing to enforce a practice because it is non-Christian or they are enforcing a practice because it is Christian. That would be monumentally stupid. That doesn't mean they may not be subtly influenced to take a certain side because of their underlying religious beliefs. Consider this analysis of how the justices have voted on free speech cases based on the underlying ideology of the petitioners:

37.media.tumblr.com

Is it really that outlandish to suggest that somebody who has previously sided with conservative-leaning petitioners on free speech cases far more often than liberal-leaning petitioners would side with somebody espousing Christian religious beliefs far more often than somebody espousing non-Christian religious beliefs?
 
2014-06-12 02:25:10 PM  

Dinjiin: Serious Black: It would have been easier to have just bumped the wage ceiling for Medicaid up by $2000/year.

Except that when we did that in ObamaCare, SCOTUS said that it was economic coercion and ruled that states could not be forced to expand Medicaid at the risk of what they had already created.

If the Feds pick up the bill for the expansion, that restriction goes away.  No different than if the Feds started lowering the age to qualify for Medicare to meet the same goal.


Through 2016, Uncle Sam covers 100% of the expansion cost. That wasn't enough to stop coercion claims even though patients covered by the original Medicaid system get 57% of their costs covered by the feds.
 
2014-06-12 02:25:47 PM  

Serious Black: Is it really that outlandish to suggest that somebody who has previously sided with conservative-leaning petitioners on free speech cases far more often than liberal-leaning petitioners would side with somebody espousing Christian religious beliefs far more often than somebody espousing non-Christian religious beliefs?


Not particularly, no (i honestly think its more likley than not) - but i would like to see some analysis for it rather than "it feels right" arguments.

Lot's of people throw around accusations against the Court which come from the department of rectal statistics, and this particular one sounded pretty "from-the-butt-y." Which is why i asked if he could produce any actual data backing him up. Which you have done, so that's nice.

May i ask where that is from, as the methodology of such a study could be mushy and lead to desired results. 

/there are a thousand legitimate complaints against the Court and especially the conservative wing thereof, but alas mostly none of them are voiced on Fark.
 
2014-06-12 02:28:26 PM  

Serious Black: JustGetItRight: The Numbers: This may yet prove to be the master-stroke of Obamacare - as it collapses under the weight of its own flaws

While you would probably see this as a good thing whereas I see it as a horrible one, from a strategy standpoint I completely agree.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the plan from the start was to create a system so terrible it would fail and thus lead to single payer.

So why are most Democrats satisfied with the plan according to polls and cheering that millions more people today have health coverage than last year? If they thought that the plan was supposed to be terrible to pave the way for Medicare for All, why would they not grouse about the ostensible success so far?


a) These are the best days of Obamacare, where the great positives are still new and great while the negatives have yet to really kick in. Give it 5 years and see what the polls say then about satisfaction levels.
b) Natural human stubbornness. The Republican's obsessive screeching about repealing Obamacare was always bound to galvanise greater loyalty from Democrats and reduce the willingness to admit to flaws. Again, give it 5 years.
 
2014-06-12 02:32:08 PM  

PawisBetlog: I don't understand why this isn't the crux of the argument. Congress gets to pass a procedural rule that invalidates a portion of the constitution? Sounds incredibly fishy...


It's a loophole around a loophole, but the concept of Congress being in recess is antiquated now that we have cell phones and planes, anyway.
 
2014-06-12 02:32:49 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Is it really that outlandish to suggest that somebody who has previously sided with conservative-leaning petitioners on free speech cases far more often than liberal-leaning petitioners would side with somebody espousing Christian religious beliefs far more often than somebody espousing non-Christian religious beliefs?

Not particularly, no (i honestly think its more likley than not) - but i would like to see some analysis for it rather than "it feels right" arguments.

Lot's of people throw around accusations against the Court which come from the department of rectal statistics, and this particular one sounded pretty "from-the-butt-y." Which is why i asked if he could produce any actual data backing him up. Which you have done, so that's nice.

May i ask where that is from, as the methodology of such a study could be mushy and lead to desired results.

/there are a thousand legitimate complaints against the Court and especially the conservative wing thereof, but alas mostly none of them are voiced on Fark.



Here's a link to the paper's abstract.
 
2014-06-12 02:37:00 PM  

The Numbers: Serious Black: JustGetItRight: The Numbers: This may yet prove to be the master-stroke of Obamacare - as it collapses under the weight of its own flaws

While you would probably see this as a good thing whereas I see it as a horrible one, from a strategy standpoint I completely agree.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the plan from the start was to create a system so terrible it would fail and thus lead to single payer.

So why are most Democrats satisfied with the plan according to polls and cheering that millions more people today have health coverage than last year? If they thought that the plan was supposed to be terrible to pave the way for Medicare for All, why would they not grouse about the ostensible success so far?

a) These are the best days of Obamacare, where the great positives are still new and great while the negatives have yet to really kick in. Give it 5 years and see what the polls say then about satisfaction levels.
b) Natural human stubbornness. The Republican's obsessive screeching about repealing Obamacare was always bound to galvanise greater loyalty from Democrats and reduce the willingness to admit to flaws. Again, give it 5 years.


How would opinions taking five years to change suggest that ObamaCare was originally designed to fail and pave the way for Medicare for All? I think the more likely explanation of that outcome would be that people decided the status quo was not functioning the way they wanted and they're making a change that is possible in the political environment as opposed to a conspiracy theory that Obama and the Democrats are executing a variant of the Cloward-Piven strategy.
 
2014-06-12 02:37:17 PM  

Serious Black: Here's a link to the paper's abstract.


cheers!
 
2014-06-12 02:48:47 PM  

JustGetItRight: Again, Hobby Lobby isn't publicly traded. There are no stockholders so corporate money IS their money.


You don't have to be a publicly traded corporation to incorporate as a corporation and get the same legal protections.  Publicly held vs. privately held corps.

You should, I dunno, just get it right, the facts of basic business law.
 
2014-06-12 03:45:41 PM  

thamike: Teiritzamna: thamike: As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.

As noted - this is one of the major flaws of the mandate especially given the massive protections given a sincere religious belief under RFRA.

/generally, in law, adding parties to a required relationship makes enforcement of that relationship harder

As a Mormon, you've had too much coffee.


As an Atheist, Religion is fooking antequated and should have not limit the rights of people that don't have the same imaginary friend you do. Your "rights to your beliefs" stop where they impede on other human beings.
 
2014-06-12 04:50:14 PM  
If the SC rules for Hobby Lobby on the contraception mandate it will be a complete cluster. Suddenly every corporation will gain a religious objection to whatever regulation they don't like. It will be a mess. But I guess if corporations are people they can have religion too.
 
2014-06-12 05:10:28 PM  

cfreak: If the SC rules for Hobby Lobby on the contraception mandate it will be a complete cluster. Suddenly every corporation will gain a religious objection to whatever regulation they don't like. It will be a mess. But I guess if corporations are people they can have religion too.


Only if they can prove that their purported religious belief is sincerely held.  As discussed above, the vast amount of companies could not comply with the requirements of showing sincere belief.

Additionally, under the RFRA, the government can enforce regulations that infringe a sincerely held belief if it can show that its regulation is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.
 
2014-06-12 05:15:52 PM  

Teiritzamna: cfreak: If the SC rules for Hobby Lobby on the contraception mandate it will be a complete cluster. Suddenly every corporation will gain a religious objection to whatever regulation they don't like. It will be a mess. But I guess if corporations are people they can have religion too.

Only if they can prove that their purported religious belief is sincerely held.  As discussed above, the vast amount of companies could not comply with the requirements of showing sincere belief.

Additionally, under the RFRA, the government can enforce regulations that infringe a sincerely held belief if it can show that its regulation is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.


Can you think of a regulation or law that has passed strict scrutiny?
 
2014-06-12 05:21:49 PM  

Serious Black: Can you think of a regulation or law that has passed strict scrutiny?


Plenty.  Here is an article that notes that in fact "[o]verall, 30% of all applications of strict scrutiny - nearly one in three - result in the challenged law being upheld. Rather than fatal in fact, strict scrutiny is survivable in fact, and is so across constitutional doctrine: 27% of suspect classifications, 22% of free speech restrictions, 24% of fundamental rights infringements, 33% of freedom of association burdens, and 59% of religious liberty burdens adjudicated under strict scrutiny survive."
 
2014-06-12 05:22:27 PM  

Teiritzamna: Here is an article


d'oh.  Here.
 
2014-06-12 05:29:00 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Can you think of a regulation or law that has passed strict scrutiny?

Plenty.  Here is an article that notes that in fact "[o]verall, 30% of all applications of strict scrutiny - nearly one in three - result in the challenged law being upheld. Rather than fatal in fact, strict scrutiny is survivable in fact, and is so across constitutional doctrine: 27% of suspect classifications, 22% of free speech restrictions, 24% of fundamental rights infringements, 33% of freedom of association burdens, and 59% of religious liberty burdens adjudicated under strict scrutiny survive."


Huh. That's a lot higher than I thought it would be. Especially the religious liberty one. Yet I still get the sinking feeling that the contraception mandate will be ruled unconstitutional.
 
2014-06-12 05:34:08 PM  

Serious Black: Huh. That's a lot higher than I thought it would be. Especially the religious liberty one. Yet I still get the sinking feeling that the contraception mandate will be ruled unconstitutional.


Well it is not a facial challenge, merely an as applied one.  So the law will not be struck down. 

All that is at stake is whether a for-profit company can even make the argument, not whether (1) the law doesn't apply going forward or (2) that any given company will be able to avoid the mandate based on this outcome.
 
2014-06-12 07:26:16 PM  
My take on this stuff:
Contraception:  Wasn't the argument that they falsely believes certain forms of contraception were abortion?  Are legitimately held beliefs that are objectively 100% false protected?  The contraception mandate does have a legitimate purpose, and I don't see how you can strike that down without striking down all sorts of laws, whether it's for insurance, food safety, drugs, or whatever.  Not without some ridiculously selective enforcement of the law.

Recess appointments:  Striking them down would create a huge mess.  I guess technically, if you don't consider the mess it creates, this one's up in the air.  But if recess appointments are struck down, things would get worse before they got better.  Congress would fark shiat up hard until enough adults were elected to pass a constitutional amendment.

Aereo:  I don't even know why this one made it very far up the courts, let alone to the SCOTUS.  Aereo followed the letter of the law, even if it was a loophole.  The only difference is that the loophole exists because of technology and not bribery.

Cell phone searches:  Get a damn warrant.

Abortion clinic protests:  Having to be 35 feet away doesn't infringe free speech, unless you count blockades and melee attacks as "speech".
 
2014-06-12 08:39:15 PM  
The Obamacare contraception mandate I don't see the conservatives winning on this because it will likely fundamentally change business for the worse. The 5 conservative jackasses on the SCOTUS spent too much time crafting the rules, they aren't gonna undo virtually everything by letting businesses have religions.
 
2014-06-12 09:02:47 PM  

CourtroomWolf: Contraception: Wasn't the argument that they falsely believes certain forms of contraception were abortion? Are legitimately held beliefs that are objectively 100% false protected? The contraception mandate does have a legitimate purpose, and I don't see how you can strike that down without striking down all sorts of laws, whether it's for insurance, food safety, drugs, or whatever. Not without some ridiculously selective enforcement of the law.


1) no the government waived the argument that hobby lobby doesnt have a sincere religious belief.  Whether their claims of religiosity are false or not are thus irrelevant to this dispute.  Generally, even if HL prevails, the vast majority of companies could not meet the test needed to show a sincere belief.  So as a first principle point, even if the government looses the actual impact will be rather low,

2) Legitimate purpose is not enough - what needs to be shown is that it is (a) a compelling government interest and (b) that there is no less restrictive means for the government to achieve that purpose.  The problem here is that as to (a) the government has already excepted a ton of religious groups from the law, suggesting that the contraceptive mandate is not the highest and most important (i.e. the definition of compelling interest) goal of government.  But much worse for the mandate: there is a clear least restrictive means - single payer.  If the government wants everyone to have contraception, the government can easily provide it without involving a third party (and no, the Supreme Court has held that you cannot argue that your taxes are going to something against your religion)

3) If HL wins, nothing will be struck down.  This is not a facial challenge, it is merely an "as applied" attack, meaning that if HL wins the only company that doesn't need to pay for contraception containing insurance would be HL (well and the co-appellees)
 
2014-06-12 10:11:55 PM  

Teiritzamna: 1) no the government waived the argument that hobby lobby doesnt have a sincere religious belief. Whether their claims of religiosity are false or not are thus irrelevant to this dispute. Generally, even if HL prevails, the vast majority of companies could not meet the test needed to show a sincere belief. So as a first principle point, even if the government looses the actual impact will be rather low,

2) Legitimate purpose is not enough - what needs to be shown is that it is (a) a compelling government interest and (b) that there is no less restrictive means for the government to achieve that purpose. The problem here is that as to (a) the government has already excepted a ton of religious groups from the law, suggesting that the contraceptive mandate is not the highest and most important (i.e. the definition of compelling interest) goal of government. But much worse for the mandate: there is a clear least restrictive means - single payer. If the government wants everyone to have contraception, the government can easily provide it without involving a third party (and no, the Supreme Court has held that you cannot argue that your taxes are going to something against your religion)

3) If HL wins, nothing will be struck down. This is not a facial challenge, it is merely an "as applied" attack, meaning that if HL wins the only company that doesn't need to pay for contraception containing insurance would be HL (well and the co-appellees)


Wouldn't it lead to secondary challenges that result in an entity declaring that compensation paid to workers which is then spent on alcohol/dirty movies/books/whatever is subject to restrictions from the employer? The government doesn't have a compelling interest in having fewer people buy beer (besides from public safety) and has ruled that workplace criteria for employment are acceptable in circumstances that do not infringe on legally protected classes.

It's not much of a stretch to say that since spending your money on product X (beer) is a sin, then spending your money on action X (touring the brewery in St Louis) is also a sin. To me, that seems like a really dangerous precedent to take, especially with the current crop of neo-feudalistic farktards in power.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would appreciate your feedback.
 
2014-06-12 10:47:40 PM  

qorkfiend: Any ruling on recess appoints would be far outside the scope of what SCOTUS should do. Either they've invalidating the entire power of recess appointments, or they're declaring themselves the final arbiter of whether or not Congress is in session.

There's a third option, which would not be pleasant. They could rule that recess is whatever Congress says it is.

Which means, anytime a Democratic president nominates someone the Republican Senate doesn't like, they'll put their hands over their heads and shout "la la la, can't hear you, we're recessed."
 
2014-06-12 11:34:11 PM  
given the capability of phones to be wiped remotely, I think the Court will comes up with an exception, much like the automobile exception, that says post arrest, police can search a phone without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the phone contains evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested for.

That would be a perfectly reasonable standard and one that I'm fine with.
 
2014-06-12 11:35:48 PM  
The recess appointment case is going to 9-0 against the Obama administration, Aero is going to lose, and abortion clinic buffers are going to go the way of the buggy whip (as they should).
 
2014-06-12 11:44:43 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Teiritzamna: 1) no the government waived the argument that hobby lobby doesnt have a sincere religious belief. Whether their claims of religiosity are false or not are thus irrelevant to this dispute. Generally, even if HL prevails, the vast majority of companies could not meet the test needed to show a sincere belief. So as a first principle point, even if the government looses the actual impact will be rather low,

2) Legitimate purpose is not enough - what needs to be shown is that it is (a) a compelling government interest and (b) that there is no less restrictive means for the government to achieve that purpose. The problem here is that as to (a) the government has already excepted a ton of religious groups from the law, suggesting that the contraceptive mandate is not the highest and most important (i.e. the definition of compelling interest) goal of government. But much worse for the mandate: there is a clear least restrictive means - single payer. If the government wants everyone to have contraception, the government can easily provide it without involving a third party (and no, the Supreme Court has held that you cannot argue that your taxes are going to something against your religion)

3) If HL wins, nothing will be struck down. This is not a facial challenge, it is merely an "as applied" attack, meaning that if HL wins the only company that doesn't need to pay for contraception containing insurance would be HL (well and the co-appellees)

Wouldn't it lead to secondary challenges that result in an entity declaring that compensation paid to workers which is then spent on alcohol/dirty movies/books/whatever is subject to restrictions from the employer? The government doesn't have a compelling interest in having fewer people buy beer (besides from public safety) and has ruled that workplace criteria for employment are acceptable in circumstances that do not infringe on legally protected classes.

It's not much of a stretch to say that since spending your money on product X (beer) is a sin, then spending your money on action X (touring the brewery in St Louis) is also a sin. To me, that seems like a really dangerous precedent to take, especially with the current crop of neo-feudalistic farktards in power.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would appreciate your feedback.


That's the slope I've asked about with other mind. It makes a compelling argument to me. If I spend my money on a car, even if that money came from my employer, the car is my property. A health insurance policy is similarly my property even if my employer gave me money to pay for it. If dictating what health care I can buy with my property is acceptable to the court in some cases, it's hard to imagine they won't give somebody the power to dictate what kind of car I can drive.
 
2014-06-13 12:29:27 AM  
The major difference between the purchase of the car and your company paying for a healthcare account in the conversion of cash.  On the one hand you are paid by your company and once the company has paid you, that money is converted into your money.  One the other hand, the money being paid to the health insurance provider is your company's money.

It might seem minor, but it is a massive distinction.


What's lost in all of this is that Hobby Lobby provides contraception coverage for its employees.  It is limited to very specific types.  What it won't cover, are abortifacients.
 
m00
2014-06-13 01:21:45 AM  
Here's how justices are going to rule:

1) Can the federal government require for-profit businesses to cover emergency contraceptives for female employees in their health insurance plans at no extra cost? Ruling: no.

2) Can the President use the Constitution's recess appointment power to fill government slots while the Senate is technically not on recess but not conducting business (known as pro forma sessions).  Ruling: yes

3) Justices will side with telecoms (of course)

4) Justices will side with cops (of course)

5) Justices will side with limiting speech (of course)
 
2014-06-13 01:35:39 AM  

Teiritzamna: CourtroomWolf: Contraception: Wasn't the argument that they falsely believes certain forms of contraception were abortion? Are legitimately held beliefs that are objectively 100% false protected? The contraception mandate does have a legitimate purpose, and I don't see how you can strike that down without striking down all sorts of laws, whether it's for insurance, food safety, drugs, or whatever. Not without some ridiculously selective enforcement of the law.

1) no the government waived the argument that hobby lobby doesnt have a sincere religious belief.  Whether their claims of religiosity are false or not are thus irrelevant to this dispute.  Generally, even if HL prevails, the vast majority of companies could not meet the test needed to show a sincere belief.  So as a first principle point, even if the government looses the actual impact will be rather low,

2) Legitimate purpose is not enough - what needs to be shown is that it is (a) a compelling government interest and (b) that there is no less restrictive means for the government to achieve that purpose.  The problem here is that as to (a) the government has already excepted a ton of religious groups from the law, suggesting that the contraceptive mandate is not the highest and most important (i.e. the definition of compelling interest) goal of government.  But much worse for the mandate: there is a clear least restrictive means - single payer.  If the government wants everyone to have contraception, the government can easily provide it without involving a third party (and no, the Supreme Court has held that you cannot argue that your taxes are going to something against your religion)

3) If HL wins, nothing will be struck down.  This is not a facial challenge, it is merely an "as applied" attack, meaning that if HL wins the only company that doesn't need to pay for contraception containing insurance would be HL (well and the co-appellees)


1) I don't have any issues with.  A sincerely held belief that is objectively false is still a sincerely held belief, and if that's all the law requires...

2) That doesn't do anything about the slippery slope problem.  If a law exists for a "compelling government interest" (seems like you could say that for any law on the books), then you can just make up an alternate law that avoids whatever limitation you're trying to avoid, even if it's unrealistic that such a law would be passed.  I just don't see how Hobby Lobby can get an exemption when people who no less sincerely hold the belief that cannabis or psychadelics are sacraments don't get an exemption.  Seems like it should be all or none.

3) Unless this is a one time thing, like what they did for Bush v. Gore where they said never to use the case for precedent, i don't see how other companies couldn't use their "sincerely held beliefs" to bypass regulations if their shareholders are unanimous about it.
 
2014-06-13 01:49:46 AM  

sprgrss: The major difference between the purchase of the car and your company paying for a healthcare account in the conversion of cash.  On the one hand you are paid by your company and once the company has paid you, that money is converted into your money.  One the other hand, the money being paid to the health insurance provider is your company's money.

It might seem minor, but it is a massive distinction.


What's lost in all of this is that Hobby Lobby provides contraception coverage for its employees.  It is limited to very specific types.  What it won't cover, are abortifacients.


You mean treatments that they believe are abortifacients despite all medical evidence to the contrary.

As for your earlier claim, that it is the company's money, would that mean that a company run by orthodox Jews could, say, give employees burial insurance in lieu of salary that will only cover a funeral that adheres to Jewish standards?
 
2014-06-13 07:20:33 AM  

Serious Black: That's the slope I've asked about with other mind. It makes a compelling argument to me. If I spend my money on a car, even if that money came from my employer, the car is my property. A health insurance policy is similarly my property even if my employer gave me money to pay for it. If dictating what health care I can buy with my property is acceptable to the court in some cases, it's hard to imagine they won't give somebody the power to dictate what kind of car I can drive


It's more akin to a company car, I think, offered as part of compensation rather than used purely for business. You can drive it where ever you want, you've still gotta put gas in it and do oil changes, but the company pays the lease. It's your car, for all intents and purposes, as long as you work there. They'll even let you keep it for a few months after you leave the company, if you'll make the lease payments yourself.

Hobby Lobby just wants to provide company cars without seatbelts.
 
2014-06-13 09:12:04 AM  

Serious Black: That's the slope I've asked about with other mind. It makes a compelling argument to me. If I spend my money on a car, even if that money came from my employer, the car is my property. A health insurance policy is similarly my property even if my employer gave me money to pay for it. If dictating what health care I can buy with my property is acceptable to the court in some cases, it's hard to imagine they won't give somebody the power to dictate what kind of car I can drive.


Your employer can do that to you now.  The list of things an employer cannot make your employment contingent upon is rather slim, and generally consists of the obvious stuff - race, religious creed (generally), sexual harassment, and so forth.  It is, as far as i know, 100% legal for Google to say, tomorrow, that no employees can drink, or they will be fired.  Or drive a non-US made car.  Or listen to Justin Beiber. 

They don't do this, not because of the law, but because they would lose all their workers and most of their customers.  It would be a P.R. nightmare.  But most importantly because it would be too expensive to enforce and not based on increasing shareholder value - meaning there would be an investor revolt, the crazy CEO who installed such policies would be sacked, and a new guy would come in and reverse everything. 

In short, you do not have a de jure "right" to non-interference with your private life from an employer, outside of narrowly limed categories.  At most you have a right to maake a stink about the company's stupid policies.  And get fired. 

But that is irrelevant to the HL dispute, because employees are not a part of this case.  Let me note that again, because the vast majority of the mischaracterizations regarding Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius is based on a failure to understand that the employees are not part of the dispute.  There are no legal employee rights at issue here.  None.  There could have been, if there were single payer insurance, but unfortunately there are not. 

Hobby Lobby has only two actors: the employer and the government.  The government is commanding the employer to do something.  The Employer argues that other federal statutes say it doesn't have to comply.  That is it.  The only rights at issue are the employer's rights under RFRA.
 
2014-06-13 09:21:23 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Wouldn't it lead to secondary challenges that result in an entity declaring that compensation paid to workers which is then spent on alcohol/dirty movies/books/whatever is subject to restrictions from the employer? The government doesn't have a compelling interest in having fewer people buy beer (besides from public safety) and has ruled that workplace criteria for employment are acceptable in circumstances that do not infringe on legally protected classes.


No, because as noted above, a company can do that to you now.  The company doesn't even need a religious argument.  They can just change your employment terms.  If you have a contract, of course you could fight that.  But generally a company can make your employment contingent on a lot of crazy things.  See, e.g., the companies in Colorado that still require drug testing.  It is legal to smoke weed, but a company can still fire you for spending your salary on it. 

Now i can imagine that the federal government could raise some sort of challenge based on the federal minimum wage - i.e. that massive restrictions on what an employee could buy with their salary without getting fired would reduce the real value of the money paid until it fell below federal mandatory minimums.  But this is a finesse argument, a lawyers argument and i really have no idea whether it would succeed outside of sweatshop/company town scenarios (i.e. the old system where workers would often be paid in scrip that could only be used in company stores to buy approved company items).  

So strict scrutiny wouldn't even come up - there is not too much government oversight of this kinda thing as far as my employment law recollections.  People have been fired for supporting a different politician than the owners; having a beer on the weekend; etc. 

This is what i was talking about above - this is not an  employee rights case because the employees have no rights at issue.  This is an employer's rights case - which unfortunately makes all the difference.
 
2014-06-13 09:25:47 AM  

Serious Black: You mean treatments that they believe are abortifacients despite all medical evidence to the contrary.


The problem with RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause is that we cannot look to the logic or "truth" of a belief, only its sincerity.  Otherwise we could say things like - "you want the freedom to worship an all powerful deity despite all physical evidence to the contrary?" which would be popular on Fark (and hilarious)  but pretty much anathema to the First Amendment.

Serious Black: As for your earlier claim, that it is the company's money, would that mean that a company run by orthodox Jews could, say, give employees burial insurance in lieu of salary that will only cover a funeral that adheres to Jewish standards?


Yes.  As long as they also paid workers enough in real money to also comply with federal minimum wage requirements.
 
2014-06-13 09:37:00 AM  

incendi: It's more akin to a company car, I think, offered as part of compensation rather than used purely for business. You can drive it where ever you want, you've still gotta put gas in it and do oil changes, but the company pays the lease. It's your car, for all intents and purposes, as long as you work there. They'll even let you keep it for a few months after you leave the company, if you'll make the lease payments yourself.

Hobby Lobby just wants to provide company cars without seatbelts.


Now this is an analogy!  And it helps elucidate some of the issues of the case:

Let us assume there is a federal law that mandates that companies of a certain size must provide a company car to employees.  And that this company car must comply with federal safety standards.  X company refuses, arguing that it has a sincerely held belief that cars with seatbelts are a violation of the dictates of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  X challenges the law in court.

The government decides to not argue that X company's belief is a sham - they agree to assume that it is a real and sincere belief. 

Thus, if we assume that the RFRA applies to for-profit companies (as the very terms of the statutes in question strongly suggest that that is the case) the only remaining issue is whether the government has a compelling interest in the mandatory cars with seatbelt requirement and whether the requirement is the least restrictive means of reaching that interest. 

Note, this is NOT about whether the government can mandate if you, the driver, must wear a seatbelt.  Or even whether car makers must include them.  This is a question of whether the government has a compelling interest in requiring employers provide employees with a car, that happens to have a seatbelt.  That is a huge difference.  While the first two are relatively easy to pass strict scrutiny, the latter case is a bear.  And it becomes worse when you realize that the government already carves out huge exceptions to the "car mandate" for religious groups and small employers.
 
2014-06-13 09:41:15 AM  

ImpendingCynic: There's a third option, which would not be pleasant. They could rule that recess is whatever Congress says it is.

Which means, anytime a Democratic president nominates someone the Republican Senate doesn't like, they'll put their hands over their heads and shout "la la la, can't hear you, we're recessed."


You have the entire issue completely backwards.

Recess appointments are only allowed when Congress is recessed.  They're 100% legal and have been made by presidents from all parties basically forever.  The issue is that the Obama administration is very loosely interpreting when congress is in recess.

The question before the court is who gets to define recess - the executive branch or the legislative branch.  Those that think the issue doesn't belong before the court are completely wrong.  You've got two branches of government in disagreement over a fundamental question about the constitution.  The Supreme Court is the only body that should be breaking the tie.

Totally guessing, but I suspect the court's going to say that since the Constitution give Congress wide latitude to set its own rules, that they and not the Executive branch get to define when they're in recess and thus the appointments are invalid.  The real question then becomes what happens to the rulings those bodies have made during the period those now removed members served.  I've got no guess at all how that will pan out.
 
2014-06-13 10:18:48 AM  

Teiritzamna: Note, this is NOT about whether the government can mandate if you, the driver, must wear a seatbelt. Or even whether car makers must include them. This is a question of whether the government has a compelling interest in requiring employers provide employees with a car, that happens to have a seatbelt. That is a huge difference. While the first two are relatively easy to pass strict scrutiny, the latter case is a bear. And it becomes worse when you realize that the government already carves out huge exceptions to the "car mandate" for religious groups and small employers.


More like:
The government isn't requiring that you provide your employee with a company car, but they are mandating if you give them a company car you must hold insurance on it, it has to be safe/registered in your state/inspected, has to have rear view mirrors, and a biatching stereo system.
 
2014-06-13 10:27:15 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: The government isn't requiring that you provide your employee with a company car, but they are mandating if you give them a company car you must hold insurance on it, it has to be safe/registered in your state/inspected, has to have rear view mirrors, and a biatching stereo system.


No - if the analogy is to be the same - there is a mandate that the employer give its employee a car or the employer pays a shiat ton in taxes.

Hence the term mandate.
 
2014-06-13 10:44:16 AM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: You mean treatments that they believe are abortifacients despite all medical evidence to the contrary.


The problem with RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause is that we cannot look to the logic or "truth" of a belief, only its sincerity. Otherwise we could say things like - "you want the freedom to worship an all powerful deity despite all physical evidence to the contrary?" which would be popular on Fark (and hilarious) but pretty much anathema to the First Amendment.


I think there's a difference between belief in a deity and belief that, say, using emergency contraception causes abortions. Try as we might, nobody on either side has conclusively proven that their deity/deities exist nor that absolutely no deities exist. On the other hand, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of people who have studied women's reproductive systems for years, been board-certified as having achieved mastery-level knowledge of women's reproductive systems, and work daily with women on reproductive health issues, are adamant that "Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy." If we cannot accept their word as truth, then the standard for scientific truth is so high that we may as well stop trying to advance our knowledge of the world because nothing could ever satisfy it.
 
2014-06-13 11:31:07 AM  

Benjamin_Ghazi: thamike: Teiritzamna: thamike: As a Jehovah's Witness, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions.

As a Christian Scientist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer by employees insurance that only covers prayer assistance.

As a Scientologist, I'm excited at the opportunity to be able to offer my employees insurance that only covers dictionaries.

As noted - this is one of the major flaws of the mandate especially given the massive protections given a sincere religious belief under RFRA.

/generally, in law, adding parties to a required relationship makes enforcement of that relationship harder

As a Mormon, you've had too much coffee.

As an Atheist, Religion is fooking antequated and should have not limit the rights of people that don't have the same imaginary friend you do. Your "rights to your beliefs" stop where they impede on other human beings.


You're beating a dead joke.
 
2014-06-13 11:39:44 AM  

Serious Black: If we cannot accept their word as truth, then the standard for scientific truth is so high that we may as well stop trying to advance our knowledge of the world because nothing could ever satisfy it.


Which is fine with regard to actual truth, but not for the legal analysis of religious beliefs. 

You could front a religious belief predicated upon the idea that the moon is a goddess which had some sort of impact on your compliance with federal law.  The fact that we  have a detailed understanding of its composition, history, etc.  and have sent a bunch of dudes to the actual farking moon, would still have nothing to do with the analysis of that religious belief.

All i am saying is that under the American system a judge cannot say: "well, dude, we all know the moon is a very large rock, not a supernatural lady.  Hell i have some regolith on my desk.  You lose."  Only the sincerity counts. 

Now to be fair, intensely stupid beliefs can bleed into the analysis of sincerity, since incredibly insane beliefs are difficult for regular people to hold - but there are some pretty crazy people out there who beleive some incredibly crazy things.*  They get the same test as mainline Christians. 

/*see, e.g., young earth creationists, mormons w/r/t ancient Israelites, scientologists w/r/t DC-10s, etc.
 
2014-06-13 01:04:42 PM  

Teiritzamna: This is what i was talking about above - this is not an employee rights case because the employees have no rights at issue. This is an employer's rights case - which unfortunately makes all the difference.


I believe I see the difference, but details seem to be a bastard to work out (In the legal field? Shocking, I know).

Thank you for the response.
 
Displayed 226 of 226 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report