Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: PSA, Supreme Court, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Aereo, strict scrutiny, campaign finance, Massachusetts law, Justice Antonin Scalia  
•       •       •

4561 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2014 at 9:35 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report