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  
•       •       •

4533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2014 at 9:35 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

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

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report