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 05:29:00 PM

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Cell phone searches:  Get a damn warrant.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

3) Justices will side with telecoms (of course)

4) Justices will side with cops (of course)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Hobby Lobby just wants to provide company cars without seatbelts.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You have the entire issue completely backwards.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thank you for the response.
 
Displayed 26 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