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 33
    More: PSA, Supreme Court, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Aereo, strict scrutiny, campaign finance, Massachusetts law, Justice Antonin Scalia  
•       •       •

4535 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2014 at 9:35 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-12 09:55:55 AM
6 votes:
re: recess appointments

If Congress does not want to do its job and approve presidential appointments, then I think there should be a maximum length of time before said appointment becomes automatic. This bullshiat of not approving people because they don't like the president is total crap. The nation voted for Obama a second time. Get over it.
2014-06-12 09:50:59 AM
5 votes:
"The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech."

fark you you piece of shiat. Take your religious farking bullying bullshiat the fark away from woman who are already making a tough farking decision. You motherfarkers are one of the lowest forms of life you farking asshole motherfarking farks. Go fark yourself with a farking rusty motherfarking spoon.
2014-06-12 10:13:55 AM
4 votes:

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

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


I'm interested to see if the outcome of this case could be used for/against so-called 'Free Speech Zones'.  If buffers around abortion clinics are ruled a violation of the first amendment, wouldn't the same also apply to those stupid zones?
2014-06-12 10:00:37 AM
4 votes:
An abortion protestor's right to free speech does not mean they can block access to a clinic and prevent a woman from exercising their right to an abortion.  Which is the point of having them stand on the other side of the street.

And if you've ever been to a clinic, you know damn well that the protestors "speech" carries over much more than thirty-five feet.
2014-06-12 09:43:29 AM
4 votes:
Searching a phone if there is sufficient probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime is one thing.  Searching it just because it's on someone when they're arrested or detained is quite another.
2014-06-12 09:47:49 AM
3 votes:
Conservative justices voiced considerable skepticism of the validity of the state's law as it relates to peaceful or quiet talk

There is absolutely nothing peaceful or quiet about an abortion clinic picket line.
2014-06-12 04:50:14 PM
2 votes:
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 10:24:41 AM
2 votes:
Over the last 5-10 years, I've lost all faith in, and respect for, the Supreme Court.  They've stopped being honest arbiters of what the Constitution says, and have become partisan hacks.

Scalia is the worst.  I don't wish death on people as a matter of course, so I'll just wish a debilitating but totally curable disease on him so he's forced to retire.
2014-06-12 10:22:26 AM
2 votes:

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

They still have to figure out my pass code anyways.


imgs.xkcd.com
2014-06-12 10:15:25 AM
2 votes:
I am so glad I don't live in the US.
2014-06-12 10:04:44 AM
2 votes:

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

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


And if the police can prove they've got evidence of a crime and the information is on the phone, they can get a warrant to search the phone. They don't get to search whatever they want, whenever they want because someone "may have information" or is "highly likely to have evidence".
2014-06-12 10:02:40 AM
2 votes:

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

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


Sufficient: having enough probable cause that a judge signs a warrant.
2014-06-12 09:59:15 AM
2 votes:
But Justice Antonin Scalia, an , expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Fun Fact: anyone double parking, crossing the double yellow line, speeding or being black just might be a bomber and should have their phone confiscated and checked and rechecked.
2014-06-12 09:47:31 AM
2 votes:
The Court will rule on the validity of a Massachusetts law that limits speech within 35 feet of an abortion clinic except for those passing by and employees of the clinic. The aim of the law, challenged is to ward off harassment of visitors to the clinic by anti-abortion protesters. It is challenged by Eleanor McCullen, a woman who argues that it violates her First Amendment right to free speech. be a total coont.

Fixed that typo for them. See what happens when you fire all of the proofreaders and editors, people?
2014-06-12 08:22:41 AM
2 votes:
That includes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is seen as a likely swing vote.

I'm kind of getting tired of Justice Kennedy's reputation as a swing voter.  Seems to me (without doing the research) that he has voted with the conservative block of the Court in every major decision over the last several years.
2014-06-12 11:41:42 AM
1 votes:

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 11:26:02 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:36 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:58 AM
1 votes:

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 11:07:27 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:35 AM
1 votes:
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 10:48:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:45:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:26:42 AM
1 votes:

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


You act as if the Court's opinion will be based on the law, or logic, or reason.
2014-06-12 10:15:36 AM
1 votes:
Contraception Mandate: 5-4 majority on whatever grounds Kennedy decides gives Hobby Lobby the power to not cover contraception, probably that they're an S corp.
Recess Appointments: 5-4 majority that the Senate decides when it is in recess and (possibly) that intrasession recesses do count as recesses for the clause.
Aereo: I have no clue because the case hinges on how well SCOTUS understands technology, and I don't have faith that they understand it very well.
Cell Phone Searches: Scalia-authored majority that these searches are unconstitutional without a warrant.
Abortion Clinic Buffers: 5-4 (possibly 6-3 or 7-2) that the buffers are unconstitutional. Potentially will get overturned in the future after an abortion clinic protestor assaults/murders a woman going in for an abortion.
2014-06-12 10:05:41 AM
1 votes:

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

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


...neither of which matters, constitutionally.

My guess as to the outcome: They don't have the right to block the entrance, but they do have the right to stand right next to the entrance and shout obscenities at everybody coming and going.
2014-06-12 10:03:35 AM
1 votes:

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


The problem is that the people who would do that have jobs and lives, whereas that is her job and her life.
2014-06-12 09:59:21 AM
1 votes:
i think pro-choice activists should picket Eleanor McCullen's work and home with signs calling her a total coont, as is their First Amendment right.
2014-06-12 09:51:15 AM
1 votes:
A huge case isn't a huge case when the outcome is already expected. If it's concerning big government and big business, it's already been decided. Just shut up and go back to work.
2014-06-12 09:50:28 AM
1 votes:
WWABW

//What Would a Billionaire Want
2014-06-12 09:30:41 AM
1 votes:
But Justice Antonin Scalia expressed sympathy with letting cops search someone's iPhone in certain situations, like when they have reason to believe doing so may stop a bomb from detonating.

Someone's been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.
2014-06-12 08:25:06 AM
1 votes:

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

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


You should maybe do a little research.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report