Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[SCOTUS] Now 2014 Compatible [Read the OP] - In a 5-4 Opinion, Worst Court

19495969798100»

Posts

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    That's wishful thinking

    Dems won't sign a bill thats will inevitably be labelled the anti religion law. It's political suicide. Most Dems are not liberals and not from ultra liberal areas.

    So It GoeswazillaSpoitPanda4YouLovely
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Make no mistake, SCOTUS is not capable of "just making a narrow decision here." This is legislating from the bench, because every lower court will be free to address this decision however they want, and the conservatives will do so freely. The only way to counter someone abusing a SCOTUS decision is to get SCOTUS to clarify, which they're going to refuse to do.

    So, yeah, firing homosexuals is going to be justified under this decision.

    Doesn't it only take 4 justices to grant certiorari?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Mill wrote: »
    This BS can also be counter by changing RFRA, which Reid has mentioned they would like to do. Probably won't happen during this Congress because it's a fucking worthless one, but the 5 dumbasses on the court have upped the likelihood that the next time we either get two sane parties in DC or the democrats have control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, that they'll tell the Robert's court to kindly fuck off by either outright nuking the law or changing to prevent such bullshit.

    The RFRA is quite simply a shitty law.
    Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability

    So, a law that makes it legal to not follow laws.

    And now we have the Murray / Udall Bill...a law that requires people to follow laws...

    Ugh

    Panda4You
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Because I think these threads get a little too depressing sometimes, I would like to inject a little (unintentional) humor.

    I was reading Jack Chick tracts (because I think they're incredibly funny) and came across this gem:

    0094_02.gif
    0094_03.gif

    This is even funnier in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling. The idea that we're even close to a SCOTUS ruling like this one is delightfully deluded.


    ...

    Is that reporter Paul Lynde?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That's wishful thinking

    Dems won't sign a bill thats will inevitably be labelled the anti religion law. It's political suicide. Most Dems are not liberals and not from ultra liberal areas.

    GOP will claim anything the Dems do is anti-religion anyway. For example: mandating birth control coverage.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    That's wishful thinking

    Dems won't sign a bill thats will inevitably be labelled the anti religion law. It's political suicide. Most Dems are not liberals and not from ultra liberal areas.

    GOP will claim anything the Dems do is anti-religion anyway. For example: mandating birth control coverageBeing a Democrat.

    Let's be honest.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    This BS can also be counter by changing RFRA, which Reid has mentioned they would like to do. Probably won't happen during this Congress because it's a fucking worthless one, but the 5 dumbasses on the court have upped the likelihood that the next time we either get two sane parties in DC or the democrats have control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, that they'll tell the Robert's court to kindly fuck off by either outright nuking the law or changing to prevent such bullshit.

    The RFRA is quite simply a shitty law.
    Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability

    So, a law that makes it legal to not follow laws.

    And now we have the Murray / Udall Bill...a law that requires people to follow laws...

    Ugh

    Another shitty law we can thank bill Clinton for

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    This BS can also be counter by changing RFRA, which Reid has mentioned they would like to do. Probably won't happen during this Congress because it's a fucking worthless one, but the 5 dumbasses on the court have upped the likelihood that the next time we either get two sane parties in DC or the democrats have control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, that they'll tell the Robert's court to kindly fuck off by either outright nuking the law or changing to prevent such bullshit.

    The RFRA is quite simply a shitty law.
    Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability

    So, a law that makes it legal to not follow laws.

    And now we have the Murray / Udall Bill...a law that requires people to follow laws...

    Ugh

    Another shitty law we can thank bill Clinton for

    He should have vetoed it. And I can't remember why he didn't.

    But in his defense, only 3 senators voted against the thing.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    You're making it sound like if not for the RFRA then clearly the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to rule in our favour rather than inventing an idea out of whole cloth and ignoring decades of binding case law. That darned meddling 103rd Congress.

    And that is just insane. If the RFRA did not exist then Alito would have relied on something else. Remember, they just issued an injunction for Wheaton on the basis that filling out a form constituted a "Substantial Burden."

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    This BS can also be counter by changing RFRA, which Reid has mentioned they would like to do. Probably won't happen during this Congress because it's a fucking worthless one, but the 5 dumbasses on the court have upped the likelihood that the next time we either get two sane parties in DC or the democrats have control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, that they'll tell the Robert's court to kindly fuck off by either outright nuking the law or changing to prevent such bullshit.

    The RFRA is quite simply a shitty law.
    Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability

    So, a law that makes it legal to not follow laws.

    And now we have the Murray / Udall Bill...a law that requires people to follow laws...

    Ugh

    Another shitty law we can thank bill Clinton for

    He should have vetoed it. And I can't remember why he didn't.

    But in his defense, only 3 senators voted against the thing.

    Overturned vetoes make presidents look weak (and he probably wasn't actually against it ideologically speaking).

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    This BS can also be counter by changing RFRA, which Reid has mentioned they would like to do. Probably won't happen during this Congress because it's a fucking worthless one, but the 5 dumbasses on the court have upped the likelihood that the next time we either get two sane parties in DC or the democrats have control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, that they'll tell the Robert's court to kindly fuck off by either outright nuking the law or changing to prevent such bullshit.

    The RFRA is quite simply a shitty law.
    Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability

    So, a law that makes it legal to not follow laws.

    And now we have the Murray / Udall Bill...a law that requires people to follow laws...

    Ugh

    Another shitty law we can thank bill Clinton for

    He should have vetoed it. And I can't remember why he didn't.

    But in his defense, only 3 senators voted against the thing.

    Overturned vetoes make presidents look weak (and he probably wasn't actually against it ideologically speaking).

    It was also his first term, so political suicide was still a problem.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2014
    moniker wrote: »
    You're making it sound like if not for the RFRA then clearly the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to rule in our favour rather than inventing an idea out of whole cloth and ignoring decades of binding case law. That darned meddling 103rd Congress.

    And that is just insane. If the RFRA did not exist then Alito would have relied on something else. Remember, they just issued an injunction for Wheaton on the basis that filling out a form constituted a "Substantial Burden."

    Employment Div. v. Smith.

    Scalia was all about neutral laws of general applicability in 1990.

    It might be the case that peyote and contraceptives are super-special different.

    But, at least based on the 1990 ruling, I can imagine Scalia ruling differently in the Hobby Lobby case.

    _J_ on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Must we explain again why it was passed, why it has the word "restoration" in it's name and how it was interpreted until now? I think we've done this like 4 times already in the last 20 pages to explain why whinging about the RFRA doesn't make any sense.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    You're making it sound like if not for the RFRA then clearly the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to rule in our favour rather than inventing an idea out of whole cloth and ignoring decades of binding case law. That darned meddling 103rd Congress.

    And that is just insane. If the RFRA did not exist then Alito would have relied on something else. Remember, they just issued an injunction for Wheaton on the basis that filling out a form constituted a "Substantial Burden."

    Employment Div. v. Smith.

    Scalia was all about neutral laws of general applicability in 1990.

    It might be the case that peyote and contraceptives are super-special different.

    But, at least based on the 1990 ruling, I can imagine Scalia ruling differently in the Hobby Lobby case.

    He prefers his religion to a Native American one.

    There are two issues with the ruling:

    1) It puts a woman's health care decisions in the hands of her boss.
    2) It favors conservative Catholicism and evangelical Christianity in the eyes of the federal government.

    Neither of which have anything to do with RFRA.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    You're making it sound like if not for the RFRA then clearly the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to rule in our favour rather than inventing an idea out of whole cloth and ignoring decades of binding case law. That darned meddling 103rd Congress.

    And that is just insane. If the RFRA did not exist then Alito would have relied on something else. Remember, they just issued an injunction for Wheaton on the basis that filling out a form constituted a "Substantial Burden."

    Employment Div. v. Smith.

    Scalia was all about neutral laws of general applicability in 1990.

    It might be the case that peyote and contraceptives are super-special different.

    But, at least based on the 1990 ruling, I can imagine Scalia ruling differently in the Hobby Lobby case.

    He prefers his religion to a Native American one.

    There are two issues with the ruling:

    1) It puts a woman's health care decisions in the hands of her boss.
    2) It favors conservative Catholicism and evangelical Christianity in the eyes of the federal government.

    Neither of which have anything to do with RFRA.

    That is your interpretation of the ruling, not what the ruling, itself, states.

    Page 40:
    We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

    If the ruling were principally based upon Catholic or Evangelical Christian beliefs, then the majority would not state that "guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA". The beliefs would render access to these contraceptive methods as not compelling, because the religious beliefs would categorize these contraceptive methods as morally deleterious, and so not beneficial to the theocracy you've supposed.

    The problem, as presented in the majority opinion, is
    HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.

    That has to do with the RFRA, since that criteria comes from the RFRA. Further,
    HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.

    Since there is already an exception for nonprofit organizations, it would seem that the supposed favoritism was already a component of the Affordable Care Act.

    Now, you can ignore all of that, and privilege some select practical consequences of the ruling over the legal basis for the ruling. But doing so seems to be little more than you saying shit, which amounts to opining "I dislike this!"

    If that is permitted as a viable argumentative style, then I am not sure how we can have a civil discussion, as there would seem to be no standard to which we hold any person's claims. The majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby seems to jive with our legal system as it existed at the time of the ruling.

    If there is a problem, then the problem is not with the ruling. The problem is with all the shit upon which the ruling was based. The bulk of that seems to be the RFRA. This is problematic for your stated position.
    • This ruling follows from the RFRA.
    • If there is a problem with the ruling, then the problem is actually with that from which the ruling follows.

    That, again, is the RFRA.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    The problem with your argument is that you're treating the conservative majority as if they're acting in good faith.

    The rest of us are not, because the conservative majority does not act in good faith.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Edith UpwardsSo It GoesLilnoobsArdolSurfpossumPanda4YouKamarShadowenAManFromEarthDarkewolfeiTunesIsEvilSyphonBluejoshofalltradesKid PresentableAndy JoeJihadJesusDehumanizedSquigie
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Wait, is _J_ seriously using the Hobby Lobby case to argue against the RFRA?

    Like, _J_, do you understand that one of the big issues alot of people have with the ruling is how it runs counter to previous precedent on RFRA-related rulings?

    Edith Upwards
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    You're making it sound like if not for the RFRA then clearly the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to rule in our favour rather than inventing an idea out of whole cloth and ignoring decades of binding case law. That darned meddling 103rd Congress.

    And that is just insane. If the RFRA did not exist then Alito would have relied on something else. Remember, they just issued an injunction for Wheaton on the basis that filling out a form constituted a "Substantial Burden."

    Employment Div. v. Smith.

    Scalia was all about neutral laws of general applicability in 1990.

    It might be the case that peyote and contraceptives are super-special different.

    But, at least based on the 1990 ruling, I can imagine Scalia ruling differently in the Hobby Lobby case.

    He prefers his religion to a Native American one.

    There are two issues with the ruling:

    1) It puts a woman's health care decisions in the hands of her boss.
    2) It favors conservative Catholicism and evangelical Christianity in the eyes of the federal government.

    Neither of which have anything to do with RFRA.

    That is your interpretation of the ruling, not what the ruling, itself, states.

    Page 40:
    We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

    If the ruling were principally based upon Catholic or Evangelical Christian beliefs, then the majority would not state that "guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA". The beliefs would render access to these contraceptive methods as not compelling, because the religious beliefs would categorize these contraceptive methods as morally deleterious, and so not beneficial to the theocracy you've supposed.

    The problem, as presented in the majority opinion, is
    HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.

    That has to do with the RFRA, since that criteria comes from the RFRA. Further,
    HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.

    Since there is already an exception for nonprofit organizations, it would seem that the supposed favoritism was already a component of the Affordable Care Act.

    Now, you can ignore all of that, and privilege some select practical consequences of the ruling over the legal basis for the ruling. But doing so seems to be little more than you saying shit, which amounts to opining "I dislike this!"

    If that is permitted as a viable argumentative style, then I am not sure how we can have a civil discussion, as there would seem to be no standard to which we hold any person's claims. The majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby seems to jive with our legal system as it existed at the time of the ruling.

    If there is a problem, then the problem is not with the ruling. The problem is with all the shit upon which the ruling was based. The bulk of that seems to be the RFRA. This is problematic for your stated position.
    • This ruling follows from the RFRA.
    • If there is a problem with the ruling, then the problem is actually with that from which the ruling follows.

    That, again, is the RFRA.

    You're assuming that the RFRA test involves no actual judgment calls. If the Court said, "We find the interest in government taxation uncompelling within the meaning of RFRA" we'd say the Court is simply wrong, independent of RFRA, because government taxation is a compelling interest.

    Some of us are similarly arguing that the Court decided to respect the religious exception under RFRA in this case where it hasn't in others, not on the basis of RFRA itself but on the basis of extralegal considerations, including religious bias. The fact that the Court has some sort of law that they're dealing with does not preclude them from dealing with that law in a biased or unfair manner.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Wait, is _J_ seriously using the Hobby Lobby case to argue against the RFRA?

    Like, _J_, do you understand that one of the big issues alot of people have with the ruling is how it runs counter to previous precedent on RFRA-related rulings?

    Nothing in the RFRA precludes it from being used as it was in the Hobby Lobby case. It seems better, to me, that the law be reworded so that it can only be used as it was in previous cases.

    The RFRA can be used to argue X.

    Folks dislike X.

    So we probably ought to modify the RFRA.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    _J_ wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Wait, is _J_ seriously using the Hobby Lobby case to argue against the RFRA?

    Like, _J_, do you understand that one of the big issues alot of people have with the ruling is how it runs counter to previous precedent on RFRA-related rulings?

    Nothing in the RFRA precludes it from being used as it was in the Hobby Lobby case. It seems better, to me, that the law be reworded so that it can only be used as it was in previous cases.

    The RFRA can be used to argue X.

    Folks dislike X.

    So we probably ought to modify the RFRA.

    Except, you know, the intent of the law and precedent. Two very important things in the US legal system.

    This SCOTUS has amply demonstrated they can use just about anything to argue X. That's no reason to blame "just about anything".

    shryke on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2014
    shryke wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Wait, is _J_ seriously using the Hobby Lobby case to argue against the RFRA?

    Like, _J_, do you understand that one of the big issues alot of people have with the ruling is how it runs counter to previous precedent on RFRA-related rulings?

    Nothing in the RFRA precludes it from being used as it was in the Hobby Lobby case. It seems better, to me, that the law be reworded so that it can only be used as it was in previous cases.

    The RFRA can be used to argue X.

    Folks dislike X.

    So we probably ought to modify the RFRA.

    Except, you know, the intent of the law and precedent. Two very important things in the US legal system.

    Intent and precedent did not work in this case.

    So what does that tell us about intent and precedent?

    Edit: They are inadequate, and we need to reword the RFRA.

    Edit Edit:
    It occurs to me that, if I remember your arguments from the gun control threads correctly, we may be having a version of the "Where does the blame go?" argument.

    _J_ on
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Precedent (and intent to a lesser degree) is what we have based our entire legal system on for the last 400 years or so. By just ignoring them and claiming they are magically inadequate now because you (or I should say the 5 conservative SCOTUS judges[or maybe just Alito?]) say it is is just flat out wrong, which is a large part of why this SCOTUS ruling is so awful

    MrMistershrykejoshofalltradesSquigie
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Indeed. Which is what I started with and what we will keep circling back to till _J_ gets how the legal system works or his batteries run out.

    The main issue with this ruling and this court in general is that it ignores how the system is supposed to function. And that's not a flaw in the system because once you have stopped obeying the "rules", then it doesn't matter what the rules are. Cause you aren't obeying them anyway.

    If the court is just gonna throw out precedent and intent and make shit up, then it doesn't matter what the law says. Cause they are just making shit up.

    Kid PresentableSquigie
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    I don't think there's anything wrong with the original RFRA--indeed, I think that the government ought not be in the business of imposing substantial burdens on religious practice when there are less burdensome means available for effecting the same ends, and that the mere facial neutrality standard is too weak. However, just as I see no problem with the original law, I also I see no reason for Congress not to change the wording now. If SCOTUS is using a bad interpretation that goes counter to legislative intent, then legislators ought to change the wording to foreclose that interpretation. Of course, this may not be politically possible now, but in general there's nothing wrong with legislators passing more explicit laws when they get mad at the courts. It's not a constitutional issue, so it's purely their authority which is at issue here.

    MrMister on
    shrykeMillAManFromEarth
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Exactly, right now 5 assholes on the court are using a shitty interpretation of an existing law to give shitty corporation rights, that fucking corporations shouldn't have. Ergo it's reasonable to assume that perhaps a rewording of the law would be a nice quick way to tell them to fuck off and is a hell of a lot easier to get implemented than passing an amendment. AKA this is shitty like Citizens United, but we have another potential avenue to punch the Rober's Court in the dick for being a dick. I only throw potentially nuking the law in because when the opposition and their base insists you're anti-religious regardless of what you do, well not much to fucking loose; especially, when anyone with some fucking sense is pissed about this ruling.

    Sure this court acts in bad faith and may reach deep into it's collective ass to still keep the shitty hobby lobby thing alive. Then again, people were sure this court was going to murder ACA and Roberts decided he didn't like how that could turn out. So there is a possibility that if law is changed and worded sufficiently enough, that this court may decide it isn't worth trying to keep the shitty hobby lobby thing alive because Roberts or one of the other assholes decides, to do so would be to go down a rabbit hole, that they would prefer to stay far the fuck away from.

    Edith UpwardsAManFromEarth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I don't think there's anything wrong with the original RFRA--indeed, I think that the government ought not be in the business of imposing substantial burdens on religious practice when there are less burdensome means available for effecting the same ends, and that the mere facial neutrality standard is too weak. However, just as I see no problem with the original law, I also I see no reason for Congress not to change the wording now. If SCOTUS is using a bad interpretation that goes counter to legislative intent, then legislators ought to change the wording to foreclose that interpretation. Of course, this may not be politically possible now, but in general there's nothing wrong with legislators passing more explicit laws when they get mad at the courts. It's not a constitutional issue, so it's purely their authority which is at issue here.

    Not that it has a chance in hell of passing the House, but the Senate Dems released a bill that just decouples ACA from RFRA altogether, so if the Justices want to strike down the contraception mandate, they'll have to go to First Amendment grounds. Which they would.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Indeed. Which is what I started with and what we will keep circling back to till _J_ gets how the legal system works or his batteries run out.

    The main issue with this ruling and this court in general is that it ignores how the system is supposed to function. And that's not a flaw in the system because once you have stopped obeying the "rules", then it doesn't matter what the rules are. Cause you aren't obeying them anyway.

    If the court is just gonna throw out precedent and intent and make shit up, then it doesn't matter what the law says. Cause they are just making shit up.

    The shit they made up fits within the system to which the Supreme Court Justices are beholden. Plus, it's the Supreme Court, so there is no legal body to which 'we' can appeal.

    All we can do is utilize another branch of government to change the law, and so change the system. But if we change the system, then we do so as a result of the flaw in the initial system that had to be changed.

    I guess there is a possible world in which the RFRA was not used to enable Hobby Lobby to stop covering contraceptives...but we don't live there...so it may be irrelevant.

    So, yeah. Fuck religious exemptions from law.
    To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

    rockrnger
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I think that the government ought not be in the business of imposing substantial burdens on religious practice when there are less burdensome means available for effecting the same ends

    This surprises me.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I think what bothers me about this conversation is that if you change a few nouns, it reads like something off Redstate about Roe v. Wade.

    And we generally consider those folks to be silly geese. But here we are...geesin' it up.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    Yes, conversations often change when you alter the nouns they are about...?

    Surfpossum
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yes, conversations often change when you alter the nouns they are about...?

    Folks on this forum have a problem with the ruling because it conflicts with their ideals, not because the legal system broke. Example:
    Mill wrote: »
    Right now 5 assholes on the court are using a shitty interpretation of an existing law to give ________

    The 'argument' against the ruling is only "Those 5 justices shouldn't have interpreted the law in that way!" And I am not sure what supports that should, other than emotional preferences.

    It's fine to dislike the ruling, and want to change things. But focus on the system that allowed this, not some ideal of "Oh, the RFRA is fine, but the Justices just interpreted it improperly."

    If they could interpret it improperly, then it is not fine.

    I'm really just arguing against this idea:
    Neither of which have anything to do with RFRA.

    This has something to do with the RFRA, because the RFRA is worded shittily.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    This is one of the most transparently political decisions in SCOTUS history. It conflicts with prior doctrine on numerous levels. There is every justification for saying that the system failed. Your premise that if a law can be misinterpreted, the fault is with the law not the interpreter, is wrong. A lawyer of sufficient imagination can always manipulate the law.

    They contradicted how they've interpreted RFRA in the past. RFRA was the legal fig-leaf on a political and religious package, hanging loose and bold in the sun.

    SurfpossumPanda4YouDarkPrimusSquigie
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    wazilla wrote: »
    A Question: If you don't have to provide health care that covers things you don't agree with on religious grounds then what about AIDS treatments? We've already established that factual accuracy of a belief has no bearing on whether or not contravening that belief constitutes a burden on the free exercise of the believer's religion. (Correct? the Hobby Lobby ruling dismissed the argument that the contraceptives in question were not abortifacients, and thus, as a matter of fact, did not constitute providing a means to obtain an abortion and, therefore, did not violate their religious beliefs) This is now the law of the land. So let's say I believe that only homosexuals contract AIDS and only through sinful acts (I think, a fairly common misconception). Why do I have to cover them? I don't believe I should have to. Do I have to provide treatment that may lead to ANY scenario which could potentially lead to a man laying with another man as he would a woman? After the Hobby Lobby ruling, and now this impending Wheaton College ruling, I'm not sure.

    The precise legal logic which will be used is, 'Is the partisan decision with no legal basis we are about to take so abhorrant to Americas liberal majority that they would just storm into the streets and tear us to pieces? Or is it just another slow increase in the water temperature which secures our failing ideologies?'

    I think the aids one would be a bridge too far right now. Expect more action to suppress women's rights one slice at a time first.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Just_Bri_Thanks
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Oh hai guys I made a new thread for you since this one is at 100 pages and I thought my title was hi-fucking-larious so please migrate to the new thread!

    If you want. No pressure.
    please like my thread

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • BullheadBullhead Registered User regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    Oh hai guys I made a new thread for you since this one is at 100 pages and I thought my title was hi-fucking-larious so please migrate to the new thread!

    If you want. No pressure.
    please like my thread

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/191121/nobody-expects-the-scotus-5-4-decision-read-the-op#latest

    camo_sig2.png
This discussion has been closed.