so anyone on bets on how long before the court bans abortion
2017.
I would like to theorize what their reasoning will be.
"With the advancements in modern medicine, there is never a reasonable cause to terminate the life of an unborn person, as such while Roe v Wade was applicable at the time it was originally tried, that precedent no longer applies when other reasonable options for medical care and post-natal care exist."
Oh god its like I saw a terrible vision of the future.
Yup its either going to be that or they are going to approve so many of the crazy ass personhood laws bubbling up from the southern states to the point where abortion while being technically legal won't have any providers available in the states who can meet the requirements to stay open.
so anyone on bets on how long before the court bans abortion
2017.
I would like to theorize what their reasoning will be.
"With the advancements in modern medicine, there is never a reasonable cause to terminate the life of an unborn person, as such while Roe v Wade was applicable at the time it was originally tried, that precedent no longer applies when other reasonable options for medical care and post-natal care exist."
Oh god its like I saw a terrible vision of the future.
Yup its either going to be that or they are going to approve so many of the crazy ass personhood laws bubbling up from the southern states to the point where abortion while being technically legal won't have any providers available in the states who can meet the requirements to stay open.
What's always insulting about this crap is that this only punishes poor people, as rich people can and will still be able to send their children to europe for "Vacation" for these little accidents.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Thomas has an extremely archaic interpretation of the Constitution and pretty consistently holds to it (and makes well-reasoned arguments. I think he's nuts, but he's a good writer).
O_o
If you start from the premises that Thomas has, that this constitutional clause means X and that amendment means Y, you can usually read his opinion and follow his logic to the conclusion he gets. His opinions are usually brief and logical. The problem isn't (generally) in his arguments, it's that the premises he starts with are reactionary as fuck, and he thinks that the Court went off the rails a century ago. As a general rule, that ends up with him coming to the same conclusion as the other conservatives, but sometimes that results in wackiness. Thomas and Scalia voted against limiting damages in Philip Morris v. Williams, rejecting both the center-left broad vision of due process (which also protects abortion rights) and the Alito/Roberts vision of unfettered corporations. Thomas rejects a lot of implied preemption doctrine as unconstitutional, so when the drug company Wyeth sought immunity under that principle for one of their products causing a woman to lose her hand (it being FDA-approved), Thomas not only concurred that Wyeth didn't have immunity, he argued that the company's entire argument was bogus. Thomas would be a pretty mainstream justice, if it were a century ago (except for the obvious). It's just that constitutional interpretation has changed since then.
Scalia is frequently a hack, and will regularly switch gears to adopt textualist or originalist logic depending on which conclusion he wants. Thomas is more consistent, but again, more of a crank. However, sometimes they'll surprise you and and write an opinion that their logic forces them to, even if they don't like its politics. Alito won't, especially if there's any chance of it changing the decision.
+2
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Ginsburg sadly is the most likely next replacement. She survived multiple cancers, but she's not long for this world I'd figure. And when she passes america will lose one of our best, and whoever replaces her will be no where near her equal.
Her dissents are incredible. You can feel the venom dripping from the page.
See, I think this is the overreach that burns them badly. The next logical step shouldn't be "How can we be openly discriminatory to stop hiring these sinners". It should be, "Look, we have nothing against homosexuals, we just feel that paying for healthcare that supports immoral acts is a violation of our religious beliefs"
Because if you can sever the healthcare responsibility from the work requirement, that generates enough of a chilling effect that homosexuals won't want to work there.
This comes off as oafish and vindictive. It won't play well in the public discourse.
So the 10 to 20 years thing? Because I guarentee even with a full slate of dems in house and senate, even if they had 2/3's in the senate they would not change the RFRA at all because no on in america takes on the christian coalition, its political suicide. You'd have a better chance surviving putting up a new gun law.
The worst part is that the RFRA isn't even that bad with the exception of this one. Prior precedent has basically been on the side of good sense and the RFRA was even written because of a SCOTUS decision which nullified the prior precedence. The RFRA was basically saying "no, go back to what you had done before with all the other decisions which still told people to get fucked"
Corporate personhood isn't that bad, its a legal construction which allows people to shed their personal liability. This is really handy in a lot of situations because otherwise people could sue stock holders and such(and people who wanted to start a business would have the entirety of the holdings open to suit, which potentially creates significant barriers to entry for new businesses). It additionally solves a lot of problems wherein damages caused by large joint ventures wouldn't have a way to assign significant causality to individuals (I.E. it ensures that you can sue someone if you're damaged) and ensures organizational stability regardless of ownership status.
The problem here is basically that Alito's decision does not treat corporations as people, separate in the law from the owners for the purpose of liability, but rather as direct agents of their owners. This isn't new with regards to how this court treats first amendment issues but it is fundamentally a really bad thing since it lets corporations be a personal shield of their owner (through which they can essentially personally nullify laws!)
Oh, remember on Mondaylong ago how Alito theorized that the government could provide contraception with "less burden" by allowing Hobby Lobby to use the religious non-profit exemption so that they wouldn't have to pay for it? Since the government could pay for it instead, therefore RFRA applied and Hobby Lobby was free to discriminate against women. Yeah, that lasted...oh, a whole three days. Because now 6 justices have granted a stay to Wheaton College, which is objecting to filling out the form claiming exemption from contraceptive coverage as a religious non-profit. Yes, six out of nine justices think that plausibly counts as a "substantial burden" on their religion. Because then the government would be paying for the contraceptive coverage. So apparently the government violated RFRA because they could have allowed Hobby Lobby to claim a religious objection and let the government pay for it, but three days later that alternative is itself probably an RFRA violation.
The contrast with what an individual would have to do to get a religious exemption from something are massive. Say there's a draft, and you're a pacifist. The Hobby Lobby opinion claims that the government can't rule on the sincerity of belief, but this is nonsense. You can't just claim conscientious objector status, you have to convince the draft board (and ultimately the courts) by showing that you're a committed pacifist. Years as a Quaker, witnesses, writings, etc. But if you're a corporation whose bigotry matches that of the majority of the court, nope! Obviously having an insurance plan that covers contraception is immoral, pay no attention to the products from China (with legalized forced abortions), the investments in contraceptive makers, or the fact that up until a few years ago their insurance plan covered contraception without any objection from Hobby Lobby. Pulling that one in front of a draft board would fail miserably. Man, you can't even get out of service by showing that you sincerely believe that this war is immoral. You have to prove that you sincerely believe that all wars are wrong.
But Wheaton has gone further in refusing to fill out the form claiming a religious objection, by their standard a CO couldn't even be required to tell the government that he wasn't willing to serve. That shit is bananas.
They are claiming a burden on their religion from filling out forms? What?
No, it totally makes sense. See, they fill out a form telling the government they won't spend money on employee insurance plans that in turn would cover birth control that doesn't actually result in an abortion, knowing full well that the law requires the government to spend money to cover that birth control. This is tantamount to rummaging around in their employees' vaginas with a rusty coat hanger and thus is a sin in the eyes of their Lord.
It's like that time I found a wallet on the street with no name in it and turned it into the police and then a month later three states over some guy decided against shoplifting a toothbrush. I'm still getting over the guilt for that one.
The best analogy I have heard is that it is as though a Quaker got out of selective service using a religious exemption, and when told that if they were not willing another person would be drafted they said "No! You cannot draft anyone else anywhere, as that would mean I had caused that person to be drafted!"
Edit: That or that it's as though a person who did not like women having access to contraception pulled an argument right out of the deepest part of their asshole.
Worth noting the three justices who dissented? Are women.
three liberal women
I mean I don't want to discount the gender element but I think it's doing this whole thing a disservice by claiming this is a men vs women issue, in very general terms it may be, but it's a conservative vs liberal issue moreso and *especially* in this case as men are totally capable of understanding the merits and legality of the issue and the real life consequences (one of which being more expensive health insurance!)
there are several tens of millions of women in the united states who are religious and feel the same way as the majority justices
to clarify I'm saying the majority was capable of understanding the issues and making a good decision but chose not to and it's not necessarily because they're dudes, and 5 sarah palins would've done the same
Ginsburg sadly is the most likely next replacement. She survived multiple cancers, but she's not long for this world I'd figure. And when she passes america will lose one of our best, and whoever replaces her will be no where near her equal.
And Kennedy's equivocating ass with be there for another 50 years
Ginsburg sadly is the most likely next replacement. She survived multiple cancers, but she's not long for this world I'd figure. And when she passes america will lose one of our best, and whoever replaces her will be no where near her equal.
And Kennedy's equivocating ass with be there for another 50 years
That would make him the oldest human ever. Dude's 77.
Roberts, on the other hand...
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Worth noting the three justices who dissented? Are women.
three liberal women
I mean I don't want to discount the gender element but I think it's doing this whole thing a disservice by claiming this is a men vs women issue, in very general terms it may be, but it's a conservative vs liberal issue moreso and *especially* in this case as men are totally capable of understanding the merits and legality of the issue and the real life consequences (one of which being more expensive health insurance!)
there are several tens of millions of women in the united states who are religious and feel the same way as the majority justices
At the same time, it's a little myopic to ignore the strong correlation between gender and political orientation. It's not a coincidence that the party with a larger proportion of women is in favor of increased bodily autonomy for women.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Worth noting the three justices who dissented? Are women.
three liberal women
I mean I don't want to discount the gender element but I think it's doing this whole thing a disservice by claiming this is a men vs women issue, in very general terms it may be, but it's a conservative vs liberal issue moreso and *especially* in this case as men are totally capable of understanding the merits and legality of the issue and the real life consequences (one of which being more expensive health insurance!)
there are several tens of millions of women in the united states who are religious and feel the same way as the majority justices
At the same time, it's a little myopic to ignore the strong correlation between gender and political orientation. It's not a coincidence that the party with a larger proportion of women is in favor of increased bodily autonomy for women.
My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
And you can find that same basic idea pretty much everywhere on the right this week, his is just the most blunt. And those are what passes for thought leaders over there these days.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The best analogy I have heard is that it is as though a Quaker got out of selective service using a religious exemption, and when told that if they were not willing another person would be drafted they said "No! You cannot draft anyone else anywhere, as that would mean I had caused that person to be drafted!"
Sort of, but Wheaton is actually refusing to ask for a religious exemption! The government hasn't even tried to pressure them by saying, "if you won't, someone else will." Not to mention that even if that's how it had played out, can you imagine a CO going to a draft board and declaring that the existence of a draft that he didn't have to participate in was a violation of his religious freedom? And that therefore it was unconstitutional and had to stop? The phrase "dismissed with prejudice" comes to mind. As does "ordered to report to an army base or face imprisonment". That argument wouldn't get 20 minutes of hearing before being laughed out of the room.
And this is plausibly a substantial burden on free exercise of religion in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Now, obviously, this is because Wheaton is a right-wing mainstream Christian school. A few other groups might be able to claim the same privilege, but only on contraception and only because evangelicals demanded it first.
To be fair, the court hasn't yet ruled on Wheaton's objection. But the fact that 6 of the 9 found something that ludicrous to be plausible is not a good sign.
My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
And you can find that same basic idea pretty much everywhere on the right this week, his is just the most blunt. And those are what passes for thought leaders over there these days.
Sometimes I wonder if these people live in the real world. Do they really think everyone using an IUD is a whore? Iuds are one of the most popular choices for contraception amongst married women with families whose lives are too busy for the pill. Hell, going beyond even that, do they not like having sex? Do they love raising babies that much?
Although I'm sure that all these republican 'leaders' have an attitude to looking after their kids which is just 'my wife will do everything, I'm going out drinking'
At their core they believe in some sort of right of contract over rights of employees. The rest is just layers and layers and layers of the backfire effect piling up.
Oh yeah, be prepared in the next 10-15 years to have always known that most American Evangelicals were always ardently opposed to birth control.
Opposition to abortion as a necessary part of being a Real True Christian in the US is a recent invention. For a long time it was absolutely critical to support abortion rights in order to be a Real True Christian.
This is the same topic that a circuit court judge granted an appeal based on the narrow Hobby Lobby decision within five hours of it being published. The organization there was a for profit religious broadcasting network. This Wheaton case was coming anyways because the "less burdensome accomadation" still let people get BC.
The horrific thing is what I found reading up on the background of this case. When Germany passed a law saying you had to get pre-abortion counseling the Catholic church was happy. Then, after giving counseling to these vulnerable women they would refuse to grant the paperwork saying they had the counseling, because that paperwork enabled them to have an abortion and they wouldn't support it.
It went all the way up to the Pope who said "Good Job!"
Worth noting the three justices who dissented? Are women.
three liberal women
I mean I don't want to discount the gender element but I think it's doing this whole thing a disservice by claiming this is a men vs women issue, in very general terms it may be, but it's a conservative vs liberal issue moreso and *especially* in this case as men are totally capable of understanding the merits and legality of the issue and the real life consequences (one of which being more expensive health insurance!)
there are several tens of millions of women in the united states who are religious and feel the same way as the majority justices
I'm frustrated by the frequency at which I'm seeing people all over the place trying to dismiss the gender element. At the very least it is about that in addition to all the other things, but it is definitely about that. The gender aspect is not only directly tied to the political, ideological, and religious aspects, but it's also 100% directly tied to the people who are actually victimized by this kind of shit. It doesn't become Not A Women's Issue just because religious Republican women exist.
This is the same topic that a circuit court judge granted an appeal based on the narrow Hobby Lobby decision within five hours of it being published. The organization there was a for profit religious broadcasting network. This Wheaton case was coming anyways because the "less burdensome accomadation" still let people get BC.
The horrific thing is what I found reading up on the background of this case. When Germany passed a law saying you had to get pre-abortion counseling the Catholic church was happy. Then, after giving counseling to these vulnerable women they would refuse to grant the paperwork saying they had the counseling, because that paperwork enabled them to have an abortion and they wouldn't support it.
It went all the way up to the Pope who said "Good Job!"
Eventually the courts are just going to have to accept that these churches don't want women to have access to birth control. At all.
The worst part is that the RFRA isn't even that bad with the exception of this one. Prior precedent has basically been on the side of good sense and the RFRA was even written because of a SCOTUS decision which nullified the prior precedence. The RFRA was basically saying "no, go back to what you had done before with all the other decisions which still told people to get fucked"
Disagree. The RFRA is, in principle, a shitty law.
Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?
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.
Fuck religious exemptions.
+3
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Now would be a great time to push for federally mandated m/paternity leave. Treasure life? How about you fund it for a few months/years?
You do have to balance the Free Exercise clause with the Establishment clause. Which is tricky. RFRA was trying to get to that point, it's just been used in (admittedly predictable) shitty ways.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You do have to balance the Free Exercise clause with the Establishment clause. Which is tricky. RFRA was trying to get to that point, it's just been used in (admittedly predictable) shitty ways.
Has it?
I had gotten the impression this was the first time we'd got a really stupid RFRA-based decision.
The rest of the time, it's seemed like the courts have been pretty common sense about the whole thing.
Posts
Yup its either going to be that or they are going to approve so many of the crazy ass personhood laws bubbling up from the southern states to the point where abortion while being technically legal won't have any providers available in the states who can meet the requirements to stay open.
What's always insulting about this crap is that this only punishes poor people, as rich people can and will still be able to send their children to europe for "Vacation" for these little accidents.
pleasepaypreacher.net
TPM is your friend, always.
Scalia is frequently a hack, and will regularly switch gears to adopt textualist or originalist logic depending on which conclusion he wants. Thomas is more consistent, but again, more of a crank. However, sometimes they'll surprise you and and write an opinion that their logic forces them to, even if they don't like its politics. Alito won't, especially if there's any chance of it changing the decision.
Snark-bama is the best Obama.
Her dissents are incredible. You can feel the venom dripping from the page.
pleasepaypreacher.net
See, I think this is the overreach that burns them badly. The next logical step shouldn't be "How can we be openly discriminatory to stop hiring these sinners". It should be, "Look, we have nothing against homosexuals, we just feel that paying for healthcare that supports immoral acts is a violation of our religious beliefs"
Because if you can sever the healthcare responsibility from the work requirement, that generates enough of a chilling effect that homosexuals won't want to work there.
This comes off as oafish and vindictive. It won't play well in the public discourse.
The worst part is that the RFRA isn't even that bad with the exception of this one. Prior precedent has basically been on the side of good sense and the RFRA was even written because of a SCOTUS decision which nullified the prior precedence. The RFRA was basically saying "no, go back to what you had done before with all the other decisions which still told people to get fucked"
Corporate personhood isn't that bad, its a legal construction which allows people to shed their personal liability. This is really handy in a lot of situations because otherwise people could sue stock holders and such(and people who wanted to start a business would have the entirety of the holdings open to suit, which potentially creates significant barriers to entry for new businesses). It additionally solves a lot of problems wherein damages caused by large joint ventures wouldn't have a way to assign significant causality to individuals (I.E. it ensures that you can sue someone if you're damaged) and ensures organizational stability regardless of ownership status.
The problem here is basically that Alito's decision does not treat corporations as people, separate in the law from the owners for the purpose of liability, but rather as direct agents of their owners. This isn't new with regards to how this court treats first amendment issues but it is fundamentally a really bad thing since it lets corporations be a personal shield of their owner (through which they can essentially personally nullify laws!)
The contrast with what an individual would have to do to get a religious exemption from something are massive. Say there's a draft, and you're a pacifist. The Hobby Lobby opinion claims that the government can't rule on the sincerity of belief, but this is nonsense. You can't just claim conscientious objector status, you have to convince the draft board (and ultimately the courts) by showing that you're a committed pacifist. Years as a Quaker, witnesses, writings, etc. But if you're a corporation whose bigotry matches that of the majority of the court, nope! Obviously having an insurance plan that covers contraception is immoral, pay no attention to the products from China (with legalized forced abortions), the investments in contraceptive makers, or the fact that up until a few years ago their insurance plan covered contraception without any objection from Hobby Lobby. Pulling that one in front of a draft board would fail miserably. Man, you can't even get out of service by showing that you sincerely believe that this war is immoral. You have to prove that you sincerely believe that all wars are wrong.
But Wheaton has gone further in refusing to fill out the form claiming a religious objection, by their standard a CO couldn't even be required to tell the government that he wasn't willing to serve. That shit is bananas.
No, it totally makes sense. See, they fill out a form telling the government they won't spend money on employee insurance plans that in turn would cover birth control that doesn't actually result in an abortion, knowing full well that the law requires the government to spend money to cover that birth control. This is tantamount to rummaging around in their employees' vaginas with a rusty coat hanger and thus is a sin in the eyes of their Lord.
It's like that time I found a wallet on the street with no name in it and turned it into the police and then a month later three states over some guy decided against shoplifting a toothbrush. I'm still getting over the guilt for that one.
Edit: That or that it's as though a person who did not like women having access to contraception pulled an argument right out of the deepest part of their asshole.
three liberal women
I mean I don't want to discount the gender element but I think it's doing this whole thing a disservice by claiming this is a men vs women issue, in very general terms it may be, but it's a conservative vs liberal issue moreso and *especially* in this case as men are totally capable of understanding the merits and legality of the issue and the real life consequences (one of which being more expensive health insurance!)
there are several tens of millions of women in the united states who are religious and feel the same way as the majority justices
Too depressing
And Kennedy's equivocating ass with be there for another 50 years
That would make him the oldest human ever. Dude's 77.
Roberts, on the other hand...
At the same time, it's a little myopic to ignore the strong correlation between gender and political orientation. It's not a coincidence that the party with a larger proportion of women is in favor of increased bodily autonomy for women.
Also, not tens of millions of women. Don't see crosstabs by gender, but I'll bet most of the 10% are men.
"should obama force christians to buy birth control for their employees" is how this is framed on the right
This was a political decision that completely ignores the ramifications of it
It's really not. It's about sluts having sex all willy nilly if you paid any attention to the right's reaction.
Okay so if you already knew the poll you were going to link had nothing to do with what we were talking about why did you link it
most americans, even christians and conservatives, believe birth control is fine
most conservatives, even conservative women, do not think that the ACA contraception mandate is fine as far as I know
I'd really love to be proven wrong because it would give me some faith in humanity
Because this whole thing is about how the extreme right that animates the party hates Griswold. It's about birth control.
And you can find that same basic idea pretty much everywhere on the right this week, his is just the most blunt. And those are what passes for thought leaders over there these days.
And this is plausibly a substantial burden on free exercise of religion in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Now, obviously, this is because Wheaton is a right-wing mainstream Christian school. A few other groups might be able to claim the same privilege, but only on contraception and only because evangelicals demanded it first.
To be fair, the court hasn't yet ruled on Wheaton's objection. But the fact that 6 of the 9 found something that ludicrous to be plausible is not a good sign.
Sometimes I wonder if these people live in the real world. Do they really think everyone using an IUD is a whore? Iuds are one of the most popular choices for contraception amongst married women with families whose lives are too busy for the pill. Hell, going beyond even that, do they not like having sex? Do they love raising babies that much?
Although I'm sure that all these republican 'leaders' have an attitude to looking after their kids which is just 'my wife will do everything, I'm going out drinking'
Fuck You(r healthcare), Got Mine (religion)
Opposition to abortion as a necessary part of being a Real True Christian in the US is a recent invention. For a long time it was absolutely critical to support abortion rights in order to be a Real True Christian.
Or put in much better terms: Slacktivist
The horrific thing is what I found reading up on the background of this case. When Germany passed a law saying you had to get pre-abortion counseling the Catholic church was happy. Then, after giving counseling to these vulnerable women they would refuse to grant the paperwork saying they had the counseling, because that paperwork enabled them to have an abortion and they wouldn't support it.
It went all the way up to the Pope who said "Good Job!"
I'm frustrated by the frequency at which I'm seeing people all over the place trying to dismiss the gender element. At the very least it is about that in addition to all the other things, but it is definitely about that. The gender aspect is not only directly tied to the political, ideological, and religious aspects, but it's also 100% directly tied to the people who are actually victimized by this kind of shit. It doesn't become Not A Women's Issue just because religious Republican women exist.
Disagree. The RFRA is, in principle, a shitty law.
Fuck religious exemptions.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The social conservative stance is that life begins at conception but once they're out of the womb who gives a shit.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Has it?
I had gotten the impression this was the first time we'd got a really stupid RFRA-based decision.
The rest of the time, it's seemed like the courts have been pretty common sense about the whole thing.
The previous ones were mostly okay, if anything I thought the one about hair length went a little too far the other way.