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.
RFRA was meant to basically reverse a SCOTUS decision reversing a bunch of cases. Saying that the Amish didn't have to go to school past the 8th grade because of religious freedom was stupid.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
That second paragraph of your post is about control, though.
I don't dispute that many people (the Justices probably less so) don't educate themselves with human biology enough to know what is and isn't beneficial to their own personal autonomy.
I don't think your average "Abortion is bad" poll respondent even thinks about why they think that. It's cultural in the same way they'd think eating dog is bad. They may provide reason and argument when pressed but it's just what they've heard since around the early 70's. They are no more capable of breaking out of it than Romney was of understanding that he might lose.
We lose sight of this condition at the peril of succumbing to it.
Though I think we're getting a bit away from the topic here.
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.
My point is that the intent of the RFRA was not to produce that situation. That is what a plaintif argued and it was rejected. The RFRA was an return to prior precedent on the issue.
Basically if you took the RFRA as had been ruled by every court with the exception of this decision, you would get a pretty reasonable law.
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
Opposition to abortion is not a vast conspiracy to keep down labor prices.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
Opposition to abortion is not a vast conspiracy to keep down labor prices.
I'm not sure where you even get that idea.
Eh, where do you get this "conspiracy" thing from?
It's just that the interests of certain strata of people align with these views. It makes sense for them (and their assets) to actively propagate this sort of social development at every opportunity.
Which we've seen quite clear examples of in these recent times.
Panda4You on
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
Opposition to abortion is not a vast conspiracy to keep down labor prices.
I've met my share of "she deserves to get pregnant if she's having sex" conservatives though and given the makeup of the court I would be surprised if one of them wasn't that flavor politically
I've met my share of "she deserves to get pregnant if she's having sex" conservatives though and given the makeup of the court I would be surprised if one of them wasn't that flavor politically
Scalia maybe
The point I'm making is you're not understanding what motivates that statement. It's effect is absolutely that of punishment but the insidious thing about these kinds of views is that the holder doesn't directly have that effect in mind. They would phrase it as "Actions have consequences" or other bullshit that works until you think about second order effects. They will never think this far unless they're engaged on it in a manner that doesn't immediately make them go defensive.
The reason I'm making this point is because if you engage with them on your misunderstanding you will never ever make any headway. Since your premise is that they're evil, you'll quickly go down to name calling and attacks and the end result is they think you're ideas are the villainous ones because their holders acted like a cartoon villain.
This is exactly the situation where a candidate that was a 9 to 1 longshot didn't have a concession speech prepared. Nate Silver was clearly a liberal gay media member and his numbers are propaganda.
"Actions have consequences" is, like, directly about punishment, though. The problem with birth control is that it lets women skip out on their punishment for having sex.
"Actions have consequences" is, like, directly about punishment, though. The problem with birth control is that it lets women skip out on their punishment for having sex.
Punishment has intent, it is there to inflict harm in reciprocation for transgression. This is different than spending all you money on gumballs so you don't have any left for lollipops. Your lack of lollipops isn't a punishment though it is a consequence.
Keep in mind I'm making arguments I do not agree with, I'm sure I'm not doing a perfect job of it.
If I were making real arguments I would argue that the minimal cost (effectively negative from an Insurers POV) would make denying birth control take on the nature of a punitive action because of it's effects. This is a big picture argument, the insurers don't have any kind of legal/moral obligation to provide this free stuff, its just that providing this free stuff is actually a net gain to them. So long as this is true, then fuck it, free BC for all!
The other side doesn't like this kind of thinking though and prefers things to be more pure of intent without regard for practical effects.
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
well yeah, birth control being available makes health insurance cheaper because pregnancy is so many orders of magnitude more expensive
Did they make that argument, because I think there's a pretty fucking clear public interest there
The question was whether the government possessed a sufficiently strong interest that had been pursued in the least burdensome way possible; it is irrelevant whether states also have the discretion to pursue other interests that arguably conflict with the interest under scrutiny.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
Opposition to abortion is not a vast conspiracy to keep down labor prices.
I'm not sure where you even get that idea.
Eh, where do you get this "conspiracy" thing from?
It's just that the interests of certain strata of people align with these views. It makes sense for them (and their assets) to actively propagate this sort of social development at every opportunity.
Which we've seen quite clear examples of in these recent times.
Its an open secret that that is exactly why rich business people are suddenly all such born again Christians. The entire philosophy of the evangelical movement is designed to suppress social mobility and women. It is ABSOLUTELY a method by which the rich are attempting to keep down labor prices. If it wasn't, then while the movement might be opposed to, say, abortions they would be demanding higher taxes to pay for universal healthcare for other conditions, or more money for orphanages, or early childhood education.
Notice how all the issues they focus on are only those that suppress education, rights, and social mobility. Why do you think the Koch brothers are such fans of it? Because they love Jesus so much? Don't make me laugh. Evangelical Christianism (and most religious activity in politics) is a religion in the same way Fox is a news channel.
My understanding is that the RFRA explicitly orders courts to apply strict scrutiny when reviewing laws that impose burdens on religious beliefs.
Strict scrutiny has two parts, first asking whether the state was pursuing a really strong interest with the law and second asking whether that law could have been written to pursue that interest in a less burdensome way.
The existence of alternative, arguably-conflicting interests that the state also might have pursued does not actually feed into the initial question of whether the interest in question exists.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
If they don't want people to suffer, why do all their rulings create suffering in the same groups of people?
If they aren't supposed to legislate, why do their rulings have the effect of legislation, changing completely the way various aspects of society interact with each other?
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
Are there some examples in the 238 year history of this country where the supreme court creates new law whole cloth instead of reversing laws already extant?
Maybe I missed a couple days of con law or something. I'd love to learn more about this novel, to me, interpretation of what the branch is supposed to do.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
Opposition to abortion is not a vast conspiracy to keep down labor prices.
I'm not sure where you even get that idea.
Who do you think is hurt the most by a lack of access to abortion/contraception? Not to mention the fact that family planning is a huge factor in social mobility. Take away the access to the same tools that the rich use, and you see stagnation in upward mobility (like we have right now). The rich have every reason to want to restrict access to abortion and contraception. After all, whatever barriers are in place, they can easily get around them.
Edit: And if you think that rich people wanting to keep poor people poor is some "conspiracy theory", then I don't know what to tell you.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The court could, and has, admitted that the state can provide medical coverage to people. But this is not creating new law, this is clarifying the constitution and the law as it stands.
Ironically enough, I think that if ACA was the NHS, SCOTUS would be smacking these conservative law suits like flies.
But as I said above, I'd love to explore this topic more. If only to find ways to remove this power from the bench as it's a dangerous one.
Its the same as with shutting down abortion clinics. The rich can afford the time and expense to travel to another state/country to get the procedure done. The poor cant
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
Are there some examples in the 238 year history of this country where the supreme court creates new law whole cloth instead of reversing laws already extant?
Maybe I missed a couple days of con law or something. I'd love to learn more about this novel, to me, interpretation of what the branch is supposed to do.
Marbury v. Madison.
Admittedly, SCOTUS isn't usually the court creating law - that's usually inferior courts... but it's a fundamental function of common law courts.
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
Are there some examples in the 238 year history of this country where the supreme court creates new law whole cloth instead of reversing laws already extant?
Maybe I missed a couple days of con law or something. I'd love to learn more about this novel, to me, interpretation of what the branch is supposed to do.
Marbury v. Madison.
Admittedly, SCOTUS isn't usually the court creating law - that's usually inferior courts... but it's a fundamental function of common law courts.
Marbury v Madison isn't really what we're talking about. I'm not rejecting judicial review, I'm rejecting the idea that the Supreme Court can create from the ether a new governmental department.
I've met my share of "she deserves to get pregnant if she's having sex" conservatives though and given the makeup of the court I would be surprised if one of them wasn't that flavor politically
Scalia maybe
I would suggest Alito instead. Scalia is old conservative, like he came of age in the 50s and honestly thinks that things where better then. Especially for women. The superficial image of white picket fences and stay at home moms cooking dinner for daddy and the kids to come home is right up his alley. Occasionally he goes Libertarian on us when he feels contrary.
Alite is more of a reactionary conservative. He came of age in the late 60s/early 70s and boy does it show. "You say my happy 50s childhood was lies, I'll show you". Him reaching the top bench was the dream of his career and now he can destroy huge swaths of minority/women gains with a narrow interpretation of the law.
Alito writing the majority ruling on any issue should be a huge warning sign.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
Are there some examples in the 238 year history of this country where the supreme court creates new law whole cloth instead of reversing laws already extant?
Maybe I missed a couple days of con law or something. I'd love to learn more about this novel, to me, interpretation of what the branch is supposed to do.
Marbury v. Madison.
Admittedly, SCOTUS isn't usually the court creating law - that's usually inferior courts... but it's a fundamental function of common law courts.
Marbury v Madison isn't really what we're talking about. I'm not rejecting judicial review, I'm rejecting the idea that the Supreme Court can create from the ether a new governmental department.
Wait, how did you get from creating law to creating a department?
It's less that they value fetuses (although I'm inclined to believe most of them really do) so much as it is some social conservatives in the upper echelons of government really like being able to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Eh, they haven't been secretive about what they want.
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
Are there some examples in the 238 year history of this country where the supreme court creates new law whole cloth instead of reversing laws already extant?
Maybe I missed a couple days of con law or something. I'd love to learn more about this novel, to me, interpretation of what the branch is supposed to do.
Marbury v. Madison.
Admittedly, SCOTUS isn't usually the court creating law - that's usually inferior courts... but it's a fundamental function of common law courts.
Marbury v Madison isn't really what we're talking about. I'm not rejecting judicial review, I'm rejecting the idea that the Supreme Court can create from the ether a new governmental department.
Wait, how did you get from creating law to creating a department?
Departments are created by law. We were talking about this from the above
the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free
How would that be administered other than a new department, either withing medicare or whatever. Sloppy statements perhaps on my end, but I don't think that the concept of judicial review can be extended, even by Scalia into create new government services out of the constitutional ether. It can say whether or not the government has the power to do so, but it cannot just make up a new batch of laws.
Which is what that quote would call for.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Again, judicial review of laws is quite different from wholesale creation of new laws. I am discounting here interpretation of law as new law, because of course the courts do that.
What are some laws which have been created from the bench, either lower or supreme courts would do at this point, though we were narrowly discussing the role of the SCOTUS.
The courts have, at times, refined new rights out of laws (both for the people and for the government), which is more clarifying existing law than birthing new ones I would think.
I don't see how, in this case, the Supreme Court could order the creation of a new branch of government provided healthcare. Indeed, the court admitted that this could be a solution to the current dilemma, but I think it'd be a dangerous breach if we moved to a world where the court can bypass Congress to solve their problems. As Justice Kagan often points out, they just tell you what is or isn't allowable it's up to the rest of the government to figure out how to make it work.
Of course if I am incorrect then I guess I've found a new stance I've adopted so that's cool. Learning new things is fun.
AMFE is totally correct. The closest I could imagine SCOTUS doing to such a thing is for them to say something like "hey, restricting this great medical service to over 65s is a violation of everyone else's rights. Stop that!" And then Congress would let Medicare die rather than revise the rules.
Shit, I just gave them a brilliant idea, didn't I?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
RFRA was meant to basically reverse a SCOTUS decision reversing a bunch of cases. Saying that the Amish didn't have to go to school past the 8th grade because of religious freedom was stupid.
Thus the whole idea of calling them on it.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
They think that birth control lets couple (and women especially) have too much freedom. Family life works best when you have a ton of kids and the mom stays home to watch them.
If they actually cared about fetuses they would crack a textbook and see that fetus don't magically appear the second a man has an orgasm.
I don't dispute that many people (the Justices probably less so) don't educate themselves with human biology enough to know what is and isn't beneficial to their own personal autonomy.
We lose sight of this condition at the peril of succumbing to it.
Though I think we're getting a bit away from the topic here.
My point is that the intent of the RFRA was not to produce that situation. That is what a plaintif argued and it was rejected. The RFRA was an return to prior precedent on the issue.
Basically if you took the RFRA as had been ruled by every court with the exception of this decision, you would get a pretty reasonable law.
Honestly they don't care about anything other than making life harder for women and middle/lower class families. Desperate people will work for less, and demand fewer rights. Women with more children will be more poorly educated. Fathers with wives who can't work will be unable to leave their jobs, regardless of the conditions, and too frightened to complain.
If they had ruled 'abortions and birth control are a fundamental right, however people who morally object to it shouldn't have to pay for it for other people directly, thus the government will provide both these services to everyone nationwide for free' then that would be a 'sensible' ruling which would preserve 'religious freedom'. But they don't care about anything but their own pocketbooks.
Opposition to abortion is not a vast conspiracy to keep down labor prices.
I'm not sure where you even get that idea.
It's just that the interests of certain strata of people align with these views. It makes sense for them (and their assets) to actively propagate this sort of social development at every opportunity.
Which we've seen quite clear examples of in these recent times.
No, SCOTUS isn't meant to legislate in its rulings. It's not their place to provide solutions, they're meant to answer questions of constitutionality and legality regarding offered solutions.
And I don't think it is at all fair to say they want people to suffer, they're just indifferent to that suffering because they have a narrow view of the world.
Well, it's a bit more akin to a vast fundraising conspiracy in lieu of raising money against black people, once that become impolite to do. Now, the truth is a little more complex than that, having to do with a lot of private schools that built up evangelism losing their tax free status, but that's part of it.
Which?
I've met my share of "she deserves to get pregnant if she's having sex" conservatives though and given the makeup of the court I would be surprised if one of them wasn't that flavor politically
Scalia maybe
Ah, so just like, statistically, one of them is bound too.
So it's just as fair a statement to say that, statistically, one of Obama's cabinet thinks we should be paying people to take heroin, right?
The point I'm making is you're not understanding what motivates that statement. It's effect is absolutely that of punishment but the insidious thing about these kinds of views is that the holder doesn't directly have that effect in mind. They would phrase it as "Actions have consequences" or other bullshit that works until you think about second order effects. They will never think this far unless they're engaged on it in a manner that doesn't immediately make them go defensive.
The reason I'm making this point is because if you engage with them on your misunderstanding you will never ever make any headway. Since your premise is that they're evil, you'll quickly go down to name calling and attacks and the end result is they think you're ideas are the villainous ones because their holders acted like a cartoon villain.
This is exactly the situation where a candidate that was a 9 to 1 longshot didn't have a concession speech prepared. Nate Silver was clearly a liberal gay media member and his numbers are propaganda.
Punishment has intent, it is there to inflict harm in reciprocation for transgression. This is different than spending all you money on gumballs so you don't have any left for lollipops. Your lack of lollipops isn't a punishment though it is a consequence.
Keep in mind I'm making arguments I do not agree with, I'm sure I'm not doing a perfect job of it.
The other side doesn't like this kind of thinking though and prefers things to be more pure of intent without regard for practical effects.
Did they make that argument, because I think there's a pretty fucking clear public interest there
Though remember they just granted cert to a non profit who refused to file the paperwork saying they object because that would lead to abortions.
Actually, SCOTUS is supposed to make law in its rulings. It's just supposed to be by building on existing law (case and statute), not making things out of whole cloth. Every court in the US (except iirc LA state courts) has the power to make law.
The advantage is that the law can more easily adapt to changing times. The disadvantage... is shit like Hobby Lobby.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The question was whether the government possessed a sufficiently strong interest that had been pursued in the least burdensome way possible; it is irrelevant whether states also have the discretion to pursue other interests that arguably conflict with the interest under scrutiny.
The supreme court creating a national healthcare service is beyond their remit. It doesn't matter if it's the kind of result we want.
Can you unpack that last bit a little?
Its an open secret that that is exactly why rich business people are suddenly all such born again Christians. The entire philosophy of the evangelical movement is designed to suppress social mobility and women. It is ABSOLUTELY a method by which the rich are attempting to keep down labor prices. If it wasn't, then while the movement might be opposed to, say, abortions they would be demanding higher taxes to pay for universal healthcare for other conditions, or more money for orphanages, or early childhood education.
Notice how all the issues they focus on are only those that suppress education, rights, and social mobility. Why do you think the Koch brothers are such fans of it? Because they love Jesus so much? Don't make me laugh. Evangelical Christianism (and most religious activity in politics) is a religion in the same way Fox is a news channel.
Sure!
My understanding is that the RFRA explicitly orders courts to apply strict scrutiny when reviewing laws that impose burdens on religious beliefs.
Strict scrutiny has two parts, first asking whether the state was pursuing a really strong interest with the law and second asking whether that law could have been written to pursue that interest in a less burdensome way.
The existence of alternative, arguably-conflicting interests that the state also might have pursued does not actually feed into the initial question of whether the interest in question exists.
If they don't want people to suffer, why do all their rulings create suffering in the same groups of people?
If they aren't supposed to legislate, why do their rulings have the effect of legislation, changing completely the way various aspects of society interact with each other?
The constitution places absolutely no limits on the power of SCOTUS except that they have very limited original jurisdiction (almost all cases only come to them on appeal).
As long as it's germane to the case before them they can more or less do whatever the fuck they want. The main checks on this are the facts that a case has to come before them, that in theory the people selected will respect tradition, and that Congress holds the power to just change the law in response to rulings. (Edit: Also impeachment I guess, but "good behavior" is pretty ill-defined, and disagreeable rulings are not going to lead to it)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Are there some examples in the 238 year history of this country where the supreme court creates new law whole cloth instead of reversing laws already extant?
Maybe I missed a couple days of con law or something. I'd love to learn more about this novel, to me, interpretation of what the branch is supposed to do.
Who do you think is hurt the most by a lack of access to abortion/contraception? Not to mention the fact that family planning is a huge factor in social mobility. Take away the access to the same tools that the rich use, and you see stagnation in upward mobility (like we have right now). The rich have every reason to want to restrict access to abortion and contraception. After all, whatever barriers are in place, they can easily get around them.
Edit: And if you think that rich people wanting to keep poor people poor is some "conspiracy theory", then I don't know what to tell you.
Steam: pazython
Ironically enough, I think that if ACA was the NHS, SCOTUS would be smacking these conservative law suits like flies.
But as I said above, I'd love to explore this topic more. If only to find ways to remove this power from the bench as it's a dangerous one.
Marbury v. Madison.
Admittedly, SCOTUS isn't usually the court creating law - that's usually inferior courts... but it's a fundamental function of common law courts.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Marbury v Madison isn't really what we're talking about. I'm not rejecting judicial review, I'm rejecting the idea that the Supreme Court can create from the ether a new governmental department.
I would suggest Alito instead. Scalia is old conservative, like he came of age in the 50s and honestly thinks that things where better then. Especially for women. The superficial image of white picket fences and stay at home moms cooking dinner for daddy and the kids to come home is right up his alley. Occasionally he goes Libertarian on us when he feels contrary.
Alite is more of a reactionary conservative. He came of age in the late 60s/early 70s and boy does it show. "You say my happy 50s childhood was lies, I'll show you". Him reaching the top bench was the dream of his career and now he can destroy huge swaths of minority/women gains with a narrow interpretation of the law.
Alito writing the majority ruling on any issue should be a huge warning sign.
Wait, how did you get from creating law to creating a department?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Departments are created by law. We were talking about this from the above
How would that be administered other than a new department, either withing medicare or whatever. Sloppy statements perhaps on my end, but I don't think that the concept of judicial review can be extended, even by Scalia into create new government services out of the constitutional ether. It can say whether or not the government has the power to do so, but it cannot just make up a new batch of laws.
Which is what that quote would call for.
What are some laws which have been created from the bench, either lower or supreme courts would do at this point, though we were narrowly discussing the role of the SCOTUS.
The courts have, at times, refined new rights out of laws (both for the people and for the government), which is more clarifying existing law than birthing new ones I would think.
I don't see how, in this case, the Supreme Court could order the creation of a new branch of government provided healthcare. Indeed, the court admitted that this could be a solution to the current dilemma, but I think it'd be a dangerous breach if we moved to a world where the court can bypass Congress to solve their problems. As Justice Kagan often points out, they just tell you what is or isn't allowable it's up to the rest of the government to figure out how to make it work.
Of course if I am incorrect then I guess I've found a new stance I've adopted so that's cool. Learning new things is fun.
Shit, I just gave them a brilliant idea, didn't I?