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
There was an amicus brief to that effect, I think Ginsburg's dissent brought it up. But those briefs don't hold as much weight as arguments made by either side directly.
--
Re: SCOTUS making law, it's not inconceivable that SCOTUS could invalidate all but one solution to a particular problem. Imagine if they ruled that all citizens have a Constitutional right to health care but that paying into a private insurance plan was an undue burden for anyone in terms of exercising that right. That kind of thing would essentially force the government into putting in place a universal system or a Constitutional amendment.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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?
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?
WASHINGTON—In an appeal for the strengthening of the world’s greatest hobbies, Hobby Lobby representative Robbie H. Stobby vowed today to press for funding of a full range of hobbies. “My name is Robbie Stobby, and I am here to lobby for hobbies,” said Stobby from the Congressional lobby, accompanied by his wife, Elise Tobbie-Stobby. “This snobby Congress needs to quit being knobby and recognize the Hobby Lobby. Well, I say it’s as bad as if we were under Mugabe. And, to diverge for a moment, the Kennedy I like best is Bobby. He was a great legislator and a significant influence on my political career.” Stobby then exited the stage for a meeting with Iraq’s Ahmed Chalabi, to discuss funding the hobbies of the Australian Kabi Kabi.
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.
They have never really got over the implicit assumption that women are essentially the property of their fathers then their husbands. (The father literally gives away the bride at a traditional wedding)
After all, you don't let your cow decide when or if she's going to have a calf, right?
V1m on
+6
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
edited July 2014
Hey so remember when the option to fill out some paperwork and pass the burden of providing contraception along to the insurance company was implicitly endorsed by Alito and co.?
The best part of that stupid as shit ruling is that it still requires affirmative action on the colleges part, just a letter rather than a form, which is what the really die hard are going to object to.
"I write a letter and more abortions happen. I am religiously obligated to not write that letter." is the actual argument.
The best part of that stupid as shit ruling is that it still requires affirmative action on the colleges part, just a letter rather than a form, which is what the really die hard are going to object to.
"I write a letter and more abortions happen. I am religiously obligated to not write that letter." is the actual argument.
See, Hobby Lobby implied the mandate was bad because there was the "less burdensome" alternative of claiming a religious non-profit exemption. If Wheaton wins, that alternative is bad because the government could accept a formal letter rather than a bureaucratic form. Next will come someone saying that writing a letter is too burdensome, they should be allowed to send an email. Then a text. Then a phone call. Then post a classified ad in a major newspaper. Then a minor zine that nobody reads. Then a Facebook post. A tweet; shouting in public; verbally informing the postman; whatever. All they have to do is keep this up in the air until the GOP gets power again and bans birth control.
It's turtles all the way down. There's no point where the Supreme Court has any new reason to jump off.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would care to have an opinion on that or would just go along with it. They'd probably go back to the idea that a corporation is made up of individuals, and thus a corporation of "real" persons is more of a person than these detainees.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would care to have an opinion on that or would just go along with it. They'd probably go back to the idea that a corporation is made up of individuals, and thus a corporation of "real" persons is more of a person than these detainees.
I think comparing Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Employment Division v. Smith should tell you what SCotUS will say about it.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
Our cases do not at their farthest reach support the proposition that a stance of conscientious opposition relieves an objector from any colliding duty fixed by a democratic government.
What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.
And these are just the ones where I'm reasonably certain that one would really need to reach for a context that would make them inapplicable to Hobby Lobby.
Sometimes I wonder what lawyers think of Scalia. It seems so obvious to the layperson that he's corrupted by his political beliefs, but is there any such perception amongst the profession?
Sometimes I wonder what lawyers think of Scalia. It seems so obvious to the layperson that he's corrupted by his political beliefs, but is there any such perception amongst the profession?
All judges to some extent are corrupted by their political beliefs. Even at the county circuit court level, you will have judges you know will be more on your side on certain legal issues than others.
The problem I myself have with Scalia, and why I call him a hack, is that despite claiming to solely adhere to textualism as a method of interpreting the law, he consistently and reliably throws textualism out of the window when it furthers his political opinions. Furthermore, he is a very outspoken critic of the so-called "living constitution" form of interpretation. From wiki:
Scalia has warned that if one accepts that constitutional standards should evolve with a maturing society, "the risk of assessing evolving standards is that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has culminated in one's own views."
Yeah, it's all too easy for a living constitution interpretation to result in one's own views controlling, and not Scalia's vaunted textualism, which as anyone who keeps tabs can see, is rank bullshit when textualism is tossed out the window.
In contrast, I don't like Clarence Thomas's opinions at all, but I respect his legal consistency, even if it is nutters. Scalia just doesn't give a fuck, but acts like he does, and that is what makes him a hack.
Scalia is generally considered the best writer of the current court, with Kagan as a close second.
As a reference, Breyer is generally considered the worst writer of the current court, so bad that he would make the top 10 list, of bad writers on the court, of any era.
Remember that other lawyers need to reference the written word, so they don't care so much for the actual opinion as they do the writing of that opinion. Scalia and Kagan, when writing for the majority, cover all their bases. Breyer does the opposite, and leaves large holes in his majority opinions.
[Edit] I left out Ginsburg, known for writing great dissents, probably the Oliver Wendell Holmes of our time, is just average when writing for the majority.
I thought Thomas just signed off on whatever Scalia said. You mean to tell me my impression of him is completely wrong?
Yeah. Oddly enough, Thomas is a consistent originalist. Too consistent for Scalia who think's Thomas's adherence to originalism makes him a nut.
It also takes Thomas to odd places. For example, in Lawrence v. Texas, the really big case that said people can do what they want in their bedroom, Scalia railed on how morals were at stake, and that we could legislate morality, blah blah blah. Thomas, while agreeing with Scalia that there was no problem with an anti-sodomy law, agreed for a different reason:
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.
Credit where credit's due. I don't agree with Thomas but his opinion is consistent with his originalist philosophy whereas Scalia's is just wharblegarble.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
And in some ways, I can agree with that. What makes Scalia such a monumentally terrible person is that in many arguments, it's obvious he is a smart, witty guy who knows how to judiciate the shit out of things. It's just he's completely willing to suborn his skills in service to completely bullshit ideology that often goes against his own legal analysis. He will say stuff he provably knows is utterly wrong because, say, he hates the gays.
He's just so obviously the guy who 100% knows better but chooses to be an asshole.
“To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse,” Kopf wrote.
“To most people, the decision looks stupid ’cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding,” the judge continued. “The decision looks misogynist because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic Church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception.”
He reiterated the importance of public perception in judicial decisions. “All of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law.” Kopf encouraged the Supreme Court to refrain from decisions in “highly controversial cases” in the future–especially when the court is able to “avoid the dispute.”
Curious if he also feels that the decision was wrong Constitutional, and not just because it does major harm to the court's credibility in the court of public perception.
I mean it's the court's job to hear controversial cases, often because the very issues at stake are large swaths of law or innate rights. It's hard to avoid those types of cases when dealing with the foundations of the constitution. Often, the court will hear cases because they are being ruled on differently in various parts of the country, and the lower courts look to them for direction.
I mean it's the court's job to hear controversial cases, often because the very issues at stake are large swaths of law or innate rights. It's hard to avoid those types of cases when dealing with the foundations of the constitution. Often, the court will hear cases because they are being ruled on differently in various parts of the country, and the lower courts look to them for direction.
This is the guy who thinks female lawyers exist to give him erections and should dress accordingly, so he's kind of a dim bulb.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I mean it's the court's job to hear controversial cases, often because the very issues at stake are large swaths of law or innate rights. It's hard to avoid those types of cases when dealing with the foundations of the constitution. Often, the court will hear cases because they are being ruled on differently in various parts of the country, and the lower courts look to them for direction.
This is the guy who thinks female lawyers exist to give him erections and should dress accordingly, so he's kind of a dim bulb.
That notwithstanding, I was speaking to the greater point of avoiding controversial cases to eliminate the perception associated with their decisions. I'm not sure that's really possible.
I mean it's the court's job to hear controversial cases, often because the very issues at stake are large swaths of law or innate rights. It's hard to avoid those types of cases when dealing with the foundations of the constitution. Often, the court will hear cases because they are being ruled on differently in various parts of the country, and the lower courts look to them for direction.
Its not that they hear these topics, its that they hear them and then radically decides to alter them with no actual law to back it. I think what he meant there are ways to avoid this is actually doing their damn job and judging the law on its merits not their current "fit the judgement to align with their conclusion."
I mean with Hobby Lobby people knew they were ruling against it based on their retarded questions.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I mean it's the court's job to hear controversial cases, often because the very issues at stake are large swaths of law or innate rights. It's hard to avoid those types of cases when dealing with the foundations of the constitution. Often, the court will hear cases because they are being ruled on differently in various parts of the country, and the lower courts look to them for direction.
Its not that they hear these topics, its that they hear them and then radically decides to alter them with no actual law to back it. I think what he meant there are ways to avoid this is actually doing their damn job and judging the law on its merits not their current "fit the judgement to align with their conclusion."
I mean with Hobby Lobby people knew they were ruling against it based on their retarded questions.
Without reading more into the written word than is there you end up with a lot more like Thomas. I can think of a few high profile cases you likely agree with that involved the courts kind of just putting new law in where none was before. Doing so in a consistent way so as to protect the citizens from shitty laws is the skill the current court lacks.
Posts
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
There was an amicus brief to that effect, I think Ginsburg's dissent brought it up. But those briefs don't hold as much weight as arguments made by either side directly.
--
Re: SCOTUS making law, it's not inconceivable that SCOTUS could invalidate all but one solution to a particular problem. Imagine if they ruled that all citizens have a Constitutional right to health care but that paying into a private insurance plan was an undue burden for anyone in terms of exercising that right. That kind of thing would essentially force the government into putting in place a universal system or a Constitutional amendment.
Go outside, turn around three times, and spit.
Oh wait: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259532
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The HobLob LawBlog
Yes, because nobody outmuscles Big Craft Stick.
They have never really got over the implicit assumption that women are essentially the property of their fathers then their husbands. (The father literally gives away the bride at a traditional wedding)
After all, you don't let your cow decide when or if she's going to have a calf, right?
Yeah well they don't like that option anymore.
Whooooops missed this when it originally happened.
So, um, how about that SCotUS, then. Sure are... SCotUSing it up.
"I write a letter and more abortions happen. I am religiously obligated to not write that letter." is the actual argument.
It's turtles all the way down. There's no point where the Supreme Court has any new reason to jump off.
Which I find hilarious.
Though good on their lawyer.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would care to have an opinion on that or would just go along with it. They'd probably go back to the idea that a corporation is made up of individuals, and thus a corporation of "real" persons is more of a person than these detainees.
I think comparing Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Employment Division v. Smith should tell you what SCotUS will say about it.
Steam: pazython
Sometimes I wonder what lawyers think of Scalia. It seems so obvious to the layperson that he's corrupted by his political beliefs, but is there any such perception amongst the profession?
All judges to some extent are corrupted by their political beliefs. Even at the county circuit court level, you will have judges you know will be more on your side on certain legal issues than others.
The problem I myself have with Scalia, and why I call him a hack, is that despite claiming to solely adhere to textualism as a method of interpreting the law, he consistently and reliably throws textualism out of the window when it furthers his political opinions. Furthermore, he is a very outspoken critic of the so-called "living constitution" form of interpretation. From wiki: Yeah, it's all too easy for a living constitution interpretation to result in one's own views controlling, and not Scalia's vaunted textualism, which as anyone who keeps tabs can see, is rank bullshit when textualism is tossed out the window.
In contrast, I don't like Clarence Thomas's opinions at all, but I respect his legal consistency, even if it is nutters. Scalia just doesn't give a fuck, but acts like he does, and that is what makes him a hack.
pleasepaypreacher.net
As a reference, Breyer is generally considered the worst writer of the current court, so bad that he would make the top 10 list, of bad writers on the court, of any era.
Remember that other lawyers need to reference the written word, so they don't care so much for the actual opinion as they do the writing of that opinion. Scalia and Kagan, when writing for the majority, cover all their bases. Breyer does the opposite, and leaves large holes in his majority opinions.
[Edit] I left out Ginsburg, known for writing great dissents, probably the Oliver Wendell Holmes of our time, is just average when writing for the majority.
Yes. The man does, in fact, have a theory on law. It's just an absolutely insane one.
Yeah. Oddly enough, Thomas is a consistent originalist. Too consistent for Scalia who think's Thomas's adherence to originalism makes him a nut.
It also takes Thomas to odd places. For example, in Lawrence v. Texas, the really big case that said people can do what they want in their bedroom, Scalia railed on how morals were at stake, and that we could legislate morality, blah blah blah. Thomas, while agreeing with Scalia that there was no problem with an anti-sodomy law, agreed for a different reason:
Credit where credit's due. I don't agree with Thomas but his opinion is consistent with his originalist philosophy whereas Scalia's is just wharblegarble.
They love him.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
And in some ways, I can agree with that. What makes Scalia such a monumentally terrible person is that in many arguments, it's obvious he is a smart, witty guy who knows how to judiciate the shit out of things. It's just he's completely willing to suborn his skills in service to completely bullshit ideology that often goes against his own legal analysis. He will say stuff he provably knows is utterly wrong because, say, he hates the gays.
He's just so obviously the guy who 100% knows better but chooses to be an asshole.
Curious if he also feels that the decision was wrong Constitutional, and not just because it does major harm to the court's credibility in the court of public perception.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean it's the court's job to hear controversial cases, often because the very issues at stake are large swaths of law or innate rights. It's hard to avoid those types of cases when dealing with the foundations of the constitution. Often, the court will hear cases because they are being ruled on differently in various parts of the country, and the lower courts look to them for direction.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
This is the guy who thinks female lawyers exist to give him erections and should dress accordingly, so he's kind of a dim bulb.
That notwithstanding, I was speaking to the greater point of avoiding controversial cases to eliminate the perception associated with their decisions. I'm not sure that's really possible.
Its not that they hear these topics, its that they hear them and then radically decides to alter them with no actual law to back it. I think what he meant there are ways to avoid this is actually doing their damn job and judging the law on its merits not their current "fit the judgement to align with their conclusion."
I mean with Hobby Lobby people knew they were ruling against it based on their retarded questions.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Without reading more into the written word than is there you end up with a lot more like Thomas. I can think of a few high profile cases you likely agree with that involved the courts kind of just putting new law in where none was before. Doing so in a consistent way so as to protect the citizens from shitty laws is the skill the current court lacks.