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

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

19495969799

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2014
    moniker wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.

    That is basically the opposite of what legal ethics is Ender. So no, you don't know an unethical system when you see it.

    The prosecution cheating to get convictions? Happens far too fucking much (AKA non-zero amounts per year). If the defense gets away with ad hominem attacks though... I'm going to have to say that's the prosecutor's fault for not objecting, cross-examining, etc. to deal with it.

    I'm not saying the current system is problem free. I'm saying that the idea of everyone getting legal representation is not a violation of any sort of legal ethics.

    In fact it is one of the basic tenets of legal ethics. Lawyering is hard. I mean, I read SCOTUS decisions for fun and leisure as well as policy white papers on transportation and economics. I've been a reference librarian and taken courses on GovDocs. I would be in no way comfortable with standing on the wrong side of a judge without competent legal counsel to advise me every step of the way.

    And anyway, you want a system in which the government's punishment for fucking up a case is that they lose that case. "Oh, gee, whoopsies, we kind of illegally searched the defendent" means you don't get to use whatever evidence was found. Both sides do their best to use the law to good effect, and if this leads to poor outcomes, then maybe the law needs changing, but it's not an indicator that the whole system is fundamentally unethical.

    It sucks when it leads to a guilty person getting away with a crime, but the alternative is a literal police state, so.... yeah.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    GethjoshofalltradesGnome-InterruptusMahnmutTL DR
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    No, see Catholics think the church and its rituals are the path to salvation, rather than the Protestant belief in salvation through personal faith in Christ.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    Chick is an extreme anti-Papist, to him it is literally the anti-christ and Jesuits are behind every corner working towards a satanic one-world government.

    TheCanMan
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Chick is mentally ill and doesn't have to have a coherent narrative to his conspiracy theories.

    What is this I don't even.
    LovelyhippofantPanda4YouN1tSt4lkerNo-QuarterShadowfireskyknytShadowenTL DR
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Well, it was just amusing to me that the Supreme Court could in any way be construed as anti-Christian, much less kill all Christians.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    LovelyN1tSt4lkerShadowen
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    No, see Catholics think the church and its rituals are the path to salvation, rather than the Protestant belief in salvation through personal faith in Christ.

    is this sarcasm?

    because that is some real stretching there. I mean sure there are no doubt some (maybe a lot) of catholics who believe that but that is not the official dogma

    edit: whoops missed the Jack Chick context for that. nevermind

    RiemannLives on
    Geth
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    No, see Catholics think the church and its rituals are the path to salvation, rather than the Protestant belief in salvation through personal faith in Christ.

    is this sarcasm?

    because that is some real stretching there. I mean sure there are no doubt some (maybe a lot) of catholics who believe that but that is not the official dogma

    edit: whoops missed the Jack Chick context for that. nevermind

    Well, that was a part of the original schism. Catholicism held things like communion to be necessary for getting into heaven. Excommunication had a bit more weight than "we don't want you in our club!". Most protestants (Or at least most of the ones that became big, there were like hundreds of different sects with a whole spectrum of beliefs throughout the period) instead thought that no priest or church could give you salvation, it all came down to you following the Bible and having faith and all that.

    So to say there is no coherent narrative or whatever is kind of missing the point. Europeans spent a couple hundred years killing each other over this. England had at least on revolution because of anti-papist conspiracy theories just like that. In that sense that comic, and I guess Chick in general, is not uniquely crazy, but rather just the remnant of a religious war that everyone else got over centuries ago.

    Anyway this is kind of off topic.

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

    Psn:wazukki
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    Well, the thing is that, in order to violate the RFRA, in addition to a ~substantial~ burden on a person's exercise of religion there also needs to be a less restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest.

    Of course Alito has said that the government could in theory just pay for stuff, so yeah it's basically what burdens does the SC feel like recognizing.

    Surfpossum on
    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Pretty much, and since AIDS falls into the same stupid ignorance that birth control does, I'm sure there are some companies drawing up that suit right now.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Panda4You
  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Well, the thing is that in order to violate RFRA, in addition to a ~substantial~ burden on a person's exercise of religion there also needs to be a less restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest.

    Of course Alito has said that the government could in theory just pay for stuff, so yeah it's basically what burdens does the SC feel like recognizing.

    Right that's my thought. As long as the government provides such care to *someone* they can always additionally cover these other people.

    But my fear is the Wheaton College ruling where the college refuses to fill out the form for the exemption because they'd still be participating in providing that care in some way. Meaning there will need to somehow be another compromise?

    Psn:wazukki
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    I wish I could believe that this will all lead into some stupid sideways method of Single Payer, but I know that will never happen.

    Instead I am just sad.

    SurfpossumTheCanManLovelyJihadJesusKid Presentable
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    It will be impossible to extract any valuable meaning from this decision.

    Or rather, this decision is going to empower lower appellate courts to rule however the fuck they want, which they will do by region, generally. This decision will justify shit stuff in more conservative regions, and then SCOTUS will refuse to ever take any of it back up again.

    What is this I don't even.
    MrMister
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    If the government set up single payer there is no guarantee this group of supremes wouldn't strike it down.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    If the government set up single payer there is no guarantee this group of supremes wouldn't strike it down.

    Well, it would probably place an unreasonable burden on insurance companies to, you know, pay out on claims.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    If the government set up single payer there is no guarantee this group of supremes wouldn't strike it down.

    Well now I'm paying taxes that fund birth control OMG MY LIBERTIES

  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    If the government set up single payer there is no guarantee this group of supremes wouldn't strike it down.

    Well now I'm paying taxes that fund birth control OMG MY LIBERTIES

    The plus side of this is that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you have to pay taxes, regardless of your religious beliefs.

    Psn:wazukki
    Doodmann
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    wazilla wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    If the government set up single payer there is no guarantee this group of supremes wouldn't strike it down.

    Well now I'm paying taxes that fund birth control OMG MY LIBERTIES

    The plus side of this is that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you have to pay taxes, regardless of your religious beliefs.

    Right, so they would theoretically simply strike down a single-payer law rather than allow someone to opt out of paying taxes that go towards it. Win-win!

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    Kid Presentable
  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    wazilla wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    If the government set up single payer there is no guarantee this group of supremes wouldn't strike it down.

    Well now I'm paying taxes that fund birth control OMG MY LIBERTIES

    The plus side of this is that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you have to pay taxes, regardless of your religious beliefs.

    Right, so they would theoretically simply strike down a single-payer law rather than allow someone to opt out of paying taxes that go towards it. Win-win!

    I feel like we can all go home proud of ourselves today.

    Psn:wazukki
    Kid Presentable
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    It will be impossible to extract any valuable meaning from this decision.

    Or rather, this decision is going to empower lower appellate courts to rule however the fuck they want, which they will do by region, generally. This decision will justify shit stuff in more conservative regions, and then SCOTUS will refuse to ever take any of it back up again.

    The impression I've gotten is that the decision, as written, claims to be very narrow. But yet it doesn't actually offer any test or rationale that could provide guidance to lower courts going forward: so it claims to be narrow without explaining why or how. The upshot then seems to be as you describe--lower courts will be left without a compelling standard and will largely fill in the void on the basis of their individual legal/policy preferences.

    Darkewolfe
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Decision has made LGBT groups pull support from ENDA, citing the religious exemptions in the bill.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Yeah the ALCU did the same thing. Crazily enough religious exemptions in law are bad fucking things. Shocking I know.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Andy JoeAndy Joe The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I thought Thomas just signed off on whatever Scalia said. You mean to tell me my impression of him is completely wrong?

    The "Thomas is Scalia's handpuppet" meme lacks much factual backing, despite its popularity. Their agreement rate isn't substantially higher than any given pair of ideologically-aligned justices (Kagan and Sotomayor agree more often, the last time I checked) and Thomas definitely has his own judicial philosophy that's distinct from Scalia's, and almost everyone else's to boot.

    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane
    Pokemon Moon Name: Moon
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    I think it mostly came about because Thomas doesn't engage in the oral arguments section IIRC.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Just_Bri_ThanksTheCanMan
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    MrMister wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    It will be impossible to extract any valuable meaning from this decision.

    Or rather, this decision is going to empower lower appellate courts to rule however the fuck they want, which they will do by region, generally. This decision will justify shit stuff in more conservative regions, and then SCOTUS will refuse to ever take any of it back up again.

    The impression I've gotten is that the decision, as written, claims to be very narrow. But yet it doesn't actually offer any test or rationale that could provide guidance to lower courts going forward: so it claims to be narrow without explaining why or how. The upshot then seems to be as you describe--lower courts will be left without a compelling standard and will largely fill in the void on the basis of their individual legal/policy preferences.

    My inclination is to believe that it was claimed to be "narrow" in some vague, ambiguous way so that SCOTUS would never be obligated to acknowledge that it existed or exhibit any consistency. If another ostensibly similar case comes up, they can just say it's totes different from Hobby Lobby because reasons and rule however they please.

    My only problem with that interpretation is that I have no idea what the motive would be. Why choose to hear a case, and then make a ruling tailored to not establish any coherent precedent?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    iTunesIsEvil
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    To advance an agenda rather than clarify case law.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
    So It GoesSquigiePanda4YouShadowenJihadJesusRoz
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    It will be impossible to extract any valuable meaning from this decision.

    Or rather, this decision is going to empower lower appellate courts to rule however the fuck they want, which they will do by region, generally. This decision will justify shit stuff in more conservative regions, and then SCOTUS will refuse to ever take any of it back up again.

    The impression I've gotten is that the decision, as written, claims to be very narrow. But yet it doesn't actually offer any test or rationale that could provide guidance to lower courts going forward: so it claims to be narrow without explaining why or how. The upshot then seems to be as you describe--lower courts will be left without a compelling standard and will largely fill in the void on the basis of their individual legal/policy preferences.

    My inclination is to believe that it was claimed to be "narrow" in some vague, ambiguous way so that SCOTUS would never be obligated to acknowledge that it existed or exhibit any consistency. If another ostensibly similar case comes up, they can just say it's totes different from Hobby Lobby because reasons and rule however they please.

    My only problem with that interpretation is that I have no idea what the motive would be. Why choose to hear a case, and then make a ruling tailored to not establish any coherent precedent?

    The only explanation I can come up for the bolded is that the conservative bloc of the court decided to enshrine a particular religious belief, that just so happened to be their own religion/belief, in law. My brain keeps going "no, that's flatly not allowed; the Constitution forbids it," but I really cannot come up with much else. :?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    But I'd think if you wanted to advance an agenda, you would try to make the ruling more broad. It seems like advancing gay rights by saying, "Okay, this one couple should be able to get married, but I'm not going to endorse gay marriage for anyone else."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    It could be that, as others have pointed out earlier, the real work of advancing the agenda will be done through the lower courts using this supposedly narrow ruling as precedent.

    Psn:wazukki
    iTunesIsEvilDarkewolfeSo It GoesjoshofalltradesShadowen
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    It will be impossible to extract any valuable meaning from this decision.

    Or rather, this decision is going to empower lower appellate courts to rule however the fuck they want, which they will do by region, generally. This decision will justify shit stuff in more conservative regions, and then SCOTUS will refuse to ever take any of it back up again.

    The impression I've gotten is that the decision, as written, claims to be very narrow. But yet it doesn't actually offer any test or rationale that could provide guidance to lower courts going forward: so it claims to be narrow without explaining why or how. The upshot then seems to be as you describe--lower courts will be left without a compelling standard and will largely fill in the void on the basis of their individual legal/policy preferences.

    My inclination is to believe that it was claimed to be "narrow" in some vague, ambiguous way so that SCOTUS would never be obligated to acknowledge that it existed or exhibit any consistency. If another ostensibly similar case comes up, they can just say it's totes different from Hobby Lobby because reasons and rule however they please.

    My only problem with that interpretation is that I have no idea what the motive would be. Why choose to hear a case, and then make a ruling tailored to not establish any coherent precedent?

    The only explanation I can come up for the bolded is that the conservative bloc of the court decided to enshrine a particular religious belief, that just so happened to be their own religion/belief, in law. My brain keeps going "no, that's flatly not allowed; the Constitution forbids it," but I really cannot come up with much else. :?

    Well it really only says congress shall make no law. And congress didn't. Totes constitutional

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    SpoitShadowen
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Its just lowering the bar for entry. Now the next thing christians don't like has an easier pass to get outlawed.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I didn't say they were going about it efficiently. It looks to me like they are testing the waters.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    But I'd think if you wanted to advance an agenda, you would try to make the ruling more broad. It seems like advancing gay rights by saying, "Okay, this one couple should be able to get married, but I'm not going to endorse gay marriage for anyone else."

    No; if its more broad any religion can use it. If it its specific then only beliefs which the court ascribes to gets preferential treatment

    wbBv3fj.png
    MahnmutIncenjucar
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    But I'd think if you wanted to advance an agenda, you would try to make the ruling more broad. It seems like advancing gay rights by saying, "Okay, this one couple should be able to get married, but I'm not going to endorse gay marriage for anyone else."

    True. I think wazilla's got a good explanation...

    The ruling is written, specifically, as "this is a narrow decision", but the logic laid out in it is very much not narrow. The lower courts are going to get cases that will argue using the decision, and the courts are going to have to try to suss out some meaning from behind the decision. I think that what they'll arrive at is basically "eh, it's a religious belief, sincerely held, and I can't just say it's not valid because 'Jesus Rules, Heathens Drool', so... from the logic I can take from the majority opinion and the dissents is that this must apply equally. OK, Christian Scientist owner, you no longer have to provide any health-insurance and you won't pay any penalties for it because of your sincerely-held beliefs."

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    But I'd think if you wanted to advance an agenda, you would try to make the ruling more broad. It seems like advancing gay rights by saying, "Okay, this one couple should be able to get married, but I'm not going to endorse gay marriage for anyone else."

    But by making it narrow it prevents other, similar agendas from gaining traction while allowing your particular religion to become more official.

    The ruling was tailored to ensure that it didn't automatically apply to non-Catholic religious denominations, while giving as much leeway as possible to Catholic complainants. Basically enshrining in law that their beliefs are more valid than those of other, lesser religions.

    So It GoesIncenjucarSquigie
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Some additional commentary on and about the forces behind the decision. Link

    Yes, it's a Salon article, but it does delve into the history of how we got to these terrible circumstances.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    Squigie
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Make no mistake, SCOTUS is not capable of "just making a narrow decision here." This is legislating from the bench, because every lower court will be free to address this decision however they want, and the conservatives will do so freely. The only way to counter someone abusing a SCOTUS decision is to get SCOTUS to clarify, which they're going to refuse to do.

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

    What is this I don't even.
    GethPanda4YouShadowen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    Goumindong wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    But I'd think if you wanted to advance an agenda, you would try to make the ruling more broad. It seems like advancing gay rights by saying, "Okay, this one couple should be able to get married, but I'm not going to endorse gay marriage for anyone else."

    No; if its more broad any religion can use it. If it its specific then only beliefs which the court ascribes to gets preferential treatment

    Exactly. Basically, the ambiguous ruling allows you to cherrypick which lower-court cases you smack down for "not fitting the criteria we established" and thereby enact an arbitrary pro-christian standard.

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

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

    Technically the RFRA could be changed as well, right? I mean, in an alternate universe where things like that could happen.

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

This discussion has been closed.