Oh snap Barack Obama's twitter dropping bombs. The worst part of course is this is a SCOTUS decision, outside of an act of god (aka congress doing something for womens health) aint shit the general public can do about this. Like the VRA, like Citizens united, like etc etc etc.
While I think doom and gloom is warranted this is actually a pretty decision to reverse because it's not based on the constitution.
Only if we suddenly no longer have 5 conservative members on the court, which is not going to happen for at least 10 to 20 years.
You just need to revise the RFRA. Granted, that's a pipe dream in this political climate, but the point stands.
So the 10 to 20 years thing? Because I guarentee even with a full slate of dems in house and senate, even if they had 2/3's in the senate they would not change the RFRA at all because no on in america takes on the christian coalition, its political suicide. You'd have a better chance surviving putting up a new gun law.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Do we have to do the, "I hope one of them dies" thing, like, every fifteen pages?
Hoping people die is uncool.
Well, that's what happens when you decide an office should have a life long term. I'm sure people would rather say, "I hope one of them gets voted off," but they don't leave the bench unless they die, so...
Oh snap Barack Obama's twitter dropping bombs. The worst part of course is this is a SCOTUS decision, outside of an act of god (aka congress doing something for womens health) aint shit the general public can do about this. Like the VRA, like Citizens united, like etc etc etc.
Or we could do what the opposition did, which is get pissed off, vote like crazy, and attack the shit out of elected officials even within our own party if they appoint judges that make rulings we hate or legislation we do t approve of.
I mean we didn't get here from Roe because the nutjob Evangelicals through up their hands and gave up. We got here here because they responded with a concerted 30 years of stacking as many nutjobs as possible into every position they thought had the slightest chance of undermining or attacking the decision.
And it's worked perfectly.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Oh snap Barack Obama's twitter dropping bombs. The worst part of course is this is a SCOTUS decision, outside of an act of god (aka congress doing something for womens health) aint shit the general public can do about this. Like the VRA, like Citizens united, like etc etc etc.
Or we could do what the opposition did, which is get pissed off, vote like crazy, and attack the shit out of elected officials even within our own party if they appoint judges that make rulings we hate or legislation we do t approve of.
I mean we didn't get here from Roe because the nutjob Evangelicals through up their hands and gave up. We got here here because they responded with a concerted 30 years of stacking as many nutjobs as possible into every position they thought had the slightest chance of undermining or attacking the decision.
And it's worked perfectly.
Populism works better when you can tie it to racism and bigotry, though.
Getting people to vote against their own interests because the issue is framed as someone else taking something from them (when really everybody loses) is not something both sides are able to do.
Do we have to do the, "I hope one of them dies" thing, like, every fifteen pages?
Hoping people die is uncool.
Well, that's what happens when you decide an office should have a life long term. I'm sure people would rather say, "I hope one of them gets voted off," but they don't leave the bench unless they die, so...
Shit, right now I suspect a lot of people would settle for "I can't wait for one of them to turn 100 and be forced to retire" situations. I know none of them are even close to that, but the uncertainty of X amount of years with Alito et. al. must be torture beyond their already torturous logic and bad writing.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Though there is no such thing as a silver bullet, an amendment gutting corporate personhood would go so far in fixing so many things.
I'm wondering if it has to be an amendment. The whole idea the the corporate liability shield doesn't also cut away it's rights isn't present anywhere in the Constitution.
You'd have to get serious about what rights a corporation does have. I needs some to be viable and nailing down exactly what would be a fair amount of work.
Though there is no such thing as a silver bullet, an amendment gutting corporate personhood would go so far in fixing so many things.
I'm wondering if it has to be an amendment. The whole idea the the corporate liability shield doesn't also cut away it's rights isn't present anywhere in the Constitution.
You'd have to get serious about what rights a corporation does have. I needs some to be viable and nailing down exactly what would be a fair amount of work.
I'm pretty sure that up until Citizens United, it was pretty clear that corporations had no rights except what they were explicitly granted by statute... since they're a fiction created by statute.
Oh snap Barack Obama's twitter dropping bombs. The worst part of course is this is a SCOTUS decision, outside of an act of god (aka congress doing something for womens health) aint shit the general public can do about this. Like the VRA, like Citizens united, like etc etc etc.
Or we could do what the opposition did, which is get pissed off, vote like crazy, and attack the shit out of elected officials even within our own party if they appoint judges that make rulings we hate or legislation we do t approve of.
I mean we didn't get here from Roe because the nutjob Evangelicals through up their hands and gave up. We got here here because they responded with a concerted 30 years of stacking as many nutjobs as possible into every position they thought had the slightest chance of undermining or attacking the decision.
And it's worked perfectly.
Populism works better when you can tie it to racism and bigotry, though.
Getting people to vote against their own interests because the issue is framed as someone else taking something from them (when really everybody loses) is not something both sides are able to do.
But they are literally trying to take about birth control and abortion choice. Like we don't need a racial boogeyman to project some false attack onto, when there is a perfectly good literal one already.
Oh snap Barack Obama's twitter dropping bombs. The worst part of course is this is a SCOTUS decision, outside of an act of god (aka congress doing something for womens health) aint shit the general public can do about this. Like the VRA, like Citizens united, like etc etc etc.
Or we could do what the opposition did, which is get pissed off, vote like crazy, and attack the shit out of elected officials even within our own party if they appoint judges that make rulings we hate or legislation we do t approve of.
I mean we didn't get here from Roe because the nutjob Evangelicals through up their hands and gave up. We got here here because they responded with a concerted 30 years of stacking as many nutjobs as possible into every position they thought had the slightest chance of undermining or attacking the decision.
And it's worked perfectly.
Thus the Obama response. And the Reid response. And pretty much every other Democratic response. They know their votes come from women. Who as I have mentioned several times before, have moved 14 points from 2010 before this ruling, and I would guess that only gets wider after this.
Democrats even have a shot at winning white women.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+3
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Oh snap Barack Obama's twitter dropping bombs. The worst part of course is this is a SCOTUS decision, outside of an act of god (aka congress doing something for womens health) aint shit the general public can do about this. Like the VRA, like Citizens united, like etc etc etc.
Or we could do what the opposition did, which is get pissed off, vote like crazy, and attack the shit out of elected officials even within our own party if they appoint judges that make rulings we hate or legislation we do t approve of.
I mean we didn't get here from Roe because the nutjob Evangelicals through up their hands and gave up. We got here here because they responded with a concerted 30 years of stacking as many nutjobs as possible into every position they thought had the slightest chance of undermining or attacking the decision.
And it's worked perfectly.
Populism works better when you can tie it to racism and bigotry, though.
Getting people to vote against their own interests because the issue is framed as someone else taking something from them (when really everybody loses) is not something both sides are able to do.
But they are literally trying to take about birth control and abortion choice. Like we don't need a racial boogeyman to project some false attack onto, when there is a perfectly good literal one already.
No, I know, this is a strong single issue to head into the midterms with.
But it's not enough to sustain the type of systematic dismantling of sane governance the GOP has managed to pull off over five decades.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
This isn't the midterm thread. Stop it, Chanus. Stop it.
Though there is no such thing as a silver bullet, an amendment gutting corporate personhood would go so far in fixing so many things.
I'm wondering if it has to be an amendment. The whole idea the the corporate liability shield doesn't also cut away it's rights isn't present anywhere in the Constitution.
You'd have to get serious about what rights a corporation does have. I needs some to be viable and nailing down exactly what would be a fair amount of work.
I'm pretty sure that up until Citizens United, it was pretty clear that corporations had no rights except what they were explicitly granted by statute... since they're a fiction created by statute.
Yea, and the idea in CU (and Hobby Lobby) is that the owners rights kinda migrate to the Corporation which is kinda sorta sensical.
What I'm saying is that notion is not anywhere in the Constitution, just like the severability of liability that is the purpose of a corporation, and can be regulated by simply passing a law.
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Well, it kind of makes sense.
Incorporating shields a wealthy person from all the bad things about being a business owner, but now they can also still do all the fun things like treating those little people down there like ants.
If I, unlike the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, were to be logically consistent, I might, might be willing to say that an owner's beliefs would translate to a business if said business was a sole proprietorship.
Seeing as how a sole proprietorship offers none of the protections of a corporation (C-corp, S-Corp, LLC, LLP, etc.) that seems fair. But there needs to be a drawback to having that corporate shield, which is that no, a corporation is not a fucking person.
But that's still bullshit, because even if I'm the sole owner of a business that sells dildo's for women to peg dudes with. It has nothing to do with my beliefs other than I'm selling something I think can make money. That's the stupid part, a business has no belief, it has no opinion, it exists to make money for its owners, that's fucking it. The entire personhood of corporations is sickening and wrong.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
But that's still bullshit, because even if I'm the sole owner of a business that sells dildo's for women to peg dudes with. It has nothing to do with my beliefs other than I'm selling something I think can make money. That's the stupid part, a business has no belief, it has no opinion, it exists to make money for its owners, that's fucking it. The entire personhood of corporations is sickening and wrong.
Yeah, it's supposed to be corporations are like people in that they can "appear" in court. That's it. A logical consequence of making it separate from the owners is that the entity needs be answerable to the courts, so it can be sued. If it can appear to be sued, it follows it can sue. And that's the entirety of it. Not that anyone here is arguing that, but... this is one of those cases where it seems some people have not done their history homework.
But that's still bullshit, because even if I'm the sole owner of a business that sells dildo's for women to peg dudes with. It has nothing to do with my beliefs other than I'm selling something I think can make money. That's the stupid part, a business has no belief, it has no opinion, it exists to make money for its owners, that's fucking it. The entire personhood of corporations is sickening and wrong.
In your hypothetical it's absolutely true. If the dude instead decides to hand carve devotional items as a service to his faith and takes some cash so that he can eat or shit? That's a little muddy.
What I'm saying is that the point where you incorporate is the point where you should be making a formal legal declaration that is solely a profit seeking venture and to be regulated as such (which includes the limited liability shield that is the major feature of Corporations.) If you want to have a ideological driven organization that's just peachy and we can hash out the legal/RFRA interaction with that separately from profit seeking ventures that we give special protections to because they need it to function. You don't get the liability shield because you want it to reflect your ideologies.
But that's still bullshit, because even if I'm the sole owner of a business that sells dildo's for women to peg dudes with. It has nothing to do with my beliefs other than I'm selling something I think can make money. That's the stupid part, a business has no belief, it has no opinion, it exists to make money for its owners, that's fucking it. The entire personhood of corporations is sickening and wrong.
There are also non-profit corporations.
To be clear, I think Hobby Lobby is a terrible decision on multiple fronts. The idea that "closely-held" corporations can have religious beliefs is, frankly, bullshit of the highest order. Corporations exist for many reasons, but some of the reasons include 1) a shield against personal liability and 2) life after the death of its owners. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that one of the many reasons to have a corporation is to set something up that is separate from the owners.
That's kind of why I think that yes, if you choose not to set up a corporation, I might be able to agree that a sole proprietorship can have all the rights of the owner because the owner and the sole proprietorship are one and the same. Same person, same speech, same liability, same consequences (both civil and criminal). But the moment you take up that company charter and are no longer a sole proprietorship, that one and the same relationship no longer exists.
I assume people want the court to change, to get better.
I'm not sure how they expect that to happen outside of a conservative justice croaking with a democrat in office, realistically. So...maybe tone down the outrage any time that comes up?
If you read that Scalia had kicked it in the middle of the night on your Google news feed, you'd feel maybe 1% 'poor Scalia and his family' and 99% excitement and speculation about how it would impact the court positively and you all damn well know it.
Man that's mean to refer to Alito as a half, sure that's about all the brain power he's got, but still rude.
Alito is actually really smart. He just doesn't give a fuck about precedent, Congress' stated opinion when passing laws, or the Constitution. That makes him an awful, awful Justice, but it's not for lack of brains.
There's also an interesting distinction between the pre-Bush Jr. right-wing Justices on the one hand and Alito and Roberts on the other. As Scott Lemieux put it, "while Scalia and Thomas are conservative ideologues, Roberts and Alito are Republican ideologues." You're never going to see Roberts or Alito tell a Republican president that they can't imprison Islamist terrorism suspects indefinitely without a trial. But Scalia did. Scalia provided the fifth vote to strike down flag-burning prohibitions, and to deem the use of thermal imagers to find pot growers to be a 4th amendment search requiring a warrant.
Scalia is amazingly terrible, but he will occasionally remember either his libertarian or "originalist" streak and vote against the party line. Thomas has an extremely archaic interpretation of the Constitution and pretty consistently holds to it (and makes well-reasoned arguments. I think he's nuts, but he's a good writer). Roberts holds back from pushing the party line as far as possible (possibly because he doesn't want to go down in history as another Taney), but he always moves in that direction. Alito, OTOH, doesn't hold back.
Thomas has an extremely archaic interpretation of the Constitution and pretty consistently holds to it (and makes well-reasoned arguments. I think he's nuts, but he's a good writer).
I assume people want the court to change, to get better.
I'm not sure how they expect that to happen outside of a conservative justice croaking with a democrat in office, realistically. So...maybe tone down the outrage any time that comes up?
If you read that Scalia had kicked it in the middle of the night on your Google news feed, you'd feel maybe 1% 'poor Scalia and his family' and 99% excitement and speculation about how it would impact the court positively and you all damn well know it.
God damn right. I've got a bottle of champagne with Scalia's* friggin' name on it. That's an inevitability, I just hope we can keep hold of the Senate/White House long enough that some of these terrible justices have no choice and die on the bench with an ideologically hostile administration in office.
That's not me being morbid, by the way. It's a god damn design feature of an institution where that is the ONLY way to swing the makeup.
*
I think Alito's worse but...eh, I'll just crack open the bottle for whoever kicks it first and then get another one.
Ginsburg sadly is the most likely next replacement. She survived multiple cancers, but she's not long for this world I'd figure. And when she passes america will lose one of our best, and whoever replaces her will be no where near her equal.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
so anyone on bets on how long before the court bans abortion
2017.
I would like to theorize what their reasoning will be.
"With the advancements in modern medicine, there is never a reasonable cause to terminate the life of an unborn person, as such while Roe v Wade was applicable at the time it was originally tried, that precedent no longer applies when other reasonable options for medical care and post-natal care exist."
I assume people want the court to change, to get better.
I'm not sure how they expect that to happen outside of a conservative justice croaking with a democrat in office, realistically. So...maybe tone down the outrage any time that comes up?
If you read that Scalia had kicked it in the middle of the night on your Google news feed, you'd feel maybe 1% 'poor Scalia and his family' and 99% excitement and speculation about how it would impact the court positively and you all damn well know it.
God damn right. I've got a bottle of champagne with Scalia's* friggin' name on it. That's an inevitability, I just hope we can keep hold of the Senate/White House long enough that some of these terrible justices have no choice and die on the bench with an ideologically hostile administration in office.
That's not me being morbid, by the way. It's a god damn design feature of an institution where that is the ONLY way to swing the makeup.
*
I think Alito's worse but...eh, I'll just crack open the bottle for whoever kicks it first and then get another one.
well, fortunately, republicans seem to want all women to vote democrats for some reason.
so anyone on bets on how long before the court bans abortion
2017.
I would like to theorize what their reasoning will be.
"With the advancements in modern medicine, there is never a reasonable cause to terminate the life of an unborn person, as such while Roe v Wade was applicable at the time it was originally tried, that precedent no longer applies when other reasonable options for medical care and post-natal care exist."
Oh god its like I saw a terrible vision of the future.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Hoping people die is uncool.
You just need to revise the RFRA. Granted, that's a pipe dream in this political climate, but the point stands.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, that's what happens when you decide an office should have a life long term. I'm sure people would rather say, "I hope one of them gets voted off," but they don't leave the bench unless they die, so...
I mean we didn't get here from Roe because the nutjob Evangelicals through up their hands and gave up. We got here here because they responded with a concerted 30 years of stacking as many nutjobs as possible into every position they thought had the slightest chance of undermining or attacking the decision.
And it's worked perfectly.
Populism works better when you can tie it to racism and bigotry, though.
Getting people to vote against their own interests because the issue is framed as someone else taking something from them (when really everybody loses) is not something both sides are able to do.
Shit, right now I suspect a lot of people would settle for "I can't wait for one of them to turn 100 and be forced to retire" situations. I know none of them are even close to that, but the uncertainty of X amount of years with Alito et. al. must be torture beyond their already torturous logic and bad writing.
Corporations ain't people, y'all.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I'm wondering if it has to be an amendment. The whole idea the the corporate liability shield doesn't also cut away it's rights isn't present anywhere in the Constitution.
You'd have to get serious about what rights a corporation does have. I needs some to be viable and nailing down exactly what would be a fair amount of work.
I'm pretty sure that up until Citizens United, it was pretty clear that corporations had no rights except what they were explicitly granted by statute... since they're a fiction created by statute.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Thus the Obama response. And the Reid response. And pretty much every other Democratic response. They know their votes come from women. Who as I have mentioned several times before, have moved 14 points from 2010 before this ruling, and I would guess that only gets wider after this.
Democrats even have a shot at winning white women.
No, I know, this is a strong single issue to head into the midterms with.
But it's not enough to sustain the type of systematic dismantling of sane governance the GOP has managed to pull off over five decades.
Yea, and the idea in CU (and Hobby Lobby) is that the owners rights kinda migrate to the Corporation which is kinda sorta sensical.
What I'm saying is that notion is not anywhere in the Constitution, just like the severability of liability that is the purpose of a corporation, and can be regulated by simply passing a law.
I think.
Incorporating shields a wealthy person from all the bad things about being a business owner, but now they can also still do all the fun things like treating those little people down there like ants.
It seems consistent with this court's philosophy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Seeing as how a sole proprietorship offers none of the protections of a corporation (C-corp, S-Corp, LLC, LLP, etc.) that seems fair. But there needs to be a drawback to having that corporate shield, which is that no, a corporation is not a fucking person.
pleasepaypreacher.net
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, it's supposed to be corporations are like people in that they can "appear" in court. That's it. A logical consequence of making it separate from the owners is that the entity needs be answerable to the courts, so it can be sued. If it can appear to be sued, it follows it can sue. And that's the entirety of it. Not that anyone here is arguing that, but... this is one of those cases where it seems some people have not done their history homework.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
In your hypothetical it's absolutely true. If the dude instead decides to hand carve devotional items as a service to his faith and takes some cash so that he can eat or shit? That's a little muddy.
What I'm saying is that the point where you incorporate is the point where you should be making a formal legal declaration that is solely a profit seeking venture and to be regulated as such (which includes the limited liability shield that is the major feature of Corporations.) If you want to have a ideological driven organization that's just peachy and we can hash out the legal/RFRA interaction with that separately from profit seeking ventures that we give special protections to because they need it to function. You don't get the liability shield because you want it to reflect your ideologies.
There are also non-profit corporations.
To be clear, I think Hobby Lobby is a terrible decision on multiple fronts. The idea that "closely-held" corporations can have religious beliefs is, frankly, bullshit of the highest order. Corporations exist for many reasons, but some of the reasons include 1) a shield against personal liability and 2) life after the death of its owners. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that one of the many reasons to have a corporation is to set something up that is separate from the owners.
That's kind of why I think that yes, if you choose not to set up a corporation, I might be able to agree that a sole proprietorship can have all the rights of the owner because the owner and the sole proprietorship are one and the same. Same person, same speech, same liability, same consequences (both civil and criminal). But the moment you take up that company charter and are no longer a sole proprietorship, that one and the same relationship no longer exists.
I'm not sure how they expect that to happen outside of a conservative justice croaking with a democrat in office, realistically. So...maybe tone down the outrage any time that comes up?
If you read that Scalia had kicked it in the middle of the night on your Google news feed, you'd feel maybe 1% 'poor Scalia and his family' and 99% excitement and speculation about how it would impact the court positively and you all damn well know it.
There's also an interesting distinction between the pre-Bush Jr. right-wing Justices on the one hand and Alito and Roberts on the other. As Scott Lemieux put it, "while Scalia and Thomas are conservative ideologues, Roberts and Alito are Republican ideologues." You're never going to see Roberts or Alito tell a Republican president that they can't imprison Islamist terrorism suspects indefinitely without a trial. But Scalia did. Scalia provided the fifth vote to strike down flag-burning prohibitions, and to deem the use of thermal imagers to find pot growers to be a 4th amendment search requiring a warrant.
Scalia is amazingly terrible, but he will occasionally remember either his libertarian or "originalist" streak and vote against the party line. Thomas has an extremely archaic interpretation of the Constitution and pretty consistently holds to it (and makes well-reasoned arguments. I think he's nuts, but he's a good writer). Roberts holds back from pushing the party line as far as possible (possibly because he doesn't want to go down in history as another Taney), but he always moves in that direction. Alito, OTOH, doesn't hold back.
O_o
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
2017.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's not me being morbid, by the way. It's a god damn design feature of an institution where that is the ONLY way to swing the makeup.
*
pleasepaypreacher.net
I would like to theorize what their reasoning will be.
"With the advancements in modern medicine, there is never a reasonable cause to terminate the life of an unborn person, as such while Roe v Wade was applicable at the time it was originally tried, that precedent no longer applies when other reasonable options for medical care and post-natal care exist."
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
well, fortunately, republicans seem to want all women to vote democrats for some reason.
Oh god its like I saw a terrible vision of the future.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If this keeps up hobby lobby will do more for the democratic party than the democrats ever could
link?
religious leaders are calling for an exemption to lgbt hiring regulations
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/
sorry for washington times, it was sadly the least bullshit link i could find quickly