Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Orcoa]

I'm Christian myself and for the longest time I have been for birth control and such covered under health plans....now Corporations are working more and more to make sure its harder to give people the care they deserve.

Hobby Lobby and the supreme court should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done. They may of allowed the flood gates to what I have always feared, the Right Wing's vision of a Theocracy under "God"

I put "God" under quotes because any Christian knows that Jesus was for the care and well being of others....the Right Wing on the other hand are not.

Soon my friends, We may be under the reign of the Anti-Christ....I pray for us alll

[Gauthier]

I know, but trust me. The moment Muslims try to join in on the fun the whole thing will come crashing down.

The supreme court has protected minority religions pretty well.
IF some cult from Brazil can be protected in its right to import and drink Schedule 1 drugs then I think Muslims getting exemptions from the ham mandate will be accepted. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Islam is hardly a minority religion. And I'd get a kick out of seeing the right wing media bark about how the Supreme Court 5 enabled Sharia Law.

[Greed and Death]

The supreme court has protected minority religions pretty well.
IF some cult from Brazil can be protected in its right to import and drink Schedule 1 drugs then I think Muslims getting exemptions from the ham mandate will be accepted. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Islam is hardly a minority religion. And I'd get a kick out of seeing the right wing media bark about how the Supreme Court 5 enabled Sharia Law.

.8% of the population in the US. we call that a minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

[The Black Forrest]

Islam is hardly a minority religion. And I'd get a kick out of seeing the right wing media bark about how the Supreme Court 5 enabled Sharia Law.

.8% of the population in the US. we call that a minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

I think he was talking of the major religions of the world.

[The Black Forrest]

You're missing a key point, G&D.

How can an artificial legal construct honestly claim to possess sincere and heartfelt religious beliefs?

More to the point, theologically speaking, how can a corporation be Christian under any effective definition of Christian belief? Can a corporation confess its sins and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus? Hell, can a corporation even sin to begin with? And how, exactly, does something with no soul achieve salvation through divine redemption?

See, that's the kicker: Even if we allow that a corporation could somehow hold religious beliefs, the claim of CHRISTIAN belief is such a huge whopper that it can't possibly be credible. Christianity is such an intensely personal religion that it strains the imagination to proclaim that a corporation adheres to the faith. I mean, when was Hobby Lobby baptized? Has it ever proclaimed the Nicene Creed? Does it pray to Jesus regularly and ask Him for counsel? And how can He have a place in the heart of that which literally HAS no heart?!?

How can an artificial construct deposit a check; Hire/Fire people; Divest from Isreal, Divest from Apartheid South Africa or own property ? It is a legal fiction because the reality is the decision makers for the corporation are having all of these done, and the law allows the aforementioned actions. A corporation can sin or be baptized as much as a church, Churches are also corporations and their ability to bring religious freedom claims were not once questioned.

Your opinion of what is Christian is noted, it however clearly differs from green family interpretation, and we were testing if they had a sincere belief not yours. Both differ from mine (Xtainity is a book old people read to become annoying).

They seem to fail the test as what their investments has shown and the insurance covers vasectomies.

The reality is this requiring the ability of baptism, proclamation of the Nicaea creed, or prayer to Jesus to bring a legal action would be far more violation of the division between church then anything in Scalia's wet dreams. The statute passed by congress used a term that encompassed corporations, and the decisions makers at this corporation have made a decision. Don't like it ? Win an election and change the law.

Nahh easier to file suits. I figure you would like that.

[The Black Forrest]

Gee I am shocked you like those three. You assume I would replace them with liberal ideologues.



There are no guarantees on the scenario. Some would argue there will be a Republican in 2017 so it would make sense for her an Breyer to retire to Obama could replace them. Then again. The Repubs really don't have a great list of choices to run after Obama.



I am not sure how copy right violations compare to enforcing religious morality on others?

Besides isn't this were the "free market" comes into play with the usual comments of "if you don't like it, don't use cable?"

Not an issue to me; I don't use cable.

Actually I'm really more just a fan of Scalia and Thomas, not to say I got anything against alito he's ok. I guess just the fact he was a bush appointee has me reserving judgement, I mean bush doesn't have the greatest team record with personnel decisions after all who could forget "heck of a job browny".

Ok. Scalia is annoying but I can see why he has fans. Thomas? He is a lousy judge.

I can't remember the name of the case but basically it was a home invasion people where killed. One guys testimony was used to convict a guy. Problem was information was withheld from the defense and the one guy really couldn't ID anybody.

The conviction went to SCOTUS and was thrown out 8-1. Thomas wrote something like a couple dozen (don't remember the real number) pages arguing that basically the question wasn't about if information was withheld it should be about the defense didn't show reasonable probability and that it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Really? So much for that "reasonable doubt" thing and of course the Jury wouldn't want to know about information being withheld.

I liked Marshall the fact he replaced him is a joke.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm the ruling seems to be expanding:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 8588,d.aWw

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014 ... ding-back/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider ... by-ruling/

[Ashmoria]

Hmmm the ruling seems to be expanding:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 8588,d.aWw

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014 ... ding-back/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider ... by-ruling/

its "fascinating" that this ruling that they insisted was narrow and focused has allowed all the birth control claimants, no matter how unreasonable their claims, to get at least a stay if not an outright order that their suits be ruled in their favor.

I guess narrow really means "only affects women"

[Gauthier]

Hmmm the ruling seems to be expanding:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 8588,d.aWw

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014 ... ding-back/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider ... by-ruling/

its "fascinating" that this ruling that they insisted was narrow and focused has allowed all the birth control claimants, no matter how unreasonable their claims, to get at least a stay if not an outright order that their suits be ruled in their favor.

I guess narrow really means "only affects women"

Narrow enough to fit inside vaginas.

[Ashmoria]

its "fascinating" that this ruling that they insisted was narrow and focused has allowed all the birth control claimants, no matter how unreasonable their claims, to get at least a stay if not an outright order that their suits be ruled in their favor.

I guess narrow really means "only affects women"

Narrow enough to fit inside vaginas.

yuppers.

I had been thinking that the ruling only meant that businesses only have the right to get rid of the "4 abortifacients" but noooooo it covers ALL contraception in obamacare lest we offend some poor poor "job creator's" delicate sensibilities. they even issued a stay for the nuns who don't want to dirty their hands with a freaking form that allows them to opt out.

[Gauthier]

Narrow enough to fit inside vaginas.

yuppers.

I had been thinking that the ruling only meant that businesses only have the right to get rid of the "4 abortifacients" but noooooo it covers ALL contraception in obamacare lest we offend some poor poor "job creator's" delicate sensibilities. they even issued a stay for the nuns who don't want to dirty their hands with a freaking form that allows them to opt out.

Like I said, the moment an Islamic business wants in on the fun it'll all come to a screeching halt.

[Ashmoria]

yuppers.

I had been thinking that the ruling only meant that businesses only have the right to get rid of the "4 abortifacients" but noooooo it covers ALL contraception in obamacare lest we offend some poor poor "job creator's" delicate sensibilities. they even issued a stay for the nuns who don't want to dirty their hands with a freaking form that allows them to opt out.

Like I said, the moment an Islamic business wants in on the fun it'll all come to a screeching halt.

im thinking that THAT is the narrow part.

[JesusOfNazareth]

I had been thinking that the ruling only meant that businesses only have the right to get rid of the "4 abortifacients" but noooooo it covers ALL contraception in obamacare lest we offend some poor poor "job creator's" delicate sensibilities. they even issued a stay for the nuns who don't want to dirty their hands with a freaking form that allows them to opt out.

Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor, the nuns, have to dirty their hands at all?

All through the Hobby Lobby case, the two big arguements were that Hobby Lobby was a for profit business and the lie that a company would stop women from being able to get birth control.

Really, if you want to beat up on the Little Sisters of the Poor, why don't you start another topic?

[Ashmoria]

I had been thinking that the ruling only meant that businesses only have the right to get rid of the "4 abortifacients" but noooooo it covers ALL contraception in obamacare lest we offend some poor poor "job creator's" delicate sensibilities. they even issued a stay for the nuns who don't want to dirty their hands with a freaking form that allows them to opt out.

Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor, the nuns, have to dirty their hands at all?

All through the Hobby Lobby case, the two big arguements were that Hobby Lobby was a for profit business and the lie that a company would stop women from being able to get birth control.

Really, if you want to beat up on the Little Sisters of the Poor, why don't you start another topic?

because how the fuck is the government to know they want to opt out if they don't opt out?

[Brickistan]

Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor, the nuns, have to dirty their hands at all?

Because, in an enlighten modern society, we should not let old superstition dictate our actions. Religion is no excuse for ignorance and should be offered no exemptions for the laws that govern society.

[JesusOfNazareth]

Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor, the nuns, have to dirty their hands at all?

All through the Hobby Lobby case, the two big arguements were that Hobby Lobby was a for profit business and the lie that a company would stop women from being able to get birth control.

Really, if you want to beat up on the Little Sisters of the Poor, why don't you start another topic?

because how the fuck is the government to know they want to opt out if they don't opt out?

How about the separation of church and state?

Anyway, the Hobby Lobby discussion seems dead, so I've opened up a "Little Sisters" topic.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=20&t=303417

[Ashmoria]

because how the fuck is the government to know they want to opt out if they don't opt out?

How about the separation of church and state?

Anyway, the Hobby Lobby discussion seems dead, so I've opened up a "Little Sisters" topic.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=20&t=303417

irrelevant. anyone can claim utterly anything is a deeply held religious belief and *presto-changeo" it becomes a deeply held religious belief. not filling out a form to express your deeply held religious belief ISNT A FREAKING BELIEF.

[Greed and Death]

Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor, the nuns, have to dirty their hands at all?

All through the Hobby Lobby case, the two big arguements were that Hobby Lobby was a for profit business and the lie that a company would stop women from being able to get birth control.

Really, if you want to beat up on the Little Sisters of the Poor, why don't you start another topic?

because how the fuck is the government to know they want to opt out if they don't opt out?

That actually is a good point and the granting of temporary injunctions means the non profits may well reach the supreme court on the matter.

The little Sisters, wheaton college, and other non profits have been given a compromise where all they have to do is notify the insurer(administrator if self insured). And the insurer provides birth control and receives tax credits from the federal government to do so. The current compromise, unlike the previous one which was attempting accounting gimmicks, is thoroughly segregated.

Now the Little sisters are objecting to having to notify the government, the problem I have with this, if you object to notifying the government shouldn't you object to filing a complaint which is also notification of the government.

My suspicion is the court has granted temporary injunctions and will eventually hear the case in order to clearly define what narrowly tailored is as far as RFRA claims are concerned.

[Ashmoria]

because how the fuck is the government to know they want to opt out if they don't opt out?

That actually is a good point and the granting of temporary injunctions means the non profits may well reach the supreme court on the matter.

The little Sisters, wheaton college, and other non profits have been given a compromise where all they have to do is notify the insurer(administrator if self insured). And the insurer provides birth control and receives tax credits from the federal government to do so. The current compromise, unlike the previous one which was attempting accounting gimmicks, is thoroughly segregated.

Now the Little sisters are objecting to having to notify the government, the problem I have with this, if you object to notifying the government shouldn't you object to filing a complaint which is also notification of the government.

My suspicion is the court has granted temporary injunctions and will eventually hear the case in order to clearly define what narrowly tailored is as far as RFRA claims are concerned.

doesn't granting the injunction imply that they are going to take the case (or a similar one) and that that case has a good chance of being ruled in their favor?

[Greed and Death]

That actually is a good point and the granting of temporary injunctions means the non profits may well reach the supreme court on the matter.

The little Sisters, wheaton college, and other non profits have been given a compromise where all they have to do is notify the insurer(administrator if self insured). And the insurer provides birth control and receives tax credits from the federal government to do so. The current compromise, unlike the previous one which was attempting accounting gimmicks, is thoroughly segregated.

Now the Little sisters are objecting to having to notify the government, the problem I have with this, if you object to notifying the government shouldn't you object to filing a complaint which is also notification of the government.

My suspicion is the court has granted temporary injunctions and will eventually hear the case in order to clearly define what narrowly tailored is as far as RFRA claims are concerned.

doesn't granting the injunction imply that they are going to take the case (or a similar one) and that that case has a good chance of being ruled in their favor?

A Temporary injunction is not a ruling on the merits. While there is a measuring of the the merits on their face it is not a decision on the merits. The Wheaton injunction makes that clear. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_ap6c.pdf

For instance anti Gay marriage advocates have gotten injunctions and it is very likely the supreme court will strike down gay marriage bans given Kennedy's position.

As to whether Scotus takes the case it is way to early in the process my understanding is many of the cases are still winding their way through the circuit courts.
Edit
Also worth pointing out Scotus in the Wheaton order made it clear the government was to act like they received the form and have the insurance administrator provide contraception. /Edit

[Ashmoria]

doesn't granting the injunction imply that they are going to take the case (or a similar one) and that that case has a good chance of being ruled in their favor?

A Temporary injunction is not a ruling on the merits. While there is a measuring of the the merits on their face it is not a decision on the merits. The Wheaton injunction makes that clear. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_ap6c.pdf

For instance anti Gay marriage advocates have gotten injunctions and it is very likely the supreme court will strike down gay marriage bans given Kennedy's position.

As to whether Scotus takes the case it is way to early in the process my understanding is many of the cases are still winding their way through the circuit courts.
Edit
Also worth pointing out Scotus in the Wheaton order made it clear the government was to act like they received the form and have the insurance administrator provide contraception. /Edit

ok...

so anyone who already has a case pending and is objecting to the contraception mandate is covered but their employees will still get the coverage because.....they are federal courts and someone at the court is going to be required to notify HHS?

[Greed and Death]

A Temporary injunction is not a ruling on the merits. While there is a measuring of the the merits on their face it is not a decision on the merits. The Wheaton injunction makes that clear. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_ap6c.pdf

For instance anti Gay marriage advocates have gotten injunctions and it is very likely the supreme court will strike down gay marriage bans given Kennedy's position.

As to whether Scotus takes the case it is way to early in the process my understanding is many of the cases are still winding their way through the circuit courts.
Edit
Also worth pointing out Scotus in the Wheaton order made it clear the government was to act like they received the form and have the insurance administrator provide contraception. /Edit

ok...

so anyone who already has a case pending and is objecting to the contraception mandate is covered but their employees will still get the coverage because.....they are federal courts and someone at the court is going to be required to notify HHS?

The nonprofits are pending and the government has an injunction against making them fill out a particular form. But since court filings are public record the federal government can treat that as a notice instead of the form and provide the same care. And that is likely why they got the injunction there is no down side to it everyone still gets coverage.

[Ashmoria]

ok...

so anyone who already has a case pending and is objecting to the contraception mandate is covered but their employees will still get the coverage because.....they are federal courts and someone at the court is going to be required to notify HHS?

The nonprofits are pending and the government has an injunction against making them fill out a particular form. But since court filings are public record the federal government can treat that as a notice instead of the form and provide the same care. And that is likely why they got the injunction there is no down side to it everyone still gets coverage.

I don't really care what the solution is as long as everyone gets the coverage. the rest of the implications of the rulings will reveal themselves in the future.

[Greed and Death]

The nonprofits are pending and the government has an injunction against making them fill out a particular form. But since court filings are public record the federal government can treat that as a notice instead of the form and provide the same care. And that is likely why they got the injunction there is no down side to it everyone still gets coverage.

I don't really care what the solution is as long as everyone gets the coverage. the rest of the implications of the rulings will reveal themselves in the future.

From what I can tell everyone will get it. Even if Wheaton and little sister's win it just means the government will need to become flexible in how it receives notice of the objection. The problem is with for profits, the government will not offer the file an objection and have your insurer get tax credits. The reason being is then every possible for profit would find religion because it is always cheaper to get the government to pay for part of your program. And the government funding almost all women's contraception coverage would make the ACA very expensive.

[Ashmoria]

I don't really care what the solution is as long as everyone gets the coverage. the rest of the implications of the rulings will reveal themselves in the future.

From what I can tell everyone will get it. Even if Wheaton and little sister's win it just means the government will need to become flexible in how it receives notice of the objection. The problem is with for profits, the government will not offer the file an objection and have your insurer get tax credits. The reason being is then every possible for profit would find religion because it is always cheaper to get the government to pay for part of your program. And the government funding almost all women's contraception coverage would make the ACA very expensive.

yeah

there are lots of good legislative fixes for this but none that will get through congress. anything the president does today can be undone by the next president if she has a different opinion on it. (not all that likely for Hillary Clinton, very likely for rick santorum)