What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
BassAle said:
You're literally the only one. The rest of us have been telling you who Joe really is for years and for some reason you kept defending him.
Click to expand...

Maybe?

I didn't give up on Bob or Flag for a long time, either. I still think Hovey and Sic have a couple brain cells that could be saved.

I don't like throwing things away.
 
SJHovey said:
Well, technicality maybe isn't the exactly correct word, since you do have to have standing to sue. I guess what I mean by that is that they didn't decide the basic legal challenge to the ACA. Instead, it was basically a ruling that these states couldn't bring that challenge to the court to decide it. So, whether you say it was decided on a technicality or a procedural basis or what, I guess I don't care.

With respect to "deflecting," what I mean is that the Court has again turned aside a request that they get rid of the ACA.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with all of this. It would seem the Court doesn't want to weigh in really either way on the issue so they look for a reason to get rid of the case. Which is fine. If I was them I wouldn't want to be remembered in history as the person who wrote the decision that screwed people out of health care...

As for the same sex couple case...I dont like it but at the same time I am not sure it is the governments job to force a church based agency to go against their doctrine. My contempt isnt for the Court on that it is on the agency who are just being bigots.
 
Handyman said:
As for the same sex couple case...I dont like it but at the same time I am not sure it is the governments job to force a church based agency to go against their doctrine.
Click to expand...

It is if sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes. So that's we need the Court to do.
 
For the record, I did not support the ACA at launch, but I think it would be catastrophic to simply strike it down or repeal it now, without something in place that closes the wide, gaping hole you'd leave in insurance coverage. You just cannot put toothpaste back in the tube.

Why didn't I support it? Because it absolutely doesn't make healthcare any more affordable. It does virtually nothing to separate insurance from employment (the Exchanges are terrific but they gave the states so much leeway that for millions of Americans they aren't functional at all), and the "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" was a ridiculous lie from the start. I'm not really interested in yet another litigation of its merits, just wanted to say that.


But, after working in the IT/management side of healthcare for a few years, I feel that it further did nothing to stem the insurance companies' death grip on the actual performance of healthcare itself. This next statement surprises no one more than me, but I will 100% say that of all the payers I have to work with, CMS is the easiest. I'm flabbergasted by that, but ... whatever. It is what it is.


I don't at all have all the answers on what things should look like. Single payer only? Single payer with supplemental private insurance? Private insurances with so much federal oversite as to be effectively arms of CMS? Sure. Any of them would be preferential to the hodgepodge of insanity we currently have. And said hodgepodge is infinitely better than the moron GQP's insistence that we simply go back to what we had previously.
 
Yes...just not sure that is going to happen any time soon. Of course I never thought Juneteenth would become a thing so...
 
I've read in a few different places that the decision in the Catholics vs Philly case is very narrowly defined and would really only pertain to this one case and not apply across the board.
 
Proud2baLaker said:
I've read in a few different places that the decision in the Catholics vs Philly case is very narrowly defined and would really only pertain to this one case and not apply across the board.
Click to expand...

Yes, they seem to have judged it as a contract dispute and not as a civil rights dispute. I find that curious but I'm way out over my skis with regards to SCOTUS process.
 
The Court (Roberts + liberals + Barrett + Kavanaugh) said "we don't have to overrule Scalia because he opined about generally applicable laws, and in this case Philly left itself the ability to grant waivers at its sole discretion, so it's not a generally applicable law. Therefore we can find it's a violation of the 1st Amendment without digging deeper. And foster care as done in Philly isn't a form of public accommodation, so we don't need to worry about striking down anti-discrimination laws, either"

Barrett said "I would probably overrule Scalia's previous opinion, but I don't need to and I'm going to claim I have no idea what a post-overruling world would look like, so I will join the majority." Kavanaugh also signed onto this. Breyer signed onto this excepting the "I would probably overrule Scalia" part.

Alito said "damned the torpedoes, full speed ahead to religions discriminating against the gays." Thomas and Gorsuch signed onto this.

Gorsuch said, "Let me whine about the majority sidestepping the major question for 10 pages." Thomas and Alito agreed with the whinefest.
 
unofan said:
The Court (Roberts + liberals + Barrett + Kavanaugh) said "we don't have to overrule Scalia because he opined about generally applicable laws, and in this case Philly left itself the ability to grant waivers at its sole discretion, so it's not a generally applicable law. Therefore we can find it's a violation of the 1st Amendment without digging deeper. And foster care as done in Philly isn't a form of public accommodation, so we don't need to worry about striking down anti-discrimination laws, either"

Barrett said "I would probably overrule Scalia's previous opinion, but I don't need to and I'm going to claim I have no idea what a post-overruling world would look like, so I will join the majority." Kavanaugh also signed onto this. Breyer signed onto this excepting the "I would probably overrule Scalia" part.

Alito said "damned the torpedoes, full speed ahead to religions discriminating against the gays." Thomas and Gorsuch signed onto this.

Gorsuch said, "Let me whine about the majority sidestepping the major question for 10 pages." Thomas and Alito agreed with the whinefest.
Click to expand...

This is wonderful. You should write all Law Review articles.

You could call it the Dartmouth Law Review because they don't hav-- well, you know.

But why didn't The Handmaid and Drunky McRapist sign on to Alito and give us the Sharia 5-4 decision? Just go all the way and reinterpret the First Amendment to make Christianity the state religion? That is The Plan.
 
Last edited:
SJHovey said:
Collectively, or apiece, because I was planning to have a couple of beers while golfing today.
Click to expand...

Uh-oh ...

< sets down copper mug with ginger beer, vodka, and lime* >


*Had to describe it that way or be accused as a Putin sympathizer for drinking a Moscow Mule**. :-D
**It's summer so no more peanut butter whiskey until fall.
 
Kepler said:
This is wonderful. You should write all Law Review articles.

You could call it the Dartmouth Law Review because they don't hav-- well, you know.

But why didn't The Handmaid and Drunky McRapist sign on to Alito and give us the Sharia 5-4 decision? Just go all the way and reinterpret the First Amendment to make Christianity the state religion? That is The Plan.
Click to expand...

She is on record saying religion doesn't trump the law and able probably wants to pretend that is true for a bit...
 
Kepler said:
This is wonderful. You should write all Law Review articles.

You could call it the Dartmouth Law Review because they don't hav-- well, you know.

But why didn't The Handmaid and Drunky McRapist sign on to Alito and give us the Sharia 5-4 decision? Just go all the way and reinterpret the First Amendment to make Christianity the state religion? That is The Plan.
Click to expand...

What Handyman said. The Court is never comfortable being too far away from public opinion, so she only has so many bullets to use, and why waste it on this when she gets the win anyway and gets to play moderate. Then when abortion or something else comes up, it's 3 ideologues and 2 (3) moderates taking a swing at it rather than 5 ideologues (and 1 moderate if Roberts goes along)..
 
Busy-busy SCOTUS already today ... and the NCAA can't be happy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/21/sup...hletes-in-compensation-dispute-with-ncaa.html

“Put simply, this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, ... wrote for the court.

Kavanaugh wrote ... that it was “highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes.”
Click to expand...
 
LynahFan said:
Whoa. Not to often you see a literal game-changer at SCOTUS....

Cutting of minor sports will be amped up to 11 as Athletic Depts enter a new arms race of using that money to pay football and basketball players instead.
Click to expand...

I also see this as more pressure on the fracture line between the FBS P5 and FBS G5.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Please attribute Nigel Tufnel when you quote him. :-D
Click to expand...

I submit to the court in my defense that this usage has entered the common vernacular and is therefore no longer exclusively the intellectual property of the aforementioned Mr. Tufnel. Unless perhaps he would wish to enter into evidence any affirmative steps that he has undertaken to defend his IP claim? ;-P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top