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.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Rover said:
Not to get too political on this thread as its a law related one, but I'm extremely amused at conservative posters acting like they've scored some sort of huge victory here. Since they're all males presumably (Fishy, Bob Gray) this doesn't affect them unless I'm missing something, and as has been pointed out they'll still be paying for these services one way or the other. However, this drives a stake in a GOP Presidential candidacy in 2016, especially against a female candidate. The people most likely against contraception are either 1) too old to need it, or 2) not having sex - pretty much the GOP base. However, as the public at large is in favor of such coverage, I'm real curious how whatever hard right fundie the Republicans nominate is going to finesse this one, especially when another right wing company decides they don't want to pay for a life saving operation (say a heart transplant) because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Not to get too political. Ha! I stopped there, as that's too hilarious to bother reading the rest.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Not to get too political. Ha! I stopped there, as that's too hilarious to bother reading the rest.
Click to expand...


Hey, keeping P.O.ing the electorate at your own peril Bob. Last time I checked your side hasn't been very good at winning Presidential elections. But keep hoping only your voters show up next time. Worked well for President Romney, so should do the same for President Cruz/Paul/Walker/etc....
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Rover said:
Hey, keeping P.O.ing the electorate at your own peril Bob. Last time I checked your side hasn't been very good at winning Presidential elections. But keep hoping only your voters show up next time. Worked well for President Romney, so should do the same for President Cruz/Paul/Walker/etc....
Click to expand...
I'm not about P.O.ing anyone, just sticking to my values, that's all. If those aren't popular with the electorate, well, there's worse things. I realize that's a rather antiquated way of approaching things, but there's more to life than finding out what is popular and then changing yourself to match that.
 
FreshFish said:
What case is that? I thought that the ruling today was whether the owners of closely-held companies had the right not to be forced to act against their religious beliefs? There is nothing in that case at all about the owners of a company dictating anything to his employees, nothing at all. The owner of the company even agreed to pay for contraceptives for his employees. What is so objectionable about that?
Click to expand...

The ruling today is that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring women's reproductive health, but 5 justices said the ACA mandate violated the RFRA because it is not the least restrictive means of doing so. 4 of those 5 declined to say what the least restrictive means would be, but Justice Kennedy basically said the government could pay for it itself.

The four dissenters argued the RFRA was never meant to apply to comprehensive schemes like this, and the courts should not be making decisions on which conditions the government should be picking up the tabs (contraception vs transfusions or vaccines, for instance, or why tax schemes do not violate the RFRA but the ACA does).

All nine justices recognized the conflict between the owners rights vs the employees rights.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

dxmnkd316 said:
Why? This seems arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Note: I've not read the opinion, and basing this sumary strictly upon discussions I've read and heard in the days/weeks leading up to the decision.

It was the basis of the case, Hobby Lobby arguing that since it's a closely held corp, and was founded using language stating that it would uphold the Christian beliefs of its owners, that it should not be compelled to provide monetary benefits towards what they considered abortion related services. A corporation such as GM has millions of stockholders, as you know, and therefore would be logistically impossible to find a consensus between the many owners on a topic such as this.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
I'm not about P.O.ing anyone, just sticking to my values, that's all. If those aren't popular with the electorate, well, there's worse things. I realize that's a rather antiquated way of approaching things, but there's more to life than finding out what is popular and then changing yourself to match that.
Click to expand...

So I'm assuming you have 12-15 kids then since you don't practice birth control? :rolleyes:

PS - Some people thought denying blacks the right to vote was sticking to their values as well. While I'm not saying that's you, what I am saying is some "values" become antiquated over time.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

St. Clown said:
Note: I've not read the opinion, and basing this sumary strictly upon discussions I've read and heard in the days/weeks leading up to the decision.

It was the basis of the case, Hobby Lobby arguing that since it's a closely held corp, and was founded using language stating that it would uphold the Christian beliefs of its owners, that it should not be compelled to provide monetary benefits towards what they considered abortion related services. A corporation such as GM has millions of stockholders, as you know, and therefore would be logistically impossible to find a consensus between the many owners on a topic such as this.
Click to expand...


From what I can tell the IRS defines a closely held corp as being owned by 5 or less people or something to that effect.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Rover said:
So I'm assuming you have 12-15 kids then since you don't practice birth control? :rolleyes:

PS - Some people thought denying blacks the right to vote was sticking to their values as well. While I'm not saying that's you, what I am saying is some "values" become antiquated over time.
Click to expand...
Your assumptions about my personal life are just that, and not very accurate I must say. :rolleyes:

Yah, freedom from the government dictating everything in our lives is becoming an antiquated notion, you're right.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Yah, freedom from the government dictating everything in our lives is becoming an antiquated notion, you're right.
Click to expand...

"everything"?

When you turned 18, did you have to register with selective service? You should be opposed to that too, since it's the government telling you what to do.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If I'm reading this opinion correctly, if the RFRA is amended to dump the exemption for non-profits, this ruling is effectively rendered null, correct? The opinion makes it quite clear early on that you can't distinguish between a non-profit and a for-profit company.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
If I'm reading this opinion correctly, if the RFRA is amended to dump the exemption for non-profits, this ruling is effectively rendered null, correct? The opinion makes it quite clear early on that you can't distinguish between a non-profit and a for-profit company.
Click to expand...

Not really. They'd find another way to reach the same decision.

The key point is Kennedy's concurrence, since it signals when he would change his vote and join the liberal wing. The money quote:

Yet neither may that same exercise unduly restrict other persons, such as employees, in protecting their own interests, interests the law deems compelling. In these cases the means to reconcile those two priorities are at hand in the existing accommodation the Govern*ment has designed, identified, and used for circumstancesclosely parallel to those presented here. RFRA requires the Government to use this less restrictive means.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top