The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It seems quite ironic to me that the Progressives are all about anti-trust and 'beware of monopoly power!' when it comes to business, yet they are incredibly eager to give government monopoly power over much of our lives.

There is such a disconnect between the Progressive ideal and real-life Progressive government. The VA is such a perfect example. What sounds better than giving top-quality lifelong care to our military veterans? and in practice what demonstrates how government employees organize the administration for their own convenience, while serving their purported clients becomes an afterthought?


All those earnest, idealistic Progressives seem to forget that they themselves will not be staffing government offices, they themselves will not be hired as government employees. It is the people whose failings they lament who also will be staffing the government.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It seems quite ironic to me that the Progressives are all about anti-trust and 'beware of monopoly power!' when it comes to business, yet they are incredibly eager to give government monopoly power over much of our lives.

There is such a disconnect between the Progressive ideal and real-life Progressive government. The VA is such a perfect example. What sounds better than giving top-quality lifelong care to our military veterans? and in practice what demonstrates how government employees organize the administration for their own convenience, while serving their purported clients becomes an afterthought?


All those earnest, idealistic Progressives seem to forget that they themselves will not be staffing government offices, they themselves will not be hired as government employees. It is the people whose failings they lament who also will be staffing the government.

Are you a veteran yourself Fishy? Curious as to your perspective on this one....

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

God every day this contraceptive thing ****es me off even more. For me, the contraceptive issue here is almost insignificant. What is far more important is the SCOTUS has stepped ever so slightly into the dangerous waters of establishment. They specifically said that this wasn't going to be applies to things like antidepressants for the scientologists and vaccines for whatever religion doesn't like those. Isn't that a bit dangerous? Saying one religion is allowed to object but others aren't? If there was a law passed regarding a specific religion getting an exception and another not, I would hope the SCOTUS would rule it incompatible with the first amendment.

Quite frankly, this is the first time ever that I've had to call into question the legal aptitude of the SCOTUS justices.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Yes this decision is small in scope, but it is the first step to other decisions. If they rule counter to this when it comes to the religious ideals of other organizations (like the ones you have mentioned) then they are getting close to denying Equal Protection and violating other Constitutional laws. They took a dangerous step to be sure and don't think the Diocese aren't looking for the perfect case to test the new line in the sand...

Of course if I was a women's group I would do the same thing. I would fight insurance covering ED and start lobbying on behalf of women who use birth control for health reasons not just to prevent pregnancy.

And before someone says it, yes I know Hobby Lobby only fought certain types of BC but we all know that isnt going to last long...

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And before someone says it, yes I know Hobby Lobby only fought certain types of BC but we all know that isnt going to last long...

It lasted less than a day.

The 5 are deciding on politics, not the merits. There is no legal boundary of their decisions; the consolation is as soon as they lose the majority all these decisions will be reversed as being politically motivated.

This is what you get when you elect ideologues to the presidency. These wind up toys are doing exactly what they were designed to do. Luckily the forces that installed them are weakening. This will just be known as one of those periods of Court decisions that lagged way behind the course of American values.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It lasted less than a day.

The 5 are deciding on politics, not the merits. There is no legal boundary of their decisions; the consolation is as soon as they lose the majority all these decisions will be reversed as being politically motivated.

This is what you get when you elect ideologues to the presidency. These wind up toys are doing exactly what they were designed to do. Luckily the forces that installed them are weakening. This will just be known as one of those periods of Court decisions that lagged way behind the course of American values.

Yah, hopefully we get another conservative or two on this court, as their liberal tilt is quite troublesome, with an occasional exception.

But, you're right, eventually the court will swing and they'll fully trash parts of the Constitution to please the special interests they are beholden to. But, like I said, maybe we can get a reprieve before the court goes full bore liberal.

 

[Priceless]

Yah, hopefully we get another conservative or two on this court, as their liberal tilt is quite troublesome, with an occasional exception.

But, you're right, eventually the court will swing and they'll fully trash parts of the Constitution to please the special interests they are beholden to. But, like I said, maybe we can get a reprieve before the court goes full bore liberal.

I can't tell if you really believe this garbage or are just saying it to be different.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I can't tell if you really believe this garbage or are just saying it to be different.

One of the more salient features of reality is it exists whether people want to believe it or not.

The Gilded Age Court made decisions eerily similar to the Roberts Court. Poor people and racial minorities got screwed. (Women were completely screwed in the 19th century no matter what, so the Court can't be blamed for that.) The membership changes to the Court eventually resulted in every one of these decisions being significantly modified or vacated completely. It just took the Court about 20 years to catch up with the rest of America.

That's where we are right now -- the Court is operating under social and economic public debates fought in the 90s -- the average year of appointment for the justices is 1998. The rest of us left that as a dead letter long ago, but it will take another decade or so (assuming the parties continue their trajectories) before the Court catches up to where we are now.

The Court is always about 20 years behind, because one third of the country is always about 60 years behind.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

One of the more salient features of reality is it exists whether people want to believe it or not.

The Gilded Age Court made decisions eerily similar to the Roberts Court. Poor people and racial minorities got screwed. (Women were completely screwed in the 19th century no matter what, so the Court can't be blamed for that.) The membership changes to the Court eventually resulted in every one of these decisions to be significantly modified or vacated completely. It just took the Court about 20 years to catch up with the rest of America.

That's where we are right now -- the Court is operating under social and economic public debates fought in the 90s -- the average year of appointment for the justices is 1998. The rest of us left that as a dead letter long ago, but it will take another decade or so (assuming the parties continue their trajectories) before the Court catches up to where we are now.

The Court is always about 20 years behind, because one third of the country is always about 60 years behind.

Nobody lives forever. The Court will change once the fossils in Congre$$ change. We can use the Tom Clancy solution or the biological solution.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Nobody lives forever. The Court will change once the fossils in Congre$$ change. We can use the Tom Clancy solution or the biological solution.

Reason #486 not to elect (or appoint) another Republican to the presidency for the next 20 years is to avoid some Eric Rudolph creep applying the John Grisham solution.

 

[joecct]

Reason #486 not to elect (or appoint) another Republican to the presidency for the next 20 years is to avoid some Eric Rudolph creep applying the John Grisham solution.

The $enate approves the appointments. If you have an uber president, it is doubtful he will get his ideological picks through, unless the $enate is as looney as he is.

Personally, I'd like graduates from somewhere other than Harvard.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I can't tell if you really believe this garbage or are just saying it to be different.

I could say this to you ever day of the year.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

God every day this contraceptive thing ****es me off even more. For me, the contraceptive issue here is almost insignificant. What is far more important is the SCOTUS has stepped ever so slightly into the dangerous waters of establishment. They specifically said that this wasn't going to be applies to things like antidepressants for the scientologists and vaccines for whatever religion doesn't like those. Isn't that a bit dangerous? Saying one religion is allowed to object but others aren't? If there was a law passed regarding a specific religion getting an exception and another not, I would hope the SCOTUS would rule it incompatible with the first amendment.

Quite frankly, this is the first time ever that I've had to call into question the legal aptitude of the SCOTUS justices.

Surprisingly, I have to agree with Unofun on this one *. The problem isn't necessarily the Court in this case, it is Congress. The ruling was based on the text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and had all the political claptrap about strict scrutinty included.

Something along the lines of, if the government is going to force people to act against their religious beliefs, then it actually CAN do so, provided that there is (a) a sufficiently-compelling public interest, AND (b) they use the least-intrusive means of doing so. The ruling merely said that (b) was not satisfied in the mandate, there are other, less-intrusive ways to implement the mandate other than by compelling the owners of the closely-held company to pay for abortifacients. They didn't even address (a) at all. So all these worries about "injecting religion" are premature at best and overblown at worst. The Court removed "injecting religion" from the discussion entirely. The ruling was solely about whether the means utilized were too intrusive.






* you have no idea how grudgingly I typed those words.....

 

[Priceless]

Personally, I'd like graduates from somewhere other than Harvard.

Regent University?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Regent University?

Liberty.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

One of the more salient features of reality is it exists whether people want to believe it or not.

The Gilded Age Court made decisions eerily similar to the Roberts Court. Poor people and racial minorities got screwed. (Women were completely screwed in the 19th century no matter what, so the Court can't be blamed for that.) The membership changes to the Court eventually resulted in every one of these decisions being significantly modified or vacated completely. It just took the Court about 20 years to catch up with the rest of America.

That's where we are right now -- the Court is operating under social and economic public debates fought in the 90s -- the average year of appointment for the justices is 1998. The rest of us left that as a dead letter long ago, but it will take another decade or so (assuming the parties continue their trajectories) before the Court catches up to where we are now.

The Court is always about 20 years behind, because one third of the country is always about 60 years behind.

The corollary problem is that "leadership" in both the House and Senate (majority and minority) is behind* and beholden not to their constituencies but their donors**.

*behind: euphemism for old, but you can't say that as you risk an age discrimination suit
**and that applies to both political parties

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The corollary problem is that "leadership" in both the House and Senate (majority and minority) is behind* and beholden not to their constituencies but their donors**.

*behind: euphemism for old, but you can't say that as you risk an age discrimination suit
**and that applies to both political parties

I don't think it's about their age. Oliver Wendell Holmes was brilliant and perceptive when he was 85, and Clarence Thomas was a reactionary moron when he was 45. And while it's not great 75% of the Senate wears Depends, the House is much younger and yet those guys are far stupider and more Neanderthal.

It's the quality of the people in the office, not their mileage. We are emerging from a period (1980-2005) when politics was dominated by the very worst people in the country. As long as we duck Hillary, that period is over.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

As long as we duck Hillary, that period is over.

I have a few more Rs and Ds I'd put on that "need to duck" list.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The corollary problem is that "leadership" in both the House and Senate (majority and minority) is behind* and beholden not to their constituencies but their donors**.

*behind: euphemism for old, but you can't say that as you risk an age discrimination suit
**and that applies to both political parties

I'm impressed when anyone can use the words Senate, House and Leadership in the same sentence. Quotation marks are our friends.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The ruling merely said that (b) was not satisfied in the mandate, there are other, less-intrusive ways to implement the mandate other than by compelling the owners of the closely-held company to pay for abortifacients.

The problem I have, from a medical standpoint, is that IUDs are not used as abortifacients. I would love to hear one example where they were, by any OB/GYN, because it would fly in the face of practice guidelines (and there are much, much better medications for that). The decreased ability of implantation is a hypothesis (basically because we are not sure how a copper IUD works as well as it does) that cannot ethically be tested and is a moot point as a properly working IUD prevents ovulation therefore there is nothing to implant.

I am no legal expert, but I am worried that this allows companies, not medical professionals or the science behind practice, to determine what medication does what. To put what I stated in a previous post another way, methotrexate is, in fact, an abortifacient. It is used as such in combination with misoprostol to treat ectopic pregnancy. It is also used in cancer and autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. Can a company, based on religious grounds, deny coverage for a cancer/immune/ectopic therapy drug because it is also an abortifacient? Even if it is not used as such?