The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Why's that?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

And Kep's aren't? Always click the link.

Sigh.

I apologized for not noticing it. Isn't that enough? Really?

 

[joecct]

Why's that?

Got a blast email from GOPUSA accusing 7 GOP senators of wavering in their lock steppededness with MM. Some are up for reelection.

It may have been a tactic to drum up the masses, but there may be something to it.

Hooe so.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Got a blast email from GOPUSA accusing 7 GOP senators of wavering in their lock steppededness with MM. Some are up for reelection.

It may have been a tactic to drum up the masses, but there may be something to it.

Hooe so.

Imagine them backing off while screwing Drumpf. Can a political party have a death wish?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Uncle Sam on the docket today.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Uncle Sam on the docket today.

The Honorable John Thompson presiding?

 

[joecct]

The Honorable John Thompson presiding?

Great minds think alike.

 

[unofan]

Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Uncle Sam on the docket today.

This is still the dumbest farking suit I've seen in a long time.

They're objecting to filing a form that says they have a religious objection to birth control. That's it. I mean, even Quakers have to tell the government they're pacifists to get out of conscripted military service.

How is the government supposed to respect their beliefs if they refuse to tell the government what their beliefs are? Do they want the government making decisions blindly on "yep, you're a real Catholic organization but nope, you over there aren't?"

The worst part is that it won't be 8-0 against them, because at least three of the justices will treat it as an anti abortion case rather than the paperwork case that it truly is. It'll either be 5-3 or 4-4, depending on whether Kennedy meant what he said in his concurrence in Hobby Lobby.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

depending on whether Kennedy meant what he said in his concurrence in Hobby Lobby.

?

 

[unofan]

?

In Hobby Lobby, Kennedy said something along the lines of, "I concur and find for the company because the government is not using the least restrictive means. It has shown the insurers could provide birth control itself, as it is requiring for religious institutions who notify it of their religious objections."

In other words, he said Hobby Lobby wins because the government could just ask it to file an objection, allowing women to get birth control from the insurer instead, which is exactly what the little sisters of the poor are saying the government cannot do.

He also agreed that the government has a compelling interest in allowing women to access birth control, so the whole question should be whether requiring the filing of a form substantially burdens their religion. I think it's patently absurd to suggest that it does (and all but one circuit court agrees with me), but I won't be shocked if four justices disagree.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

In Hobby Lobby, Kennedy said something along the lines of, "I concur and find for the company because the government is not using the least restrictive means. It has shown the insurers could provide birth control itself, as it is requiring for religious institutions who notify it of their religious objections."

In other words, he said Hobby Lobby wins because the government could just ask it to file an objection, allowing women to get birth control from the insurer instead, which is exactly what the little sisters of the poor are saying the government cannot do.

Thanks.

He also agreed that the government has a compelling interest in allowing women to access birth control, so the whole question should be whether requiring the filing of a form substantially burdens their religion. I think it's patently absurd to suggest that it does (and all but one circuit court agrees with me), but I won't be shocked if four justices disagree.

Gotta be the Fifth, right?

Let's make the Ninth and the Fifth fight to the death for our amusement.

 

[unofan]

Thanks.



Gotta be the Fifth, right?

Let's make the Ninth and the Fifth fight to the death for our amusement.

Eighth, which is far and away the most hostile to women and minorities. I like Judge Reilly personally (he taught my trial practice class), but talk about a conservative circuit.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Eighth, which is far and away the most hostile to women and minorities. I like Judge Reilly personally (he taught my trial practice class), but talk about a conservative circuit.

Interesting. I thought the Fifth was the knuckledragger appellate court.

Just win, Hillary. F-ckers can't live forever.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

IRS officials reprimanded by 6th Circuit Court of Appeals over cover-up of attempt to silence right-wing groups during 2012 election.

Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen—Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian—should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.”

Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs.

Those organizations in turn make up the plaintiff class. The district court ordered production of those lists, and did so again over an IRS motion to reconsider. Yet, almost a year later, the IRS still has not complied with the court’s orders. Instead the IRS now seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary remedy reserved to correct only the clearest abuses of power by a district court. We deny the petition.

Seems like pretty strong language, eh?

[cue typical chorus of left-wing totalitarian denial here....]

 

[unofan]

IRS officials reprimanded by 6th Circuit Court of Appeals over cover-up of attempt to silence right-wing groups during 2012 election.



Seems like pretty strong language, eh?

[cue typical chorus of left-wing totalitarian denial here....]

Seems like normal judicial language telling parties to **** and stop wasting the Court's time and comply with the district court's discovery orders.

Yeah, for all that, it's a farking discovery issue. But you'll cite this as a decision on the merits, I'm sure.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

But you'll cite this as a decision on the merits

Not me, District Court Judge Susan Dlott:

My impression is the government probably did something wrong in this case... While determining liability is a legal question, the government is doing everything it possibly can to make this as complicated as it possibly can, to last as long as it possibly can, so that by the time there is a result, nobody is going to care except the plaintiffs.

Right, they have nothing to hide, that's why they are hiding it, right?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

What part of "no law" is so hard to understand??

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Someone put forth some bogus nonsense about "compelling state interest." Yah, it is "compelling state interest" for a totalitarian regime to silence its critics, no?

 

[unofan]

Not me, District Court Judge Susan Dlott:

Right, they have nothing to hide, that's why they are hiding it, right?

I'm not justifying their legal tactics, I'm saying everything you've cited involves discovery issues. There has not been a ruling on the merits.

 

[unofan]

What part of "no law" is so hard to understand??

Someone put forth some bogus nonsense about "compelling state interest." Yah, it is "compelling state interest" for a totalitarian regime to silence its critics, no?

What the fark are you ranting about?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I'm not justifying their legal tactics, I'm saying everything you've cited involves discovery issues. There has not been a ruling on the merits.

Is this a good time to note that you are arguing with a bot?