The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Rover]

So how does that make them anything other than your doppelganger? you've bragged many times about how proud you are to be equally unreasonable ("hatchet man" is a term you used to describe yourself, no?).

it is quite rare that you ever respond to a reasonable comment in a reasonable manner. if you disagree with something someone said, your typical tactic is to call them names and ridicule them....exactly the same thing you say the other side does. It is quite rare that you ever address the substance of another person's comments.

For example, I said it is "immature" for any leader to complain that a problem is "not his fault." You gloss over that entirely without any response whatsoever. to me, that is a tacit acknowledgement on your part that you do in fact agree but are unwilling (or more likely, unable) to admit it. You seem to care little about right or wrong, effective or ineffective, healthy or unhealthy, it is all about sliming the other "side" and creating distraction so people don't notice the drawbacks of your "side."

Obama says one thing one day, he contradicts himself the next day, you don't care, no matter what he says or does, you will mindlessly defend him. When I criticize him, I provide reason and evidence for it. I'm not always down on everything he does, on those rare occasions when he's said or done something sensible, I'll acknowledge it. it is the course of action that matters.

I'm not on anyone's "side."

Oh please. I can come up with many legitimate criticisms of Obama. Not nonsensical ones like he changed his mind or won't take responsibility for the Bush economy. His handling of Israel-Palestine for example, or how the bills he passes take far too long to implement (Dodd-Frank, ACA). However, these are minor compared to the idiocy coming out of the right (death panels, closet Muslim, etc). Hence my ability to call this stuff out.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Oh please. I can come up with many legitimate criticisms of Obama. Not nonsensical ones like he changed his mind or won't take responsibility for the Bush economy. His handling of Israel-Palestine for example, or how the bills he passes take far too long to implement (Dodd-Frank, ACA). However, these are minor compared to the idiocy coming out of the right (death panels, closet Muslim, etc). Hence my ability to call this stuff out.

The left likes to time their bills so the worst parts happen when the GOP's in charge. That's right, they may be crazy, but they're not stupid. They understand that they can't hold power forever, so that's why they time these things. Heck, I think they are expecting a GOP takeover in 2015, hence why they timed the PPACA as such. This allows knuckleheads like you to come in, point the finger, and gloat about how the left practically received divine right.

 

[Rover]

The left likes to time their bills so the worst parts happen when the GOP's in charge. That's right, they may be crazy, but they're not stupid. They understand that they can't hold power forever, so that's why they time these things. Heck, I think they are expecting a GOP takeover in 2015, hence why they timed the PPACA as such. This allows knuckleheads like you to come in, point the finger, and gloat about how the left practically received divine right.

So what you're saying is Bush II's timing was off by a few months in his quest to leave the worst financial crisis at Obama's door? Too bad the $%%^ hit the fan in September of 08, huh?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Catholic organizations have been in court arguing against the HHS mandate that they must provide abortifacients to their employees. Apparently the HHS has promised the court to modify that rule!

the contraception coverage requirement as enacted would never be enforced against the plaintiffs, the court cited representations made by the government at oral argument that “it would never enforce 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv) in its current form against the appellants or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services” and that “there will . . . be a different rule for entities like the appellees,” which the court construed as a “binding commitment.” Id. It also pointed to language from an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”), which discusses alternatives to the contraception coverage requirement for certain self-certifying organizations, that the government “intend to propose." [emphasis added]

In other words, the Government promised the court that it would modify the rule requiring religious organizations to provide abortifacients (note that a Plaintiff in a different case, Wheaton College, does offer preventive birth control; its suit is limited only to the rule requiring abortifacients. The series of court cases on this issue is not at all limited to the Catholic Church and preventive birth control).

Will HHS follow through on its promise? or are they merely stalling for time? The courts generally take a dim view of a defendant reneging on its promises. Will this administration even care? If they continue to ignore court orders, what happens then?

I wish we didn't even have to entertain such speculations.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Catholic organizations have been in court arguing against the HHS mandate that they must provide abortifacients to their employees. Apparently the HHS has promised the court to modify that rule!



In other words, the Government promised the court that it would modify the rule requiring religious organizations to provide abortifacients (note that a Plaintiff in a different case, Wheaton College, does offer preventive birth control; its suit is limited only to the rule requiring abortifacients. The series of court cases on this issue is not at all limited to the Catholic Church and preventive birth control).

Will HHS follow through on its promise? or are they merely stalling for time? The courts generally take a dim view of a defendant reneging on its promises. Will this administration even care? If they continue to ignore court orders, what happens then?

I wish we didn't even have to entertain such speculations.

I would not trust one word Kathleen Sebelius says - especially when it comes to relations with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Catholic organizations have been in court arguing against the HHS mandate that they must provide abortifacients to their employees. Apparently the HHS has promised the court to modify that rule!



In other words, the Government promised the court that it would modify the rule requiring religious organizations to provide abortifacients (note that a Plaintiff in a different case, Wheaton College, does offer preventive birth control; its suit is limited only to the rule requiring abortifacients. The series of court cases on this issue is not at all limited to the Catholic Church and preventive birth control).

Will HHS follow through on its promise? or are they merely stalling for time? The courts generally take a dim view of a defendant reneging on its promises. Will this administration even care? If they continue to ignore court orders, what happens then?

I wish we didn't even have to entertain such speculations.

See the first 25 seconds of this clip.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ioxJ9KoU8xc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I would not trust one word Kathleen Sebelius says - especially when it comes to relations with the Roman Catholic Church.

100 percent agree

 

[unofan]

Catholic organizations have been in court arguing against the HHS mandate that they must provide abortifacients to their employees. Apparently the HHS has promised the court to modify that rule!



In other words, the Government promised the court that it would modify the rule requiring religious organizations to provide abortifacients (note that a Plaintiff in a different case, Wheaton College, does offer preventive birth control; its suit is limited only to the rule requiring abortifacients. The series of court cases on this issue is not at all limited to the Catholic Church and preventive birth control).

Will HHS follow through on its promise? or are they merely stalling for time? The courts generally take a dim view of a defendant reneging on its promises. Will this administration even care? If they continue to ignore court orders, what happens then?

I wish we didn't even have to entertain such speculations.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/new-contraceptive-mandate-rules/

I'm sure you were just about to post this news though, as a non-partisan independent. Right?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) responds:

“This morning the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on the government mandate that employee health plans must provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs as part of their coverage. On February 9, 2012, EWTN was the first organization to file a lawsuit challenging this mandate shortly after the original rules were promulgated by the government. That lawsuit is still pending in the US District Court in Birmingham, Alabama.

We have analyzed today’s notice with our legal team from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the initial conclusions are not promising. First, this is simply a notice of a proposed rule; it is not an actual rule that changes anything. Second, while the proposed rules might expand the mandate’s religious exemption for some organizations affiliated directly with the Church, it does not appear that EWTN will qualify for this exemption. Third, the proposed rules have not dealt with the concerns of self-insured health plans like EWTN’s. Today’s notice from the government simply kicks this can further down the road.

Sadly, throughout this proposed rule, the government continues to make the erroneous assertion that contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs are health care. They are not.

We will continue to study this notice with our attorneys, but are highly doubtful it will provide EWTN with any relief from this immoral mandate. EWTN remains firmly committed to pressing forward with our case in the Federal Courts and will take all steps necessary to challenge this unjust mandate.”

 

[unofan]

The Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) responds:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7569689?from_page=politics

Meanwhile, a more reasonable response from a Catholic group is made.

Also, I can now apparently say I know someone who watches the Catholic channel. Good times.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) responds:

Such is the rot that is eating away at our nation.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Just for once, I'd love to have the SCOTUS rule: "there is no guidance in the Constitution one way or the other on this issue. It must be decided through the legislative process."

or

"While the Constitution says 'x' is too far and 'y' is not far enough, there is plenty of space between those two extremes in which we lack guidance and so any refinements between those two extremes must be decided through the legislative process."

Imagine of Roe vs Wade had been decided that way: "abortion in month 1 or 2 is fine, abortion in month 8 or 9 is murder, you guys figure out the rest in between."

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Just for once, I'd love to have the SCOTUS rule: "there is no guidance in the Constitution one way or the other on this issue. It must be decided through the legislative process."

or

"While the Constitution says 'x' is too far and 'y' is not far enough, there is plenty of space between those two extremes in which we lack guidance and so any refinements between those two extremes must be decided through the legislative process."

Imagine of Roe vs Wade had been decided that way: "abortion in month 1 or 2 is fine, abortion in month 8 or 9 is murder, you guys figure out the rest in between."

In today's legislating from the bench days, that would never happen. However, I believe it did happen in the case of McCulloch (sp?) v. Maryland.

 

[Rover]

Just for once, I'd love to have the SCOTUS rule: "there is no guidance in the Constitution one way or the other on this issue. It must be decided through the legislative process."

or

"While the Constitution says 'x' is too far and 'y' is not far enough, there is plenty of space between those two extremes in which we lack guidance and so any refinements between those two extremes must be decided through the legislative process."

Imagine of Roe vs Wade had been decided that way: "abortion in month 1 or 2 is fine, abortion in month 8 or 9 is murder, you guys figure out the rest in between."

Funny, I don't recall this being your view when the PPACA was being decided?!? Back then it seems leaving the legislating to the legislators wasn't high up on your agenda, no?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Funny, I don't recall this being your view when the PPACA was being decided?!? Back then it seems leaving the legislating to the legislators wasn't high up on your agenda, no?

Actually, I think what Fishy described is EXACTLY how Roberts ruled.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Funny, I don't recall this being your view when the PPACA was being decided?!? Back then it seems leaving the legislating to the legislators wasn't high up on your agenda, no?

In my post, I said that when there was no Constitutional guidance, then the SCOTUS might just as well say so rather than make something up.

Since you brought up PPACA, it was clear from the outset that Congress exceeded the authority granted to it under the Commerce Clause. The mandate was found to be unconstitutional. It was because Roberts then said that the Court should defer to the legislature that he said he found an alternate theory, using Congress' taxing power, to let the law stand as long as the "penalty" was re-defined as a "tax" and the "mandate" was re-defined as a "choice." So Roberts' ruling was entirely consistent with deference to legislative intent. You might want to read the text of what Roberts' actually wrote in his ruling, it is very well-written.

Throughout the entire process and debate, I was always very careful in my language: never once did I say that the law itself would be overturned, I was always circumspect enough to limit my prescience to saying that the mandate would be found to be unconstitutional. I was right on both fronts (though admittedly I never once expressed an opinion either way on whether the law itself would be upheld or not. "I had a bad feeling about this" outcome, young Skywalker).



Regarding marriage, heterosexuals do not have an unfettered constitutional right to marry whomever they choose: laws can be passed to make it illegal for parents to marry children, or make it illegal for blood siblings to marry each other, or to prohibit people under a certain age from marrying anyone. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that these kinds of laws are discriminatory.




Regarding yesterday's debate about California's Proposition 8, a likely though by no means certain outcome would be that since it is a state matter decided by the voters, the federal judiciary had no standing to issue a ruling one way or the other on the subject; regarding DOMA, my guess is they will issue an extremely limited ruling based on a technicality; probably that the Federal government needs to treat all citizens equally across state lines. We'll see.



The ruling I am anticipating the most is on the challenge to the NLRB's lack of a quorum due to improper appointments.

 

[unofan]

Regarding marriage, heterosexuals do not have an unfettered constitutional right to marry whomever they choose: laws can be passed to make it illegal for parents to marry children, or make it illegal for blood siblings to marry each other, or to prohibit people under a certain age from marrying anyone. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that these kinds of laws are discriminatory.

They're discriminatory, just not illegally or unconstitutionally so (any choice discriminates - i discriminate against peanut m&m's in favor of snickers all the time). First off, a child cannot legally consent, so you can stop worrying about that red herring. As far as preventing incest, there are legitimate medical reasons for that.

Regarding yesterday's debate about California's Proposition 8, a likely though by no means certain outcome would be that since it is a state matter decided by the voters, the federal judiciary had no standing to issue a ruling one way or the other on the subject;

Nope. The standing question was whether the citizens who backed prop 8 had standing to bring the appeal when the state declined to do so. No one argued that federal court was an improper venue, especially since it was a constitutional challenge. So not only is it not likely to happen, it's essentially been waived and is not an issue on appeal.

The ruling I am anticipating the most is on the challenge to the NLRB's lack of a quorum due to improper appointments.

Considering that hasn't even been granted cert yet, you'll be waiting a while.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

They're discriminatory, just not illegally or unconstitutionally so (any choice discriminates - i discriminate against peanut m&m's in favor of snickers all the time). First off, a child cannot legally consent, so you can stop worrying about that red herring. As far as preventing incest, there are legitimate medical reasons for that.

If you're going to bring up medical reasons for why family members shouldn't marry, the entire basis behind that is the bearing of children. It is physically impossible for a homosexual couple to bear children without the physical influence of a third party, so therefore if you wish to discriminate against the family members, you deiscriminate against the homosexuals, otherwise you are a hypocritical bozo that is merely trying to sell your brand.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If you're going to bring up medical reasons for why family members shouldn't marry, the entire basis behind that is the bearing of children. It is physically impossible for a homosexual couple to bear children without the physical influence of a third party, so therefore if you wish to discriminate against the family members, you deiscriminate against the homosexuals, otherwise you are a hypocritical bozo that is merely trying to sell your brand.

Do you understand the actual medical reasons why family members shouldn't have kids?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Do you understand the actual medical reasons why family members shouldn't have kids?

Yes I do, and if the ability to safely bear children (which obviously discounts infertility) is the basis behind determining whether or not a couple should be allowed to wed, then it must be applied across the board.