Home › Forums › Open Discussion › SCOTUS shaping America
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 1, 2014 at 3:19 pm #810313
wakefloodParticipantRich, you seem to suggest that the only problem with this dynamic is that we didn’t do it purely enough? We still have SOME social safety net left so if we can just get Gov’t small enough to do away with it, we’re golden?
Just what do you envision as the end game of this methodology? Why is that a “more perfect union”?
July 1, 2014 at 3:25 pm #810314
wakefloodParticipantAnd before someone attempts to use the red herring of “Progressives just want everyone to have the same level of prosperity, even if they didn’t ‘earn’ it”. That’s not true. We want everyone to at least start with a level playing field and equal opportunity to create a reasonable life. Which, is basically what we interpret the Bill of Rights to be about.
We’ll have a more thorough discussion of the other red herring of “strict constructionist” interpretations of the Constitution, which is code for “MY interpretation is better than yours”.
July 1, 2014 at 3:59 pm #810315
wakefloodParticipantAnd while we’re discussing SCOTUS, you might want to ponder the fact that many Constitutional scholars look at many of these 5-4 decisions as the most blatant ideologically and generally untethered to previously accepted constructs and precedent.
Basically, these guys are starting with a desired outcome and then twisting themselves into pretzels to attempt to justify it. Their logic and case citings are stretches that even conservatives don’t spend much time reviewing. There’s no there, there.
The majority of Americans think these guys are ideologues and not in synch with our ethics. Why is that a good thing? This branch was supposed to NOT be tied to ideology, moreso than the other two. Constructivist? Ha. The only recent decision that might be construed that way IS THE ACA, in which Roberts himself couldn’t find a way to ignore the obvious connection to the Commerce Clause.
July 1, 2014 at 6:03 pm #810316
wakefloodParticipantI think the term “legislating from the bench” applies to most of these 5-4 decisions and they are, in fact, antithetical to the concept of constructivism. Not that THAT term has any functional meaning since all SCOTUS decisions are attempts at INTERPRETING intent on some level. But I thought I’d use it to illustrate how obvious these decisions are for creating law vs. determining legality of the ones passed by the LEGISLATIVE branch.
Honestly, many of these majority opinions could be shot through by first year law students. They read like manifestos, not jurisprudence.
July 1, 2014 at 6:36 pm #810317
skeeterParticipantFWIW, I’m not a legal scholar of any sort. And I haven’t even read the opinions of the justices. But it does seem strange to me that a corporation can be exempt from *any* law just because the owners of the corporation have a religious problem with the law. For example – can a U.S. bank owned by a Muslim refuse to allow an unmarried woman to open a bank account? We’re gonna be in a pretty thorny situation if corporations start claiming religious immunity from laws passed by congress. I’m pretty right-leaning but this does appear to me to be abusive.
July 1, 2014 at 6:54 pm #810318
wakefloodParticipantSpot on, Skeets.
Here’s all you need to know about how silly the “constructivist” argument is, and how strongly it DOESN’T apply to these ideologues.
They actually used the term “sincere” pertaining to a BELIEF, of all things, in part of the ruling justification.
Go ahead, Justices Scalia, et al, tell me how that term will be adjudicated? Explain to me please, why that passes muster as a term used to guide the next required interpretation by a lower court? Between an arbitrator and his clients?
That opinion would be ridiculed mercilessly in any first year law class in this country. Literally made fun of.
Ladies and Gentleman, your Supreme Court Justices.
July 1, 2014 at 6:58 pm #810319
wakefloodParticipantAnd Skeets, it’s not like this is an outlier for these buffoons. The Kennedy opinion in Bush v. Gore reads like his clerk must have been on something. Scalia openly uses his Catholic background to justify his opinions. That’s constructivist, how, exactly?
Just remember this isn’t an exception, it’s S.O.P. for this court.
July 1, 2014 at 7:07 pm #810320
JanSParticipantwhen a Muslim Islamic does this, this country, and it’s right wing faction will be in a tizzy…and if it’s denied, then will that mean one religion is favored over others? Where does that lead us?
Smitty…first there’s this : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310918/-Supreme-Court-clarifies-Yes-Hobby-Lobby-is-about-all-slut-pills?detail=facebook
also…you do realize that BC pills are used to treat many conditions..ovarian cysts, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, PMDD, PCOS….all medical conditions that can affect a woman’s health….and now they will be denied the coverage to help those conditions. Yes, they can pay cash for it…but why should they if men can be covered for ED? This is not about abortion…this is more than that.
What did we do before? We paid for it, and fought for coverage…and now we have to do that again?
July 1, 2014 at 7:23 pm #810321
wakefloodParticipantWell, Jan, we DO favor one religion over all others in this country. Capitalism. It happens to come in the guise of several Christian denominations when it serves a particular purpose, but it can usually be reduced to money at some point.
And in the rare instances that reductivism fails, you can always fall back on pure, misguided tribalism.
July 1, 2014 at 7:32 pm #810322
miwsParticipantwhen a Muslim Islamic does this, this country, and it’s right wing faction will be in a tizzy…
And, to Jan’s excellent point, this very well written article, also from The Daily Kos:
Mike
July 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm #810323
skeeterParticipant“when a Muslim Islamic does this, this country, and it’s right wing faction will be in a tizzy”
I can’t disagree with that.
July 1, 2014 at 8:29 pm #810324
leamkParticipantI thought this article explained it well. You may have to click “continue to site” for the story
“In short, the Hobby Lobby decision should not have been a surprise. The underlying religious freedom issues were resolved 21 years ago when Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And the notion that corporations are people has been in the Definition Act since 1947. Dissenters argue that the increasing diversity of our society demands different definitions and outcomes, but this ignores two important points, one of process and one of substance: Let them amend the laws, if they wish, to make their point, rather than relying on judicial interpretation and activism, and allow their own understanding of a diverse society to include those committed to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.”
And as for birth control pills, HL still pays for those, just not the emergency contraceptive pills, which would be taken AFTER unprotected sex.(ALthough I was informed by a nurse at one time that the Plan B type pills ARE regular birth control pills, just a higher dosage.
July 1, 2014 at 9:10 pm #810325
wakefloodParticipantUm Leamk…so I’m confused. The Congress passes laws with obvious and specific intent. The SCOTUS then rewrites and LEGISLATES over the top of that with pretzel logic and that’s what, exactly???
And Mr. Davenport’s interpretation of Taft Hartley ’47 – yes, THAT’S what it is commonly referred to as Davenport chooses to rename it to enhance his point – as it pertains to Corporate Personhood is both wonderfully convenient and his own personal version of reality that isn’t shared by anyone I’ve ever heard try to make a case for it. It was created by the Republicans to limit union influence.
And with regards to the completely unneeded AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Religious Restoration Act. (Yes, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1997 but has been left hanging over the Feds, the states ignore it.) It makes provisions for exceptions for the furtherance of a compelling gov’t interest.
But we really needn’t parse that much further as Mr. Davenport’s position was preordained as former President of a Christian University. So, yeah, if I’m looking for an impartial disection of this decision, I’m not asking Mr. Davenport.
July 1, 2014 at 9:13 pm #810326
JanSParticipanta quote from the article Mike mention a couple of posts ago…..
“Is there a “religious freedom” to practice housing discrimination if you are a member of a white supremacist “Christian” organization that leases or sells property? Does “religious freedom” for corporate entities trump anti-discrimination laws governing gender, sexuality, disability status, or race?”
July 1, 2014 at 9:18 pm #810327
JanSParticipantand I love all the men on the interwebs asking stuff like this…” Why should I have to pay for a woman’s BC….pay for it yourself and quit whining”…except, it’s his birth control, too…or does he get to screw and walk away…no responsibility in the whole matter? Subtle slut shaming by single men, who never carry a condom in their pocket…sigh.
The choices for BC are between a woman, her partner, and her doctor…and now her company if she works for HL, or it’s counter part, whose name escapes me. And I have now heard a rumor that Eden Foods is now going to claim the same thing.
Did I mention slippery slope before?
July 1, 2014 at 10:23 pm #810328
SmittyParticipantCan someone explain to me why birth control is considered healthcare anyway?
From what I understand HL is still providing – and subsidizing – birth control. Just not the “morning after” versions.
Is this not true?
July 1, 2014 at 10:53 pm #810329
seaopgalParticipantYou’re correct, Smitty, that HL objected to subsidizing “after fertilization/conception” methods — IUDs and the morning after pill — only, not all birth control. For people opposed to abortion, who commonly believe that life begins at fertilization, this distinction makes sense. Other companies may wish to extend the ruling to all forms of birth control, but I’m not sure that the even the conservative justices would see that the same way. i.e., they may well decide that a corporation has less right to object to birth control methods that “prevent life” than to methods that “destroy life.”
As for why birth control is healthcare, it is obvious for a woman, since all methods except the male or female condom (not in widespread use) are biological or have a biological component (e.g., internal use of a diaphragm), and so can have an impact on the user’s health. Most methods require a doctor’s prescription to alleviate the risk.
I say we take the opening that Alito gave (“The government can pay for it”) and run all the way to universal healthcare.
July 1, 2014 at 11:04 pm #810330
JanSParticipantthey are also not going to provide IUD’s, copper or hormonal, which can cost upwards of $1000.
Now…it’s just as much health care as that little blue pill, my friend. Not every woman can take a birth control pill, for various reasons. It’s like saying, if you want a high blood pressure medication, we will cover one kind only, but anything else? Nope, you pay for that, if the one we will pay for doesn’t work for you, makes you ill, etc.
So..the decision between you and your wife about having kids or not having kids, was not part of her healthcare? So, if a woman can’t use BC Pills, and gets pregnant, because condoms don’t always work, as we well know….that doesn’t affect healthcare?
You’re right..birth control pills are still covered…for now…and did I already say….slippery slope? hmmm…
July 1, 2014 at 11:05 pm #810331
JanSParticipantand, Smitty…we don’t always agree…but…you’re smarter than that…
July 1, 2014 at 11:09 pm #810332
waynsterParticipantLook why does a political party want to control women’s rights and health issues so bad is beyond me….they the GOP still don’t get it…. they let the religious zealots control the the party so bad if they ever wake up they just might get it…. the party of grand old rich men and snooty old rich women show me the money…..!
http://seattletimes.com/html/living/2023963390_apxsupremecourtbirthcontrol.html
July 2, 2014 at 1:30 am #810333
SmittyParticipantJan.
“they are also not going to provide IUD’s, copper or hormonal, which can cost upwards of $1000.”
But were these covered pre-ACA? Is something really being “taken away” if it’s only been covered for 1 year(?).
seapogal.
“As for why birth control is healthcare…….and so can have an impact on the user’s health.”
Is my gym membership covered?
July 2, 2014 at 1:42 am #810334
JoBParticipantSmitty.. For some obscure reason some uneducated people think that reproductive care is not medically necessary. Companies had to be required to cover reproductive care to get their tax breaks.. Because they weren’t smart enough to figure out on their own that if you have to go to a doctor for a prescription or device or preventative care or delivery of your child… That’s a medical matter.
hobby lobby not only won the right to decide what medical care can be covered by the insurance that their employees have no choice but to purchase through them but they won the right to prevent doctors covered under their insurance plan from even discussing uncovered options with their employees.
Think about that for a minute. Do you really want your employer to decide what medical options your physician can offer you?
July 2, 2014 at 2:16 am #810335
clark5080ParticipantThe Religious Freedom Act was written by Ted Kennedy, introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled the contreception mandate was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
July 2, 2014 at 2:29 am #810336
SmittyParticipant“Smitty.. For some obscure reason some uneducated people think that reproductive care is not medically necessary. Companies had to be required to cover reproductive care to get their tax breaks.. “
So, is that a NO. It was not covered pre-ACA? More importantly, even post-ruling – MORE contraceptives are covered than pre-ACA? Why all the whining? It sounds like the D’s are trying to set this up as more “war on women” BS. And, with the MSM in their back pocket, will probably prevail with the – wait for it – “uneducated people”!
July 2, 2014 at 3:20 am #810337
dobroParticipant“From what I understand HL is still providing – and subsidizing – birth control. Just not the “morning after” versions.
Is this not true?”
No, it is not true.(Edit: Apparently, this is correct for HL but not for other companies that ban all 20. See my later post for details)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
“Can someone explain to me why birth control is considered healthcare anyway?”
Logically, I would assume that because a doctor prescribes it, it is healthcare. What things do doctors prescribe that are unrelated to healthcare?
“It sounds like the D’s are trying to set this up as more “war on women” BS.”
Let’s see, five unelected, white (ooops, one black), Catholic, rich males just decided that corporations can enforce their “sincere” religious beliefs (prior to this, corporations were not regarded as having religious beliefs) on their female employees with no corresponding male healthcare issue demanding such robust catering to these corporate beliefs. Nope, no war on women goin’ on there, just a bunch of Dems and Librul media pickin’ on them poor Repubs. Yeah, Riiiiiight.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.