The Supreme Court

[Green Habit]

The abortion protest buffer zone case is also out. It violated the First Amendment:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 8_6k47.pdf

The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks. It also notably rejects the protesters' broadest arguments that such restrictions require strict constitutional scrutiny and are viewpoint based.

Scalia, concurring again only in the judgment, is complaining that the Court is giving abortion special treatment, and that it should have been struck down on a stricter content-based standard.

====

One of my first instincts about these two rulings that were unanimous in the judgment but not the reasoning is that the left wing of the court may have had to hold their noses and write/join opinions with an unfavorable judgment, just to get one vote to peel over and prevent Scalia from getting majorities--Kennedy in Noel Canning, and Roberts in McCullen.

[stip]

Noel Canning was what I thought it would be--the Court slapped Obama on the wrist but didn't issue a sweeping ruling. Of course, Scalia & Co. wanted to go further, though...and he's "concurring" from the bench right now.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 1_bodg.pdf

I wonder if they would have ruled differently if the Senate hadn't recently overhauled its filibuster procedures.

[Green Habit]

Noel Canning was what I thought it would be--the Court slapped Obama on the wrist but didn't issue a sweeping ruling. Of course, Scalia & Co. wanted to go further, though...and he's "concurring" from the bench right now.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 1_bodg.pdf

I wonder if they would have ruled differently if the Senate hadn't recently overhauled its filibuster procedures.

How do you think they would have ruled if there wasn't an overhaul?

[stip]

I'm not sure. The interpretation of this particular clause of the Constitution really lends itself to particularly arbitrary interpretations. Some people like Scalia would vote against it just to be contrary. But recess appointments are essential for the basic functionality of government at this point (pre-reform) and it's possible that Roberts or Alito might have allowed pragmatic considerations to enter into their decision.

[Green Habit]

I don't have the time to really parse through this and much analyses, but here are the opinions in both Harris & Hobby Lobby. Alito wrote both opinions in 5-4 ideological splits (that should scare those on the left):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 1_j426.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_olp1.pdf

My longtime problem with Hobby Lobby's case is how opposition to contraceptives can even be considered as qualifying as a religious protest in the first place. Religious dogma can be so flexible that you can write up whatever you want to try to claim an exemption. Of course, I seriously doubt SCOTUS even came close to answering that question. This is why I've always felt that RFRA is a steaming pile of shit that SCOTUS should have ruled unconstitutional in the first place.

Early thoughts I'm hearing right now is how on earth SCOTUS distinguished "closely-held" companies from others. Also, Kennedy's concurrence sounds interesting.

[Green Habit]

Quick thing to note: this case solely rests on RFRA, and chooses to ignore any constitutional challenges under the First Amendment. Hypothetically, this means that Congress could alter RFRA to supersede this ruling. Ideally, I'd just like Congress (or SCOTUS, for that matter), to junk RFRA altogether.

[Green Habit]

Likely the Tweet of the Day:

[broken iris]

My longtime problem with Hobby Lobby's case is how opposition to contraceptives can even be considered as qualifying as a religious protest in the first place. Religious dogma can be so flexible that you can write up whatever you want to try to claim an exemption.

So... wasn't is specifically "morning after" drugs they refused to pay for? I was under the impression regular condoms/hormonal pills/diaphragms were still OK to Hobby Lobby, just not the RU-486 type stuff.

[Green Habit]

My longtime problem with Hobby Lobby's case is how opposition to contraceptives can even be considered as qualifying as a religious protest in the first place. Religious dogma can be so flexible that you can write up whatever you want to try to claim an exemption.

So... wasn't is specifically "morning after" drugs they refused to pay for? I was under the impression regular condoms/hormonal pills/diaphragms were still OK to Hobby Lobby, just not the RU-486 type stuff.

That's correct--I still feel the same way even in the limited cases Hobby Lobby objected to.

Meanwhile, SCOTUSblog gets the Grade A Trolling Award of the day. It's pretty pathetic that they don't have press credentials, given that so many think that they are the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q ... 1&src=typd

[Norah]

My longtime problem with Hobby Lobby's case is how opposition to contraceptives can even be considered as qualifying as a religious protest in the first place. Religious dogma can be so flexible that you can write up whatever you want to try to claim an exemption.

So... wasn't is specifically "morning after" drugs they refused to pay for? I was under the impression regular condoms/hormonal pills/diaphragms were still OK to Hobby Lobby, just not the RU-486 type stuff.

That's correct--I still feel the same way even in the limited cases Hobby Lobby objected to.

Meanwhile, SCOTUSblog gets the Grade A Trolling Award of the day. It's pretty pathetic that they don't have press credentials, given that so many think that they are the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q ... 1&src=typd

That's pretty fantastic.

[broken iris]

My longtime problem with Hobby Lobby's case is how opposition to contraceptives can even be considered as qualifying as a religious protest in the first place. Religious dogma can be so flexible that you can write up whatever you want to try to claim an exemption.

So... wasn't is specifically "morning after" drugs they refused to pay for? I was under the impression regular condoms/hormonal pills/diaphragms were still OK to Hobby Lobby, just not the RU-486 type stuff.

That's correct--I still feel the same way even in the limited cases Hobby Lobby objected to.

After a cursory reading of the RFRA stuff on Wikipedia and a few other spots, I think I understand and agree with your objection. From a totally-not-a-lawyer perspective, I feel like abortion related issues take a special position in our society so I could see why in this specific case the Court might tie this case to the RFRA to try and take a politically safe path by keeping that portion of the ACA intact while simultaneously giving the pro-life and pro-biz libertarian crowds a minor win.

[Norah]

You know what would be really nice? If your health coverage wasn't tied to your employer.

[broken iris]

You know what would be really nice? If your health coverage wasn't tied to your employer.

Whilst I am loath to expand the scope and power of the federal government, this is one case where it seems like a national program would have been the right choice.

[hlniv]

The larger point that everyone is glossing over on the hobby lobby case is that a "closely held" corporation apparently has the same religious freedoms as any individual.

What the fuck? Since when does a corporation deserve religious freedom? Since when can a corporation even have a religion to be protected? Has anyone seen Hobby Lobby sit next to someone at church? No - because a corporation is a figment of society's imagination- an entity that exists solely on paper for the purpose of limiting individual risk in the pursuit of profit.

Th issue of corporate personhood has gotten out of control and is going to further polarize our national economy. Americans better get their cash now, better earn that wealth, because before too much longer, it won't be possible to live the American dream if you don't already own it.

[hlniv]

And notice not a mention of whether or not this ruling should apply for the protection of a corporation's religious freedom against hiring homosexuals who they deem to be immoral. This clearly is a precedent for that case which will surely be filed in 20 or more states.

[hlniv]

I'd like to see Roberts explain the judgment on that one.

[Norah]

Corporations want to have it both ways. They want to be separated from actual people to be protected from litigation and personal loss, yet they want to be considered a person when the rights involved would benefit them.

If corporations are people, shouldn't GM be on trial for negligent manslaughter?

[Green Habit]

The larger point that everyone is glossing over on the hobby lobby case is that a "closely held" corporation apparently has the same religious freedoms as any individual.

What the fuck? Since when does a corporation deserve religious freedom? Since when can a corporation even have a religion to be protected? Has anyone seen Hobby Lobby sit next to someone at church? No - because a corporation is a figment of society's imagination- an entity that exists solely on paper for the purpose of limiting individual risk in the pursuit of profit.

Churches are corporations too, yanno.

And that last sentence contains arguments that always seem to irk me. I'd hardly call the most identifiable brands in the world as mere imagination figments. Also, not all corporations pursue profit.

[Green Habit]

Corporations want to have it both ways. They want to be separated from actual people to be protected from litigation and personal loss, yet they want to be considered a person when the rights involved would benefit them.

If corporations are people, shouldn't GM be on trial for negligent manslaughter?

That may be more of a failure of holding corporations liable than corporate personhood itself.

[hlniv]

The larger point that everyone is glossing over on the hobby lobby case is that a "closely held" corporation apparently has the same religious freedoms as any individual.

What the fuck? Since when does a corporation deserve religious freedom? Since when can a corporation even have a religion to be protected? Has anyone seen Hobby Lobby sit next to someone at church? No - because a corporation is a figment of society's imagination- an entity that exists solely on paper for the purpose of limiting individual risk in the pursuit of profit.

Churches are corporations too, yanno.

And that last sentence contains arguments that always seem to irk me. I'd hardly call the most identifiable brands in the world as mere imagination figments. Also, not all corporations pursue profit.

Let me rephrase-
"an entity that exists solely on paper for the purpose of limiting individual risk in the pursuit of an economic endeavor"

And yes, the corporation as an entity is a concept made from and existing solely in the mind of human beings. They are recorded on paper, advertised, imaged, buildings built with their words on the sign, etc... etc...

They don't die, they don't have to take care of their elderly parents or their newborn babies, they don't need to exercise their bodies to stay healthy, they don't need to sleep at night. They don't have the inherently human responsibilities.

So we give them inherently human rights? Like political expression and religious freedom?

Corporations aren't bad. They're just not people.

Corporate personhood, artificial person, natural person- Bullshit. People have hearts.