Supreme Court Suprise

[fskimospy]

Again, why is that an issue relative to my original post? It makes perfect sense that someone would want to legally shield their assets from liability via a corporation but still want said corporation to reflect their values. Right or wrong doesn’t even enter into the equation.

But.
What.
Is.
The.
Coherent.
Guiding.
Principle.
For.
Why.
This.
Is.
The.
Correct.
Balance.

 

[fskimospy]

For fuck’s sake you’ve been asked the same simple question like 30 times. If you aren’t going to answer it just say ‘I refuse to answer’.

 

[ivwshane]

For fuck’s sake you’ve been asked the same simple question like 30 times. If you aren’t going to answer it just say ‘I refuse to answer’.

The guiding principle is the free market, he doesn’t care about the outcome so long as the outcome came about because of the free market.

He’s cool with discrimination because people have choices (as our history has taught us/eye roll).

 

[fskimospy]

The guiding principle is the free market, he doesn’t care about the outcome so long as the outcome came about because of the free market.

He’s cool with discrimination because people have choices (as our history has taught us/eye roll).

That is not a guiding principle and it makes no sense. Whether or not people are legally separate entities from the corporation they own for liability and financial purposes but not for religious ones has exactly zero to do with the free market. It is entirely a question of government regulation.

I would like to know why he thinks this regulation strikes the correct balance, as this opinion is the opinion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who he said he agrees with.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But.
What.
Is.
The.
Coherent.
Guiding.
Principle.
For.
Why.
This.
Is.
The.
Correct.
Balance.

The
Constitution
Of
the
United
States
with
a
judiciary
that
exists
to
balance
scenarios
where
different
rights
collide

 

[fskimospy]

The
Constitution
Of
the
United
States
with
a
judiciary
that
exists
to
balance
scenarios
where
different
rights
collide

For the 31st time, WHY IS THIS THE CORRECT BALANCE IN YOUR OPINION.

 

[Starbuck1975]

For the 31st time, WHY IS THIS THE CORRECT BALANCE IN YOUR OPINION.

So you want me to explain why I think the Constitution provides the correct balance in our society? Can I just buy you a ticket to the autonomous zone and call it even?

 

[fskimospy]

So you want me to explain why I think the Constitution provides the correct balance in our society? Can I just buy you a ticket to the autonomous zone and call it even?

No. For the 32nd time I want you to explain why you think a corporation being separate from its owner for the purposes of finances and legal liability but not separate for the purposes of religious expression is the correct balance.

Why do YOU think that is the correct balance? What merits does it have over the alternatives?

 

[ivwshane]

That is not a guiding principle and it makes no sense. Whether or not people are legally separate entities from the corporation they own for liability and financial purposes but not for religious ones has exactly zero to do with the free market. It is entirely a question of government regulation.

I would like to know why he thinks this regulation strikes the correct balance, as this opinion is the opinion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who he said he agrees with.

Hey I didn’t say it made sense.

Now he’s saying the constitution provides the balance which is silly since it doesn’t do anything other than let people decide what laws to enact, how to enforce them, and how to interpret them, all of which are subject to the whims of those in power regardless of what the constitution says.

What this has to do with the free market like he previously stated, I have no idea.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey I didn’t say it made sense.

Now he’s saying the constitution provides the balance which is silly since it doesn’t do anything other than let people decide what laws to enact, how to enforce them, and how to interpret them, all of which are subject to the whims of those in power regardless of what the constitution says.

What this has to do with the free market like he previously stated, I have no idea.

Also, saying what the Constitution says is inherently the right answer is meaningless. After all, the Constitution once said owning slaves was okay - this was clearly not the right answer.

 

[HomerJS]

Our nation will forever struggle with religious rights because they’re enshrined in the Constitution, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem well equipped to handle that balance, more so than their liberal counterparts.

Let’s talk about Hobby Lobby. An employer cannot discriminate based on who people are, but the government also cannot impose on the religious rights of a business owner by forcing them to provide medical benefits for things like contraception or abortion. If the government believes that all women have a right to those services, the government needs to provide a legislative solution to make them available, and shift the expectation that corporations and businesses provide social services, although a company is free to provide those services to its employees as a benefit as it so chooses.

We as consumers get to decide with our dollars whether or not to support those companies.

This also means states cannot put laws in place to restrict the offering of those services through federally funded programs.

I think I can address this, put it in the context corporations are people as precedent set by SCOTUS.

HL says providing contraception coverage for their employees violates their religious beliefs. In the court case nobody put every member of Hobby Lobby's board under oath and asked them, "do you or have you ever used birth control?" If one person answered yes then the HL as a corporation does not think contraception violates their religion. I would be shocked if every single member of HL's board has never used birth control. Therefore their case should have been thrown out of court based on...wait for it....the truth.

In addition conservatives don't really give a shit about religious freedom because they constantly step on the freedoms of Muslims

 

[Starbuck1975]

No. For the 32nd time I want you to explain why you think a corporation being separate from its owner for the purposes of finances and legal liability but not separate for the purposes of religious expression is the correct balance.

Why do YOU think that is the correct balance? What merits does it have over the alternatives?

I have answered that question to my satisfaction. For me to evaluate the merits of the status quo relative to alternatives, it requires that you propose alternatives for consideration.

 

[fskimospy]

I have answered that question to my satisfaction. For me to evaluate the merits of the status quo relative to alternatives, it requires that you propose alternatives for consideration.

You never answered it and you know it.

The alternative would be to consistently apply corporate law so the corporation is a separate entity from its owner in all things as opposed to picking and choosing what parts we like and don’t like.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You never answered it and you know it.

I did. The only thing I know with certainty is that you have a lot of concern about what I think.

The alternative would be to consistently apply corporate law so the corporation is a separate entity from its owner in all things as opposed to picking and choosing what parts we like and don’t like.

Is corporate law not already a facet of our existing legal framework? It’s not “picking and choosing”, its balancing competing interests.

 

[fskimospy]

I did. The only thing I know with certainty is that you have a lot of concern about what I think.

Is corporate law not already a facet of our existing legal framework? It’s not “picking and choosing”, its balancing competing interests.

So make a coherent argument as to why the correct balance is that corporations should be separate for fiscal and liability purposes but not be separate for religious purposes.

 

[ElFenix]

Gorsuch is going to use the logic process here to kill whatever is left of affirmative action.

Harvard law professor catches up to elfenix:

Could the Supreme Court’s Landmark L.G.B.T.-Rights Decision Help Lead to the Dismantling of Affirmative Action?

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s textualist decision protecting gay and transgender individuals from discrimination may have laid the groundwork for a conservative case against race-conscious school-admissions policies.

www.newyorker.com

 

[ch33zw1z]

I did. The only thing I know with certainty is that you have a lot of concern about what I think.

Is corporate law not already a facet of our existing legal framework? It’s not “picking and choosing”, its balancing competing interests.

In other words, religions can opt out of law.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

In other words, religions can opt out of law.

As long as it’s not a moose-lamb religion or a blackie religion or a queer religion with rainbows on stuff

 

[ch33zw1z]

As long as it’s not a moose-lamb religion or a blackie religion or a queer religion with rainbows on stuff

Pretty much. Can't wait for conservative heads exploding when non christians demand the same treatment.

Remember the outrage over Dearborns menu choice? Lol....

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Pretty much. Can't wait for conservative heads exploding when non christians demand the same treatment.

Remember the outrage over Dearborns menu choice? Lol....

Yup

 

[K1052]

holeeeeyy fuuuuuck Roberts sides with the liberals in June Medical. Social conservative meltdown incoming.

Kavanaugh reveals himself as the snake we knew he was trying to overturn precedent he promised senators he'd abide by. Collins is going to get lit the fuck up in Maine by her Dem challenger.

 

[Paratus]

Chalk up another surprise SCOTUS Ruling


“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority.
The case was the court’s first on abortion since President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right.
The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.“


Roberts basically fell back on precedent since the court had already basically ruled against this when Texas pulled this shit a few years ago.

 

[Paratus]

holeeeeyy fuuuuuck Roberts sides with the liberals in June Medical. Social conservative meltdown incoming.

Kavanaugh reveals himself as the snake we knew he was trying to overturn precedent he promised senators he'd abide by. Collins is going to get lit the fuck up in Maine by her Dem challenger.

Boy Trump sure hasn’t delivered the Supreme Court has he? I think conservatives should vote third party this November to show their displeasure. 😉

 

[K1052]

Boy Trump sure hasn’t delivered the Supreme Court has he? I think conservatives should vote third party this November to show their displeasure. 😉

I have no illusions about what Roberts would like to do if he can find a good enough reason for it but yeah the string of losses for conservatives is something. He surely wants to do some of this eventually on different grounds but not if it's going to be tainted by Trump's politics which history is not going to be kind to. Were I Trump at this moment I wouldn't exactly be feeling great about his tax records case.

 

[zinfamous]

Roberts turning into "worse-than-Souter" right about now in the brains of modern Conservative thinking. (He isn't--from their perspective, anyway--but they are going to start crowing about it).

Who knew that some of these justices actually care about law, and not darling rightwing social subjugation passing as law?