• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

And now the government is funding these types of birth control which religious people subsidize anyway. It's not as if they're directly removed from it.

The point being made about Chinese goods is that they are using it to their distinct advantage in the marketplace. Also it's certain that the gun that will kill the child is actually going to be murder under the law. Using these devices is not murder under a neutrally applicable law. Not remotely the same.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between paying taxes and being told I must directly buy someone else a product they could use in a way I find morally reprehensible.

Your point about the Chinese goods still holds no water. Do you like the Chinese government's practices of torturing dissidents? Why do you buy Chinese products then? You could have many reasons to still buy said products and disagree or even fight the government's practices.

And you are being thick about the child analogy as well. It does not matter what the law permits someone else to do. You are allowed to have an abortion. I may find that morally reprehensible and consider it murder. I shouldn't be told I have to pay you directly so you can go and have an abortion. You continue to try and proclaim their beliefs are wrong. That's pointless.

Under your viewpoint anything the government wants to permit another person to do I can be forced to pay for directly. That is a horrible logic trail.
 
Anyways, at some point the court is going to have to establish some sort of criteria for gauging "sincerely held" beliefs. I think totality of the circumstances would be fair with no presumption present for either side. There's already a case out there where the company owner said that he doesn't think the government has a right to compel him to pay for anything, whether it be jack Daniels or birth control. He's claiming he has sincerely held beliefs that all types of birth control are against his religion (Catholicism).

Where do we draw the line? Do we just let these cases all go to the courts? I think this is actually a case where the floodgates of litigation have been opened - allowing predominantly right wing business owners to respond in court to the ACA passed by Obama.

Yep. When you break novel ground with a law you are going to break lots of novel ground in the challenges associated with it. None of this would have come up but for the fact the government can now require us to buy products and dictate the content of those products. And even worse, they can make us buy products for other people who can choose who to use those products. You should not be shocked there will be lots and lots of litigation. And there will be lots and lots of lines to draw. This case was a piece of cake compared to what may or may not be coming down the pipe. Because all this case really says is don't inject your morality around issues of abortion into the products you require people to buy for use by other people.
 
The ACA was ruled a tax right? If so, how is this different than "paying taxes?" Or was it just the mandate part ruled a tax? I can't remember.

As to your last point, yes? The law was upheld as constitutional so the government can clearly permit another person to pay for things directly. Taxes fall under that category do they not?
 
Yep. When you break novel ground with a law you are going to break lots of novel ground in the challenges associated with it. None of this would have come up but for the fact the government can now require us to buy products and dictate the content of those products. And even worse, they can make us buy products for other people who can choose who to use those products. You should not be shocked there will be lots and lots of litigation. And there will be lots and lots of lines to draw. This case was a piece of cake compared to what may or may not be coming down the pipe. Because all this case really says is don't inject your morality around issues of abortion into the products you require people to buy for use by other people.

So you disagree with the ACA decision from a couple years ago is my major takeaway. If the law said "you can exempt yourself for any reason from any law as long as it's a sincerely held belief and the government doesn't have an overriding compelling interest" then that's one thing. That's not what RFRA does, it instead establishes a way for only religious people to object which I still don't understand how it isn't at least borderline unconstitutional.
 
I don't really see a distinction between being compelled to provide health insurance (and a broad array of health areas) being much different practically speaking from the government doing it. It seems like it's more offensive that the government is directly subsidizing what they would consider "abortive" devices.
 
In the event of a draft? No. If there is a law that has nothing to do with religion in its crafting or its passage I don't think you should be able to cite any religious reasons to exempt yourself from the law unless you are also able to be exempt through non-religious reasons.

Good luck with that one.
 
I don't foresee a draft any time soon so I don't really mind.

What's the rationale for RFRA being consititional? First amendment protection? It directly provides a way for religious people to exempt themselves from laws that others can't. Is this not some excessive entanglement? I don't know much about first amendment jurisprudence so I'm genuinely asking.
 
I don't really see a distinction between being compelled to provide health insurance (and a broad array of health areas) being much different practically speaking from the government doing it. It seems like it's more offensive that the government is directly subsidizing what they would consider "abortive" devices.

Well, we just disagree on that point. Paying taxes which are used for hundreds of thousands of purposes and having to buy an individual a product directly are two very different things. Hell, there's a big difference between the government telling me I have to buy a product I find reprehensibly immoral but will never use (which I think is problematic in and off itself) and the government telling me I need to buy a product for someone else I find reprehensibly immoral but they may choose to use. The later is actually far worse than the former.
 
Well you don't have to. The other option is don't provide insurance. If you're really that opposed to it then don't do it. This all goes back to why I don't think corporations should have religious rights. It's the corporation that is providing the insurance, not the individual. Even though in closely held corporations they're the same, the entire point of a corporation is to shield yourself from liability. So you get the perks of shielding yourself while also getting to exert your first amendment right through your corporation?

There's something strange about that in my opinion.
 
So you disagree with the ACA decision from a couple years ago is my major takeaway. If the law said "you can exempt yourself for any reason from any law as long as it's a sincerely held belief and the government doesn't have an overriding compelling interest" then that's one thing. That's not what RFRA does, it instead establishes a way for only religious people to object which I still don't understand how it isn't at least borderline unconstitutional.

The ACA decision was horrible. Yes, I disagree with it. But it is the law now. And so this is what we get. As for RFRA, that's another argument entirely. And I'm sure that too will be revisited - although I think your legal analysis of that law as a path for it to be unconstitutional is flawed.
 
Yeah probably a better argument but ithink it's relatively clear that it favors religion over non-religion. The question is should that be allowed and if so to what extent
 
If your religious beliefs are such that you oppose medicines and devices so deeply that you take a case to the Supreme Court, it's egregious hypocrisy to invest in companies that make these medicines and devices.

How anyone can make excuses for this is another trip down hypocrisy lane.

When you are investing over $70M, you damn well better know where the fund is investing your money or are breaching your fiduciary responsibilities. With that kind of money, you can tell fund managers, "We won't allow our money to be invested in companies that make or distribute this list of products and services."

It's done every day.

Not picking a fight here but are you referring to the 401k mutual funds HL offers to its employees, some of which own stock in companies that make the drugs/devices that are objectionable?
 
Yeah probably a better argument but ithink it's relatively clear that it favors religion over non-religion. The question is should that be allowed and if so to what extent

Yep. And yep.

When the state impinges on religious freedom and convictions in a deep manner we will always fight about whether it was compelling enough to do so. And here I just don't see it. HL offers BC. They just don't want to offer two forms of it. And the state can pay for them. When you balance that against a view that says I believe the state is asking me to directly pay for the murder of children under my religion, I think the right decision for liberty was made. Keep in mind some day the shoe will be on the other foot. Someone who is deeply liberal will feel trounced upon in a similar manner by the state. And when that happens I would hope the court would have their back as well.

There is no doubt the ACA has opened up a HUGE can of worms. And that this has only been made worse by the insistence of this administration to have it cover things like the morning after pill. I don't fault the court one bit for telling the administration to keep their own moral views on abortion outside the force of this law.
 
I don't foresee a draft any time soon so I don't really mind.

What's the rationale for RFRA being consititional? First amendment protection? It directly provides a way for religious people to exempt themselves from laws that others can't. Is this not some excessive entanglement? I don't know much about first amendment jurisprudence so I'm genuinely asking.

I think one of the more odd things about this decision is that it cuts against past writings about RFRA by some of these justices. I was talking about this last night with a religion professor from Carleton who lives across the street. He has no dog in the fight. Litigation around RFRA is far from over now as well. Let's face it. The court needed a practical means to uphold the ACA - which was twisted in many ways. I think that decision is hugely flawed. And now the court has twisted on itself to keep the government from legislating morality around an issue that is incredibly divisive. None of it is perfect, Numbers. There will be lots of feeling around to do here.
 
So much for the Hobby Lobby ruling being a narrow one. Three days after its ruling and Alito's opinion that essentially relied upon giving Hobby Lobby the same ability that religious non-profits have to opt-out of contraception coverage and have it provided by a third-party, the Court issues an injunction preventing the government from requiring the non-profits to follow that procedure. I repeat, this is the same procedure that it used as an example to say that requiring Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive coverage was not the least restrictive way for its employees to get coverage.

The female justices, led by Sotomayor, dissent vigorously, essentially calling the Hobby Lobby majority liars: "“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”

Now we are officially headed down the rabbit hole

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sotomayor-blistering-dissent-contraception-case

Order and Sotomayor's full 17-page blistering dissent: http://images.politico.com/global/2014/07/03/13a1284.pdf
 
There's a new case working its way up saying it's unconstitutional for the feds to offer tax credits to participants. This would destroy ACA and could directly lead to single payer. Millions would lose coverage. Insurance companies could throw people off the roles and raise prices dramatically.

These cases have all been dismissed or lost so fa. Every legal analysis I've read says its stands no legal ground. Essentially, the argument is that the law says subsides are only available win state run exchanges. Subsidies wouldn't be available in federal exchanges.

It was really a clerical error in how the law was written as its clear the intent was to offer subsidies regardless of exchanges.

Theres a 0.000001% chance this over turns the ACA.

A good summary from the post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/03/if-the-latest-obamacare-lawsuit-succeeds-obamacare-is-in-big-trouble/
 
So much for the Hobby Lobby ruling being a narrow one. Three days after its ruling and Alito's opinion that essentially relied upon giving Hobby Lobby the same ability that religious non-profits have to opt-out of contraception coverage and have it provided by a third-party, the Court issues an injunction preventing the government from requiring the non-profits to follow that procedure. I repeat, this is the same procedure that it used as an example to say that requiring Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive coverage was not the least restrictive way for its employees to get coverage.

The female justices, led by Sotomayor, dissent vigorously, essentially calling the Hobby Lobby majority liars: "“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”

Now we are officially headed down the rabbit hole

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sotomayor-blistering-dissent-contraception-case

Order and Sotomayor's full 17-page blistering dissent: http://images.politico.com/global/2014/07/03/13a1284.pdf

And this represents a rabbit hole because . . .

Another horses for courses case. Because when it comes to being an evangelical institution I can assure you Wheaton College fits the bill.

This is a temporary stay until their case is heard on appeal.
 
Last edited:
And this represents a rabbit hole because . . .

Another horses for courses case. Because when it comes to being an evangelical institution I can assure you Wheaton College fits the bill.

This is a temporary stay until their case is heard on appeal.

There's no debate about Wheaton being evangelical. Has nothing to do with the case.

First, Sotomayor makes it clear that the circuit split alone would prevent this case from qualifying for an injunction under the strict criteria that the court has used to evaluate such requests in the past. Roberts pretty much said that verbatim in a 2010 opinion.

Second, the fact that the highest court in the land is entertaining the option that the mere act of signing a declaration that they will not provide contraceptive coverage is a violation of their religious practices is patently ridiculous to me. If religion can be used to justify not doing that, then it's hard to see how it can't be used to justify avoiding almost anything.

And all of this is besides the fact that the court essentially pulled a bait-and-switch by relying on this practice in a ruling and then blocking it three days later.
 
Slow down there professor. For one thing, grating a stay =\= rendering an opinion. For another thing, my understanding is that these cases are about a form. The nonprofits don't want to fill out a form that will authorize their TPA to provide contraceptives. The government already knows they are claiming an exemption; thus, the nonprofits claim, they shouldn't have to fill out the form. This isn't some fundamental challenge to the system--how could it be? The nonprofits are already statutorily exempted.

If there is more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.

The government knows about this non-profit because they filed suit. But this would basically force the government to take on the task of identifying and notifying the insurance companies for the hundreds of non-profits claiming this exemption. That's a big administrative task.

ETA: The form doesn't authorize the TPA to provide coverage. The law of the US does.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top