Page 3 of 169 FirstFirst 123456781353103 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 3367

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #41
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Which means your position was a bit off not mine.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama replace Ginsburg. I'm surprised she hasn't stepped down yet. The next POTUS could bet to appoint three.

    As you say, it's much easier to pick the people these days. The internet and 24 hour news has made it so.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-keep-waiting/

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Allowing an individual to use a copyrighted broadcast is one thing. Allowing a third party to profit from a copyrighted product without paying is quite another.
    Then you better ban DVRs, reading glasses and a lot of other devices and technology that profit off of copyrighted material. Under the current (jacked up) law, I'm not sure the decision was wrong. But I wanted it to go the other way to force the content owners into the 21st century.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by smallbigtall View Post
    I certainly understand the broadcasters' concerns that the alternative decision could have eliminated their ability to get paid from the cable/satellite companies
    Interesting that CBS & Fox threatened to go cable/satellite only if Aero won. Good Business Insider article on why broadcasters' attack on Aero was misguided:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-di...142631643.html

  4. #44
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Kent View Post
    Then you better ban DVRs, reading glasses and a lot of other devices and technology that profit off of copyrighted material. Under the current (jacked up) law, I'm not sure the decision was wrong. But I wanted it to go the other way to force the content owners into the 21st century.
    C'mon Kent. Those are a bit silly.

    Aero was directly profiting from selling access to copyrighted materials.

  5. #45
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159
    I'm guessing the folks at Slingbox are updating their resumes today.

  6. #46
    jon gruden's haircut smallbigtall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    nomnomnom
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Mitchell View Post
    I'm guessing the folks at Slingbox are updating their resumes today.
    Another great example of a technology providing (and profiting from) access to content. Add that to my above list.

  7. #47
    Two notable unanimous decisions today. No commentary here?

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Mitchell View Post
    I'm guessing the folks at Slingbox are updating their resumes today.
    Wait....tell me more. I live by my slingbox.

  9. #49
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by deacz View Post
    Two notable unanimous decisions today. No commentary here?
    They were both pretty straight forward IMO. The recess appointments issue was a no brainer. Lower courts which had allowed them had to really stretch to find constitutional support. I do think the majority should have gone further but haven't read the opinion so I'm not sure of the reasoning. This is one of the times when Scalia's originalism is absolutely the correct approach. There is just not textual support for how the clause has been used by various Presidents. It looks like his concurrence only got 4 votes though.

    I'm not as familiar with the abortion clinic protest decision but it seems like the law was overbroad and resulted in an outright ban on protesting on public sidewalks. That's pretty much always going to get struck down.

  10. #50
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    If HL wins, what's to stop a company that is owned or run by a Quaker from not paying taxes? After all it's their religious principles prohibit Quakers from participating in war. Or maybe they deduct the percentage that goes to the DOD.

  11. #51
    We should probably wait to see what the ruling is before we speculate. The last thing you posted has already been ruled on anyway.

  12. #52
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,764
    Good article on how Hobby Lobby could backfire on Christians.
    http://t.co/iJB8QJw3fl

  13. #53
    Never Murdered My FIL
    Deacfreak07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    65,763
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Good article on how Hobby Lobby could backfire on Christians.
    http://t.co/iJB8QJw3fl
    Nice piece, but I think it ignores the evangelical anti-sexuality sentiment. For many evangelicals, sexual morality, specifically abstinence is so central in this discussion. I would think many supporters of HL would prefer to legislate abstinence if possible.

  14. #54
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    We should probably wait to see what the ruling is before we speculate. The last thing you posted has already been ruled on anyway.
    Many precedents change after other rulings.

    This should be an east 9-0 against HL. If they justify any company being above the law, then any company can try.

    How could you stop a company run by Christian Scientists from saying, "No healthcare for our employees. It's against our religion."

  15. #55
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Many precedents change after other rulings.

    This should be an east 9-0 against HL. If they justify any company being above the law, then any company can try.

    How could you stop a company run by Christian Scientists from saying, "No healthcare for our employees. It's against our religion."
    The legislature could pass a law mandating that employers with >50 employees provide healthcare for all of their full-time employees.

    Non-snarky answer: The Supreme Court's ruling is very unlikely to go so far as to allow some of the extreme examples you have proposed on this thread. In fact Hobby Lobby seems to concede in it's brief that a company could not exempt itself from any law it wants based on religious grounds.

    From the respondent's brief: "This case is the polar opposite of the social security system, where the government can credibly insist that everyone must contribute and even a modest exception for employers endangers the system. Indeed, if RFRA means anything, it makes crystal clear that when the government grants exceptions for secular reasons, it cannot insist on enforcing that law in the name of comprehensiveness when it substantially burdens sincerely-held religious beliefs."

    The government would have a much better chance insisting that exceptions to the employer mandate would endanger the entire system than they do insisting that providing exceptions to contraception coverage would endanger the entire system.

    Even if Hobby Lobby wins, corporations would still be bound to the same standards as individuals in claiming religious exemptions to laws. It won't be the end of the world, I promise.
    Last edited by RChildress107; 06-29-2014 at 04:45 PM.

  16. #56
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Why would it be any different for a company that is run by a Christian Scientist to say they are morally opposed to covering anyone if HL is allowed to deny contraceptive coverage?

    It's exactly the same thing. Why would a the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of one faith be important or more protected than the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of an other faith.

    That's about as apples to apples as you could ever get.

  17. #57
    Is it possible for the Court to find that this would substantially infringe on religious beliefs, but that there is adequate government interest to override these beliefs?

  18. #58
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Why would it be any different for a company that is run by a Christian Scientist to say they are morally opposed to covering anyone if HL is allowed to deny contraceptive coverage?

    It's exactly the same thing. Why would a the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of one faith be important or more protected than the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of an other faith.

    That's about as apples to apples as you could ever get.
    Basically what numbers said. The Christian Scientist corporation in the above example would be just as capable as Hobby Lobby of demonstrating a substantial burden on their exercise of religion.

    However, if the government can demonstrate a compelling interest it can overcome the substantial burden and require the religious corporation to comply with the law anyway.


    Hobby Lobby's argument is basically that since the government has already allowed numerous exceptions to the contraceptive coverage law that it is disingenuous to argue that allowing an exception for Hobby Lobby would destroy the government's ability to provide access to contraceptive coverage.

    In the instance of a Christian Scientist trying to opt out of the employer mandate, the government would have a better chance at arguing that it has a compelling interest in mandating employers to provide health coverage, and that granting an exception would endanger the entire system.

    A lot of the law (if not all of it) is about line drawing and it's very conceivable that the Court will draw the line somewhere in between Hobby Lobby and your hypothetical Christian Scientist case. Deciding for Hobby Lobby in this case would in no way prevent the Court from ruling against the Christian Scientist in a future case.

  19. #59
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Why would it be any different for a company that is run by a Christian Scientist to say they are morally opposed to covering anyone if HL is allowed to deny contraceptive coverage?

    It's exactly the same thing. Why would a the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of one faith be important or more protected than the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of an other faith.

    That's about as apples to apples as you could ever get.
    Short answer: It's a two part test. The first part is certainly apples to apples. The second part isn't and the government would have a much stronger argument, IMO, in your hypothetical than they do in the Hobby Lobby case.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinsNDeacs View Post
    Wait....tell me more. I live by my slingbox.

    Fox moves to use Aereo ruling against Dish streaming service

    Fox has cited Wednesday’s ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against Dish
    A day after a surprise US supreme court decision to outlaw streaming TV service Aereo, US broadcaster Fox has moved to use the ruling to clamp down on another internet TV service.

    Fox has cited Wednesday’s ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against a service offered by Dish, America’s third largest pay TV service, which streams live TV programming over the internet to its subscribers and allows them to copy programmes onto tablet computers for viewing outside the home.

    The move has fueled criticism of Wednesday’s ruling from groups that have argued the decision will limit consumer choice, hand more power to broadcasters and stifle innovation.

    Immediately after Wednesday’s ruling, Fox’s legal team submitted the supreme court’s Aereo decision to bolster its case against Dish. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled before the ninth circuit court of appeals on 7 July in Pasadena, California.
    The clash centres on Dish’s Dish Anywhere streaming service and its Hopper DVR “sideloading” feature. Dish Anywhere allows customers to watch live TV or the content of their DVR on mobile devices, laptops and desktop computers. The sideloading feature allows content from a DVR to be transferred to an iPad. Dish uses technology developed by Slingbox, which makes devices that allow customers to remotely stream their TV service. Slingbox is owned by Dish’s former parent company and current technology partner EchoStar.
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...dish-streaming

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •