• 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

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.
 
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.
 
Two notable unanimous decisions today. No commentary here?
 
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.
 
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.
 
We should probably wait to see what the ruling is before we speculate. The last thing you posted has already been ruled on anyway.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/2014/jun/26/fox-aereo-ruling-against-dish-streaming
 
Back
Top