I don't disagree with either of those.
What I said was perfectly clear to anyone who is interested in understanding it rather than starting fights and throwing insults.
So you honestly think that 1. the Supreme Court is likely to adopt Hobby Lobby's arguments word for word, 2. Such an opinion would lead to the dangerous results you outlined, and 3. that the Supreme Court will completely ignore those potential results in its opinion?
That's seems highly unlikely. As I said earlier maybe its best to await the opinion from the 9 people who actually know what they are talking about before spewing hyperbolic speculation.
oh jesus christ. it's really clear he meant Hobby Lobby's side would set a bad precedent. God damn some of y'all are way too obsessed with poking RJ to the point that he will ruin a thread
I said very clearly what I thought. I then explained it.
Like BBD says here and you have said on other threads, the only reason to continue this is for you to create a fight. Thus, I'm done with this issue with you.
seriously
I have a question for the SC experts. If Hillary wins and replaces Kennedy and Scalia, how many times has there been a Chief Justice been in a huge minority on the Court?
Not sure about "huge," but Charles Evans Hughes and Warren Burger are two that come to mind.
oh jesus christ. it's really clear he meant Hobby Lobby's side would set a bad precedent. God damn some of y'all are way too obsessed with poking RJ to the point that he will ruin a thread
This would be a 6-3 opposition to the CJ for the rest of his tenure. Plus, it would be a vast ideological difference between the CJ and the rest of the Court.
I feel like a lot of cases that come up are non-ideological ones where it's relatively straightforward and one of the circuits has just been a little off the reservation.
oh jesus christ. it's really clear he meant Hobby Lobby's side would set a bad precedent. God damn some of y'all are way too obsessed with poking RJ to the point that he will ruin a thread
Correct
Wasn't Aero making money from retransmitting the material?
This would be a 6-3 opposition to the CJ for the rest of his tenure. Plus, it would be a vast ideological difference between the CJ and the rest of the Court.
Is this relevant? Broadcast television chooses open transmission but wants the same control as closed transmission providers.
First, the "not sure about 'huge'" comment applied to Hughes and Burger. That should have been perfectly clear to anyone who is interested in understanding it rather than starting fights and throwing insults. Or something like that.
Second, Breyer is 75 and Ginsburg 81. It's unlikely that our next president will be picking four new justices, no matter which side of the aisle (s)he comes from.
Third, presidents make mistakes in their selections. It's less likely now than 20-60 years ago, but Eisenhower appointed Burger, Ford appointed Stevens, and Bush appointed Souter.
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.