Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[SalmonGod]

Alright.  Hadn't read into it that deeply.  I've only seen all the uproar about it among my few politically vocal friends on Facebook, and I've only been home for about an hour after a grueling day at work.

[GavJ]

Because it honestly went about the best that could be expected. It's a narrow (if extremely poorly justified) judgement that orders the government to cover the cost of those treatments itself so they are still available to people, only allows the company to opt out of 4 out of 12 different contraceptives, only applies this to "closely held" companies and only in that one particular area. (those 4 contraceptives)

There's a thing called precedent.

2 years later: My religion tells me it is wrong to have a minimum wage or to keep meat below 40 degrees or to clean off my prep surfaces before preparing food on them.
"If the government insists on these public health and welfare rules being available, they can just cover the cost of a refrigerator and prep staffperson and the difference of $2 in wages for all my employees."
Why not? Same logic.

[SalmonGod]

Because it honestly went about the best that could be expected. It's a narrow (if extremely poorly justified) judgement that orders the government to cover the cost of those treatments itself so they are still available to people, only allows the company to opt out of 4 out of 12 different contraceptives, only applies this to "closely held" companies and only in that one particular area. (those 4 contraceptives)

There's a thing called precedent.

2 years later: My religion tells me it is wrong to have a minimum wage or to keep meat below 40 degrees or to clean off my prep surfaces before preparing food on them.
"If the government insists on these public health and welfare rules being available, they can just cover the cost of a refrigerator and prep staffperson and the difference of $2 in wages for all my employees."
Why not? Same logic.

Taken to its most extreme logical conclusion:  Guaranteed Basic Income achieved and people stop working for bad companies   

[mainiac]

There's a thing called precedent.

...

Why not? Same logic.

Because precedent in the legal sense is more narrowly defined then that.  The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not a constitutional amendment.

[GavJ]

Taken to its most extreme logical conclusion:  Guaranteed Basic Income achieved and people stop working for bad companies   

No that's only true if the government DOES/CAN cover the costs themselves. Maybe they can for contraception somehow, but not the things that lie further down the slope. Because these companies aren't offering to pay any more taxes, nor does this guarantee customers or anybody else votes for such taxes.

I.e., Nothing about the ruling implies a new source of revenue, yet it obligates a new expenditure.  So taken to it's most extreme logical conclusion, it definitely does not lead to utopia. I'd argue it is actually more like "government can't do shit, either enforce or pay for anything itself" as the logical conclusion. In other words, a Dickens novel.

Because precedent in the legal sense is more narrowly defined then that.

I don't mean just legal precedent. it's also "Oh hey they won that case. Let's try to bring this other case to the supreme court now, that' a little edgier" and the same court is likely to hear it, and likely to rule similarly. Not because they legally have to due to legal precedent. But simply because they're the same court with the same "logic"

[mainiac]

So taken to it's most extreme logical conclusion

So taken in the way that Supreme Court precedent does not work...

[GavJ]

Generally, people try to stop them.

Yup. And bringing them up in conversation is the first step to trying to stop them.

[SalmonGod]

Taken to its most extreme logical conclusion:  Guaranteed Basic Income achieved and people stop working for bad companies   

No that's only true if the government DOES/CAN cover the costs themselves. Maybe they can for contraception somehow, but not the things that lie further down the slope. Because these companies aren't offering to pay any more taxes, nor does this guarantee customers or anybody else votes for such taxes.

I.e., Nothing about the ruling implies a new source of revenue, yet it obligates a new expenditure.  So taken to it's most extreme logical conclusion, it definitely does not lead to utopia. I'd argue it is actually more like "government can't do shit, either enforce or pay for anything itself" as the logical conclusion. In other words, a Dickens novel.

I was being cheeky 

[FearfulJesuit]

Precedent is at work here, though. For better or for worse, the US is a common-law country, and precedent in common-law countries cannot be overturned lightly.

It is already legal, for example, for very conservative Christian colleges to make their professors sign contracts stipulating that they will not drink on company time or property. I don't like this (nor do I like a company being able to tell its employees whether they can or can't take contraception), but it is the legal reality. The SCOTUS ruling handed down today isn't a conspiracy against women's rights, as much as clickbait writers would have you believe. It's the application of an established doctrine to the legal clusterfuck that is Obamacare.

The real takeaway here is that a) precedent can be a bitch, but it's necessary, and b) employers shouldn't be involved in their employees' healthcare, but we already knew that, and it's a much bigger hill to die on.

For that matter, I wonder, just out of curiosity, what the repercussions would be if SCOTUS had ruled differently? I can't imagine they'd be worse than the current situation, but, for example, in not-at-will states, employees cannot be fired except for cause. Having an affair is not a crime. So should the Catholic Church be allowed, on religious grounds, to fire priests who have affairs? Surely most of us would agree they should be allowed.

[palsch]

Because it honestly went about the best that could be expected. It's a narrow (if extremely poorly justified) judgement that orders the government to cover the cost of those treatments itself so they are still available to people, only allows the company to opt out of 4 out of 12 different contraceptives, only applies this to "closely held" companies and only in that one particular area. (those 4 contraceptives)

I'm not so sure about this.

It's a narrow ruling in effect, but used some extremely broad reasoning. I've been discussing this elsewhere and can't pull everything together again now, but basically as precedent this has incredible value to anyone who wants to challenge anything on religious grounds, in that literally any religious claim (core to the decision was that the court can't assess such claims, only assume they are valid) by any closely held company (including those that employ around 52 percent of private employees) will have to pass an extremely high judicial test; that of meeting a compelling state interest (or one that 5/9 judges find compelling - apparently 4 of the majority here didn't) in the least-restrictive manner possible. The 'narrow' part here is based on the decision being made on the latter part, demonstrating that there is a less restrictive way to provide contraceptive cover (as done with religious non-profits) and assuming that the judges or challengers can't just dream up some other equally improbable-to-pass-Congress less restrictive paths for other aspects.

Basically I think that Ginsburg had a stronger point in her dissent. This is opening a minefield.

Anyway, a good primer on the decision here.

[GavJ]

It is already legal, for example, for very conservative Christian colleges to make their professors sign contracts stipulating that they will not drink on company time or property.

Uh, isn't that legal for ALL colleges to make rules about? This isn't a religious issue at all.
1) Drinking alcohol is not a protected class. (neither is contraception taking)
2) There aren't any laws guaranteeing a right to alcohol consumption I'm aware of anywhere. (this is where the contraception example differs)

Thus institutions can make whatever rules they feel like about drinking. Public or private.



Also, you know, minor niggling details like contraception being a healthcare option, and alcohol being a recreational drug.   

[Descan]

It was poorly written, but I think he was saying that it's legal for *example of people who would desire doing this* very conservative colleges, not that ONLY THOSE types of colleges are legally allowed to make such a restriction.

[FearfulJesuit]

It was poorly written, but I think he was saying that it's legal for *example of people who would desire doing this* very conservative colleges, not that ONLY THOSE types of colleges are legally allowed to make such a restriction.

Right. Yeah, I should have phrased it better, but it's night and I'm getting tired.

[GavJ]

Both colleges I have attended were not religious and both of them disallowed drinking anywhere on campus by anybody. One private (secular), one state public.
Edit: one of them had an exception for greek houses, but I think it was because the university didn't actually own them in that town.

Edit 2: My current state university actually will even kick you out of housing not only for drinking at any age, but for being in a room with alcohol, or displaying empty bottles as decoration, even one full of soil with a plant growing in it could lose you your housing and get you a suspension plus a fine.

They also arrest people for being intoxicated on university premises, hypothetically even if you're of age as a resident, for trespassing due to having signed an agreement to not do so while on the site. If not a resident, they may suspend whoever's guest you are.

Smoking is also banned everywhere on campus.

[palsch]

OK, one last go before sleep.

This wasn't about past precedent. This was more about a new reading of current legislation.

One important part of the case was whether the RFRA applies to for-profit corporations. Now there is a good case that it does, but as made by Volokh here it only rests on precedent by analogy to other rights. At no point in the past has there been a directly applicable finding binding that interpretation of the RFRA. Rather it's the fact that corporations are granted similar rights and that granting them religious liberty in this case makes an extended logical sense.


Once was is granted the court had to decide how to assess religious claims by the corporation. Here there is rather more precedent, but all about religious claims of individuals. One example they used was of a Jehovah's Witness who worked in a steel plant, cutting sheets for use in weapons. He was moved to a position where he was directly building tanks using the same steel. He protested this was a violation of his religious beliefs. The nuanced difference might make no sense to someone else but his claim was upheld. The court held that it can never assess the validity or nature of religious claims, only whether they are being violated in a valid or invalid manner.

In this vein the gross hypocrisy and scientific illiteracy of Hobby Lobby's position was essentially inadmissible. The fact that they made the claim as a religious belief was enough for their claim to have to be treated as valid and protected, regardless of past behaviour or the facts of the situation. It raises the test for the validity of a law to strict scrutiny, a very hard barrier for any law to pass.


The danger here is that taking these two together gives any private company a way to issue a very strong challenge to damned near any law. I can't really imagine it working all that often, but if this decision is read a literal precedent rather than in the narrow way it is being argued it should be then those challenges have far greater validity than I believe they should, or are likely to be granted by future courts.

This case had the added level of political spanking that pushed it in the direction it went. A future case with less delicious political angles is unlikely to go this far, and I wouldn't be surprised if some elements of the precedent here got walked back quickly within the next decade.