|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 03 2016 12:10 oneofthem wrote:
scalia sounding like ben carson. brilliant my ass
I wager people that have thought him a dunce from day one are likely to continue that way. I thought his remarks quite cogent on religious neutrality in the constitutional tradition. It's in fact a very old perspective on the establishment clause and faith in the public sphere. Hardly newsworthy. Really, the story just serves as more fodder for the crowd that called his affirmative action comments racist.
|
|
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
saying he's dumb would be too simple.
human reasoning is such that in the realm of normative thought there is an abundance of approaches of thought, tracks of the mind. considered independently, they each may appear convincing, but together there is overdetermination yet also no conquest by logic, at least at the first order level. these many distinct and incommensurable ways of thinking may appear 'brilliant' to those stuck in a particular echo chamber or academic consensus, but in the future when people understand the varieties of ethics is but a reflection of our not necessarily coherent normative part of the mind, guys like scalia would be pretty exposed as single tracked ideologues.
specific to scalia, a theorist relying on the intuition of legal authority would not consider consequences, and to be fair, vice versa. without the correct higher order survey of the landscape, theequilibrium of reasons is only weakly productive. scalia is not dumb per se, just ignorant, often wrong and think poorly. i will grant there are some institutional and interpretative validity with originalism but in terms of jurisprudential decisionmaking it is an absolute must to consider all sides of an issue. this is literally impossible by sticking to one particular ideology.
|
On January 03 2016 12:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 12:10 oneofthem wrote:
scalia sounding like ben carson. brilliant my ass I wager people that have thought him a dunce from day one are likely to continue that way. I thought his remarks quite cogent on religious neutrality in the constitutional tradition. It's in fact a very old perspective on the establishment clause and faith in the public sphere. Hardly newsworthy. Really, the story just serves as more fodder for the crowd that called his affirmative action comments racist.
That's funny...
That all you have to say about this armed terrorist takeover of a government facility and call for national armed rebellion?
|
His job though isn't to defend certain ethics or ideologies but to interpret the constitution, and if the constitution seriously allows hospitals and other public institutions to withhold essential medical care from the population based on faith than you can congratulate yourself to having moved back into the dark ages.
Also if Scalia seriously thinks that god has been good to America because America honors him he might be confusing Yahweh with Santa Claus
|
On January 03 2016 13:33 Nyxisto wrote:
His job though isn't to defend certain ethics or ideologies but to interpret the constitution, and if the constitution seriously allows hospitals and other public institutions to withhold essential medical care from the population based on faith than you can congratulate yourself to having moved back into the dark ages.
Also if Scalia seriously thinks that god has been good to America because America honors him he might be confusing Yachwe with Santa Claus
Contraceptive coverage is essential medical care? Good joke.
|
On January 03 2016 12:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 12:10 oneofthem wrote:
scalia sounding like ben carson. brilliant my ass The fact that he doesn't actually understand the First Amendment, yet he's a SCJ... x.x
So much for being an originalist, kek
It's okay, Scalia is pretty much exhibit 1 why Supreme Court justices should be forced to step down at some point (or for the President to pack the court for that matter [I'm joking about this part, that would be stupid like Congress breaking tradition and blocking routine funding legislation to make a point]). My b-law professor (and my company's in-house AND general counsel) all love to point out examples where Scalia has disagreed with none other himself among his other judicial bloopers. It's gotten to the point where they turn it into a drinking game at the end of each session.
If anything, Scalia is what jury nullification is to the jury, ignore the law and rule based on his gut. He still has the grace to try and couch his decisions in legalese though.
|
On January 03 2016 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders raised more than $33 million in the final three months of last year, nearly matching front-runner Hillary Clinton’s fundraising haul over the same period, the Vermont senator’s campaign said Saturday.
Mr. Sanders, who entered the race in May as a long-shot candidate for the party nomination, collected a total of $73 million in 2015, his campaign said. With less than one month before the Iowa caucuses, he has more than $28 million in the bank.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said Friday she had raised $37 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, pushing her total for the year to $112 million. She ended 2015 with $38 million in the bank.
Though Mrs. Clinton won the quarterly race for campaign dollars, the Sanders campaign voiced optimism about its future fundraising prospects.
More than one million people donated to the Sanders campaign, giving an average of about $27, the campaign said. Of these donors, a fraction gave the maximum contribution of $2,700, meaning Mr. Sanders can go back to virtually all of his supporters and ask for more money as the primary season plays out.
“This people-powered campaign is revolutionizing American politics,” Jeff Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager, said in a prepared statement.
Supporters have made more than 2.5 million separate donations to his campaign, breaking a record that President Barack Obama set at a comparable point in the 2012 presidential election, the Sanders campaign said. SourceSeems weird that a guy with "no chance" would be breaking fundraising records set by the last guy who didn't have a chance against Hillary or Romney. Also when it comes to spending Bernie has pulled in ~$50 million less but only has $10 million less cash on hand. So Hillary has been burning money meanwhile she's been falling under 50%
It's also worth noting that he destroyed both Ben Carson and Ted Cruz in Q4 fundraising ($33 mill vs $23, $20 mill for the other two respectively). Yet Ted Cruz is considered a much more viable candidate by many mainstream media outlets. It's laughable
|
On January 03 2016 13:38 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 13:33 Nyxisto wrote:
His job though isn't to defend certain ethics or ideologies but to interpret the constitution, and if the constitution seriously allows hospitals and other public institutions to withhold essential medical care from the population based on faith than you can congratulate yourself to having moved back into the dark ages.
Also if Scalia seriously thinks that god has been good to America because America honors him he might be confusing Yachwe with Santa Claus Contraceptive coverage is essential medical care? Good joke.
Yes. Contraceptives are essential healthcare products. If you don't believe me, believe the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
|
Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases.
Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act.
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important.
|
United States41117 Posts
Here we go...
BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A peaceful protest Saturday in support of an eastern Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson was followed shortly afterward by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge.
Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, told The Oregonian (http://is.gd/bK7d4E ) he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Ammon Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for people to come help him. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."
An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.
Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.
Source
|
On January 03 2016 13:33 Nyxisto wrote:
His job though isn't to defend certain ethics or ideologies but to interpret the constitution, and if the constitution seriously allows hospitals and other public institutions to withhold essential medical care from the population based on faith than you can congratulate yourself to having moved back into the dark ages.
We're already in the dark ages. We have a Second and Third Amendment based on an anachronistic fear of foreign invasion, a Sixth and Seventh Amendment that guarantee the right to an absurd mode of adjudication based on a feudal land ownership model, a Privileges or Immunities Clause that doesn't protect privileges or immunities, a Due Process Clause that does, a host of other provisions so poorly drafted that we've abandoned any pretense of construing them literally, and an amendment process that prevents us from making changes at a reasonable rate.
|
On January 03 2016 14:18 Deathstar wrote:Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases. Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act. Show nested quote +
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important. You should understand that.
No, the essential nature of the service in question is very important, because people supporting this law are willing to discriminate against women and endanger their health based on their personal beliefs and want to interfere in the relationship between the employee and their physician, something that a society should consider a little more important than the religious freedom of some employer. The rule of law is not more important than the personal health of your citizens, especially if the rule of law is stuck somewhere around the 1870s and if it simply is an excuse to intrude into the personal lives of people that do not share their beliefs. Freedom of religion entails the idea that you are free to not practice any religion without experiencing discrimination in the workplace.
|
By definition, one of the criterion of strict scrutiny is compelling government interest (the other two are narrowly tailored and least restrictive means). So... yeah.
EDIT: I for one would count contraceptive access as a pretty compelling interest, to make that clear.
|
On January 03 2016 14:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 14:18 Deathstar wrote:Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases. Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act.
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important. You should understand that. No, the essential nature of the service in question is very important, because people supporting this law are willing to discriminate against women and endanger their health based on their personal beliefs and want to interfere in the relationship between the employee and their physician, something that a society should consider a little more important than the religious freedom of some employer. The rule of law is not more important than the personal health of your citizens, especially if the rule of law is stuck somewhere around the 1870s and if it simply is an excuse to intrude into the personal lives of people that do not share their beliefs. Freedom of religion entails the idea that you are free to not practice any religion without experiencing discrimination in the workplace.
No one's health is being endangered by this. You are misunderstanding the situation. Women can get healthcare through healthcare exchanges that are now open. Everyone has the chance to get healthcare.
This is a matter of whether the employer has to provide contraceptive coverage in their plan or not. This is not intruding on the woman's life. You have it the other way around.
|
United States41117 Posts
On January 03 2016 14:35 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 14:25 Nyxisto wrote:On January 03 2016 14:18 Deathstar wrote:Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases. Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act.
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important. You should understand that. No, the essential nature of the service in question is very important, because people supporting this law are willing to discriminate against women and endanger their health based on their personal beliefs and want to interfere in the relationship between the employee and their physician, something that a society should consider a little more important than the religious freedom of some employer. The rule of law is not more important than the personal health of your citizens, especially if the rule of law is stuck somewhere around the 1870s and if it simply is an excuse to intrude into the personal lives of people that do not share their beliefs. Freedom of religion entails the idea that you are free to not practice any religion without experiencing discrimination in the workplace. No one's health is being endangered by this. You are misunderstanding the situation. Women can get healthcare through healthcare exchanges that are now open. Everyone has the chance to get healthcare. This is a matter of whether the employer has to provide contraceptive coverage in their plan or not. This is not intruding on the woman's life. You have it the other way around.
Amazing.
|
On January 03 2016 14:35 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 14:25 Nyxisto wrote:On January 03 2016 14:18 Deathstar wrote:Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases. Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act.
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important. You should understand that. No, the essential nature of the service in question is very important, because people supporting this law are willing to discriminate against women and endanger their health based on their personal beliefs and want to interfere in the relationship between the employee and their physician, something that a society should consider a little more important than the religious freedom of some employer. The rule of law is not more important than the personal health of your citizens, especially if the rule of law is stuck somewhere around the 1870s and if it simply is an excuse to intrude into the personal lives of people that do not share their beliefs. Freedom of religion entails the idea that you are free to not practice any religion without experiencing discrimination in the workplace. No one's health is being endangered by this. You are misunderstanding the situation. Women can get healthcare through healthcare exchanges that are now open. Everyone has the chance to get healthcare. This is a matter of whether the employer has to provide contraceptive coverage in their plan or not. This is not intruding on the woman's life. You have it the other way around.
This wouldn't be problem if employers gave employees vouchers for these other plans on the marketplace or compensated them additionally given that they are not paying for their plan.
But they don't. And have insisted over and over again that they won't.
|
On January 03 2016 14:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 14:35 Deathstar wrote:On January 03 2016 14:25 Nyxisto wrote:On January 03 2016 14:18 Deathstar wrote:Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases. Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act.
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important. You should understand that. No, the essential nature of the service in question is very important, because people supporting this law are willing to discriminate against women and endanger their health based on their personal beliefs and want to interfere in the relationship between the employee and their physician, something that a society should consider a little more important than the religious freedom of some employer. The rule of law is not more important than the personal health of your citizens, especially if the rule of law is stuck somewhere around the 1870s and if it simply is an excuse to intrude into the personal lives of people that do not share their beliefs. Freedom of religion entails the idea that you are free to not practice any religion without experiencing discrimination in the workplace. No one's health is being endangered by this. You are misunderstanding the situation. Women can get healthcare through healthcare exchanges that are now open. Everyone has the chance to get healthcare. This is a matter of whether the employer has to provide contraceptive coverage in their plan or not. This is not intruding on the woman's life. You have it the other way around. Amazing.
Its even more amazing. This case is about whether a religious org, short of a church, that doesn't believe in contraception must inform the government that their insurance plan doesn't cover Drug X using form Y. Also it is tangentially related to the question of: under strict scrutiny can the government force an entity to pay for something it could just as easily pay for to hide the cost of a policy.
|
On January 03 2016 14:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 14:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 03 2016 14:35 Deathstar wrote:On January 03 2016 14:25 Nyxisto wrote:On January 03 2016 14:18 Deathstar wrote:Whatever. The "essential" nature of contraceptive coverage is irrelevant for the upcoming court cases. Female employees in religious non-profits are free to get their own health care coverage if contraceptive coverage is so important to them. Religious institutions want no part of it. That is the issue at hand. Currently the ACA is saying religious institutions must offer contraceptive coverage or face harsh fines. But we currently have the religious freedom restoration act.
Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[4] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[5]
The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[6] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
The Supreme Court will rule on this, but until then, this is a matter of religious freedom. And the rule of law is very important. You should understand that. No, the essential nature of the service in question is very important, because people supporting this law are willing to discriminate against women and endanger their health based on their personal beliefs and want to interfere in the relationship between the employee and their physician, something that a society should consider a little more important than the religious freedom of some employer. The rule of law is not more important than the personal health of your citizens, especially if the rule of law is stuck somewhere around the 1870s and if it simply is an excuse to intrude into the personal lives of people that do not share their beliefs. Freedom of religion entails the idea that you are free to not practice any religion without experiencing discrimination in the workplace. No one's health is being endangered by this. You are misunderstanding the situation. Women can get healthcare through healthcare exchanges that are now open. Everyone has the chance to get healthcare. This is a matter of whether the employer has to provide contraceptive coverage in their plan or not. This is not intruding on the woman's life. You have it the other way around. Amazing. Its even more amazing. This case is about whether a religious org, short of a church, that doesn't believe in contraception must inform the government that their insurance plan doesn't cover Drug X using form Y. Also it is tangentially related to the question of: under strict scrutiny can the government force an entity to pay for something it could just as easily pay for to hide the cost of a policy.
I still can't get over some people not believing in contraception lmao. What a silly world we live in
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
