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.
the government has given us no persuasive reason to think that Congress meant “person” in RFRA to mean anything other than its default meaning in the Dictionary Act
(source) (RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act)
Meaning that corporations that can demonstrate a religious objection to a government mandate are generally exempt from that mandate.
Those criticisms tend to overlook his concurring opinion, in which he explains why the corporation's owners can also sue in their own capacities to block enforcement of the same rule, finessing the controversial portion of the decision.
Hell, just read a few pages of his concurring opinion to see his understanding of religion and laws meant to protect freedom of conscience (imo, much neglected in modern debate)+ Show Spoiler +
All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case. As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg. No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.1 It is no less clear from the Greens’ uncontested allegations that Hobby Lobby and Mardel cannot comply with the mandate unless and until the Greens direct them to do so — that they are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the mandate. And it is this fact, the Greens contend, that poses their problem. As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business.
I wanted to find a collection of funny opinions over the years from Gorsuch I saw on twitter because they reminded me of Frisbee & flatulence Scalia humor, but I can't find anymore.
On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote: Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
Incidentally this comes right after Trump's call with Putin.
On February 02 2017 03:57 Zambrah wrote: Someone break this down for me, the only first hand experience I have with H1B visas is how hard they are to get for anyone working within the entertainment industry (at least before they've had tremendous first hand studio experience)
If the minimum salary for an H1B visa was 200,000 you'd effectively obliterate any and all foreign artists who work at tons and tons of game studios in the US because they certainly arent making 200,000 a year. For the tech industry this might be a viable solution but H1B visas apply to other industries that would make these sorts of salary limitations tricky to really implement without gutting, at least, game studios.
Companies put out job applications that they have no intent of filling with local workers, then they say they can't find who they need - because their conditions are absurd. So they fill up on H1B folk who are taken for a pittance of wage and working conditions, and those conditions are still better than what they can get back home so they can just shut up and work.
The folk who organize the H1B workers tend to just spam the market with multiple positions for each person, often in very different fields, and they process the ones that get approval. It looks very much like a scheme to get cheaper workers.
Salary differentials by location and field are among the reasons I think the solution is legal status rather than compensation. But for art folk, perhaps they should make a better effort to employ locals.
I also offer you a somewhat dated video, but one in which actual industry folk talk honestly about how this entire process works. Slightly different in that they talk about H1B visas and green cards but I like how frank they are about it here.
On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote: Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
Incidentally this comes right after Trump's call with Putin.
This has been going on for a few months, actually. I just chose to mention it now.
Death toll is, by different estimates, 20-200. Might get serious depending on how things go.
On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote: Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
Incidentally this comes right after Trump's call with Putin.
This has been going on for a few months, actually. I just chose to mention it now.
Death toll is, by different estimates, 20-200. Might get serious depending on how things go,
It's pretty clear that no one is really interested in going to bat for Ukraine. They're on their own.
On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote: Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
Incidentally this comes right after Trump's call with Putin.
This has been going on for a few months, actually. I just chose to mention it now.
Death toll is, by different estimates, 20-200. Might get serious depending on how things go,
It's pretty clear that no one is really interested in going to bat for Ukraine. They're on their own.
The only way Ukraine is going to secure its borders is by dealing with Russia. They can forget about getting Crimea back because that simply will not happen. But if they want any hope for stability they can realize that the West cares about them only to the extent that they can use them to mess with Russia, and that beyond that they are merely another corrupt bankrupt nation no one wants to put on their payroll.
Antagonizing your stronger neighbors is a losing strategy in the long run.
On February 02 2017 04:40 oneofthem wrote: idk why you guys always seem to think the west wants to 'mess with russia' as some sort of strategic objective
I mean, it almost goes without saying that that is the case.
I know that there was an idea of some sort of bargain with Russia to get them to stand aside on the world stage (the entire point of the "reset" and similar movements) so that the US can focus on the Asia pivot, but that's evidently not going to happen. So the next best thing is to stoke fears of a Russian invasion and drum up fake unity in the face of a European society that looks increasingly fractured each passing year.
Russia is the new Germany for western europe. And the us knows that Russia is the only nation that can contend with it in influence. China has been isolated for thousands of years and woke up 30 years ago to see it surrounded by American bases and backing the losers in the Korean divide.
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.
I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.
On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote: Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
Incidentally this comes right after Trump's call with Putin.
This has been going on for a few months, actually. I just chose to mention it now.
Death toll is, by different estimates, 20-200. Might get serious depending on how things go.
The Russian and Ukrainian governments have traded blame over a surge in fighting between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatists that has killed more than ten people and injured dozens more since the weekend.
The fighting is the first significant violence in the war zone since Donald Trump was inaugurated as US president and could be seen as a key test of new administration’s stance on the crisis, including whether it will prolong sanctions imposed against Russia over its role in the war.
Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic have blamed one another for sparking a frenzy of shelling by heavy artillery and multiple rocket launchers that began on Sunday.
that's not at all what's happening though. the russian perception of western influence is largely two interrelated things,
1. nato expansion 2. attempts to push for liberal democratic values in the neighborhood 2.1 attributing liberal democratic movements to foreign manipulation
1. is not centrally organized by the west. 2. is a threat to illiberal regimes, but not against russian interests 2.1 is overblown
there is no end game goal of diminishing russia, at least not before the putin folks began to adopt an aggressive posture.
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.
I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.
I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.
But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.
We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.
Doubly so given the Republicans just side-stepped the rules to push forward with Mnuchin and Price.
On February 01 2017 10:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote: So this Neil Gorsuch fellow doesn't sound that bad. ... is that why nobody is discussing him?
Just some cursory reading but he sounds reasonable?
The main controversy I see about him is his concurrence with this statement in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius
the government has given us no persuasive reason to think that Congress meant “person” in RFRA to mean anything other than its default meaning in the Dictionary Act
(source) (RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act)
Meaning that corporations that can demonstrate a religious objection to a government mandate are generally exempt from that mandate.
Those criticisms tend to overlook his concurring opinion, in which he explains why the corporation's owners can also sue in their own capacities to block enforcement of the same rule, finessing the controversial portion of the decision.
Hell, just read a few pages of his concurring opinion to see his understanding of religion and laws meant to protect freedom of conscience (imo, much neglected in modern debate)+ Show Spoiler +
All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case. As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg. No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.1 It is no less clear from the Greens’ uncontested allegations that Hobby Lobby and Mardel cannot comply with the mandate unless and until the Greens direct them to do so — that they are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the mandate. And it is this fact, the Greens contend, that poses their problem. As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business.
I wanted to find a collection of funny opinions over the years from Gorsuch I saw on twitter because they reminded me of Frisbee & flatulence Scalia humor, but I can't find anymore.
I read up on the Supreme Court, because I didn't know much if anything about it. I have to say, Scalia's dissent on PGA Tour v. Martin is one of the most amusing things ever.
If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf–and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point–then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf.
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.
I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.
I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.
But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.
We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.
perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.
I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.
I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.
But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.
We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.
perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo
That's make no sense? Any other nominee isn't the position that was obscenely obstructed by the Republicans.
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.
I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.
I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.
But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.
We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.
perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo
That's make no sense? Any other nominee isn't the position that was obscenely obstructed by the Republicans.
but people don't really care about that unless they're very far left or very far right. Going out of your way to deny anything that could be brought up for potentially what... 1460 days seems like something that people somewhere in the middle will start caring about. The argument wasn't about the particular seat, it was about Obama's term being "almost over" (whatever that means considering the time that was still left) and people seemed to agree with that for whatever reason. So I'll stick with that. I don't think fighting over the specific seat is something people should do but fight over any seats in that "almost over" area
EPT
