Political Vids/Images

[rowjimmy]

This "narrow" ruling will soon have its doors blown right off when people use the language about respecting religious beliefs to enact some far worse levels of bullshit. In fact, that's the best part about this ruling.

When a company decides not to employ women because the founder's religion does not believe that women should work outside the home, we're gonna see some shit.

Look, I know this decision has people all heated, but the case, and the RFRA in general, in no way whatsoever could be used to justify this kind of action. Hyperbole is best left to the politicians.

Given the fact that the RFRA was evidently inspired by an unpopular court ruling against a Native American who used peyote (see my earlier post) -- and based on the ease and near unanimity with which it passed, it's reasonable to believe lawmakers did not write that law anticipating it would be used in such a controversial way as here -- I think that it is fair to speculate about what further expansive takes on the law SCOTUS might indulge next. It's not like the RFRA was specifically about contraception, after all.

You guys are acting as if the Court will accept any bullshit made-up "religious" claim brought before them. You may not like them or agree with them, but the justices are not idiots. They do have the ability (as does any reasonable person) to distinguish between legit claims of religious objection and scams meant to circumvent current law (although I hear Ginsburg clicks on a lot of Nigerian prince emails).

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

[VDB]

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

Not to mention entirely out of character.

[runawayjimbo]

The justices certainly are intelligent, learned people. But the bitch about law seems to be that two equally smart, qualified people can disagree so sharply, so often, on so many issues. How is that? How do we have so many 5-4 decisions that fall along the predictable ideological lines? Someone's gotta be right and someone's gotta be wrong, yeah? I believe it's because even Supreme Court justices can allow their own predispositions to influence their interpretations of cases. For better or worse.

No, I don't think cases argued before the Supreme Court do fall into a clear right/wrong distinction. Because they are not statutory cases. They are questions related to the interpretation of constitutional law. And those questions are very rarely so clear cut. You're right, the justices are people who are subject to their own biases. But that's why the system is set up the way it is (odd number justices, lifetime appointments, etc.).

(although I hear Ginsburg clicks on a lot of Nigerian prince emails).

are you not supposed to click those?

You can click, just don't tell them about your mattress stash.

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

No, but of course we have laws to prevent discrimination. The RFRA could not be used to supersede those laws (unless of course you are suggesting that the gov't does not have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination?).

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

I don't have faith in those people. I do have faith in our justice system, despite its many, many flaws. Doesn't mean I approve of every decision or think that judges are infallible. There are plenty of cases where I think the Court got it wrong. But in general, I believe the system is sound (and to pre-answer sls' forthcoming question about my faith in a branch of gov't, if I had to pick one, it would obviously be the judiciary). YMMV

[gah]

less talk. more funny images.

[rowjimmy]

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

No, but of course we have laws to prevent discrimination. The RFRA could not be used to supersede those laws (unless of course you are suggesting that the gov't does not have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination?).

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

I don't have faith in those people. I do have faith in our justice system, despite its many, many flaws. Doesn't mean I approve of every decision or think that judges are infallible. There are plenty of cases where I think the Court got it wrong. But in general, I believe the system is sound (and to pre-answer sls' forthcoming question about my faith in a branch of gov't, if I had to pick one, it would obviously be the judiciary). YMMV

What I am not alone in predicting here is that the Court has set precedence for Religious exemptions to be applied to Corporations for standing laws when former conflicts with the latter.

[runawayjimbo]

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

No, but of course we have laws to prevent discrimination. The RFRA could not be used to supersede those laws (unless of course you are suggesting that the gov't does not have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination?).

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

I don't have faith in those people. I do have faith in our justice system, despite its many, many flaws. Doesn't mean I approve of every decision or think that judges are infallible. There are plenty of cases where I think the Court got it wrong. But in general, I believe the system is sound (and to pre-answer sls' forthcoming question about my faith in a branch of gov't, if I had to pick one, it would obviously be the judiciary). YMMV

What I am not alone in predicting here is that the Court has set precedence for Religious exemptions to be applied to closely held Corporations for standing laws when former conflicts with the latter.

FYP

less talk. more funny images.

see attached

[rowjimmy]

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

No, but of course we have laws to prevent discrimination. The RFRA could not be used to supersede those laws (unless of course you are suggesting that the gov't does not have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination?).

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

I don't have faith in those people. I do have faith in our justice system, despite its many, many flaws. Doesn't mean I approve of every decision or think that judges are infallible. There are plenty of cases where I think the Court got it wrong. But in general, I believe the system is sound (and to pre-answer sls' forthcoming question about my faith in a branch of gov't, if I had to pick one, it would obviously be the judiciary). YMMV

What I am not alone in predicting here is that the Court has set precedence for Religious exemptions to be applied to closely held Corporations for standing laws when former conflicts with the latter.

FYP

According to the dudes on the right last Presidential cycle, most businesses are small business so it's not as if that two-word distinction will be very limiting. Additionally, I'd wager that distinction will be among the first parts of this ruling put to the test.

[gah]

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

No, but of course we have laws to prevent discrimination. The RFRA could not be used to supersede those laws (unless of course you are suggesting that the gov't does not have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination?).

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

I don't have faith in those people. I do have faith in our justice system, despite its many, many flaws. Doesn't mean I approve of every decision or think that judges are infallible. There are plenty of cases where I think the Court got it wrong. But in general, I believe the system is sound (and to pre-answer sls' forthcoming question about my faith in a branch of gov't, if I had to pick one, it would obviously be the judiciary). YMMV

What I am not alone in predicting here is that the Court has set precedence for Religious exemptions to be applied to closely held Corporations for standing laws when former conflicts with the latter.

FYP

less talk. more funny images.

see attached

There was no funniness in that image. 110% ser biz.

But I'll leave you all to your serious discussion. I only attend the paug for the phish and strippers.

[sls.stormyrider]

Are you saying that there aren't widely practiced religions whose customs might be construed by others as discriminatory?

No, but of course we have laws to prevent discrimination. The RFRA could not be used to supersede those laws (unless of course you are suggesting that the gov't does not have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination?).

Also, your display of apparent faith in those people is amusing to me.

I don't have faith in those people. I do have faith in our justice system, despite its many, many flaws. Doesn't mean I approve of every decision or think that judges are infallible. There are plenty of cases where I think the Court got it wrong. But in general, I believe the system is sound (and to pre-answer sls' forthcoming question about my faith in a branch of gov't, if I had to pick one, it would obviously be the judiciary). YMMV

What I am not alone in predicting here is that the Court has set precedence for Religious exemptions to be applied to closely held Corporations for standing laws when former conflicts with the latter.

FYP

According to the dudes on the right last Presidential cycle, most businesses are small business so it's not as if that two-word distinction will be very limiting. Additionally, I'd wager that distinction will be among the first parts of this ruling put to the test.

yea - that's my issue with this - where is it going to go?
I understand the argument that why should non profits (when they really mean churches) be given a pass when for profits are not?
OK, so all that isn't covered is IUD and morning after pill - other stuff is OK
What if Hobby Lobby was owned by fundamentalist Catholics (or Orthodox Jews) who are against any form of contraception?
What if a majority stockholder of a firm has the same views as the Greens and gets the board to vote not to pay for various forms of contraception based upon religious beliefs?
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Is this the end? There will be other cases, and even if the court holds the line at non profits and closely held corporations, there are other aspects to be disputed.

a larger problem, though, is that the flaws in the legislation will never be fixed. The GOP isn't interested in tweaking it, which it badly needs (even though the law is based upon many, many ideas introduced by GOP members).

[mbw]

[emay]

haha that was when he was in denver.
I posted the article in the have you heard about political part.

Someone also offered Obama "a hit" which he tuned down

[PIE-GUY]

[runawayjimbo]

They took are jobs!!

[VDB]

Yeah. Those "be careful and don't die" signs should TOTALLY be in a language the audience can't read.

[runawayjimbo]

So, there's a 6,600 word piece in NYT Magazine about the libertarian moment "arriving" (well worth, the read, BTW). In it, ardent libertarian and former MTV VJ Kennedy makes a solid analogy:

"Let's say Ron Paul is Nirvana," said Kennedy, the television personality and former MTV host, by way of explaining the sort of politician who excites libertarians like herself. "Like, the coolest, most amazing thing to come along in years, and the songs are nebulous but somehow meaningful, and the lead singer kills himself to preserve the band's legacy.
"Then Rand Paul — he's Pearl Jam. Comes from the same place, the songs are really catchy, can really pack the stadiums, though it's not quite Nirvana.
"Ted Cruz? He's Stone Temple Pilots. Tries really hard to sound like Pearl Jam, never gonna sound like Nirvana. Really good voice, great staying power — but the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts."

Eat your heart out, MBW.