Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

When has logic ever worked with rabid sports fans...

Kentucky won actually (as I predicted on my bracket). WSU had a perfect record but played in a rather weak division, hence many people believing they had an inflated ranking.

 

[Wilsongt]

Is this a thing amongst people? Seems patently stupid.

Yes. Fox News even ran with this recently, despite the fact that Mitt would have been Hilary's current age now and McCain was already two feet and an arm in the grave.

 

[eBay Huckster]

But then we learn...



Scandalous!

But what does this mean for Kay Hagan's chances?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Is this a thing amongst people? Seems patently stupid.

She'd be younger than Our Lord and Savior, the Honorable and Sanctified Ronald Wilson Reagan(PBUH)

 

[WayneMorse]

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

When she was running against Obama, many here said she'd be too old to run in 2016. This is the only place I've seen it brought up, frankly.

EDIT: Should read "NeoGAF's Own Ronan Farrow."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Someone photoshop NeoGAF Members for WTC Jumpers

 

[zargle]

But what does this mean for Kay Hagan's chances?

Kay Hagan has less chance of winning than a 16 seed.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The oral argument in the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court has kind of overshadowed this, but the DC Circuit heard oral argument in Halbig v. Sebelius today. That's the case that's challenging the IRS rule which extends subsidies to exchanges established by the federal government. (The district court rejected the challenge.) The audio is already(!) available here (note: that's a direct link to the MP3). (The audio from the Hobby Lobby case should be released on Friday.)

 

[thepotatoman]

EDIT: Should read "NeoGAF's Own Ronan Farrow."

Hobbyist troll to professional troll. Congrats to him.

 

[Mario]

Yes. Fox News even ran with this recently, despite the fact that Mitt would have been Hilary's current age now and McCain was already two feet and an arm in the grave.

To be fair, there was a lot of commentary at the time around McCain's age and (later) the implications for a possible Palin presidency.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The oral argument in the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court has kind of overshadowed this, but the DC Circuit heard oral argument in Halbig v. Sebelius today. That's the case that's challenging the IRS rule which extends subsidies to exchanges established by the federal government. (The district court rejected the challenge.) The audio is already(!) available here (note: that's a direct link to the MP3). (The audio from the Hobby Lobby case should be released on Friday.)

This is why I don't get the petitioners trying to go the 'not least restrictive way' argument. The mandate will just be challenged on that grounds. The Question has to either be, do these rights extend to corporations or does the government have a compelling interest. The least restrictive way argument wouldn't answer any questions on the underlying reasons for the case

 

[Wilsongt]

To be fair, there was a lot of commentary at the time around McCain's age and (later) the implications for a possible Palin presidency.

I am sure most (sane) people talked about it because they knew that Palin would be a skipped heartbeat away from being the most powerful woman on the planet.

Could you imagine?

 

[Metaphoreus]

This is why I don't get the petitioners trying to go the 'not least restrictive way' argument. The mandate will just be challenged on that grounds. The Question has to either be, do these rights extend to corporations or does the government have a compelling interest. The least restrictive way argument wouldn't answer any questions on the underlying reasons for the case

I don't follow. Halbig and Hobby Lobby are challenging two different rules using different legal bases.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't follow. Halbig and Hobby Lobby are challenging two different rules.

hahah I completely misread that. I thought you were talking about the cases of the bishops suing the administration for the compromise (not actually paying for contraception)

That case is absurd on its face. They're invention an argument because of a technical mistake.

 

[WayneMorse]

Is anyone expecting the Supreme Court to not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby? Of course Kennedy is going to favor Hobby Lobby, it's a business.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes. Fox News even ran with this recently, despite the fact that Mitt would have been Hilary's current age now and McCain was already two feet and an arm in the grave.

You rarely hear men's age brought up in general, with John McCain and Bob Dole being exceptions; both both were quite old. To be fair Hillary would be 68 on inauguration which is indeed old. Given the demands of office, an older person seems like they'd be at a disadvantage compared to someone younger. There are stories about aides noting how limited Reagan was, especially during late nights, compared to JFK.

The good news is that Hillary seems healthy in general; as did Romney. Whereas when I look at McCain the word "healthy" doesn't cross my mind.

 

[zargle]

You rarely hear men's age brought up in general, with John McCain and Bob Dole being exceptions; both both were quite old. To be fair Hillary would be 68 on inauguration which is indeed old. Given the demands of office, and older person seems like they'd be at a disadvantage compared to someone younger. There are stories about aides noting how limited Reagan was, especially during late nights, compared to JFK.

The good news is that Hillary seems healthy in general; as did Romney. Whereas when I look at McCain the word "healthy" doesn't cross my mind.

I had a prof in college note something similar in the 08 campaign, just how much McCain's past injuries made him seem stiffer and less healthy, especially compared to Obama.

 

[Black Mamba]

The oral argument in the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court has kind of overshadowed this, but the DC Circuit heard oral argument in Halbig v. Sebelius today. That's the case that's challenging the IRS rule which extends subsidies to exchanges established by the federal government. (The district court rejected the challenge.) The audio is already(!) available here (note: that's a direct link to the MP3). (The audio from the Hobby Lobby case should be released on Friday.)

This case is far dumber than the Hobby Lobby one and the district court's reasoning (which was a Republican appointee, btw) basically made fun of the entire argument to invalidate the subsidies.

It's really a last ditch effort hoping to get the approval of partisan judges. It won't matter. If the petitioner prevails here, the DC circuit will review en banc and reverse and if it ever comes to the SCOTUS, I guarantee they will not accept the current pretitioner's claims.

It really is a stupid fucking argument. No one believes Congress' intent was to not subsidize the exchanges and every part of the law shows this. They're trying to argue a technicality in a huge fucking document. It's pathetic, really.


At least Hobby Lobby presents actual questions of law, not "OMG THEY FORGOT TO PUT IN A COMMA" type argument.

Regarding Hobby Lobby, they won't prevail IMO (book the 4 + Roberts and Kennedy) and it would be interesting to see how Scalia deals with the case seeing as he wrote the opinion in the 90s that said religion via business is not an excuse to ignore laws generally. Basically, he will have to ignore his previous ruling to accept Hobby Lobby's argument.

Also, I do not agree that Hobby Lobby would be a natural extension from Citizens United. People are overreacting to "personhood." A corporation spending money to lobby is not the same thing as telling other people how their religion shall be. As someone mentioned previously, can a Hasidic bus company prevent men and women sitting next to one another? Can a company deny vaccinations or caner medical treatments from insurance, as well? It's a ridiculous proposition.

Furthermore, free exercise of religion does not mean you have the right to impose your beliefs on your employees. It means the gov't can't stop you from exercising your religion. For example, it cannot stop you from going to church or praying. That doesn't mean you can stop someone in your business from praying, however, or not having insurance with birth control.

Somewhere along the line the notion of freedom of religion got warped by those on the right. It only means you have the right to freely exercise your religion FOR YOURSELF that has no affect on anyone else. You can pray, eat, drink, go to church how you want. That's all it is.

Is anyone expecting the Supreme Court to not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby? Of course Kennedy is going to favor Hobby Lobby, it's a business.

I'm guaranteeing they won't rule in favor by at least 6-3, possibly 7-2 or better.


BTW, while I always caution against oral arguments because they aren't very predictive, Kennedy specifically addressed Hobby Lobby's case of why they won't just accept the penalty and allow the employees to buy insurance on the exchanges on their own if it's a financial wash and allow the employee keep their own religious freedom.

Kennedy will not side with hobby lobby. Mark it, dude.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'd expect Hobby Lobby to win.

 

[Wilsongt]

Signs are pointing to Kennedy siding with hobby lobby.

Say goodbye to your job provide healthcare for women.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'd expect Hobby Lobby to win.

This makes my guarantee all the more likely.

Let me remind people, for all the talk about how conservative Roberts is, Roberts is actually very liberal when it comes to issues of gov't and economics, especially with commerce clause or basically the gov't having to do anything with regulating business/markets. Well before he ever became a SCOTUS member.

Signs are pointing to Kennedy siding with hobby lobby.

Say goodbye to your job provide healthcare for women.

Yeah, no.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

“The outcome could turn on the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote. Kennedy voiced concerns both about the rights of female employees and the business owners. Kennedy asked what rights would women have if their employers ordered them to wear burkas, a full-length robe commonly worn by conservative Islamic women. Later in the 90-minute argument, he seemed troubled about how the logic of the government's argument would apply to abortions. ‘A profit corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions,’ Kennedy said. ‘Your reasoning would permit it.’”

The low point for Verrilli, however, came late in his argument, when Justice Kennedy told him bluntly: “Under your view, for-profit corporations can be forced to pay for abortion. Your reasoning would permit that…. You say that for-profit corporations have no standing to litigate what their shareholders believed.”

Sometimes I wonder how super smart people these people make these silly arguments. What is the difference? Its clear he's fearful because HE opposes abortion, not because there is any actual difference. Why bring that up, but to expose your own biases against what two different courts have found to be a constitutional right? .

When Verrilli began putting heavy emphasis on his point that the Court, in weighing religious claims, must take full account of the negative impact that has on “third parties” who would be affected, Justice Scalia told him that the RFRA law makes no mention of third-party interests.

Scalia is a theocrat

As Verrilli’s situation worsened, Justice Kennedy moved in to wonder why it was that Congress would allow a government agency — the Health and Human Services Department — “the power to decide a First Amendment issue of this consequence…. That is for Congress, not for an agency.” Kennedy would repeat that criticism later in the argument.

Congress delegated that power to HHS in the law!

 

[Black Mamba]

Sometimes I wonder how super smart people these people make these silly arguments. What is the difference? Its clear he's fearful because HE opposes abortion, not because there is any actual difference. Why bring that up, but to expose your own biases against what two different courts have found to be a constitutional right?

It's also funny because they're not paying for abortions. They're paying for insurance. It's the insurance that pays for it.

And even if you say "what's the difference," insurance with birth control/abortions is cheaper than ones without because pregnancies cost more, so you're not paying for abortions, you're avoiding payment for unwanted pregnancies.

Scalia is a theocrat

"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,"

-Scalia in 1990.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's also funny because they're not paying for abortions. They're paying for insurance. It's the insurance that pays for it.

And even if you say "what's the difference," insurance with birth control/abortions is cheaper than ones without because pregnancies cost more, so you're not paying for abortions, you're avoiding payment for unwanted pregnancies.

How does this argument not apply to opposing taxes? If you go with Roberts argument in ACA congress isn't mandating coverage. Its taxing everyone and giving a rebate to those that buy coverage!

"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,"

-Scalia in 1990.

Scalia can argue a good point, I think he was correct in that decision what's so frustrating is he only does so when it suits his political ends (anti-drugs here and his mixed signals in Gonzales v. Raich, its good if the government is fighting against drug)

 

[AndyD]

Sometimes I wonder how super smart people these people make these silly arguments. What is the difference? Its clear he's fearful because HE opposes abortion, not because there is any actual difference. Why bring that up, but to expose your own biases against what two different courts have found to be a constitutional right? .

Because some of the rumors are that one of the next abortion related SC potential cases regards whether companies/government/insurance can be prohibited from using funds for abortions. Because if now you say all healthcare must be covered regardless of religious objections, and contraception is healthcare, and plan B is healthcare, then is the next statement abortion is healthcare? It's a stretch, but he may be thinking of the long game.

 

[Black Mamba]

How does this argument not apply to opposing taxes? If you go with Roberts argument in ACA congress isn't mandating coverage. Its taxing everyone and giving a rebate to those that buy coverage!

I agree with you here.

Scalia can argue a good point, I think he was correct in that decision what's so frustrating is he only does so when it suits his political ends (anti-drugs here and his mixed signals in Gonzales v. Raich, its good if the government is fighting against drug)

I hate when people tell me Scalia might have bad opinions, but he's consistent. No, he is not.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I hate when people tell me Scalia might have bad opinions, but he's consistent. No, he is not.

Its the opposite! Scalia can have some great opinions, he's just horribly inconsistent!

 

[Metaphoreus]

"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,"

-Scalia in 1990.

You keep referring to Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, but you're ignoring the fact that there, the Court was confronted with a First Amendment question; here, the Court is confronted with a RFRA question. And the RFRA was enacted to repudiate the Supreme Court's opinion, and reinstate the pre-Smith standard. (Remember, Congress is free to expand rights beyond those guaranteed by the Constitution.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Because some of the rumors are that one of the next abortion related SC potential cases regards whether companies/government/insurance can be prohibited from using funds for abortions. Because if now you say all healthcare must be covered regardless of religious objections, and contraception is healthcare, and plan B is healthcare, then is the next statement abortion is healthcare? It's a stretch, but he may be thinking of the long game.

First of all I'm not familiar with that case, but that presents a different question, HHC didn't rule abortion as part of the health care mandate. And to prohibit the use of funds doesn't cross first amendment lines, your not preventing from exercising you're religion. I don't see how its different then the government prohibiting funding on cosmetic surgery or something. If it was private money they were prevented from spending I think that would be different, as your infringing on the right to privacy.

And yes, family planning is health care

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You keep referring to Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, but you're ignoring the fact that there, the Court was confronted with a First Amendment question; here, the Court is confronted with a RFRA question. And the RFRA was enacted to repudiate the Supreme Court's opinion, and reinstate the pre-Smith standard. (Remember, Congress is free to expand rights beyond those guaranteed by the Constitution.)

The court overrules RFRA.

Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]." (citations omitted)

That's not what RFRA did. It told the court how to interpret religious impact. And while yes the court later used it in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal its doesn't change the fact the court is the ultimate arbiter of that. Also, how can a court hold a new congress to a law from the old congress? Its not the constitution. If a new law passed that was different than the old law, I think that means the new law is the law.

 

[Black Mamba]

You keep referring to Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, but you're ignoring the fact that there, the Court was confronted with a First Amendment question; here, the Court is confronted with a RFRA question. And the RFRA was enacted to repudiate the Supreme Court's opinion, and reinstate the pre-Smith standard. (Remember, Congress is free to expand rights beyond those guaranteed by the Constitution.)

The pre-Smith standard would have thrown Hobby Lobby out. That Scalia quote above was actually a quote from a SCOTUS case before he was born.

There wasn't a true pre-Smith standard, but it was a lot closer to Smith's than the opposite.

Furthermore, as Ginsberg pointed out, if the RFRA did as you claim in instituting a "pre-smith" standard (let's pretend it existed in the way you believe), then why did Congress still have to pass another dozen or so laws exempting religious institutions after its passage?

Because the RFRA was never intended to do what you say. The idea behind it was to prevent, say, a Kosher meat market from being told to sell pork. It was not intended in the way Hobby Lobby now argues. And as another justice pointed out (I forget which), the RFRA passed easily with lots of support which would be absurd to believe happening if it were interpreted in the way Hobby Lobby wants it to be interpreted.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The pre-Smith standard would have thrown Hobby Lobby out. That Scalia quote above was actually a quote from a SCOTUS case before he was born.

There wasn't a true pre-Smith standard, but it was a lot closer to Smith's than the opposite.

Furthermore, as Ginsberg pointed out, if the RFRA did as you claim in instituting a "pre-smith" standard (let's pretend it existed in the way you believe), then why did Congress still have to pass another dozen or so laws exempting religious institutions after its passage?

Because the RFRA was never intended to do what you say. The idea behind it was to prevent, say, a Kosher meat market from being told to sell pork. It was not intended in the way Hobby Lobby now argues. And as another justice pointed out (I forget which), the RFRA passed easily with lots of support which would be absurd to believe happening if it were interpreted in the way Hobby Lobby wants it to be interpreted.

Ginsburg

 

[Metaphoreus]

The court overrules RFRA.


That's not what RFRA did. It told the court how to interpret religious impact. And while yes the court later used it in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal its doesn't change the fact the court is the ultimate arbiter of that. Also, how can a court hold a new congress to a law from the old congress? Its not the constitution. If a new law passed that was different than the old law, I think that means the new law is the law.

You're mistaken. City of Boerne said that the federal government can't make the RFRA apply to state laws. It didn't invalidate the statute as it relates to federal laws. And if Congress wanted the ACA to be exempt from the provisions of the RFRA, they would have said so.

EDIT:

The pre-Smith standard would have thrown Hobby Lobby out. That Scalia quote above was actually a quote from a SCOTUS case before he was born.

There wasn't a true pre-Smith standard, but it was a lot closer to Smith's than the opposite.

Furthermore, as Ginsberg pointed out, if the RFRA did as you claim in instituting a "pre-smith" standard (let's pretend it existed in the way you believe), then why did Congress still have to pass another dozen or so laws exempting religious institutions after its passage?

I'm not sure what there is to dispute here. The purpose of the RFRA was "to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner . . . and Wisconsin v. Yoder . . . and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened." Was Congress mistaken that these cases existed? Was it mistaken regarding the standard they established? What exactly is your argument?

Because the RFRA was never intended to do what you say. The idea behind it was to prevent, say, a Kosher meat market from being told to sell pork. It was not intended in the way Hobby Lobby now argues. And as another justice pointed out (I forget which), the RFRA passed easily with lots of support which would be absurd to believe happening if it were interpreted in the way Hobby Lobby wants it to be interpreted.

I don't know how else to interpret the RFRA except in accordance with its plain meaning. What alternative interpretation do you suggest for the following?

(a) In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.​

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You're mistaken. City of Boerne said that the federal government can't make the RFRA apply to state laws. It didn't invalidate the statute as it relates to federal laws. And if Congress wanted the ACA to be exempt from the provisions of the RFRA, they would have said so.

The court ruled only on the 14th amendment because the law in question was a state law. It said nothing of the 1st but Kennedy's statement I think that statement speaks for itself.

Again:

Although Congress certainly can enact legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, its §5 power “to enforce” is only preventive or “remedial,” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 326. The Amendment’s design and §5’s text are inconsistent with any suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Amendment’s restrictions on the States. Again it mentions the state because that was the fact of that case.

Rather, the emphasis of the RFRA hearings was on laws like the one at issue that place incidental burdens on religion. It is difficult to maintain that such laws are based on animus or hostility to the burdened religious practices or that they indicate some widespread pattern of religious discrimination in this country. RFRA’s most serious shortcoming, however, lies in the fact that it is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. It appears, instead, to attempt a substantive change in constitutional protections, proscribing state conduct that the Fourteenth Amendment itself does not prohibit. Its sweeping coverage ensures its intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter. Its restrictions apply to every government agency and official, §2000bb+2(1), and to all statutory or other law, whether adopted before or after its enactment, §2000bb+3(a). It has no termination date or termination mechanism. Any law is subject to challenge at any time by any individual who claims a substantial burden on his or her free exercise of religion. Such a claim will often be difficult to contest. See Smith, supra, at 887. Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law. 494 U.S., at 888. Furthermore, the least restrictive means requirement was not used in the pre-Smith jurisprudence RFRA purported to codify. All told, RFRA is a considerable congressional intrusion into the States’ traditional prerogatives and general authority to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens, and is not designed to identify and counteract state laws likely to be unconstitutional because of their treatment of religion. Pp. 19+27.

Again, the 14th is proxy for the 1st because of incorporation, the law is valid on government actions (enforcement) not the court or future congresses. It provides no real protection because any lawsuit would just end up back in the court with the court free to dismiss the government's or congress' interpretation of scrutiny. Even your favorite volokh says they didn't touch the question

RFRA was meant to apply to all branches of government, and both to federal and state law. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court held that RFRA exceeded federal power when applied to state laws, but didn’t touch it as to federal law.

. Its a clear separation of powers violation if it were to hold the court to it.

If the court wants to go back to the pre-smith model, just do so. Just don't pretend that law is doing anything.

And if Congress wanted the ACA to be exempt from the provisions of the RFRA, they would have said so.

What kind of logic is that? Congress passed a law which It thought was violating a previous law? The assumption has to be that there was no 'exemption' because they didn't see any conflict. I don't even understand why the RFRA has a place in this case. The question is does it violate the free exercise clause. And can corporations exercise that right.


But beyond those questions my main opposition is that the RFRA doesn't mean owners can use their religion to exempt their entire company to laws.

 

[thepotatoman]

You rarely hear men's age brought up in general, with John McCain and Bob Dole being exceptions; both both were quite old. To be fair Hillary would be 68 on inauguration which is indeed old. Given the demands of office, an older person seems like they'd be at a disadvantage compared to someone younger. There are stories about aides noting how limited Reagan was, especially during late nights, compared to JFK.

The good news is that Hillary seems healthy in general; as did Romney. Whereas when I look at McCain the word "healthy" doesn't cross my mind.

Technically she'd be 69 and 85 days, 264 days younger than Reagan.

Anyhow, if Reagan is out as an example, the next best example I can think of is Eisenhower giving out his farewell address at the age of 70 in 1961.

 

[Black Mamba]

The one thing I'm disappointed in with the Hobby lobby case is that is seems no one is really arguing that it's not an exercise of religion.

Let's assume that Hobby Lobby does have the right to free exercise of religion. Explain to me how denying birth control via insurance is an exercise of religion? FEoR has always meant the right to pray, go to church, eat/smoke/drink whatever your beliefs are, it has never ever ever ever ever ever meant you can impose your personal held views on other people or affect other people in any way, shape, or form.

No one's religion is being violated. Because my employer's insurance provides me via gov't mandate with birth control doesn't demonstrate a violation of the free exercise of religion. It's not the gov't preventing them from praying.

No one seems to be arguing this and it annoys me.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The court ruled only on the 14th amendment because the law in question was a state law. It said nothing of the 1st but Kennedy's statement I think that statement speaks for itself.

You're misunderstanding the scope of Kennedy's statement. The holding in City of Boerne relates to whether Congress has authority, under section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to force the states to comply with the RFRA. It does not relate to whether the Congress has authority, as the federal legislative branch, to provide an exemption from otherwise-valid federal laws. The questions are completely different, and answering one won't answer the other. (By the way, I'm happy that at least someone read the Volokh posts I linked to. Even ignoring his conclusions, I found them very helpful in understanding how the RFRA operates.) The only way that the RFRA would be unconstitutional as applied to the federal government would be if the Court were to accept (as one amicus brief argued) that the exemption regime amounted to an establishment of religion.

What kind of logic is that? Congress passed a law which It thought was violating a previous law? The assumption has to be that there was no 'exemption' because they didn't see any conflict. I don't even understand why the RFRA has a place in this case. The question is does it violate the free exercise clause. And can corporations exercise that right.

No law "violates" the RFRA. No law "conflicts with" the RFRA--even a law that specified that it was not subject to the RFRA would be consistent with the RFRA, which permits doing just that. The RFRA simply carves out exceptions to other laws in certain circumstances.

This case is about the RFRA, rather than the First Amendment, because the First Amendment question would appear to be foreclosed by Employment Division v. Smith. So the questions are: Is Hobby Lobby a "person" within the meaning of the RFRA? If so, can Hobby Lobby exercise religion? If so, does the contraception mandate substantially burden Hobby Lobby's exercise of religion? If so, is the contraception mandate in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest?

 

[thefro]

I heard this clip on NPR and cheered in my car. Putin & Romney both got owned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkQUzeZbLEs

 

[thepotatoman]

The one thing I'm disappointed in with the Hobby lobby case is that is seems no one is really arguing that it's not an exercise of religion.

Let's assume that Hobby Lobby does have the right to free exercise of religion. Explain to me how denying birth control via insurance is an exercise of religion? FEoR has always meant the right to pray, go to church, eat/smoke/drink whatever your beliefs are, it has never ever ever ever ever ever meant you can impose your personal held views on other people or affect other people in any way, shape, or form.

No one's religion is being violated. Because my employer's insurance provides me via gov't mandate with birth control doesn't demonstrate a violation of the free exercise of religion. It's not the gov't preventing them from praying.

No one seems to be arguing this and it annoys me.

Would you be ok with a ruling that says corporations apply as people in the case of RFRA, but Hobby Lobby does not prove substantial religious burden in this particular case?

It sounds like Kennedy and Beyer all focused more on the compelling government interest and substantial religious burden part of the RFRA, and not the personhood of corporations. They could have included your line of arguing in the substantial religious burden part, but I am more worried about the continued increase of corporate rights.

 

[theprodigy]

Kay Hagan has less chance of winning than a 16 seed.

So you're saying there's a chance?
too high

 

[WayneMorse]

Did anyone else notice how the media pretty much made up a story by saying that the Democrats have "turned on" Nate Silver?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You're misunderstanding the scope of Kennedy's statement. The holding in City of Boerne relates to whether Congress has authority, under section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to force the states to comply with the RFRA. It does not relate to whether the Congress has authority, as the federal legislative branch, to provide an exemption from otherwise-valid federal laws. The questions are completely different, and answering one won't answer the other. (By the way, I'm happy that at least someone read the Volokh posts I linked to. Even ignoring his conclusions, I found them very helpful in understanding how the RFRA operates.) The only way that the RFRA would be unconstitutional as applied to the federal government would be if the Court were to accept (as one amicus brief argued) that the exemption regime amounted to an establishment of religion.

I think the bolded is important. I'm in complete agreement. I just think Kennedy's words can be applied to the wider point of weather that law can really limit action. I'm not really sure it can, in any real sense. I still think most violations are actual violations of the free exercise and not the RFRA.

I don't know how else to interpret the RFRA except in accordance with its plain meaning. What alternative interpretation do you suggest for the following?

I think that's vague and an unconstitutional expansion of congresses power. Congress has no constitutional prerogative to say what burden courts should use to enforce the free exercise clause.

I'm of the opinion smith was kind of overturned in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal which the court followed and they went back to a more strict scrutiny.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think that's vague and an unconstitutional expansion of congresses power. Congress has no constitutional prerogative to say what burden courts should use to enforce the free exercise clause.

But they're not saying, "Use this standard to enforce the free exercise clause." They're saying, "Use this standard instead of the minimum required by the free exercise clause." The RFRA creates a new, statutory right; it doesn't try to force the courts to adopt Congress' interpretation of a Constitutional right.

 

[speculawyer]

Did anyone else notice how the media pretty much made up a story by saying that the Democrats have "turned on" Nate Silver?

Yeah . . . exactly who 'turned on" him? People noted the projections and discussed it. But I don't think anyone threw him under the bus.


ACA Deadline extended? .. . That is not good news.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yeah . . . exactly who 'turned on" him? People noted the projections and discussed it. But I don't think anyone threw him under the bus.

ACA Deadline extended? .. . That is not good news.

Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

I swear I read about them mulling this option over last week. It's only an extension for people who have begun the process, but not finished it yet. Not sure how wide of a net that casts, though.

I wonder if it's partly to cover themselves if the site goes down in the last few days as the final crush hits.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah . . . exactly who 'turned on" him? People noted the projections and discussed it. But I don't think anyone threw him under the bus.


ACA Deadline extended? .. . That is not good news.

Its the same thing they did in December.

I swear I read about them mulling this option over last week. It's only an extension for people who have begun the process, but not finished it yet. Not sure how wide of a net that casts, though.

It uses an honor system. One can lie.

 

[theprodigy]

Did anyone else notice how the media pretty much made up a story by saying that the Democrats have "turned on" Nate Silver?

Well of course, gotta keep that narrative up!

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJut_fYHRJU

THE SCHAUER IS OVER, THE SCHAUER IS OVER.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...rassley-farmer-with-no-law-degree-105010.html

Also the Dems just royally fucked themselves in Iowa, this may seriously hurt Braley.