Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Kinda crazy, but does the Anti-vaccination movement have anything to do with hating Obama or any of the sort?

Cause the shit literally came out of nowhere.

Many anti-vaccination idiots are liberals. Hang around just about any university town and you'll find plenty of them.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

My guess is this is why he's actually there.

Odds are he's there because his son is a fan.

I figured that.

Many anti-vaccination idiots are liberals. Hang around just about any university town and you'll find plenty of them.

I don't live in a college town, so I wouldn't know.

 

[Aylinato]

Many anti-vaccination idiots are liberals. Hang around just about any university town and you'll find plenty of them.

And religious folk too

 

[Avon Barksdale]

 

[kehs]

North Korea proposed Monday that the two Koreas stop all military hostilities from this week, in an apparent show of its efforts for peace on the Korean Peninsula ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Seoul.

http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140630001004

 

[Diablos]

Has El Rushbo ever backed an "establishment" candidate?

Hasn't Rush lost tons of ratings/relevancy ever since he called Sandra Fluke a slut?

also, smh @ the anti-vaccination crowd. How so many people got duped I will never understand. Human nature I guess.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

It will be a very very dark day for liberals today in SCOTUS

I can feel it

 

[adg1034]

Both decisions from Alito.

Well.

 

[jamesinclair]

It will be a very very dark day for liberals today in SCOTUS

I can feel it

So its a Monday?

"
The vote is 5-4.
The Court recognizes a category of "partial public employees" that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees. "

 

[Tamanon]

So its a Monday?

"
The vote is 5-4.
The Court recognizes a category of "partial public employees" that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees. "

Not a bad decision, IMO.

 

[jamesinclair]

"The 2d and 3rd boxes both contain the same decision; 2 boxes to ease distribution to the press in the PIO room."

That about wraps things up for Obama, Kay Hagen to retire.

 

[AndyD]

I guess don't understand much about unions. I thought they were voluntary, not mandatory? I feel I am missing a big piece.

 

[jamesinclair]

"Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage"

"The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control"

 

[The Librarian]

Fucking SCOTUS.

God fucking dammit.

 

[Diablos]

smh

 

[AndyD]

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

How's that make sense? I guess not all religious objections are equal?

 

[PhoenixDark]

remember when people said both parties are the same.

 

[Tamanon]

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.hxIpVfwj.dpuf

Hmm, I wonder how they can really mean that part, it seems a pretty open ruling.

 

[adg1034]

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

How's that make sense? I guess not all religious objections are equal?

So in essence, the court just ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses be crazy, but traditional evangelical Christians aren't.

 

[jamesinclair]

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

How's that make sense? I guess not all religious objections are equal?

Catholic canon > Jehovas Witness canon

 

[Tamanon]

So it sounds like Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for that coverage, but it'll still be provided. And payment for it can be done via regulation instead of law.

 

[adg1034]

Now taking bets on how many laws closely-held corporations suddenly have very strong religious feelings about.

 

[AndyD]

Now taking bets on how many laws closely-held corporations suddenly have very strong religious feelings about.

I am just curious how many large closely-held corporations there are at all.

 

[RustyNails]

My religious beliefs say i dont need a health insurance plan. What do I do?

 

[TacticalFox88]

The sooner these shitheads get replaced, the better.

Holy fuck.

 

[adg1034]

The sooner these shitheads get replaced, the better.

Holy fuck.

Case in point:

"To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs."

 

[Diablos]

Case in point:

"To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs."

Oh for fuck's sake
Can't just leave it alone, can you...

 

[AndyD]

Case in point:

"To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs."

Wow. That is just awful.

 

[teiresias]

Seems fairly ridiculous to just say, "we only want this ruling's logic to apply here because it may make no sense elsewhere." Logic is logic, law is law, if you're going to make an argument how can you selectively rule it this way?

 

[Plinko]

Yeah, that differentiation between this medical issue and other medical issues is mind-boggling.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Seems fairly ridiculous to just say, "we only want this ruling's logic to apply here because it may make no sense elsewhere."

Also see: Bush v. Gore.

 

[jamesinclair]

The whole idea of a supreme court rubs me the wrong way.

This isnt Iran, we shouldnt have a supreme council ruling over our lives.

 

[teiresias]

Yeah, that differentiation between this medical issue and other medical issues is mind-boggling.

Posted in the other thread in OT, but I like the quip DailyKos made on this.

This is a narrow ruling in that it narrowly only applies to women. Obviously, the court can't allow this to apply to medical needs that might be required by men.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Seems fairly ridiculous to just say, "we only want this ruling's logic to apply here because it may make no sense elsewhere." Logic is logic, law is law, if you're going to make an argument how can you selectively rule it this way?

Bush v gore. Its about outcome not law.

Edit:damn it joe

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The whole idea of a supreme court rubs me the wrong way.

This isnt Iran, we shouldnt have a supreme council ruling over our lives.

Lololol. This is a stupid response. But : https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/483409024142946304

 

[Mike M]

The whole idea of a supreme court rubs me the wrong way.

This isnt Iran, we shouldnt have a supreme council ruling over our lives.

The shit you say sometimes...

 

[Tamanon]

Early Politico fake-take:

Supreme Court ruling guarantees Hillary election.

 

[jamesinclair]

Lololol. This is a stupid response. But : https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/483409024142946304

Do you think the fact that theyre not elected and can sit around crapping on America for 50 years is right?

This isnt about disagreeing with their ruling, its how they appear to be jumping through hoops to justify stuff they personally want.

IE:
36 foot buffer illegal outside PP....but giant buffer outside their door ok
Declining contraceptive ok due to religion.....but declining other random medicine due to religion not ok

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Do you think the fact that theyre not elected and can sit around crapping on America for 50 years is right?

Yes. I like the concept of a supreme Court. Your reactions only happen when one loses a case. The 1980s happened we lost then. 2008 happened and hopefully 2016 and 2020 will happenen the court will change like it always does

And they've done this since forever. Its called politics.

Grinswald v Connecticut jumped through legal hoops to get what they want.

 

[jamesinclair]

And they've done this since forever..

Always a good way to justify anything!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Always a good way to justify anything!

Its not about history but the very nature of politics and people. We don't have perfectly fair politicians (and people) they make mistakes and do things that are bad sometimes. Its not a reason to bitch and moan everytime

 

[Chichikov]

Lololol. This is a stupid response. But : https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/483409024142946304

I don't time have to get into it now, but I'm on the record on this very forum for rejecting judicial review.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't time have to get into it now, but I'm on the record on this very forum for rejecting judicial review.

Well some are, but some just change depending on the court. I hate parliamentary supremacy


Also looks like Harris was decided on relatively narrow grounds. I think the court doesn't see it self having enough capital to change things too dramatically. That's good but we need to see a change before they have a chance to chip away more.

 

[Chichikov]

Well some are, but some just change depending on the court.

That is undoubtedly true.

I hate parliamentary supremacy

Not sure if serious...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Not sure if serious...

? I think the parliaments should be constrained by a constitution and that pretty much necessitated an arbiter

 

[eBay Huckster]

Do you think the fact that theyre not elected and can sit around crapping on America for 50 years is right?

let's at least do what canada does and cap their goddamn ages at 75 so there's less of a chance for egregious court-stacking on either side

at the very least, that gets rid of scalia from the current court (and ginsburg, but she's getting replaced soon anyway)

 

[Tamanon]

It amazes me how many people seem to think @SCOTUSBlog is the official twitter of the SCOTUS themselves. As if they would understand what Twitter is.

 

[jamesinclair]

let's at least do what canada does and cap their goddamn ages at 75 so there's less of a chance for egregious court-stacking on either side

at the very least, that gets rid of scalia from the current court (and ginsburg, but she's getting replaced soon anyway)

I agree.

Supreme Court should only be open to those aged 50-75.

Default term limit.

 

[FyreWulff]

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

How's that make sense? I guess not all religious objections are equal?

Yeah. Not only does this ruling apply almost exclusively to care women need, it favors one religion over another.

They can get away with the first part because we still have no ERA sadly, and the second part I even question how it's even legal.

 

[Crisco]

One of the dumbest and least coherent decision ever made by the SC. It's basically a copout on the larger issue but a direct blow against women's health for absolutely no logical reason.