Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

I'm a math teacher. The problem 10 years ago was that most curriculum focused too much on pure calculation and not enough on word problems/critical thinking.

The problem I've found with Common Core is that, instead of making it a nice balance, they swung the pendulum too far to the other side. The level of critical thinking that is expected at the younger age levels is bizarrely high. I'm all in favor of increasing critical thinking ability in younger students, but a lot of it is incredibly obtuse and poorly worded, especially when it is geared toward the limited reading comprehension of a younger mind.

I laugh at the criticisms like, "We don't want government controlling our education and instilling liberal ideas!" or "It's too limiting." I do, however, agree with the criticisms about the content itself. It almost seems like a group of people thought, "well, we're lagging in math and science. Let's just turn the knob up to 11 and cram it home." It doesn't work in a country where many parents are almost non-existent in their student's education.

 

[thepotatoman]

SCOTUS Blog:Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling?

If nothing else, it appears the supreme court made it clear that the hobby lobby case does cover the entire contraceptive mandate.

 

[Wilsongt]

SCOTUS Blog:Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling?

If nothing else, it appears the supreme court made it clear that the hobby lobby case does cover the entire contraceptive mandate.

Yeeeeep. Say goodbye to women's reproductive health.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeeeeep. Say goodbye to women's reproductive health.

All they have to do is not have sex!!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeeeeep. Say goodbye to women's reproductive health.

really? the reactions on the left are extreme to say the least

 

[Wilsongt]

Fox News lol

Defund the IRS lol

Flat tax lol

Reagan was right lol

 

[FLEABttn]

The defund the IRS is one of the more "on its face" stupid things coming out of the right these days.

So, you defund the IRS. Okay, great. Someone still has to collect the taxes. And whatever new entity does that is functionally the IRS. You guys are dumb.

 

[Mario]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-showdown-guns-everywhere

Who knew people were totally cool with carrying guns anywhere until they realized someone else would be carrying a gun too?

It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a good guy with a gun.

 

[eBay Huckster]

really? the reactions on the left are extreme to say the least

the fact that this decision was made is extreme, to say the least

 

[speculawyer]

Romney just endorsed Scott Brown.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Romney just endorsed Scott Brown.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Who even wants an endorsement from Mitt Romney in 2014?

 

[Metaphoreus]

the fact that this decision was made is extreme, to say the least

This statement encapsulates perfectly what I've said before: the increasing polarization in this country isn't attributable solely to conservatives. Once upon a time, 20 years ago, liberals and conservatives in Congress were unanimous in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, liberals consider the law "extreme."

 

[Rhomega Beta]

I haven't followed it too closely, but what's people's problem with Common Core?

I was watching the news the other morning (local Fox channel, pretty much the only channel showing news in the morning instead of the "Good Morning America"-type garbage), and there was a terrible report about how people were protesting Common Core somewhere. They talked about how there was this big controversy, and showed clips from a town hall meeting with parents saying how bad Common Core was, and that was it.

They never actually said what the controversy was. Even though they're a Fox station, they're usually decent for news, so I was kind of surprised at the shoddiness of the story. I tried doing a little digging on my own, but all I could find about Common Core that would approach a controversy were some poorly worded math problems and the fact that <gasp> it teaches climate change and evolution as scientific fact.

Is that it, or is there more that people are complaining about?

Here's a 47-minute video from a professor at the University of Wisconsin

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This statement encapsulates perfectly what I've said before: the increasing polarization in this country isn't attributable solely to conservatives. Once upon a time, 20 years ago, liberals and conservatives in Congress were unanimous in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, liberals consider the law "extreme."

that's not what he said.

he said the decision was. there's a great difference there that you ignore to make a unrelated point. liberal and conservatives enacted that law for completely different reasons.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This statement encapsulates perfectly what I've said before: the increasing polarization in this country isn't attributable solely to conservatives. Once upon a time, 20 years ago, liberals and conservatives in Congress were unanimous in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, liberals consider the law "extreme."

i don't consider the law to be "extreme"

i consider a decision using that same law as justification to essentially grant religious freedoms to for-profit corporations to be extreme

 

[AntoneM]

This statement encapsulates perfectly what I've said before: the increasing polarization in this country isn't attributable solely to conservatives. Once upon a time, 20 years ago, liberals and conservatives in Congress were unanimous in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, liberals consider the law "extreme."

Find one quote of a currently elected member of the federal congress who have called the RFRA extreme, just one.

Wow we all kinda just piled on all at once. Sorry bout that Metaphoreus, that's never fun to deal with. Still, such spin is going to get called out inhere.

 

[Metaphoreus]

that's not what he said.

he said the decision was. there's a great difference there that you ignore to make a unrelated point. liberal and conservatives enacted that law for completely different reasons.

i don't consider the law to be "extreme"

i consider a decision using that same law as justification to essentially grant religious freedoms to for-profit corporations to be extreme

My mistake.

I think you're wrong, because, as Alito pointed out, protecting a corporation is about protecting the individuals involved in the corporation. And I consider the position that a person gives up the protections of a law simply by operating through a corporation to be extreme. (EDIT: I also think it's obvious that the RFRA applies to for-profit corporations, and can only shake my head at the contortions liberal commentators--and judges--have had to put themselves in to deny that. I suspect Elena Kagan would agree with me.)

Find one quote of a currently elected member of the federal congress who have called the RFRA extreme, just one.

No.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think you're wrong, because, as Alito pointed out, protecting a corporation is about protecting the individuals involved in the corporation. And I consider the position that a person gives up the protections of a law simply by operating through a corporation to be extreme.

Mitt Romney?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Mitt Romney?

Oh, come on. I'd take that kind of ribbing from someone I've never heard of on here, but you know all my arguments about corporations and what-not.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Oh, come on. I'd take that kind of ribbing from someone I've never heard of on here, but you know all my arguments about corporations and what-not.

I'm joking.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm joking.

I know.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I think you're wrong, because, as Alito pointed out, protecting a corporation is about protecting the individuals involved in the corporation. And I consider the position that a person gives up the protections of a law simply by operating through a corporation to be extreme.

then the point being contended here is whether or not, for example, Hobby Lobby's owners would lose their Free Exercise Clause protections if they were not granted an exemption from full compliance with the contraceptive mandate. based on most of the SCOTUS precedent i've seen, i don't believe that to be the case.

I also think it's obvious that the RFRA applies to for-profit corporations[...].

then in that case my contention may well be with the current text of the RFRA, because i don't find it self-evident that a corporate entity has the right to avoid full compliance with federal law just because that law may infringe on a poorly-defined religious belief of its majority shareholders.

 

[RustyNails]

why cant mitt romney go away in peace >>

 

[AntoneM]

My mistake.

I think you're wrong, because, as Alito pointed out, protecting a corporation is about protecting the individuals involved in the corporation. And I consider the position that a person gives up the protections of a law simply by operating through a corporation to be extreme.

I don't agree, if protecting a corporation were about protecting the owners (individuals involved in the corporation) then why have corporations in the first place? If the owners of a company can already be protected there is no need for corporate entities at all. The point of a corporation is to spread and limit liability. It is to separate the corporate entity from the person or people who own it. That should also have the effect of distancing the corporation from the beliefs of the owners.

 

[Metaphoreus]

then in that case my contention may well be with the current text of the RFRA, because i don't find it self-evident that a corporate entity has the right to avoid full compliance with federal law just because that law may infringe on a poorly-defined religious belief of its majority shareholders.

Well, I'll try to help:

1.) The RFRA, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, says that government shall not substantially burden a "person's" exercise of religion.

2.) The Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. 1, states that, "in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the word[] 'person' . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

The RFRA is an "Act of Congress," and the context does not indicate otherwise, so "person" as used in the RFRA, includes corporations. Of course, some, including Ginsburg, argued that the context does indicate otherwise, because it's impossible for a for-profit corporation to exercise religion. I think that's both legally and empirically false.

EDIT:

I don't agree, if protecting a corporation were about protecting the owners (individuals involved in the corporation) then why have corporations in the first place? If the owners of a company can already be protected there is no need for corporate entities at all. The point of a corporation is to spread and limit liability. It is to separate the corporate entity from the person or people who own it. That should also have the effect of distancing the corporation from the beliefs of the owners.

Here are some of Alito's examples:

When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations&#8217; financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.

The purpose of corporations and other business entities (excluding a general partnership) is to segregate business assets and liabilities from personal assets and liabilities. The purpose of giving corporations and other entities rights against the government is to make sure that a person doesn't surrender his or her rights against the government when he or she operates through a corporation or other entity. In this case, the government actually argued that nobody could challenge the HHS regulations, because (a) the only person burdened was a corporation incapable of exercising religion; and (b) the burden applied to the corporation, not the individuals who owned, operated, and financed the corporation. This elevates form over substance, because it's obvious the burden is on the real, flesh-and-blood owners and operators of the business, not some non-existent creature called a "corporation."

Of course, the Court could have held that the corporation had no RFRA rights, but the shareholders could sue for the burden on the corporation. But a few considerations counsel against this conclusion. For instance, if the shareholders are the ones with RFRA rights that can be vindicated when a corporation is subject to a law burdening the shareholder's religious exercise, then a lawsuit would have to name each and every shareholder that is party to the suit. Notice of hearings, orders, and judgment would have to be provided to each shareholder that is party to the suit. It would be an administrative nightmare. Additionally, it raises the questions of how much ownership a shareholder would have to have before he would be entitled to sue--shareholders act individually, but corporations act corporately (typically by majority vote).

 

[kehs]

Secretary of DHS on Maddow tonight.

 

[sc0la]

I mean any white person can say the n-word if they want. Just don't be surprised when you get looked at with disgust or punched in the face.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://twitter.com/chuckcjohnson/status/484488626705690626

Also irony is dead at fox

 

[PhoenixDark]

The idea of "terms of endearment" and reclaiming slurs is nothing new, yet a certain group of people act like black people are the only folks who have ever done it. Polish people might use Pollack as a term of endearment, for instance. Yet if a non-Polish person uses it, it'll be a problem.

It's amazing seeing white people still trying to dictate who can and can't say nigga/nigger. If it matters so much to you why not move to Oakland, where you can get away with saying it to black people.

 

[speculawyer]

https://twitter.com/chuckcjohnson/status/484488626705690626

Also irony is dead at fox

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[Diablos]

I mean any white person can say the n-word if they want. Just don't be surprised when you get looked at with disgust or punched in the face.

Or shot, or sued, or fired.
Real world 101: Racial slurs in public = bad idea.

lol @ Bioshock Infinite ripoff logo. I hope 2K sues Fox to hell and back.

 

[thezerofire]

The idea of "terms of endearment" and reclaiming slurs is nothing new, yet a certain group of people act like black people are the only folks who have ever done it. Polish people might use Pollack as a term of endearment, for instance. Yet if a non-Polish person uses it, it'll be a problem.

It's amazing seeing white people still trying to dictate who can and can't say nigga/nigger. If it matters so much to you why not move to Oakland, where you can get away with saying it to black people.

I wouldn't try that in Oakland personally

 

[speculawyer]

I think you're wrong, because, as Alito pointed out, protecting a corporation is about protecting the individuals involved in the corporation. And I consider the position that a person gives up the protections of a law simply by operating through a corporation to be extreme.

No limited liability then. If they want to be a person, they should lose their corporate advantage.

 

[Fuchsdh]

You've got to be kidding me.

Well, at least they made it themselves and only ripped off the idea. That counts for something, right?

 

[AntoneM]

Well, I'll try to help:

1.) The RFRA, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, says that government shall not substantially burden a "person's" exercise of religion.

2.) The Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. 1, states that, "in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the word[] 'person' . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

The RFRA is an "Act of Congress," and the context does not indicate otherwise, so "person" as used in the RFRA, includes corporations. Of course, some, including Ginsburg, argued that the context does indicate otherwise, because it's impossible for a for-profit corporation to exercise religion. I think that's both legally and empirically false.

I can't fathom how a corporation empirically exercises religion since it would have to be proved that a corporation, not the owner(s), exercised religious beliefs and that has never been done, ever.

EDIT:

Here are some of Alito's examples:



The purpose of corporations and other business entities (excluding a general partnership) is to segregate business assets and liabilities from personal assets and liabilities. The purpose of giving corporations and other entities rights against the government is to make sure that a person doesn't surrender his or her rights against the government when he or she operates through a corporation or other entity. In this case, the government actually argued that nobody could challenge the HHS regulations, because (a) the only person burdened was a corporation incapable of exercising religion; and (b) the burden applied to the corporation, not the individuals who owned, operated, and financed the corporation. This elevates form over substance, because it's obvious the burden is on the real, flesh-and-blood owners and operators of the business, not some non-existent creature called a "corporation."

That's not obvious at all, not nearly. The corporation is the one paying the employees, the corporation is the one that is providing healthcare subsidies to the employees, the owners do neither. Alito is wrong when he makes that assumption. That is all it is, and assumption, it is not fact.

Of course, the Court could have held that the corporation had no RFRA rights, but the shareholders could sue for the burden on the corporation. But a few considerations counsel against this conclusion. For instance, if the shareholders are the ones with RFRA rights that can be vindicated when a corporation is subject to a law burdening the shareholder's religious exercise, then a lawsuit would have to name each and every shareholder that is party to the suit. Notice of hearings, orders, and judgment would have to be provided to each shareholder that is party to the suit. It would be an administrative nightmare. Additionally, it raises the questions of how much ownership a shareholder would have to have before he would be entitled to sue--shareholders act individually, but corporations act corporately (typically by majority vote).

The constitution doesn't care how difficult it is to abide by it. In the present case I don't think any sort of financial burden on the shareholders was shown. Insurance companies have repeatedly stated that contraception coverage saves them money versus the costs of an undesired pregnancy. The whole issue at hand was whether the RFRA applied to corporations and I still see no evidence that a corporation is actually the people who own it rather than it's own separate entity. As a separate entity it would have to exercise religion in order for the RFRA to be triggered; something a corporation is unable to actually do. Additionally, if a corporation is not a separate entity from its owners then it is not a person and the RFRA shouldn't apply to it in the first place. The people who own a corporation were and are free to exercise their religious belief. The corporate entity is not able to do so and should not, then, be granted protection under the RFRA.

PS: this is hard to do after 4 shots of tequila. lol.

 

[sc0la]

Or shot, or sued, or fired.
Real world 101: Racial slurs in public = bad idea.

lol @ Bioshock Infinite ripoff logo. I hope 2K sues Fox to hell and back.

I have black friend who tells me it's okay if I say it in front of him. Is this a test?

For the record I don't

 

[Diablos]

I have black friend who tells me it's okay if I say it in front of him. Is this a test?

For the record I don't

He's your friend. Apples and oranges.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I have black friend who tells me it's okay if I say it in front of him. Is this a test?

For the record I don't

Ask him to swear on 2pac's grave. If he does, he's lying. If he refuses and tells you 2pac is still alive, you know he's telling the truth.

 

[Diablos]

Ask him to swear on 2pac's grave. If he does, he's lying. If he refuses and tells you 2pac is still alive, you know he's telling the truth.

:lol you would say this

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/02/mississippi_senate_battle_descends_into_madness.html

A few hours ago, the campaign of Sen. Thad Cochran -- which had (understandably) assumed the June 24 primary election to be on the books already -- held a press conference to vigorously rebut charges of fraud. For days, Tea Party activists and the campaign of Chris McDaniel had been looking at poll books for evidence of illegal crossover voting, hoping to find enough to cast doubt on the result. In the last 24 hours, the conservative election watchdog True the Vote and the defeated Tea Party umbrella group FreedomWorks had, respectively, sued on behalf of the people scouring poll books and asked for the FBI to investigate a claim that Cochran had bought votes.

The press conference went largely without incident. The same could not be said of a follow-up conference call with national reporters. At 3:46 pm ET, reporter Charles Johnson -- who had reported the "vote-buying" story, which went viral on conservative media -- tweeted the details of the call, encouraging followers to "crash it with me."

Press conference details... Crash it with me in fifteen minutes? Call is 3 PM CST Tuesday Call in number: 530-881-1000. PIN: 287517# #mssen

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 2, 2014
Around 8 minutes into the rote call, someone butted in to ask the Cochran campaign's Austin Barbour why the winner why "it was okay to harvest the votes of black people."

"I will be happy to answer any questions from any members of the media," said Barbour.

The interrupter was not done. "I'd like to know if black people were harvesting cotton, why is it okay to harvest their votes? They're not animals."

"I'm happy to answer any questions from the national media," said Barbour.

"Why did you use black people to get Cochran elected when they're not even Republicans?" asked the interrupter. "You treated them like they were idiots."

The call spiralled into insanity from there, with Barbour jumping off, reporters asking for the interrupter to ID himself (he didn't) and more crashers deploying Obama soundboards and a loop of John Vernon's immortal quote from Animal House. "The time has come for someone to put his foot down, and that foot is me."

Left with no official response or answers from Team Cochran, journalists ran to the wires with stories about the botched call. But this was only the tip of the weirdness iceberg. It baffles the Cochran campaign that Johnson, a freelance journalist with a proud conservative bent, has been able to drive a narrative in this race. I've written a couple of pieces criticizing two Johnson stories -- one 2013 piece that raised doubts on Cory Booker's residence in Newark (a story Booker's opponent called a press conference to publicize) and one 2014 piece that mistook a satirical news story for proof that a New York Times reporter had posed in Playgirl. Johnson has predicted that his critics would try to discredit him by bringing up stuff like that, so, having cleared the decks, I offer this brief guide to Johnson's Cochran reporting -- which is tweeted in what seems like real time.

1. That time he said the National Republican Senatorial Committee's spokesman is culpable in the suicide of a Tea Party leader.

Let's be honest here: The NRSC's operatives killed Mayfield with lies about his character. Brad @BDayspring should resign. #mssen

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) June 27, 2014
2. That time he defended paying for the vote-buying story.

Cochran campaign attacks me 4 paying 4 the Reverend Fielder's time. I guess they ignore David Frost paid for Nixon tape interviews. #mssen

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 1, 2014
3. That time he described his talk with an impressed FBI agent.

FBI agent on phone just asked me what I want 4 evidence I have presented. I said justice. He said 1st time journalist said that 2him. #mssen

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 1, 2014
4. That time he said Cochran will resign if McDaniel successfully challenges the election.

REPORT from credible source: Cochran is planning to resign if a special election is called.. #mssen

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 2, 2014
5. That time he made a Breaking Bad reference to shame Cochran's spokesman.

"Say my name" @jlrussell31 -- Heisenberg #mssen #BreakingBad https://t.co/1IOwjiBjJV

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 2, 2014
6. That time he said "bring it on, bitches" to Team Cochran.

Paid liar Jordan Russell threats me w/ lawsuit; I say 'bring it on b*tches' to @mboyle1 #mssen http://t.co/vsorTICE3t pic.twitter.com/JVpn8iqVnK

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 2, 2014
7. That time he said he could have run the Romney campaign better than Cochran's strategist.

You know you'd like to see me run the Romney campaign against Obama. Stuart Stevens who? #mssen

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) July 2, 2014

Johnson cannot be cowed; he frequently names his critics and laughs at the idea they would ever sue him. This is the driving force in the Mississippi Senate race's aftermath.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I can't fathom how a corporation empirically exercises religion since it would have to be proved that a corporation, not the owner(s), exercised religious beliefs and that has never been done, ever.

Of course, but we attribute the acts of the agents of the corporation to the corporation. Every act attributed to a corporation was not in fact done by the corporation, because corporations don't exist in the real world--they exist only "in contemplation of law." Instead, such acts were done by some real live human being acting on behalf of the corporation. So, there's no problem attributing the religious observances of corporate agents to the corporation--such as closing on Sundays, opening meetings with prayer, refusing to carry alcohol, giving to charities, and so forth.

That's not obvious at all, not nearly. The corporation is the one paying the employees, the corporation is the one that is providing healthcare subsidies to the employees, the owners do neither. Alito is wrong when he makes that assumption. That is all it is, and assumption, it is not fact.

The name of the corporation may appear on the check, but the corporation doesn't pay the employees without the physical acts of living human administrators. If you require a corporation to pay employees in aborted fetuses, you're not imposing a requirement on some nonhuman creature who can't object--you're imposing the requirement on the people who own and operate the business of the corporation. Nothing could be more plain than that they may object.

The constitution doesn't care how difficult it is to abide by it. In the present case I don't think any sort of financial burden on the shareholders was shown. Insurance companies have repeatedly stated that contraception coverage saves them money versus the costs of an undesired pregnancy. The whole issue at hand was whether the RFRA applied to corporations and I still see no evidence that a corporation is actually the people who own it rather than it's own separate entity. As a separate entity it would have to exercise religion in order for the RFRA to be triggered; something a corporation is unable to actually do. Additionally, if a corporation is not a separate entity from its owners then it is not a person and the RFRA shouldn't apply to it in the first place. The people who own a corporation were and are free to exercise their religious belief. The corporate entity is not able to do so and should not, then, be granted protection under the RFRA.

I don't understand your first sentence. The Constitution isn't an issue here. The question is simply whether we adopt a convenient legal fiction (that the corporation is a person that exists apart from its owners and has its own rights), or not (and recognize that we're talking about a group of individuals, with their own individual and group rights). What doesn't make sense is to say that a corporation is a person without rights. Because then you place the property and business of the corporation at the mercy of the government, who may do with and to them as they please, with no limits. Nobody would accept that bargain.

No limited liability then. If they want to be a person, they should lose their corporate advantage.

I've said before that this is a bargain that's never been struck in American law. I'll add that it shouldn't be, either. There's no logical connection between a corporation being a person with rights and having separate assets and liabilities from its shareholders. We're not talking about a veil-piercing scenario, where the shareholders ignore the separateness of corporate finances and then demand a court to respect them. We're talking about people who, because they sincerely believe in a religion, infuse every aspect of their lives with their beliefs, yet still respect the financial separateness of their corporation. And, as I said above, nobody would accept that bargain, which is bad if you see limited liability as beneficial to economic development.

 

[RustyNails]

Ask him to swear on 2pac's grave. If he does, he's lying. If he refuses and tells you 2pac is still alive, you know he's telling the truth.

:lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-usa-economy-employment-adp-idUSKBN0F716E20140702

(Reuters) - U.S. private payrolls recorded their largest gain in 1-1/2 years in June as businesses stepped up hiring, reinforcing views the economy has rebounded from its first-quarter slump.

Private employers added 281,000 workers to payrolls, up from 179,000 in May, payrolls processor ADP said on Wednesday. June's gains, which topped economists' expectations for an increase of only 200,000 jobs, was the largest since November 2012.

Coming a day before the release of the government's comprehensive employment report for June, the ADP report increased the likelihood of another month of strong nonfarm payrolls growth, economists said.

ADP is rarely the same as the BLS's numbers (there's no pattern to them being off by a certain amount, it's just random either way), but they do tend to track together - when ADP is up MOM, so is the BLS report. Job gains last month were 217k.

 

[RustyNails]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-usa-economy-employment-adp-idUSKBN0F716E20140702


ADP is rarely the same as the BLS's numbers (there's no pattern to them being off by a certain amount, it's just random either way), but they do tend to track together - when ADP is up MOM, so is the BLS report. Job gains last month were 217k.

Bad news for you know who.

But still, I predicted Obama's approval ratings would have pegged the unemployment rate/job growth. I was wrong on that count. I need to have even lower standards for Americans.

 

[speculawyer]

I've said before that this is a bargain that's never been struck in American law. I'll add that it shouldn't be, either. There's no logical connection between a corporation being a person with rights and having separate assets and liabilities from its shareholders. We're not talking about a veil-piercing scenario, where the shareholders ignore the separateness of corporate finances and then demand a court to respect them. We're talking about people who, because they sincerely believe in a religion, infuse every aspect of their lives with their beliefs, yet still respect the financial separateness of their corporation. And, as I said above, nobody would accept that bargain, which is bad if you see limited liability as beneficial to economic development.

A corporation has never had a religion in the history of mankind either so a 'this bargain has never happened before' isn't an argument.

They don't have to accept the deal. They can either accept it or they stash their money in a bank or in a mattress or whatever. But if they are going to employ fellow citizens they should not be able to enforce their personal superstitious views on those fellow citizens.

I'm still astounded though how people are willing to bow down to the superstitious beliefs of the 1%. Just a bunch of serfs following the superstitions of the King. How pathetic. Get off your knees.

 

[AntoneM]

Of course, but we attribute the acts of the agents of the corporation to the corporation. Every act attributed to a corporation was not in fact done by the corporation, because corporations don't exist in the real world--they exist only "in contemplation of law." Instead, such acts were done by some real live human being acting on behalf of the corporation. So, there's no problem attributing the religious observances of corporate agents to the corporation--such as closing on Sundays, opening meetings with prayer, refusing to carry alcohol, giving to charities, and so forth.

Then why limit it to closely held corporation, if the decision maker (CEO) of a corporation ascribes to a religion that believes that some types of contraception violates his/her religious beliefs should not that corporation (despite what the stock holders voted since they continue to hold stock and thus agree with the CEO) be afforded the same rights as a closely held corporation in your standard?

The name of the corporation may appear on the check, but the corporation doesn't pay the employees without the physical acts of living human administrators. If you require a corporation to pay employees in aborted fetuses, you're not imposing a requirement on some nonhuman creature who can't object--you're imposing the requirement on the people who own and operate the business of the corporation. Nothing could be more plain than that they may object.

The physical acts of living human beings also pay military contractors and I don't think we want to down that slope of whether an employee of a company who is a military contractor can be fired for not doing their job due to religious reasons related to pacifism and not killing their fellow man.

As absurd and cruel as this sounds... if the US currency was aborted fetuses then no, a company can still deal in trade under current law. It is up to the corporation to decide if it wants to engage in the aborted fetuses economy or the trade economy. Unless you were to propose that the nation remove itself from the aborted fetuses standard which would require an act of congress.

I don't understand your first sentence. The Constitution isn't an issue here. The question is simply whether we adopt a convenient legal fiction (that the corporation is a person that exists apart from its owners and has its own rights), or not (and recognize that we're talking about a group of individuals, with their own individual and group rights).

The constitution is at issue and the constitution doesn't give a damn whether it is costly or difficult to abide by it. The RFRA must be found to adhere to the constitution, thus, the constitution is at play.

IWhat doesn't make sense is to say that a corporation is a person without rights. Because then you place the property and business of the corporation at the mercy of the government, who may do with and to them as they please, with no limits. Nobody would accept that bargain.

If the corporation is not an individual with its own rights then the shareholders of the corporation may be charged with all sorts of crimes that the corporation is liable for. I don't think that is what you want.

If the corporation is individual with it's own rights it must necessarily practice a religion in order to fall under the protections of the RFRA. We both agree that a corporation is not capable of practicing a religion. Therefore, the court's decision is wrong.

II've said before that this is a bargain that's never been struck in American law. I'll add that it shouldn't be, either. There's no logical connection between a corporation being a person with rights and having separate assets and liabilities from its shareholders. We're not talking about a veil-piercing scenario, where the shareholders ignore the separateness of corporate finances and then demand a court to respect them. We're talking about people who, because they sincerely believe in a religion, infuse every aspect of their lives with their beliefs, yet still respect the financial separateness of their corporation. And, as I said above, nobody would accept that bargain, which is bad if you see limited liability as beneficial to economic development.

I'm sorry, but, In this case Hobby Lobby is exactly asking the court to ignore that Hobby Lobby is covering part of the insurance premium for it's employees rather than the shareholders covering the insurance premiums and then asked the court to recognize the religion of the shareholders is being violated because the corporation, not the shareholders, is paying for contraception that the shareholders do not agree with.

How can a corporation be a person with its own rights and NOT have separate assets from its owners? Are you suggesting that all shareholders of any corporation declare the corporation as a dependent on their taxes?

I still fail to see how including birth control in an insurance policy has anything to do with the financial separateness.

 

[Metaphoreus]

A corporation has never had a religion in the history of mankind either so a 'this bargain has never happened before' isn't an argument.

They don't have to accept the deal. They can either accept it or they stash their money in a bank or in a mattress or whatever. But if they are going to employ fellow citizens they should not be able to enforce their personal superstitious views on those fellow citizens.

I'm still astounded though how people are willing to bow down to the superstitious beliefs of the 1%. Just a bunch of serfs following the superstitions of the King. How pathetic. Get off your knees.

Ugh. Did you seriously type that last paragraph? And then post it? I'm embarrassed for you. For real. My face. So red right now.

As to your first paragraph, that's not true, except in the pedantic sense in which corporations do and have nothing (because they don't exist). But incorporated churches obviously have a religion. As do many non-profit organizations that aren't churches. And they have for a long time. I'm not sure whether its true that for-profit corporations have never claimed a religion, but I also don't see why that matters. It could be that they've never needed to make a legal claim to holding a religion to protect the rights of shareholders (or others) to operate the corporation consistent with their religious beliefs. And, again, I see no logical connection between a corporation having a religion--even the religion of the shareholders--and still enjoying a separate (fictional) existence.

Regarding your second, that's a different matter entirely. You now appear to be saying that, not only can corporations not enjoy the protections of the RFRA, but neither can sole proprietors if they employ other people. Am I just misreading you?

 

[Gotchaye]

I think it's pretty clear that corporations can have values. We have no problem talking about "evil" corporations. We have no problem talking about "corporate responsibility". Non-profit corporations are clearly aimed at some purpose besides making money, and many of them are aimed at explicitly religious purposes, so any argument that rests on the impossibility of something like a corporate entity exercising a religious belief has to deal with that. So I feel like that's probably the wrong place to object to the ruling. It seems to me that there are two things which are easier to find fault with.

First, there's the weird "maybe this doesn't apply to blood transfusions or vaccinations" bit. Now, of course the Court often doesn't decide issues that aren't in front of it, but it needed to talk about this some more for a few reasons. It's not clear that this is a different issue. It'd certainly raise eyebrows if the Court found that some white man had had his civil rights violated and the majority made sure to caveat the decision with "we're not saying you couldn't do this to a woman". We'd want some discussion of what potential differences they see there. Now suppose the decision was 5-4 with 5 men on one side and 4 women on the other. So, back to Hobby Lobby, it's really important that they do discuss this because this ends up looking an awful lot like privileging a particular set of religious beliefs. And I don't mean that just in the "appearance of corruption" sense of "looks like" - I mean that plausibly the Court really is privileging a particular set of religious beliefs here, and they have a responsibility to think through how they'd treat claims coming from other religious traditions in order to make sure that they're not doing that.

But the part I have a particular problem with is the finding that the insurance mandate constitutes a "substantial burden". This is really indirect. To cash this out in terms of what we're actually requiring of individual humans whose consciences might be offended, the owners of Hobby Lobby have to pay some employees. These employees spend some of their working time managing the company's health insurance plans. Even if Hobby Lobby self-insures in a very thorough way with no outsourcing to other companies, that means some of them will spend some time negotiating for prices on contraception. Other employees will set up automated systems which pay out when various claims are made, where maybe one person will at one time have to manually enter the payment schedule for contraception. Probably almost all of this is outsourced. Some employees will have to pass out or email around information about company health insurance plans which includes mention of contraception. And so on. I just don't see how any of this constitutes a significant burden on the religious practice of the five-ish people at the top who would maybe have to spend five minutes total on this. It seems to me to be just about identical to the burden on them of having some taxes go to things they don't like or of having some of an employee's salary go to things they don't like. Edit: I mean, fundamentally, that last thing is the objection. The people at the top don't want to be paying people who spend some of their working time making it easier for others to access contraception. Edit2: Paying people who pay other people, that is. And possibly the chain is longer than that even.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Why do so many white people want to use the n-word

To quote Paul Mooney, "The black man in America is the most copied man on this planet, bar none. Everybody wanna be a nigga, but nobody wanna be a nigga."

 

[B-Dubs]

Ask him to swear on 2pac's grave. If he does, he's lying. If he refuses and tells you 2pac is still alive, you know he's telling the truth.

:lol

To quote Paul Mooney, "The black man in America is the most copied man on this planet, bar none. Everybody wanna be a nigga, but nobody wanna be a nigga."

Wayne Brady makes Bryant Gumble look like Malcom X.

EDIT: The scary part is he got two of those predictions half right.