Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Jun '14 18:32
    I think I hear crickets chirping.
  2. 30 Jun '14 18:58
    SCOTUS making a mockery of itself again - business as usual.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '14 19:04
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I think I hear crickets chirping.
    This is no surprise but a limited ruling based on a rather absurd reading of a statute.
  4. 30 Jun '14 19:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    SCOTUS making a mockery of itself again - business as usual.
    Funny how it is the law when it sides with liberals, but it is making a mockery of itself when it stands up for an individuals Constitutional rights.
  5. 30 Jun '14 19:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This is no surprise but a limited ruling based on a rather absurd reading of a statute.
    Not a surprise? I thought you said that Hobby Lobby had no case.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '14 19:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Not a surprise? I thought you said that Hobby Lobby had no case.
    It's not a surprise that Hobby Lobby won a 5-4 narrow decision based on the ideological make up of this Court. That's pretty much what most legal observers had expected. Kennedy's concurrence makes rather clear that this is about as far as he is willing to go, however.
  7. 30 Jun '14 19:19
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Funny how it is the law when it sides with liberals, but it is making a mockery of itself when it stands up for an individuals Constitutional rights.
    The only way SCOTUS could side with me is by abolishing itself.
  8. 30 Jun '14 19:19
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's not a surprise that Hobby Lobby won a 5-4 narrow decision based on the ideological make up of this Court. That's pretty much what most legal observers had expected. Kennedy's concurrence makes rather clear that this is about as far as he is willing to go, however.
    So now you are saying two things:

    1) Hobby Lobby did have a case and people do have the right to make money and hold religious beliefs.

    2)Judges do not determine what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional based on what the Constitution says, but according to the ideological beliefs of the judges themselves.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '14 19:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    So now you are saying two things:

    1) Hobby Lobby did have a case and people do have the right to make money and hold religious beliefs.

    2)Judges do not determine what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional based on what the Constitution says, but according to the ideological beliefs of the judges themselves.
    I am saying that the SCOTUS made a ruling that I disagree with. It has done so in the past and will surely do so in the future.

    The case did not involve the Constitution; it was decided solely on the SCOTUS' interpretation of a law passed by Congress in 1993.
  10. 30 Jun '14 19:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I am saying that the SCOTUS made a ruling that I disagree with. It has done so in the past and will surely do so in the future.

    The case did not involve the Constitution; it was decided solely on the SCOTUS' interpretation of a law passed by Congress in 1993.
    I thought that the Supreme Court could only rule on laws based on Constitutionality. I thought the decision was that people who own small businesses have a Constitutional right to put their religious beliefs into practice.

    But I'm sure you don't see it that way, even if that was what the judges said in their decision.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '14 19:27
    As I understand the ruling, what it will essentially do is require HHS to make a rule treating closely held corporations which have "religious objections" to the contraception mandate to be treated the same as religious non-profits that do. This means that insurance companies will have to bear the full costs of contraception services of those insureds' employees without cost sharing of any kind. See p. 43 of the decision: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/06/30/13-354_olp1.pdf?hpt=hp_c2

    I'm sure that will make the insurance companies very happy.
  12. 30 Jun '14 19:31
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As I understand the ruling, what it will essentially do is require HHS to make a rule treating closely held corporations which have "religious objections" to the contraception mandate to be treated the same as religious non-profits that do. This means that insurance companies will have to bear the full costs of contraception services of those insureds' e ...[text shortened]... _olp1.pdf?hpt=hp_c2

    I'm sure that will make the insurance companies very happy.
    I don't think what you wrote negates what I said in the last post.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '14 19:32
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I thought that the Supreme Court could only rule on laws based on Constitutionality. I thought the decision was that people who own small businesses have a Constitutional right to put their religious beliefs into practice.

    But I'm sure you don't see it that way, even if that was what the judges said in their decision.
    You may read the decision and it will correct your erroneous impression. The SCOTUS also rules on disputed interpretations of Federal laws. Even in that context it expressly disavowed doing what you thought they did on p. 46:

    Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '14 19:33
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I don't think what you wrote negates what I said in the last post.
    You have a closed mind. Please read the post following your last one.
  15. 30 Jun '14 19:36
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You may read the decision and it will correct your erroneous impression. The SCOTUS also rules on disputed interpretations of Federal laws. Even in that context it expressly disavowed doing what you thought they did on p. 46:

    Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs.
    You are grasping for straws. Perhaps you can should go back and read what I said and respond to what I said. Quit trying to change the subject.

    The subject is a person who wants to open a business to make money.