• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices, Seeking Compromise, Return Contraception Case to Lower Courts

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, in an unsigned unanimous opinion, announced on Monday that it would not rule in a major case on access to contraception, and instructed lower courts to explore whether a compromise was possible.

The ruling was the latest indication that the eight-member Supreme Court is exploring every avenue to avoid 4-to-4 deadlocks, even if the resulting action does not decide the question the justices had agreed to address.

Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.

This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?

Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Supreme Court should not be a retirement nursing home. 65 and out.

Yea! And the same should be true of Presidents!

Oh **** - that means both Trump and Hillary are disqualified.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.

This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?

Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.

Article is here.

While this is just another sign of the need to appoint a new justice to the court such that these types of weak precedent (or non-precedent) can be avoided, I am at least encouraged to see that the Court is being creative in their attempt to push for a solution that has a slightly more lasting and widespread impact when compared to a mere 4-4 decision.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
4,837
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.

This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?

Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.

Article is here.

Kennedy was the only Justice who mattered in this case before and after Scalia's death.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,486
Reaction score
33,551
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yea! And the same should be true of Presidents!

Oh **** - that means both Trump and Hillary are disqualified.

And Sanders. We'd have to start the election all over again.
Come to think if it, that might not be such a bad idea.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
39,472
Reaction score
17,666
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.

This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?

Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.

Article is here.

This strikes me as a good outcome. There is no reason why some compromise cant be reached on this that allows both for the general principles of the law and a religious exemption.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,512
Reaction score
6,238
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Supreme Court should not be a retirement nursing home. 65 and out.

In Canada our limit is 75 years of age at which point justices must retire. Though for our court it means we will not see a lot of retiring till the 2030s.
 

Citizen.Seven

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
718
Political Leaning
Libertarian
While this is just another sign of the need to appoint a new justice to the court such that these types of weak precedent (or non-precedent) can be avoided, I am at least encouraged to see that the Court is being creative in their attempt to push for a solution that has a slightly more lasting and widespread impact when compared to a mere 4-4 decision.

Either the law is constitutional, or it is not. If the ACA trumps religious freedom, then all they need to do is say so or, if they can't determine that due to a split, then lower court rulings should stand. "Crafting a solution" is legislating from the bench.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
421
Location
Palatine, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why? Do you think the job is too strenuous for the older folks?

You bet. When a guy is 75, every bone and muscle hurts. The longer you sit, the more it hurts.

You hear constant ringing in your head.

Every 15 minutes is pee pee time. Every 4 hours is nap time.

And, as he is listening to all that legal mambo jumbo going on for what seems forever, he is thinking about his house on the beach in Florida, and how few years he has left to enjoy it with his grandkids.

Then, just to be done, they give us Roe.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,990
Reaction score
51,926
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You bet. When a guy is 75, every bone and muscle hurts. The longer you sit, the more it hurts.

You hear constant ringing in your head.

Every 15 minutes is pee pee time. Every 4 hours is nap time.

And, as he is listening to all that legal mambo jumbo going on for what seems forever, he is thinking about his house on the beach in Florida, and how few years he has left to enjoy it with his grandkids.

Then, just to be done, they give us Roe.

How much discomfort depends on the person, and varies a great deal, from none to intense. Age is not the determining factor.

Most people, even old people, have a longer attention span than you seem to. Age is not what determines attention span.

For those who have studied the law, it is not "mambo jumbo".
 

Winchester

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
6,277
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You bet. When a guy is 75, every bone and muscle hurts. The longer you sit, the more it hurts.

You hear constant ringing in your head.

Every 15 minutes is pee pee time. Every 4 hours is nap time.

And, as he is listening to all that legal mambo jumbo going on for what seems forever, he is thinking about his house on the beach in Florida, and how few years he has left to enjoy it with his grandkids.

Then, just to be done, they give us Roe.

Yeah tell that to my folks. They'll get back from vacation in a week and a half, my guess is they've hiked over 200 miles during the last month, I know a couple of them have been 12+ miles with significant elevation gains. Granted they're only 74 though. :2razz:
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
421
Location
Palatine, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yeah tell that to my folks. They'll get back from vacation in a week and a half, my guess is they've hiked over 200 miles during the last month, I know a couple of them have been 12+ miles with significant elevation gains. Granted they're only 74 though. :2razz:

Hiking is fun and actually good for them. Sitting at the desk for 8 hours is torture. Say hi to them.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
421
Location
Palatine, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How much discomfort depends on the person, and varies a great deal, from none to intense. Age is not the determining factor.

Most people, even old people, have a longer attention span than you seem to. Age is not what determines attention span.

For those who have studied the law, it is not "mambo jumbo".

Are you starting "your age is how you feel - not just subtracting two numbers" movement?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,990
Reaction score
51,926
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Are you starting "your age is how you feel - not just subtracting two numbers" movement?

Funny, I did not say anything like that. I said that a person's physical and mental wellbeing is determined by factors other than age.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
4,837
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Either the law is constitutional, or it is not. If the ACA trumps religious freedom, then all they need to do is say so or, if they can't determine that due to a split, then lower court rulings should stand. "Crafting a solution" is legislating from the bench.

An exemption for the mandate is being offered, but those who wish to apply for one have to notify the government of their conscientious objection by filling out a form. The Little Sisters are conscientiously objecting to conscientiously objecting by refusing to fill out the form on the grounds that it would lead to another party (i.e. the Government) doing something they don't agree with on religious grounds. All the Supreme Court is suggesting is that the Government and Little Sisters work out a way to document and communicate their objection for the purpose of applying for an exemption. Religious freedom isn't even an issue in this case and the Little Sisters don't even have one. This is about paperwork and the Supreme Court was probably right in punting it.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The justices know that the government doesn't have the power to force people to purchase a product they don't want. They're trying to distance themselves from Obamacare so they don't get splashed with **** when it goes bellyup.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
4,837
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The justices know that the government doesn't have the power to force people to purchase a product they don't want. They're trying to distance themselves from Obamacare so they don't get splashed with **** when it goes bellyup.

No one is being forced to purchase a product in this case.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No one is being forced to purchase a product in this case.

There's no mandate to purchase insurance under Obamacare? When did that get changed?
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
4,837
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There's no mandate to purchase insurance under Obamacare? When did that get changed?

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court already decided that the mandate is Constitutional. That was four years ago. This case is about the exemption process for contraceptive/birth control coverage.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In case you missed it, the Supreme Court already decided that the mandate is Constitutional. That was four years ago. This case is about the exemption process for contraceptive/birth control coverage.

It's an illegal ruling. The court knows that and now they're trying to keep their hands as clean as possible.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
4,837
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's an illegal ruling. The court knows that and now they're trying to keep their hands as clean as possible.

No, the authors of the law were just clever enough to write it in such a way that it passes Constitutional muster. There's no Constitutionally outlined limit on Congress' power to levy taxes. You are not being forced to purchase a product. You are choosing to purchase a product in exchange for a tax exemption.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, the authors of the law were just clever enough to write it in such a way that it passes Constitutional muster. There's no Constitutionally outlined limit on Congress' power to levy taxes. You are not being forced to purchase a product. You are choosing to purchase a product in exchange for a tax exemption.

No, The authors of the law used, "tax", which makes the law unconstitutional. John Roberts said it isn't a tax, but a "fee", which makes the law constitutional, all of a sudden.

You may praise the authors of the law as being clever, but they're too stupid to know that only The House can levee taxes.
 
Top Bottom