d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Monday Scotus Roundup
Prev1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 22,442
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 76.11
Jul 8 2020 05:36pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jul 8 2020 07:14am)
final decision for today, and its the related case Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.
majority is written by Judge Thomas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf

it is the "religious exception to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate" case;





and




so the roundup for today:

1) Religious employers may not be sued for employment discrimination under the ministerial exception
2) Private employers may cite a religious or moral objection to not be required to provide contraception / equivalent coverage to employees as otherwise required by Obamacare


And all of this would be better resolved if healthcare and employment weren't linked together in the US.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jul 8 2020 06:05pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jul 8 2020 06:14pm)
Do we have a link for where it says that?

/e In other words... how do you force an elector to be faithful. You can easily punish them for being unfaithful.


Its in the ruling. Google it, ita easy to find the actual ruling.

You can legally change their vote since votes are public for electors.
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
Jul 8 2020 07:06pm
The Constitution was shat upon today.
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Jul 9 2020 03:41am
Quote (Ghot @ Jul 8 2020 06:00pm)
The ruling says that unfaithful electors can be punished. It DOESN'T say they can be forced to be faithful electors.

I think that was a good ruling. Decided right between a rock and a hard spot.



/e Ruling that electors could be unfaithful with NO repercussions, would be a disaster. The bidding for electors would start instantly and continue till they were bought off.


Electors have to win their own elections at party conventions, FWIW.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
Jul 9 2020 05:11am
Quote (Handcuffs @ Jul 8 2020 07:36pm)
And all of this would be better resolved if healthcare and employment weren't linked together in the US.


This is stupid but reinforces the large urban underclass that capitalist rely in to keep wages as low as can be possible for all other workers.

Without a maintained urban underclass of cheap disposable labor we would all be worth more in the labor market and be a more expensive factor of production, bad your owners and shareholders.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Jul 9 2020 05:22am
Quote (Skinned @ Jul 9 2020 07:11am)
This is stupid but reinforces the large urban underclass that capitalist rely in to keep wages as low as can be possible for all other workers.

Without a maintained urban underclass of cheap disposable labor we would all be worth more in the labor market and be a more expensive factor of production, bad your owners and shareholders.



Is that really the case, though? I'd be interested to know what jobs they're competing for.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
Jul 9 2020 05:27am
Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 9 2020 07:22am)
Is that really the case, though? I'd be interested to know what jobs they're competing for.


No matter the particular job, wages across the board are a web, or spectrum, and the lower the min is the lower they drag across the board.

As minimum wage has gone up so have other wages across the board in restaurant work, construction, most service jobs, etc. This isn't related to inflation, because if minimum wage was tied to inflation it would be over 20/hr ar this point as shown by many studies of this. And the concrete finisher is paid relative to his wages as an unskilled laborer that he was started as. A raise from a higher number is better mathematically.

Having so many highly disposable workers has been the biggest safeguard to rising wages among our servants.

I imagine some stupid people will read this, be really concrete operational, and think it only affects burger flippers. It affects them.

Also more money being expended grows the economy. If fast food workers have more money them they won't qualify for medicaid, which is how a lot of business is being subsidized by the government. You have all americans who get insurance through work, but certain people don't have to do that and they get the government to cover that cost of business for them.

How big is medicaid and how many people on it are employeed by a fortune 500 company that is basically on welfare to keep its enployees healthy? Why can't McDonalds afford health insurance for workers? They're making billions of dollars a day off of them.

If social workers and nurses weren't paying for the health insurance of those they serve they would have more money for example.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 9 2020 05:37am
Member
Posts: 50,914
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jul 9 2020 07:57am
First decision will be up in 3 minutes
Member
Posts: 50,914
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jul 9 2020 08:03am
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

Held: For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the
19th century remains “Indian country.”

"Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word."

5-4 decision, Gorsuch writes for the majority
The Gorsuch opinion is joined by RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito and Kavanaugh in full and by Thomas except for a footnote. Thomas also filed his own dissenting opinion.

This means the tribes+liberal bloc wins, oklahoma+conservative bloc loses. With Gorsuch siding with the tribes, as he has in prior cases during his time in lower courts

Trump subpoenas will be decided in 2 minutes from now

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jul 9 2020 08:08am
Member
Posts: 50,914
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jul 9 2020 08:11am
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

Trump vs Vance

Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.


ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll