Discussion for article #247694
But with Senate Republicans vowing a blockade of President Obamaâs nominee Merrick Garland, the filling of that ninth seat could take well over a year.
âŚand OH what fun will transpire during this time period. Iâm not sure it will turn out quote as hoped by those who see obstruction as the best way to get their way these daysâŚYeah, weâre looking at you Sen. Toomey and all your âletâs let the people decideâ buddies.
With any luck, their decision will have you out of office within the same year.
6 Likes
I donât get why the media isnât focusing on the colossal waste of time and money it is to litigate something in front of the Supreme Court and get no decision because of a split.
3 Likes
would someone PLEASE file a lawsuit against these âcharitableâ organizations over their tax exemptions⌠I use the term âcharitableâ with some ambivalence because I realize that there are actual people doing really good work on the margins but whe they allow themselves to be what appear to be sacrificial pawns in a long game to curtail someone elseâs rights it kinda rubs the wrong wayâŚ
if Iâm agnostic or atheist I donât get any tax break⌠sorta like when the marriage and kid deductions were grossly inequitable against single peopleâŚ
6 Likes
Because that ratfuck Scalia is pushinâ up daisies.
Thatâs why theyâre upbeat.
2 Likes
Companies that object to contraception coverage probably have generous maternity/paternity leave benefits. Not.
1 Like
Is this the case where theyâre complaining that actually having to fill out a form saying theyâre opting out of contraceptive coverage infringes their religious liberty because the government should be able to look into their souls or something?
What would be really cool (since stare decisis died even before Scalia) is if they got Kennedy to sign on, and then wrote an opinion that said Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided, and that companies asserting religious beliefs had to give up limited liability for their owners.
6 Likes
TPM:
When they were anticipating a nine-justice court, those supporting the government were optimistic that Kennedy would rule in favor of Obamacare this time around and that optimism carries over now that Scaliaâs death deprives the conservative bloc a crucial vote.
Iâm thinking this one comes out 6-2, in favor of the govât. Roberts may not be a supporter of birth control or the ACA, but I canât see him supporting attempts to undermine the minimal process required to let organizations opt out of covering birth control and shifting responsibility for it to the govât & insurance companies.
3 Likes
I LIKE this! If a corporation is a Person under the law, it isnât a Limited Liability Person. Something like 3/5âs of a person . . . .
Kid exemptions and credits have been pretty high since the GWB administration, but the IRS wonât care if you are an agnostic or atheist if you want to form a church. They have a checklist for what determines whether an organization is or isnât a church, but is extremely reluctant to challenge your interpretation of the items on the checklist. Refer to John Oliverâs great series of pieces where he takes a look at televangelists and decides to create his own church.
1 Like
Donât think they can stop what is on the docket alreadyâŚ
They say that even filling out the form claiming a religious objection to covering birth control â and thus triggering the process for employees to receive contraceptive coverage from outside their employersâ insurance plans â is a burden on their religious beliefs, as they oppose some of forms of birth control covered by the law.
Yeah. I donât get that.
Pick up the fucking pen and quit pretending the devil made you do it. Better women get their reproductive care somewhere else anyway seeing how youâd find other excuses eventually for not providing those services through your church affiliated healthcare provider.
Plus, the churchâs busy-body approach to all womenâs healthcare decisions, not even necessarily of their own faith, is the final straw-man to their argument. They have no right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, but since theyâre able to get away with thatâŚsign the fucking form releasing yourselves of that responsibility and leave your religious views out of it. Allow our secular civil society, from where most of your employees live their day to day lives, get their needs met elsewhere.
We donât have a national religion in this country, where any one church or denomination should get to decide who should be provided what, when and how when it comes to an individual personâs right toward their own healthcare.
4 Likes
Am I missing something? The RFRA is not a Constitutional principle, just a statute, like Obamacare. So what if Obmacare âviolatesâ (contradicts) the RFRA? When that happens, doesnât the later statute (Obamacare) take precedence?
Pig Man is gone; whatever happens the world is better off.
Quick! Somebody tell The Little Sisterâs of the Poor that even Pope Francis is on board with birth control to combat the Zika virus.
1 Like
Something I have never understood about the RFRA: if I am a Thug and my religion requires me to periodically murder some stranger by strangulation, does the RFRA protect my actions?
Rhetorical question, of course, but what is the distinction between ritual murder and any other act the RFRA might, um, bless? If the answer is anywhere along the lines of âIt doesnât protect what is otherwise patently illegal,â then . . . ?
2 Likes
Letâs step away from your thug religion and posit the same question to established religion.
How do the right wing christian fundamentalists reconcile their avid support of RFRA with the right wing obsession with banning Shariâa law? Do Wahhabis or Salafis who incorporate violent jihad into their sincerely held religious beliefs get a free pass?
The Becket Fund and their fellow travelers in the drive to create a theocracy have turned RFRA on its head, from a statute intended to insulate an individual who is practicing a religious rite from prosecution under a law of general application (the use of peyote) to an instrument to force the precepts of fundamental Christianity on non-believers.
3 Likes
Personally, I donât get the religious exception. If you hire someone, you are required to pay a certain amount and provide particular benefits. If thatâs too hard because of your hateful ideology, you should not be allowed to hire people.
We may be on to something hereâŚ
If filling out the opt-out form is a burden on their free exercise, so is this damn lawsuit.