SCOTUS decisions and what the future may hold.......

mickeyrat

Novel idea as a counter to certain legislation put forth in various states.....

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/29/satanists-respond-to-hobby-lobby-decision-by-asserting-religious-exemption-from-informed-consent-abortion-laws

Satanists Respond to Hobby Lobby Decision by Asserting Religious Exemption from "Informed Consent" Abortion Laws
Posted by Anna Minard on Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM

shutterstock_134000666.jpg

Edouard Coleman/Shutterstock.com

Citing some of their central religious tenets, the Satanic Temple has just offered what is probably the most creative response yet to the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby ruling: A letter women can give to their doctors to express their "deeply held belief" that they shouldn't be subject to state-mandated information sessions before receiving abortions. They're coming at the freshly empowered religious anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement from a powerful place—a religious pro-choice, pro-bodily-autonomy movement. (Did you not ever think of this possibility, right-wing brainiacs???)

Two of their religion's Seven Fundamental Tenets apply here, the Satanic Temple says in a recent announcement: first, that "one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone," and second, that "beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world." State laws regarding what information must be shared with patients before abortion procedures can vary, and are often designed to discourage women from getting abortions—from the mild (information about adoption) to the dramatic (sonograms and descriptions of the fetus, scientifically dubious claims about fetal pain). Don't see how handing out pamphlets about fetal development or forcing pregnant women to get another ultrasound could ever be a problem? Read Texan Carolyn Jones's experience with her state's sonogram law.

“While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling," says Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves via press release, "the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact." Because of the "respect the Court has given to religious beliefs," Greaves says they expect that members of their church and others with the same beliefs are now clearly exempt from receiving that state-mandated information (which they refer to as "political information" in their letter). More from the Satanic Temple's website:

An increasing number of states have passed "informed consent" laws, requiring that women seeking abortions be subjected to state-mandated informational materials that are often false or misleading. We believe that personal decisions should be made with reference to only the best available, scientifically valid information. If you are a woman seeking an abortion who shares these deeply held beliefs, please print the letter below to present to your care-provider, informing him/her that you are to be exempted from receiving "informed consent" materials.

An example from the letter: "This letter constitutes my acknowledgment that you have offered Political Information to me. I reject that Political Information because it offends my sincerely held religious beliefs."

And there you go! A most interesting chapter of 2014. Craft store corporation becomes legally religious, and Satanists start asserting their religious exemptions. Oh, and clergy start handing out condoms at craft stores, among other responses. I wish the Supreme Court had gone the other way in that decision, but the various avenues of backlash are still pretty fascinating to watch.

Oh, and if you wanted to donate to the Satanic Temple? "Please note that The Satanic Temple believes that religious organizations should not be tax exempt and for that reason contributions are not tax deductible."

mickeyrat

  hear todays oral arguments live..... namely a couple trump lawsuits....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-financial-records-congress-new-york-investigators-oral-arguments-2020-05-12/?fbclid=IwAR3bXrm2vr7yMQYamoXDotog-V0GIcw2uKU8lBlkPddYViUPNTGFrhO4Rp4

josevolution

Got $100 that Roberts sides with the Baffoon..

mickeyrat

Majority opinion written by Garland, wait I mean Gorsuch. Didnt see that coming....

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/lgbtq-workplaces-supreme-court-ruling-discrimination

pjl44

mickeyrat said:

Majority opinion written by Garland, wait I mean Gorsuch. Didnt see that coming....

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/lgbtq-workplaces-supreme-court-ruling-discrimination

Gorsuch is great on civil liberties and always has been. Here's a good article from early last year on how he and Sotomayor have been a reliable team on that front.

https://theweek.com/articles/816202/unexpected-alliance-sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch

mickeyrat

huh. he dissented with a seperate opinion but heres a portion....

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a dissent that argues that it was Congress’ role to “amend” Title VII to include LGBT employees under the protections, nonetheless noted the historic nature of the decision.

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit — battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result,” he wrote.

Bentleyspop

mickeyrat said:

huh. he dissented with a seperate opinion but heres a portion....

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a dissent that argues that it was Congress’ role to “amend” Title VII to include LGBT employees under the protections, nonetheless noted the historic nature of the decision.

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit — battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result,” he wrote.

Will someone try to fire him now?

joseph33

It was a good start today with protecting LQBTQ from being fired for their gender.

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

huh. he dissented with a seperate opinion but heres a portion....

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a dissent that argues that it was Congress’ role to “amend” Title VII to include LGBT employees under the protections, nonetheless noted the historic nature of the decision.

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit — battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result,” he wrote.

It seemed like his hang up (any maybe Alito and Thomas' as well) was that the court shouldn't have to make the interpretation from the prior law and that Congress should pass a law that is clearly stated as such.  I guess I can't argue with that but, when presented with such a historic case, just fucking vote yes you assholes.

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

huh. he dissented with a seperate opinion but heres a portion....

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a dissent that argues that it was Congress’ role to “amend” Title VII to include LGBT employees under the protections, nonetheless noted the historic nature of the decision.

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit — battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result,” he wrote.

It seemed like his hang up (any maybe Alito and Thomas' as well) was that the court shouldn't have to make the interpretation from the prior law and that Congress should pass a law that is clearly stated as such.  I guess I can't argue with that but, when presented with such a historic case, just fucking vote yes you assholes.

  well I think Alito and Thomas were coming from a faith based place using congress as a valid legal opinion.  where billy beer bong was more above board on that conclusion.

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

huh. he dissented with a seperate opinion but heres a portion....

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a dissent that argues that it was Congress’ role to “amend” Title VII to include LGBT employees under the protections, nonetheless noted the historic nature of the decision.

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit — battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result,” he wrote.

There’s even more to that dissenting opinion, which hardly reads like a dissent.  It’s really an extraordinary situation.  

Here’s my quick takes on this issue..

1.  Amazing that the two most consequential opinions in LGBT history have been written conservatives.  I bet the religious right never saw that coming!  

2. What do true religious conservatives have with Trump and the GOP now?  They are betrayed, plain and simple.  Do they stay home?  Do the split the party?  Are they really paying attention?

mickeyrat

these fuckers are on a roll!!!

DACA safe. for now.

https://www.10tv.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/supreme-court-rejects-move-to-rescind-daca/507-3e73fb83-196c-4e3b-b3bd-6b91643a327b?fbclid=IwAR0YmafdyZp8GJs9WX3UsxO3LTQ2aXLgwuahlNo05nLJ9XWT2z-3XHUsEZA?fbclid=IwAR0YmafdyZp8GJs9WX3UsxO3LTQ2aXLgwuahlNo05nLJ9XWT2z-3XHUsEZA

mrussel1

So much winning.   ....but, but...the JUDGES!  

Bentleyspop

Never would have believed that a "conservative majority " SCOTUS would do the right thing AGAIN!!

Good for them great for America

#FUCKINGVOTE

tbergs

Roberts is really fucking things up for the conservative justices.

mickeyrat

 

Joe Biden Donald Trump Ruth Bader Ginsburg Amy Coney Barrett Elections U.S. Supreme Court Courts Term limits Presidential elections

Group to study more justices, term limits for Supreme Court

By JONATHAN LEMIRE and JESSICA GRESKO

Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden has ordered a study on overhauling the Supreme Court, creating a bipartisan commission Friday that will spend the next six months examining the politically incendiary issues of expanding the court and instituting term limits for justices, among other issues.

In launching the review, Biden fulfilled a campaign promise made amid pressure from activists and Democrats to realign the Supreme Court after its composition tilted sharply to the right during President Donald Trump's term. Trump nominated three justices to the high court, including conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just days before last year’s presidential election. That gave conservatives a 6-3 split with liberals on the court.

During the campaign, Biden repeatedly sidestepped questions on expanding the court. A former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden has asserted that the system of judicial nominations is “getting out of whack,” but has not said if he supports adding seats or making other changes to the current system of lifetime appointments, such as imposing term limits.

The 36-member commission, composed largely of academics, was instructed to spend 180 days studying proposed changes, holding public meetings and completing a report. But it was not charged with making a recommendation under the White House order that created it.

The panel will be led by Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel for former President Barack Obama, and Cristina Rodriguez, a Yale Law School professor who served in the Office of Legal Counsel for Obama. Other prominent members include Walter Dellinger, a former top Supreme Court lawyer for the government during the Clinton administration; Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who has supported the idea of expanding the court and Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The makeup of the Supreme Court, always a hot-button issue, ignited again in 2016 when Democrats declared that Republicans gained an unfair advantage by blocking Obama’s nomination of then-Judge Merrick Garland, now Biden's attorney general, to fill the seat left empty by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, refused to even hold hearings on filling the vacancy, even though it was more than six months until the next presidential election.

In the wake of McConnell's power play, some progressives have viewed adding seats to the court or setting term limits as a way to offset the influence of any one president on its makeup. Conservatives, in turn, have denounced such ideas as “court-packing” similar to the failed effort by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Biden pledged to create the commission during an October television interview. Its launch comes amid speculation as to whether he will be able to put his own stamp on the court if liberal Justice Stephen Breyer retires. If that were to happen, Biden has promised to nominate the first Black woman to the court.

The 82-year-old Breyer is the court's oldest member and the senior member of its three-justice liberal wing. A number of progressive groups have urged Breyer to retire while Democrats still control the Senate and the confirmation process.

Earlier this week, Breyer himself warned liberal advocates of making big changes to the court, including expanding the number of justices. Breyer said in a speech Tuesday that advocates should think “long and hard” about what they’re proposing. Politically driven change could diminish the trust Americans place in the court, Breyer said.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki, asked Friday what the president makes of the call for Breyer to step aside, said that Biden “believes that is a decision for Justice Breyer to make.” And she said the president will wait for the commission to finish its work before weighing in about the size of the court.

The Supreme Court has had nine members since just after the Civil War. Any effort to alter it would be explosive, particularly at a moment when Congress is nearly evenly divided. Changing the number of justices would require congressional approval.

Some on the left slammed the commission’s creation. Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group that supports expanding the court and term limits for justices, said in a statement that: “A commission made up mostly of academics, that includes far-right voices and is not tasked with making formal recommendations, is unlikely to meaningfully advance the ball on Court reform.”

But others seemed willing to give it a chance. “With five justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, it’s crucial that we consider every option for wresting back political control of the Supreme Court," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group. “President Biden’s commission demonstrates a strong commitment to studying this situation and taking action.”

There was concern among some conservatives. Mike Davis of the conservative Article III Project called the news of the commission's creation “alarming” in a statement, adding that “there is real danger in President Biden giving credibility to the idea of court packing; he is playing with fire and threatening the constitutional foundation of this country."

___

Lemire reported from New York.