@SCOTUSblog



  • Apparently, people angry at a decision made by the US Supreme Court missed that @SCOTUSblog is a blog that covers the blog, not the official blog of SCOTUS.


  • sockdevs

    That's because people are, on the whole, dumb.



  • "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

    -Winston Churchill



  • My feeling is that if you live on government assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also the case of, if through credits or deductions, you don't pay any taxes.



  • @DrakeSmith said:

    My feeling is that if you live on government assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also the case of, if through credits or deductions, you don't pay any taxes.

    A certain political party would completely disappear from power if that happened.


    Filed Under: Not sure if I'm trolling or not


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @mott555 said:

    A certain political party would have to completely disappear from power if that happened in order for that to happen.


    Filed Under: Not sure if I'm trolling or not



  • @mott555 said:

    A certain political party would completely disappear from power if that happened.

    And the country would be saved!

    Filed Under:Half-trolling, Half-serious



  • I don't even understand this case. What does "religious freedom" and "women rights" have to do with paying for your own damn pills?

    I mean, hell, nobody gives me condoms at work. Granted, I work in IT, so they're largely unnecessary, but still.



  • It's particular pills that basically induce an abortion (not all contraception as often portrayed). It should come as no surprise that some religions are very much against abortion. Congress previously passed a bill that said (basically) that federal laws shouldn't infringe religious practices, unless there was a very compelling government interest at hand, and then it should find the least intrusive way possible to accomplish that.

    Frankly, it's bullshit that the Feds are allowed to enforce laws making us buy insurance, period, but this wasn't even decided as Constitutional issue, but applying laws that Congress previously passed.

    However, doing what Congress told us to do is apparently what Hitler wanted:



  • Here's the process: the ACA basically said, "If you're an employer that meets this criteria, you must provide your employees with health insurance, and your policies must meet this standard to comply." That standard included contraception, which is a pretty common sense sort of thing to include in a health care plan which will cut down on long term costs very effectively.

    Then a bunch of religious institutions said, "Whoa, hey, we're not cool with that, and we're religions. We don't have to comply, right?"

    And the Federal government said, "Well, you don't have to write the check for it, but yes, the health insurance policy has to contain this feature. But hey, there aren't a lot of you, so here's what we'll do- we'll pay for that part, and you just pay for the rest."

    Then Hobby Lobby said, "Wait, we're religious too!"

    And every sane person went, "FFS!" Then the Supreme Court thought about it, and was all, "Hmmm… yeah, sure, I'll allow it. 'Closely held' companies can be religious. Just not Google or Apple, which are already religions for all practical purposes."



  • Oh, and as I understand it, they didn't really even decide that this was a compelling interest (would be interesting to hear why no copay abortifacients are compelling interests while antibiotics or heart medicine isn't). They said that even if is was, the way they went about it was clearly in violation of the statute.



  • @Remy said:

    Just not Google or Apple, which are already religions for all practical purposes.

    I don't think they really decided this (snark aside). As I understand it, the closely held stuff was descriptive of Hobby Lobby, but not prescriptive in their ruling.



  • The ruling applies to those sorts of entities. It may extend to other corporations, but at this time, that hasn't been settled by the court. Essentially, we have to wait for Larry Page to convert to Christian Science and then try and stop offering health insurance before we know…


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Remy said:

    That standard included contraception, which is a pretty common sense sort of thing to include in a health care plan which will cut down on long term costs very effectively.

    TRWTF is that people are calling abortion methods (i.e. stuff used after, not during or before, sex) "contraception," making those unfamiliar with the case thinking they're refusing condoms, caps, coils, the pill and the withdrawal and rhythm methods.



  • Hobby Lobby offers 16 of the 20 required contraceptive medications - the ones they have problems with, as @boomzilla stated, are akin to abortion - morning after pill, week after pill, etc.



  • Am I the only one who thinks that Ruth Bader Ginsburg using a question mark as an example in her dissent is really, really bad?



  • @DrakeSmith said:

    are akin to abortion - morning after pill

    I don't fully understand this sentiment. I mean making implantation less likely to occur by a fertilized egg is what that med does, which is very different from causing an egg that has continued to develop into later stages to then fail. For those that consider life beginning at conception I can see what they would view as the equivalency between the two; but implantation is in no way guaranteed in the natural process.



  • @PJH said:

    TRWTF is that people are calling abortion methods (i.e. stuff used after, not during or before, sex) "contraception," making those unfamiliar with the case thinking they're refusing condoms, caps, coils, the pill and the withdrawal and rhythm methods.

    That's how things work in this country. Take something that may be a reasonable position to most people, then adjust and abuse the terminology until it seems like an unreasonable position so you can convince the general public that the opposition is a bunch of uneducated fascist bigots.



  • @locallunatic said:

    I don't fully understand this sentiment.

    I kinda do. What I would think they would see it as is "failing by chance" (egg failing to implant) vs "setting something up to fail" (taking the pill to force the implant to fail).

    "Failing by chance" is just either nature or God's will. "Setting something up to fail" would be trying to potentially circumvent God's will, even if, by chance, the same result would've been reached.


    Filed under: [I may "understand" it, but I do not make any claim to agree or disagree with it.](#tag2)


  • @chubertdev said:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg using a question mark as an example in her dissent

    I admit I only skimmed the dissent, but I didn't see the example you're talking about. Can you a more specific location in the dissent?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @locallunatic said:

    fertilized egg

    That's what, in the eyes of some people, make it abortion, as opposed to contraception.

    The clue's in the name - "contra-ception"

    Once conception has been achieved - i.e. fertilization, contraception (unless you're redefining the words) is useless.

    Of course, all these religious/pro-life/anti/abortion types seem to miss out of the fact that up to 75% of pregnancies suffer from 'natural abortion' anyway. Only they give it a different name: miscarriage.



  • @ChaosTheEternal said:

    What I would think they would see it as is "failing by chance" (egg failing to implant) vs "setting something up to fail" (taking the pill to force the implant to fail).

    I guess the disconnect comes from me then as I view the two things they are equating as not equivalent; I view doing so as something like "take this med so less likely you have a heart attack" being treated the same as "have this bypass so less likely you have a heart attack". But whatever, my hangups on medical stuff at weird.



  • "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."



  • Thanks



  • To be fair there are sects that oppose vaccinations (and weird case law around them when the kids have problems do to no vaccinations and often no medical care), but they tend to be smaller ones so you could take the '?' as not listing said groups do to being small sections.



  • @locallunatic said:

    To be fair there are sects that oppose vaccinations (and weird case law around them when the kids have problems do to no vaccinations and often no medical care), but they tend to be smaller ones so you could take the '?' as not listing said groups do to being small sections.

    I just find it very unprofessional.



  • @chubertdev said:

    I just find it very unprofessional.

    It does seem odd.



  • OK, fair point



  • I would also say they could perceive it like @PJH said, where the day/week after pills are trying to get rid of a possibly fertilized egg intentionally instead of the chance of it not taking happening.


    Filed under: [I had this reply ready about 5 minutes ago, but work interfered.](#tag2)

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @locallunatic said:

    To be fair there are sects that oppose vaccinations

    Aren't they called anti-vaxxers? Or are you talking about ones who's (real) religions prohibit it, rather than the deluded public-in-general?



  • @PJH said:

    Or are you talking about ones who's (real) religions prohibit it, rather than the deluded public-in-general?

    There are ones that oppose any intervention in sickness beyond prayer, so yeah.

    EDIT: Generally, those groups show up in the news when a kid dies of something simple and an AG decides to charge the parents with some form of neglect despite well documented faith rules; basically we tout religious "freedom" in the US, but that only extends so far beyond what is mainstream.


  • :belt_onion:

    Both sides of this argument are filled with over-reacting fools.
    Exception for the anti-vaxxers, they're just fools in general.



  • @darkmatter said:

    Both sides of this argument are filled with over-reacting fools.

    No disagreement here, I can just see the argument from both sides on a "not a loud obnoxious asshole yelling on the streets" sort of level.


    Filed under: [Don't all arguments between groups kind of have over-reacting fools?](#tag2)

  • :belt_onion:

    @ChaosTheEternal said:

    I can just see the argument from both sides on a "not a loud obnoxious asshole yelling on the streets" sort of level.

    That takes special objectivity to do, since the only people you see talking about these topics in the media are the loud obnoxious assholes.



  • @darkmatter said:

    the only people you see talking about these topics in the media

    You assume I watch the media. Really, though, before today, I didn't know a large number of the details, just a broad overview, and based the perspective off of that. Sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.

    As I get more details and ignore the crazies, the perspectives can make more sense, or can be reworked to be rational, and the ideals of those perspectives become more genuine.


    Filed under: [Besides, it's not like I'm not ever a loud obnoxious asshole.](#tag2)


  • Still, am I misunderstanding the Affordable Care Act, or something? From what I understand, nobody is outright denied the morning-after pill, they're just not paid for by the employer.

    And while you could maybe possibly argue contraception being on health insurance (since that's something you take for a long time, so it ends up costly, and AFAIK there are women who actually need it due to health reasons), a morning-after pill is not really a crucial medicine. You can pay for it out of your pocket, dammit.


    Filed under: not-having-kids 101, so that's how "funny stuff" looks like...



  • @DrakeSmith said:

    My feeling is that if you live on government assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also the case of, if through credits or deductions, you don't pay any taxes.

    "If you use a service, you should not have any say in what happens with that service."

    What?



  • More like "if you're not a stakeholder, you have no right to dictate the company's policy".



  • Non-citizens can't vote. That's how it's always been.



  • @ben_lubar said:

    Non-citizens can't vote. That's how it's always been.

    Are you deliberately oblivious? If you're purely a welfare recipient, you're not a stakeholder in the country. You're not supporting it, and therefore have no right to dictate what happens.

    Personally, I'm more of a technocrat. It's dumb people who shouldn't have right to vote.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Are you deliberately oblivious? If you're purely a welfare recipient, you're not a stakeholder in the country. You're not supporting it, and therefore have no right to dictate what happens.

    Why not just cut straight to the chase and say that if you're not in the 1% or didn't have parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who were also 1%ers then you shouldn't have any right to control anything of what happens?

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    It's dumb people who shouldn't have right to vote.

    Define “dumb”, then check for the consequences of what you propose.



  • @PJH said:

    Of course, all these religious/pro-life/anti/abortion types seem to miss out of the fact that up to 75% of pregnancies suffer from 'natural abortion' anyway. Only they give it a different name: miscarriage.

    Of course, 100% of people's lives end in death, but we still get worked up about some of those deaths that go by a different name: murder.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place



  • @dkf said:

    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Are you deliberately oblivious? If you're purely a welfare recipient, you're not a stakeholder in the country. You're not supporting it, and therefore have no right to dictate what happens.

    Why not just cut straight to the chase and say that if you're not in the 1% or didn't have parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who were also 1%ers then you shouldn't have any right to control anything of what happens?

    If Obama's policies continue, they might be one and the same anyways...

    Why is it anytime someone mentions that maybe we pay out too much welfare, keeping the people down instead of helping them up, the argument has to turn to something about 1 percenters or fat white republicans? Doesn't even make sense in the context...

    It would exclude me from voting, but I also think that maybe the Starship Troopers idea of only veterans being able to vote would work as well. Who better to decide the fate of the country than someone willing to lay their life on the line for it?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @DrakeSmith said:

    If Obama's policies continue, they might be one and the same anyways...

    Way to go, seeing the front man only.

    @DrakeSmith said:

    Why is it anytime someone mentions that maybe we pay out too much welfare, keeping the people down instead of helping them up, the argument has to turn to something about 1 percenters or fat white republicans? Doesn't even make sense in the context...

    You were proposing the systematic disenfranchisement of a substantial part of the population. I was merely extending that to its logical conclusion, given that the hereditarily super-rich obviously give so much more than everyone else just by breathing the same air⸮

    (The “1%er” was a short-hand a more complex concept, without wanting to go into the whole exercise of partitioning society that way, and striving to avoid bringing in the term “upper class” despite it being relevant here, due to the weird connotations some people in the US attach to it.)



  • @dkf said:

    I was merely extending that to its logical conclusion, given that the hereditarily super-rich obviously give so much more than everyone else just by breathing the same air⸮

    I believe Mark Twain had an essay about charging for votes, but I can't find it now. I suppose that would at least help solve this "inequality" thing I keep hearing about.



  • @DrakeSmith said:

    It would exclude me from voting, but I also think that maybe the Starship Troopers idea of only veterans being able to vote would work as well. Who better to decide the fate of the country than someone willing to lay their life on the line for it?

    Some of us don't meet the med requirements and thus would not be able to do anything to gain a vote under that system. That could be considered acceptable losses, but it is something that you need to acknowledge when proposing things like that.



  • @locallunatic said:

    Some of us don't meet the med requirements and thus would not be able to do anything to gain a vote under that system.

    IIRC, not everyone went into combat roles. I think there were lots of more civil servicey stuff. But you didn't really get to choose where you'd end up. They picked based on your capabilities.



  • In the book, yes. But the idea as it normally gets lifted doesn't include the non-military sections of service. @DrakeSmith may have ment to lift the thing from the book directly, but I assumed it was in the format that he stated and I normally see it expressed.



  • Well, whether or not they have to actually place their lives in danger, volunteering is showing their willingness to lay their life on the line, so I think he's still covered. [spoiler]/pedantic dickweed[/spoiler]


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.