SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I have the same general concern about the flimsiness with which something becomes because one’s religion and when it doesn’t. 
 

presumably there’s a standard that will be stuck to and simply saying “against my religion” doesn’t exactly check the box. 
 

but yes. I’m concerned of how that may be abused as well. 

 

Tbf, it may not even be an issue of abuse.  Take away the history and societal perspective, what distinguishes a religion from a sincere (possibly whacko, but sincere) belief?  Is a KKK member any less absolute in their belief about how the world should be than a Christian?  How long before we see a religion that rejects paying taxes? 

 

SCOTUS is proposing to move from religious beliefs being subordinate to laws that are facially neutral, applied without discrimination, and without prejudicial animus to now kind of nudging that needle saying that well, the government has to try harder to accommodate these religious beliefs (which so far have been Christian).  What happens when these religious beliefs are not the variety that are regularly accepted by society?  Someone's fervent and sincere belief of the need for a violent ritual sacrifice every other moon.  Does that get protection?  Just consideration?   Or does the 1st amendment protection for a more traditional religion differ from an obscure one?  (Imagine the irony of that state of being coming to be in the United States of all places).

 

For a long time, courts largely stayed out of a legitimacy of a religious belief, focusing only on the sincerity.   When a religious belief is trumped by a law that is facially neutral, equally applied, and devoid of prejudicial animus, that works.  "I understand you sincerely believe the need to feed on the blood of the innocent every week, but this pesky law against murder doesn't target any specific religious belief, applies to everyone, and was not passed with the intent to discriminate against those practicing the religion of Bloodsucking Whackos, so we see no problem in upholding your conviction."  

 

SCOTUS is moving from that to well in this situation, the person's religious beliefs deserves a bit of accommodation.  And the standard sure seems like "cause if I was the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, I would give the person a break".  That's not a very workable standard in the long run.

[tshile]

1) the start of that is very slippery slope

 

2) these rulings, unless I misunderstand something, would apply to all religions. I don’t believe anything about these rules only apples to Christianity. Other religions have holidays and days or rest. They may have issues working with gay people. Etc. 

 

you’ll need instances of selective use here before this is worth dealing with. 
 

I agree as a general principal that we should be on the look out for actual cases of what you’re saying. And I’d have a problem with it. 
 

I do not agree that we should just assume those things will happen, and let that govern what we think about this. 

[The Sisko]

 

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

To me, this gets hard.

 

I actually believe that long term we might be better off if the Supreme Court strictly interpreted the Constitution.

 

I think we have problems when the Supreme Court forces society ahead faster than many are ready to move ahead, and I think that's partly for blame where we are as a society in terms of the current GOP and the ability of our government to function.

 

On the other hand, I think for certain individuals Supreme Court decisions can have large positive impacts on their lives.  I would not under estimate the positive impact that the Loving and Hodges decisions had on the people it impacted.  I also think such decisions can some times force our society forward.

 

I'm pretty pro-affirmative action, though I don't think in this case the schools did a good job of defending and don't appear to have been doing it smartly (i.e. can't/didn't defend the importance of having a diverse student body for the benefit of the whole student body).  On one hand, I'm sad to see how the case was decided.  On the other when looking at the Constitution, I think it is pretty reasonable.

 

I've not been super supportive of the canceling of the student loan.  And like the idea that if the chief executive decides to realistically change the US budget by large sums of money, there should be an avenue to stop it.  Thinking about it happening in another context, if the next Republican President decides to build "the wall" with money from the military and the EPA budget, then I'd like to have the Supreme Court step in and say you can't do it, even if the specific person being harmed is hard to identify.

 

(My issue with many of the conservative members of the Supreme Court is that I don't think they actually believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  They use that as cover to defend their decisions when it can be used to defend their decisions.  But in something like Heller they completely ignored anything about a well regulated militia and the larger truer history of gun ownership in this country.  I strongly suspect that at least Thomas would happily write a decision saying that Constitutional rights extend to the fetus if it had any chance of flying and being supported even though that isn't literally written into the Constitution and the 14th amendment actually says born.  They have no true underlying legal philosophy and do what they think is right/can get away with.)

I agree that the balance between chaos, progress, stagnation, and stability can be difficult. However, your last paragraph hits on why the garbage SCOTUS has little credibility left with many and obviously none with me. There needs to be consistency with at least the basics of existing law. As tshile pointed out, without regard to whether one agrees with the rulings, these plaintiffs had no standing to bring their cases, a point also made in at least one of the justice's dissents. When justices violate a basic tenet of law like this, one that even I, as a layperson, am aware of, it's pretty difficult to see it as anything other than advancing personal ideology; legal objectivity be damned.

 

Quote

 

Schools aren't going to scrap legacy and donor admissions.  Those are too important to their budgets.

 

What will hopefully happen is that the elite schools that have a lot of money will use some of that money (they get from legacy and donor admissions) to over haul their admissions practices and maintain and even increase the diversity in their student body in a manner that is allowed based on this decision.  And maybe even admit people that want/able to be part of making significant change in this country and not just because they check a box.

 

But the quoted post is also just woefully inadequate and inaccurate in describing the decisions that were made.  Religion is 1st amendment right.  It is key corner stone.  It trumps a lot of other stuff.  That being true doesn't mean a business can discriminate however they want.

 

I do think there is a good chance that minority favoritism in government contracts and hiring is next.  It is the next logical step.  And I do suspect that will have a larger economic impact on minorities than this decision.

 

Several of them have discussed the possibility of it getting rid of legacy admissions. For many of them, their endowments are so large that they could endure a temporary decrease in donations.

As for religion, my comment was simply a pithy way of pointing out that most, if not all, of those crusading for religious liberty are really only crusading for the freedom to practice their religion (not those other gross, false gods), and two, desirous of the freedom to use their interpretation of that religion to discriminate against other groups of their choosing.

Edited June 30, 2023 by The Sisko

[Fergasun]

@tshile

The result in the student loan case is quite insane.  It is similar to the case where they stripped the EPA of power last year.  "We don't like what the Biden admin is doing... so we will twist statutory construction on its head." 

 

And then they cry when the dissent points it out and complain.

 

The EPA can regulate pollutants,  but not all of them.  The Secretary of Education can "waive and modify" provisions of student loan programs. But his waivers and modifications went too far.  If Congress doesn't like it, they can act and restrict power.  Oh wait... they can't due to deadlock.

 

This current SCOTUS is acting way too much like Congress.  Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are way overstepping their role.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

1) the start of that is very slippery slope

 

2) these rulings, unless I misunderstand something, would apply to all religions. I don’t believe anything about these rules only apples to Christianity. Other religions have holidays and days or rest. They may have issues working with gay people. Etc. 

 

you’ll need instances of selective use here before this is worth dealing with. 
 

I agree as a general principal that we should be on the look out for actual cases of what you’re saying. And I’d have a problem with it. 
 

I do not agree that we should just assume those things will happen, and let that govern what we think about this. 

 

Well, when it comes to articulating a constitutional principle (or in this case, shifting from a well established principle to another), it can't just be that the principle resulted in good outcomes in these cases.  The principle has to hold up when applied to other situations too.

 

The problem of sincere yet totally psychotic beliefs are not something in the abstract.  We see it every day.  The problem what constitutes religious belief and what doesn't didn't matter much in the past.  Now it will.  Regardless of particular outcome in these series of cases, we'll see the judiciary be forced to make it's position clear on whether it is pro-Christianity or just pro non-secular.  Neither result seems particularly attractive.

[PokerPacker]

8 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I will point out that there is good reason to think that an impeachment of at least Thomas is reasonable.  There's good evidence that he lied during in confirmation hearings, and then you add in some of the other stuff.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas/

 

With the 6-3 decisions just removing him, I know doesn't help but with 5-4 having even a more centrist person on there would help.

 

I actually didn't think this was awful session by the court.  As has been pointed out, the affirmative action decision could have been more extreme.  

Don't forget that Kavenaugh also committed perjury in his confirmation hearings.

[PleaseBlitz]

 

[Fergasun]

A similar case resulted in the Supreme Court claiming the FDA couldn't regulate tobacco in 2000 (5-4 decision).  The majority opinion said something like, "FDA regulates products which are inherently safe... smoking is not safe, so obviously the FDA cannot regulate it."

[Destino]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

2) these rulings, unless I misunderstand something, would apply to all religions. I don’t believe anything about these rules only apples to Christianity. Other religions have holidays and days or rest. They may have issues working with gay people. Etc. 

does this ruling say they can discriminate based on the client being gay, or just wanting them to make something they don’t agree with? Does it draw a line between work product and the customer or does it allow open discrimination on the customer? I’ve not read much on it today.

 

[PeterMP]

58 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

A similar case resulted in the Supreme Court claiming the FDA couldn't regulate tobacco in 2000 (5-4 decision).  The majority opinion said something like, "FDA regulates products which are inherently safe... smoking is not safe, so obviously the FDA cannot regulate it."

 

That's right.  What is wrong with that?

 

The FDA for decades itself said it didn't have the authority to regulate tobacco.

 

The FDA had previously said the job of the FDA is to make sure things are used in a safe manner so since tobacco products can't be used in a safe manner, the FDA would ban them.  That was FDA policy based on the how the law was read for decades.  Meanwhile Congress had passed several tobacco related laws but had failed to ban them, indicating that Congress didn't expect the FDA to regulate tobacco products.

 

In 1996, the FDA essentially reversed course and said we can regulate these without banning them even though their use inherently unsafe.  The courts said that the FDA after decades can't just grab a new power.

 

Similar with the EPA.  The EPA on its own over different administrations had constrained its own power based on it the law was read by the executive branch.  It then based on a law that hasn't changed can't just grab new powers.

 

We've seen an expansion in the power of the executive branch and agencies because of a failure of Congress to act and to be functional.    (We see similar actions with the Fed and things like QE).  But the job of the executive branch isn't to step in and act when Congress isn't functional.  And the Constitution doesn't really allow it.

Edited July 1, 2023 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

32 minutes ago, Destino said:

does this ruling say they can discriminate based on the client being gay, or just wanting them to make something they don’t agree with? Does it draw a line between work product and the customer or does it allow open discrimination on the customer? I’ve not read much on it today.

 

 

In the arguments of the case, they very much tied the idea of web design to free speech so the case wasn't even just about freedom of religion but also speech.  

 

So if it is a business where there isn't an issue of speech that seems like it would be another decision.  From this ruling it isn't clear that a grocery store could refuse to sell groceries to an openly gay couple because presumably the selling of groceries isn't something protected as speech.

 

I think it would be too far (based on what I've read and understand) to say this decision applies to every business.  The business needs to include a component that could be associated with the idea of speech/expression in the context of the 1st amendment.

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

But the job of the executive branch isn't to step in and act when Congress isn't functional.  And the Constitution doesn't really allow it.

People often talk about fairness and fixing problems. I feel like this point gets ignored too much. 

[PeterMP]

I do want to point out that the EPA has put out new CO2 emission guidelines that are consistent with its historical powers.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4045482-why-the-epas-new-carbon-emissions-rules-will-win-in-court/

 

If the court strikes these down, then you get into issues where the court is just making things up.  The other way was easier for the EPA to actually implement and enforce.  But the net effect here should be about the same.

[Fergasun]

@PeterMP

You could use the flip side argument.  The executive power constraint is a "courtesy".  And if Congress doesn't like it they can act.  Just because the Supreme Court is ruled by conservative/libertarians... they prefer constraining executive power. 

 

I concede we are looking at two sides of the coin.  It just seems results based vs. steeped in judicial rationale.  

 

I am also frosted no one challenged the 2008 bailouts (still) which would certainly fail under this interpretation.

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

@PeterMP

You could use the flip side argument.  The executive power constraint is a "courtesy".  And if Congress doesn't like it they can act.  Just because the Supreme Court is ruled by conservative/libertarians... they prefer constraining executive power. 

 

I concede we are looking at two sides of the coin.  It just seems results based vs. steeped in judicial rationale.  

 

I am also frosted no one challenged the 2008 bailouts (still) which would certainly fail under this interpretation.

 

Not in most cases that we are discussing.  The idea that the FDA could not regulate tobacco products and allow them to be legal was not a courtesy.  That was how the law was read.  The FDA didn't regulate tobacco products out of a courtesy to Congress.  It didn't do it because it was not envisioned to be part of their charter and doing so would actually be the antithesis of their objective (to make sure things were used safely).

 

More broadly the constraint of the executive branch is described in the Constitution.  The Constitution grants the executive branch certain powers.  The Constitution doesn't say that the Executive branch can do whatever it wants as long as Congress doesn't do something to prevent it.  Nobody believes that or wants that.

Edited July 1, 2023 by PeterMP

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@tshile

The result in the student loan case is quite insane.  It is similar to the case where they stripped the EPA of power last year.  "We don't like what the Biden admin is doing... so we will twist statutory construction on its head." 

 

And then they cry when the dissent points it out and complain.

 

The EPA can regulate pollutants,  but not all of them.  The Secretary of Education can "waive and modify" provisions of student loan programs. But his waivers and modifications went too far.  If Congress doesn't like it, they can act and restrict power.  Oh wait... they can't due to deadlock.

 

This current SCOTUS is acting way too much like Congress.  Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are way overstepping their role.

 

this is the over reactionary stuff i pointed to earlier. Petermp already addressed your references to fda and epa. 
 

so I’ll point out that this week of rulings is hardly some indication of a rigged court that can’t be trusted and is overreaching. 
 

they voted to protect rights of native Americans (though invited more narrow challenged), they voted down the most extreme version of the independent state legislature theory, they gave a win to religous freedom in the workplace in an incredibly narrow circumstance which despite the crying does not just apply to Christian’s (im not really a religous person btw, I haven’t been to a church in like 20 years), they chipped away at AA but not in the way many people are complaining about because they clearly left racial experiences, and they shot down an EO that was an abusive overreach of the HEROS act and it was known it was a dicey move at the time, and we have the seriously odd case where the nuts and bolts are they picked religious freedom/speech over federal law defining protected classes. 
 

these are not egregious decisions. Im

 it saying you have to like them or agree with them. But these are not off the wall outcomes made possible by a corrupt system 

 

 

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

we have the seriously odd case where the nuts and bolts are they picked religious freedom/speech over federal law defining protected classes. 
 

these are not egregious decisions. Im

 it saying you have to like them or agree with them. But these are not off the wall outcomes made possible by a corrupt system 

 

 

 

And even that decision could have been more extreme.  They could have essentially applied it to any business, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Cooked Crack]

Supreme Court to weigh right of accused domestic abusers to own guns

Quote

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to weigh whether people accused of domestic violence have a right to own firearms in a case that will test the scope of recently expanded gun rights. 

 

The justices agreed to hear a Biden administration appeal in defense of a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. 

 

In doing so, the justices will examine how broadly they will interpret their landmark ruling a year ago, powered by the court's conservative majority, that for the first time recognized that the Constitution's Second Amendment includes a right to bear arms outside the home.

Hope y'all ready for some freedom

[Renegade7]

Given an individual's religious beliefs are capable of changing by choice in way their race can't, I'm not buying the right to discriminate due to religious beliefs should outweigh the right not to be racially discriminated against.

 

I don't believe believe people change their sexual orientation as much as need time figure out and or accept it, or in some cases jus Hide it best they can.  But we as a society seem to disagree with this far more then the example of changing one's own race.

 

Tolerance of intolerance is the Achilles heel of liberal democracy, at some point we need to stop being so accommodating to people hating other people.  We can't control what people think or feel, that's not what laws do or meant for.

 

I don't get why it has to go to court a business right to refuse service, does the business have to give a reason and the problem here is the reason they gave?  What if they don't give one even if they have one?

Edited July 1, 2023 by Renegade7

[tshile]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

Supreme Court to weigh right of accused domestic abusers to own guns

Hope y'all ready for some freedom

There was a time where it was mostly understood and agreed upon that criminal status means losing rights or having restrictions on rights. like voting, or gun ownership. 
 

The core idea seems to be up for debate. 

[The Evil Genius]

Obergefell and Loving are next for the Federalist society owned judges. But I'm sure some here will say everything is just fine. 🙄

Edited July 1, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[The Evil Genius]

 

Should work for mortgages too. 

[PokerPacker]

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Should work for mortgages too. 

The bible preaches forgiving those who debt against you, not who debt against the government.  **** 'em!

[Captain Wiggles]

[tshile]

6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Obergefell and Loving are next for the Federalist society owned judges. But I'm sure some here will say everything is just fine. 🙄

The idea of throwing out loving is eye roll worthy. I just don’t see it. 
 

Obergell on the other hand… I have no confidence there. 
 

but the point is I think, for myself and people like me, it’s perfectly reasonable to look at these current decisions the way I outlined but still be willing to be concerned about future rulings and to be fair in how you evaluate things. 
 

but I’m not one who usually rants and raves whenever the court releases a decision I don’t agree with. The spectrum of reactions this week as we started with the Native American rights and independent state legislature theory, and moved into the AA and website stuff, has been comical to watch. 
 

but if you cannot take what we say and believe us, there’s not much that can be done about that.