DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
no worries, there.
Wag The Dog - Random Political and News Jibber Jabber
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
since you make $25y a year, or about 200% of pverty, you are subsidized as well.
so someone also has to pay for YOUR obamacare expenses.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
don't forget that we have the most corporation-friendly supreme court we have ever had.hobby lobby will be released monday and of course, separate from other decisions which rocked those to the core by not having dissention amongst the justices.
magic florida 8-ball..i predict that hobby lobby being a "for-profit" can not throw personal religion into the mix and refuse medications based upon it's "religious freedom"..hobby lobby is "open to the public" and is not a "person"..corporations are NOT people.
no mr. romney..corporations are not people, my friend
i can easily see it going hobby lobby's way.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm kinda thinking that SCOTUS released on purpose..showing no dissent on a few decisions..that we may get a BIG surprise on monday..hobby lobby voted down with no dissent.
they did this to get everyone used to the surprise of no dissent.
you know the GOP AND you know what's going to happen..
look at roberts' siding with liberal..
Liberals Actually Won Abortion Clinic Case
170 Jun 26, 2014 12:03 PM EDT
By Noah Feldman
It’s becoming a June ritual: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberals to issue a moderate, centrist opinion, and leaves his erstwhile conservative admirers flailing. Roberts’s latest foray into moderation comes in today’s free-speech case involving a 35-foot no-access zone around hospitals or abortion clinics imposed by Massachusetts law.
True, Roberts’s opinion, joined by the court’s four doubtless relieved liberals, struck down the buffer as a violation of the free-speech rights of pro-life activists who seek to converse with women who might be seeking abortions. But the crucial element in the opinion -- the one that got the liberals on board and enraged the conservatives -- is that Roberts said the law was neutral with respect to the content of speech as well as the viewpoint of the speakers. That conclusion protected the possibility of other laws protecting women seeking abortions that pay more attention to what Roberts said was missing here, namely proof that the law was narrowly tailored. For the liberals, that was enough to get on board.
To understand the weirdness of the case, and how it is that striking down the buffer law is still a victory for liberals, you need Free Speech 101, which is luckily very simple. Speech in a traditional public forum such as a sidewalk is protected by the First Amendment. But the government can regulate the time, place and manner of the use of public streets. The only requirement the government must satisfy is to show that the law is “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest” and that it leaves open “ample alternative channels for communication.”
This standard is challenging to meet, but by no means impossible. Consider a law banning sound trucks blaring on your street at night. It would probably be constitutional, because the government has a significant interest in the citizens’ sleep, and there would be plenty of other times for sound trucks to operate, leaving ample alternatives for communication. It is this standard that Roberts applied to the buffer zone -- and that will therefore be applied to other, similar buffer laws in the future.
If, however, a government law burdens speech based on its content, not its time, place or matter, the law is very different. Then the law would be subject to what’s called “strict scrutiny,” which would require that there be not merely a significant governmental interest but a compelling one. In addition, the government would have to show that it was using the least restrictive means possible. In practice, when it comes to the First Amendment, applying strict scrutiny is almost always enough to kill the law -- as the saying goes, such scrutiny is “strict in theory, fatal in fact.”
If the law favors one viewpoint over another, strict scrutiny would also apply -- and the buffer law would almost certainly go down.
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote separately to insist that the buffer law was content-based because it was aimed at anti-abortion speech. Why else, Scalia asked, was the law aimed at spaces outside facilities where abortions were being performed? He would have found the law to be content-based and applied strict scrutiny.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately on his own to say that the law discriminated on the basis of viewpoint, because it allows employees of the clinic inside the zone but not other members of the public except passers-by. This, he said, was intended to discriminate against anti-abortion speech.
In his opinion, Roberts answered both charges. First, he said that, while the law obviously would be more likely to restrict abortion-related speech than other speech, it was still neutral with respect to content. The law was intended, he said, to increase public safety around public health facilities, and any disproportionate effect on certain speech was “incidental.” He accepted Massachusetts’s argument that law was not aimed at protecting people’s feelings but at public safety.
Then, responding to Alito, Roberts said that the exemption for clinic employees need not be understood as a carve-out for escorts helping women seeking abortions. It would also include maintenance workers shoveling snow. As a result, the law was also viewpoint neutral.
Having dispensed with these arguments, Roberts went on to say that the law was not narrowly tailored because it banned substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interests. Here Roberts insisted, in terms that cannot have made all the liberals very happy, that people seeking to speak outside abortion clinics were not merely protesters, but were activists seeking “personal, caring, one-on-one conversations.” The buffer zone robbed them of that opportunity, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Finally, Roberts gave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a road map of what it would be permitted to do, consistent with the Constitution, to protect public safety outside facilities that perform abortions. Massachusetts could, he said, make it a crime to block entry or exit from the clinics or to obstruct anyone seeking health care. It could criminalize harassing anyone within 15 feet of a health-care facility, as New York City does. It could also use existing local ordinances that prohibit anyone from blocking the sidewalk or soliciting others while walking on the street. Finally, the commonwealth could seek an injunction against any group that violated the rules.
No wonder the conservative justices were up in arms. To them, the buffer law should have been struck down as an unjustifiable intervention on behalf of one side in the cultural debate about abortion. Roberts steadfastly refused to acknowledge this. By treating the lawmakers as well as the pro-life activists as well-intentioned and law-abiding, he was offering a kind of moderate legal-cultural solution to the abortion debate as it takes place outside clinics.
Roberts’s concession to the liberals assures that courts will uphold the enforcement of laws such as those he cited to protect clinics. But the most important part of the opinion is that it is actually, truly centrist. The question of whether Roberts is a true moderate has not yet been answered, and next week may well bring truly conservative opinions from him. But certainly the case that Roberts is a diehard conservative remains unproved
sorry kynes..it WAS bloomberg
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/liberals-actually-won-abortion-clinic-case
that was a pretty hypocritical decision by the SCOTUS.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there's free speech, and then there's intimidation, harassment, and downright "fighting words".
if you've ever seen the types that hang around clinics, you'd see how fucked that decision was. if you knew the people i know, you'd know that their harassment and intimidation works, and that women who simply need to go get meds or an examination won;t go on certain days because of them.
rights are not allowed to interfere with or overtake another's rights.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
started under reagin, grew under bush 1, clinton stemmed the tide back to zero growth, bush blew it up into a record deficit, obama has so far cut those deficits by more than half even with a shaky economy.
yeah, it's clearly one side.
AlecTheGardener
Well-Known Member
That is all it is. You nailed it on the head.
It still generated enough interest in myself to read about it. Immediately after reading the headline you know something like a stunt is being pulled.
He generated a headline to progress his agenda and his request is unreasonable. Agenda drive.
Kinda a dick move on his part really.
Gotta make that dough though.
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you should probably fuck off to someplace more accommodating of your ridiculous conspiracy theories.
kynes has a good fluoride one going, and would probably love an 11th person there to help pay the rent and pilfer eggos from.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You are an unemployed pot grower who has math problems. I pay for private insurance and always have when I didnt have an employer picking up the check...since you make $25y a year, or about 200% of pverty, you are subsidized as well.
so someone also has to pay for YOUR obamacare expenses.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'd have to be looking for work to be unemployed. i'm turning down work instead.
you said $100k over 4 years, not me.
AlecTheGardener
Well-Known Member
I wanted to find that diagram! You found it for me!that was a pretty hypocritical decision by the SCOTUS.
Very hypocritical.
I am still happy with the decision.
They need their line moved back I think.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
you should do your ass hair in dread-locks
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not happy with the decision, but america is america.
just feel bad for the poor women (literally, they are often poor) who will have to endure these blathering shitbots when they're not even going to get abortions or anything, just medical care.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Then why collect income tax? Why is there a call to increase revenue (raise taxes)?
Borrowing from future generations is what caused the situation in Greece. Young people there took to the streets because not only are they not getting the free shit, they still have to pay for it.
Our piper comes calling when the world moves to a mixed currency and we lose the ability to digitize money from thin air. There are calls for it for it now and they are getting louder.
Either deficits matter or taxes are a farce.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you are the most dishonest idiot ever.
doer never said deficits don't matter, he put it into perspective.
then you came here parroting retarded GOP talking points about greece.
just give up. you are a mouthpiece, and not even a good one.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
What?
un·em·ployed
ˌənimˈploid/
adjective
adjective: unemployed
(of a person) without a paid job but available to work.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Life is good, just got back from celebrating the greatest woman in my family's 80th with family I haven't seen in years, friends that I rarely see because we all have lives, good food, good wine and good times outside of RIU.
You weren't mentioned though, sorry man. Miserable fucks were not invited.
You should get your wife to open an account here so you can spend some time with her.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Why do you think the President has been putting on the brakes?
If you look at this like a business or even a household, it is not out of line...yet.
So, don't believe what you hear. (just listen to me)
Doer
Well-Known Member
Wait...is there some kind of inside RIU?