SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Political discussions
Post Reply
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14067
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by GannonFan »

I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54016
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:48 pm
I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
Fired for getting cancer? There's a lot of love and compassion right there. They should be ashamed. :ohno:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54016
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Ibanez »

Trump went 1-1 today.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Manhattan's chief prosecutor can obtain troves of President Trump's business records and tax returns, a momentous defeat for the president in his efforts to shield his personal financial information from state investigators.

The high court ruled 7-2 in favor of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who is conducting a criminal investigation into the president's business dealings and hush-money payments made to two women who allegedly had affairs with the president years before he was elected. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

"Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... l-records/
Last edited by Ibanez on Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54016
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Ibanez »

If there was any major concern that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would be partisan lackeys and bow down to Trump...this ought to help disprove it.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 13093
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Skjellyfetti »

Pretty sure they knew they were going to lose that one. Just trying to run out the clock before the election, and they've likely succeeded
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
Cid1990 wrote:It is going to be a sad day for a lot of people when all that comes of all of this is Flynn getting whacked.

Mueller is going to take a beating on the left before this business is over

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14067
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by GannonFan »

I'm fine with the rulings as is - allowing the prosecutor to continue is the right decision, no one's above the law. And there are tighter controls on the information in a grand jury investigation. Good decision not opening up the floodgates to Congress, no controls on the information there.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Winterborn
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3794
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Winterborn »

McGrit v. Oklahoma is more interesting in my mind then the Trump tax one.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

"Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.” - Anon

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14067
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by GannonFan »

Winterborn wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:38 am
McGrit v. Oklahoma is more interesting in my mind then the Trump tax one.
Agreed. Any land that was ever reservation land is now suspect. Should lead to plenty of new cases in the coming years, not just in Oklahoma but lots of other places.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44067
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by dbackjon »

GannonFan wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:39 am
Winterborn wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:38 am
McGrit v. Oklahoma is more interesting in my mind then the Trump tax one.
Agreed. Any land that was ever reservation land is now suspect. Should lead to plenty of new cases in the coming years, not just in Oklahoma but lots of other places.
It's a fairly narrow ruling. I don't think it will have that great of an impact
:thumb:

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14067
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by GannonFan »

dbackjon wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:58 am
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:39 am


Agreed. Any land that was ever reservation land is now suspect. Should lead to plenty of new cases in the coming years, not just in Oklahoma but lots of other places.
It's a fairly narrow ruling. I don't think it will have that great of an impact
That's what the Round-up folks thought when a jury decided that world organizations of scientists were wrong and Round-up really was cancerous. Lawyers just need an opening. Don't even have to be right, just have to have an argument.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Winterborn
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3794
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Winterborn »

GannonFan wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:20 am
dbackjon wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:58 am


It's a fairly narrow ruling. I don't think it will have that great of an impact
That's what the Round-up folks thought when a jury decided that world organizations of scientists were wrong and Round-up really was cancerous. Lawyers just need an opening. Don't even have to be right, just have to have an argument.
That is exactly the case I was thinking of when I read the ruling.

Also of note is that Justice Gorsuch sided with the majority on this and wrote the majority opinion.Which makes me assume he was the swing vote on the issue and why the Court didn't rule like how people expected it to.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

"Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.” - Anon

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44067
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by dbackjon »

Winterborn wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:40 am
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:20 am


That's what the Round-up folks thought when a jury decided that world organizations of scientists were wrong and Round-up really was cancerous. Lawyers just need an opening. Don't even have to be right, just have to have an argument.
That is exactly the case I was thinking of when I read the ruling.

Also of note is that Justice Gorsuch sided with the majority on this and wrote the majority opinion.Which makes me assume he was the swing vote on the issue and why the Court didn't rule like how people expected it to.
Shouldn't be a surprise. Gorsuch has taken a special interest in Native American Law, and has generally read the treaty rights should be upheld.
:thumb:

CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 36844
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by CAA Flagship »

When I bought my houses (2) in Williamsburg, VA, I had title insurance in case the Injuns rose up and wanted their land back.

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by JoltinJoe »

Ibanez wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:48 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:48 pm
I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
Fired for getting cancer? There's a lot of love and compassion right there. They should be ashamed. :ohno:
Doubtful that allegation would prove out to be true.

However, in ruling at this point of the case, i.e., summary judgment on an affirmative defense, the court must assume the plaintiff's version of any disputed fact.

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by JoltinJoe »

GannonFan wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:48 pm
I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
What's your beef with Catholic education? Catholic schools in the inner cities, are doing an amazing job getting a solid education to kids whose only other alternative would be underperforming public schools.

A sure way to make sure that Catholic schools become as bad as the public schools would be to force them to respond to the same "legal obligations" to which the public schools must respond.

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54016
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Ibanez »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:48 pm
I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
What's your beef with Catholic education? Catholic schools in the inner cities, are doing an amazing job getting a solid education to kids whose only other alternative would be underperforming public schools.

A sure way to make sure that Catholic schools become as bad as the public schools would be to force them to respond to the same "legal obligations" to which the public schools must respond.
Yeah! We should hold Religions to a lower standard. After all, who would expect a religious organization to be discriminatory (or predatory)? That almost never happens.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54016
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Ibanez »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:02 am
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:48 am


Fired for getting cancer? There's a lot of love and compassion right there. They should be ashamed. :ohno:
Doubtful that allegation would prove out to be true.

However, in ruling at this point of the case, i.e., summary judgment on an affirmative defense, the court must assume the plaintiff's version of any disputed fact.
I can believe it. A friend of ours worked for a religious school until his fiancee got pregnant. Lots of peace, love and compassion there. Fucking hypocrites.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14067
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by GannonFan »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:48 pm
I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
What's your beef with Catholic education? Catholic schools in the inner cities, are doing an amazing job getting a solid education to kids whose only other alternative would be underperforming public schools.

A sure way to make sure that Catholic schools become as bad as the public schools would be to force them to respond to the same "legal obligations" to which the public schools must respond.
Like charter schools, I have no problem with Catholic schools in areas, especially inner cities, where they can provide the necessary safe outlets for students who would be otherwise marginalized in underperforming public schools.

Where I do have issue, and I'm a Catholic myself so I'm not throwing bigoted stones here, is with charters and Catholic schools in areas where public schools are not only performing fine, but even excelling. I have found Catholic schools in those places to be insular and isolated - both in diversity of thought as well as in diversity of backgrounds. They tend to be safe refuges for parents who are already insular and isolated and want their kids to be brought up in the same way. Where I am, it's typically folks who were in the city when they grew up so it's falling back on what they know, but now that they are in the 'burbs the need for the Catholic school refuge isn't there, and in most cases the education isn't as good as the public school they are avoiding. And like charters, it's more of folks wanting to have someone else pay for their private school.

As for the same "legal obligations" that public schools must respond, at least in this case, I don't see that as a burden. Let's face it, in this case, one of those teachers was fired by a nun who was also hiding a gambling addiction that she was embezzeling school money to help pay. I don't think it's all that much of a leap that she thought trading out a more expensive teacher for a less expensive one might have been a way to steal more money. The Catholic Church, through it's educational system here, did not cover itself in glory through this SCOTUS ruling.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
A.K.A.: Unification88
Location: On the foggy woggy banks of the Limpopo River

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by UNI88 »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 am
GannonFan wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:48 pm
I know there was one post in another thread, but I thought the recent decisions by SCOTUS deserved their own thread.

Two biggies today, and both favored religious leanings, and both surprisingly with 7-2 majorities that included Breyer and Kagan (although in one Kagan and Breyer joined together in a concurrent opinion that cast doubt on the viability of the main ruling).

First case was the religious exemption under the ACA to cover contraceptive services - The Little Sisters of the Poor case. They had argued that even the carve out - the one that said organizations could say they didn't want to pay for these services due to a religious objection could then tell their insurance and the insurance company would have to foot the bill for those services - still was basically compelling them to be complicit in something their faith objected to. Kagan and Breyer went with the majority, but they objected to the larger concept that even public companies with a moral objection would still be covered by this ruling. But the religious objection piece was upheld by all 7 justices (with Thomas getting to write the majority opinion).

Second case was potentially even more interesting. Two teachers from Catholic schools were fired - one for getting breast cancer and wanting time off and the other because she was old. Catholic schools covering themselves in glory here, no doubt. The schools argued that these were religious employees, i.e. ministers of the faith, and that they shouldn't be covered under employment discrimination laws as would a non-religious organization. Again, a 7-2 majority and this time Kagan and Breyer signed on to Alito's authoring of the majority opinion. Court ruled that the Court wasn't qualified to tell religious organizations who is or isn't a minister of that faith, so if the organization treats them as ministers of the faith then they are outside of the purvey of employment discrimination laws (just like how a priest can't use the courts to sue for being fired or moved to a different parish or made to retire).

IMO, the first case screams out just another reason why we're going to move away from health coverage provided by where you work. That setup already makes lay offs that much more traumatic and burdensome as people lose and regain health coverage just based on their employment. And now, if you work for a company with a sincerely held religious belief, your health coverage is likely less than it would be elsewhere. Under a nationalized health system, neither problem would exist (granted, other problems go along with that, but I think we're heading that way very shortly).

The second case is fascinating in that it almost gives carte blanche to religious groups (Catholic Church in this case) to hire and fire at will now, as long as they can justifiably say an employee is promulgator of the faith. I can see the logic in this and I can appreciate the separation of church and state that's emphasized in this. Of course, it also makes those workplaces much less desirable than they already are. Although I'm Catholic, I've always held a poor view of Catholic schools (very cliquey, very insular, and far too subservient to the Church's hierarchy) - this just further emboldens my dim rating of these schools.

Think they said the rest of the docket will be released tomorrow (Thursday) - Trump's taxes is still to be issued.
What's your beef with Catholic education? Catholic schools in the inner cities, are doing an amazing job getting a solid education to kids whose only other alternative would be underperforming public schools.

A sure way to make sure that Catholic schools become as bad as the public schools would be to force them to respond to the same "legal obligations" to which the public schools must respond.
A couple of thoughts on catholic education in urban areas:

1) Catholic schools teacher pay is sh!t.
2) They do do an amazing job of educating kids despite their pay being sh!t.
3) How are they able to do that and will they be able to continue? They have some dedicated teachers who want to make a difference but will younger teachers stay within the catholic school system as these teachers retire or will they pursue higher paying, public school positions (with greater bureaucratic issues)?

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17684
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by BDKJMU »

In 5-4 decison denies request to halt border wall, overturning appeals court decision.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... order-wall

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 25259
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: SCOTUS Rulings 2020

Post by Ivytalk »

BDKJMU wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:58 pm
In 5-4 decison denies request to halt border wall, overturning appeals court decision.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... order-wall
Roberts back with the conservatives this time. :|
“Sure. I was wrong.” — 89Hen 7/27/2020

Post Reply