Supreme Court rules Trump can limit bc

[Pom]

www.npr.org/2020/07/08/884104509/supreme-court-undercuts-access-to-birth-control-under-obamacare?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews

[pixy0stix]

Ah, there's that other shoe we were waiting to drop.

[Jalapeñomel]

This is bad. Fuckers.

[Pom]

www.npr.org/2020/07/08/885172035/supreme-court-carves-out-religious-exception-to-fair-employment-laws

And another punch.

[SwimDeep]

Fuck.

[dutchgirl678]

So disheartening. Tomorrow they will decide on Trump's taxes and then they will be off for the summer. I am crossing all my fingers and toes and hope they will do the right thing but today's decisions make me less hopeful.

[basilosaurus]

Jul 8, 2020 9:55:49 GMT -5 Pom said:

www.npr.org/2020/07/08/885172035/supreme-court-carves-out-religious-exception-to-fair-employment-laws

And another punch.

So every teacher will now be required to give a religious worksheet on day 1 and then discrimination on! Bullshit.

ETA ive seen some of thre religious school curricula. Not a single topic is divorced from religion. It's not 10×2. It's Noah had 10 kinds of animals, how many animals were there

[Gato]

Thanks, SUSAN.

(Yes, I will be blaming everything on Susan Collins from now on. She knows better, but made her choices out of cowardice, so she really does deserve the blame for every anti-choice SCOTUS ruling).

[seeyalater52]

Apparently July was when they decided to go back off the rails. Good god.

[cville]

Jul 8, 2020 11:02:58 GMT -5 Gato said:

Thanks, SUSAN.

(Yes, I will be blaming everything on Susan Collins from now on. She knows better, but made her choices out of cowardice, so she really does deserve the blame for every anti-choice SCOTUS ruling).

SAME.

Also, fuck you forever MITCH BECAUSE GORSUCH IS IN A STOLEN SEAT AND I WILL NEVER EVER FORGET.

[kadams767]

Not for nothing, because I will never defend what has occurred with regard to SCOTUS nominees, but both of these decisions were 7-2. Only RBG and Sotomayor dissented on each of them.

[UMaineTeach]

@

I thought the most shocking thing about the religious schools was that the women were not discriminated against for reproductive or other sex/gender/love reasons. Or anything directly related to typical religious discrimination. It was cancer and age.

[smock]

Jul 8, 2020 11:34:21 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

@

I thought the most shocking thing about the religious schools was that the women were not discriminated against for reproductive or other sex/gender/love reasons. Or anything directly related to typical religious discrimination. It was cancer and age.

That is weird. I don't understand the reasoning of saying religious schools can discriminate against employees for any reason, even reasons unrelated to their professed religious beliefs. And Breyer and Kagan agreed with that? Clearly I need to read up on the case, because that's fucked up.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 8, 2020 11:51:17 GMT -5 smock said:

Jul 8, 2020 11:34:21 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

@

I thought the most shocking thing about the religious schools was that the women were not discriminated against for reproductive or other sex/gender/love reasons. Or anything directly related to typical religious discrimination. It was cancer and age.

That is weird. I don't understand the reasoning of saying religious schools can discriminate against employees for any reason, even reasons unrelated to their professed religious beliefs. And Breyer and Kagan agreed with that? Clearly I need to read up on the case, because that's fucked up.

It's about whether the ministerial exception applies to them.

[smock]

Jul 8, 2020 11:57:41 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 8, 2020 11:51:17 GMT -5 smock said:

That is weird. I don't understand the reasoning of saying religious schools can discriminate against employees for any reason, even reasons unrelated to their professed religious beliefs. And Breyer and Kagan agreed with that? Clearly I need to read up on the case, because that's fucked up.

It's about whether the ministerial exception applies to them.

I went and read Sotomayor's dissent and I was pumping my fist the entire time. I mean, the ministerial exception should not apply to these teachers when the schools don't even require them to be Catholic!

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 8, 2020 12:03:41 GMT -5 smock said:

Jul 8, 2020 11:57:41 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

It's about whether the ministerial exception applies to them.

I went and read Sotomayor's dissent and I was pumping my fist the entire time. I mean, the ministerial exception should not apply to these teachers when the schools don't even require them to be Catholic!

From what I've skimmed, I think I actually agree with both the majority and the dissent. It's a really good point that they don't require teachers to be Catholic, but these particular teachers jobs did have a fairly heavy religious-education aspect. The fact that both Alito and Kagan agree here that it does apply here is a pretty strong indicator to me that under current precedent, it actually does.

BUT - I don't actually agree with the ministerial exception like 99% of the time. Like, basically except for actual clergy, I don't think it should exist.

[basilosaurus]

Jul 8, 2020 11:02:58 GMT -5 Gato said:

Thanks, SUSAN.

(Yes, I will be blaming everything on Susan Collins from now on. She knows better, but made her choices out of cowardice, so she really does deserve the blame for every anti-choice SCOTUS ruling).

I fully approve the disapproval. But I don't want my name to be the new Karen

[cville]

Jul 8, 2020 11:31:28 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Not for nothing, because I will never defend what has occurred with regard to SCOTUS nominees, but both of these decisions were 7-2. Only RBG and Sotomayor dissented on each of them.

Sure, but if we had the 2 seats Obama was entitled to appoint and Hillary should've then maybe we're at 5-4 and someone could be persuaded to make it 4-5.


Also, as you note, there's never a wrong time to drag Mitch and Susan.

[nsl]

Jul 8, 2020 11:08:54 GMT -5 cville said:

Jul 8, 2020 11:02:58 GMT -5 Gato said:

Thanks, SUSAN.

(Yes, I will be blaming everything on Susan Collins from now on. She knows better, but made her choices out of cowardice, so she really does deserve the blame for every anti-choice SCOTUS ruling).

SAME.

Also, fuck you forever MITCH BECAUSE GORSUCH IS IN A STOLEN SEAT AND I WILL NEVER EVER FORGET.

I think I'm going to go give Amy McGrath some more money.

[simpsongal]

Jul 8, 2020 10:26:20 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

So disheartening. Tomorrow they will decide on Trump's taxes and then they will be off for the summer. I am crossing all my fingers and toes and hope they will do the right thing but today's decisions make me less hopeful.

dh and his colleagues think they’ll punt on tax returns. Scotus issued a statement that they’ve finishing all the opinions they’re ready to issue. They don’t usually include that characterization re ‘ready.’

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 8, 2020 18:03:20 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

Jul 8, 2020 10:26:20 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

So disheartening. Tomorrow they will decide on Trump's taxes and then they will be off for the summer. I am crossing all my fingers and toes and hope they will do the right thing but today's decisions make me less hopeful.

dh and his colleagues think they’ll punt on tax returns. Scotus issued a statement that they’ve finishing all the opinions they’re ready to issue. They don’t usually include that characterization re ‘ready.’

I wouldn't read into it. It was their standard "tomorrow is the last opinion day" announcement.

[dutchgirl678]

Jul 8, 2020 19:16:10 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 8, 2020 18:03:20 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

dh and his colleagues think they’ll punt on tax returns. Scotus issued a statement that they’ve finishing all the opinions they’re ready to issue. They don’t usually include that characterization re ‘ready.’

I wouldn't read into it. It was their standard "tomorrow is the last opinion day" announcement.

ABC News: BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Pres. Donald Trump cannot block a subpoena for his financial records sought by a New York prosecutor, ruling he is not immune from criminal investigation.

t.co/F6tN5A3Lcc?amp=1

And from SCOTUSblog:
In Trump v. Mazars, Trump wins this stage of dispute over congressional subpoenas to lenders and accountant for president’s financial records as #SCOTUS, 7-2, sends case back to lower courts to take account of separation of powers concerns
(my opinion: this may be seen as a win as he can stall and relitigate, but again SCOTUS argues that he is not above the law)

ETA: Never mind, I didn't see the new thread.