Legal/scotus thread

The 1st amendment -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Trump has endlessly attacked the parts in bold, and yet I haven't seen you say a thing about that. I might've missed it, to be fair. I don't keep up with this part of the board as much as I used to. Did I miss it?

Also, what did our "leaders" do during the pandemic to attack the part not in bold? Close churches like every single non-essential other building? Schools, closed. Libraries, closed. Colleges, closed. All the areas where we actually have a chance of bettering humankind through knowledge and education. But no...the big problem is that we also asked a bunch of people to talk to their imaginary friend at home instead of gathered tightly in a group spreading more than the normal disease they spread when they meet (ignorance).
 
sturg33 said:
The right to practice your religion uninterrupted from government
Click to expand...

That's not really what it says, but okay. So it is okay to infringe on religious freedom if it is breaking the law (your argument against the Satanic Temple's religious right to an abortion)? How is that not also the case when it involves thousands of lives in immediate danger?
 
Dalyn said:
That was striker. Sorry about that. You S posters all start to blend together.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif
 
I realized I posted this in the wrong SCOTUS thread:

ACA case was heard today before the SCOTUS. This one is based on the idea that since Congress set the individual mandate penalty to $0, it no longer qualifies as a tax and so is unconstitutional. The argument then goes that the individual mandate cannot be severed leaving the rest of the law intact because either it's too important to the overall law or else the court shouldn't strike down only parts of law (this would be a change to current jurisprudence).

Not surprisingly it looks like the ACA will survive this case. Roberts and Kavanaugh both seemed to support the idea that the individual mandate would be severable and both have written in support of severability in the past. Honestly, the only way it's not severable is if severability gets overturned as a doctrine. The individual mandate no longer has any effect so removing it would literally impact nothing else.

If I had to handicap it, I say they declare the individual mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the law intact.
 
striker42 said:
I realized I posted this in the wrong SCOTUS thread:

ACA case was heard today before the SCOTUS. This one is based on the idea that since Congress set the individual mandate penalty to $0, it no longer qualifies as a tax and so is unconstitutional. The argument then goes that the individual mandate cannot be severed leaving the rest of the law intact because either it's too important to the overall law or else the court shouldn't strike down only parts of law (this would be a change to current jurisprudence).

Not surprisingly it looks like the ACA will survive this case. Roberts and Kavanaugh both seemed to support the idea that the individual mandate would be severable and both have written in support of severability in the past. Honestly, the only way it's not severable is if severability gets overturned as a doctrine. The individual mandate no longer has any effect so removing it would literally impact nothing else.

If I had to handicap it, I say they declare the individual mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the law intact.
Click to expand...

Didn't the government originally argue that the mandate was crucial to the rest of the law? Not that it matters and I agree with your expected outcome, I just seem to remember that being emphasized.
 
Jaw said:
Didn't the government originally argue that the mandate was crucial to the rest of the law? Not that it matters and I agree with your expected outcome, I just seem to remember that being emphasized.
Click to expand...

I think it was part of the policy argument of the original case. The idea was cutting out the individual mandate would cripple the law and a lot of people were depending on the law.

What's interesting is that apparently the individual mandate didn't matter. When they did away with the penalty there was no real drop in the number of people buying policies in the exchanges.
 
Oh man, the post got double posted by refreshing the page

I guess we could talk about that instead of you being a ****ing idiot about mandates and the aca law

Seems you can’t tell time either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top