Page 49 of 51 FirstFirst ... 39404142434445464748495051 LastLast
Results 961 to 980 of 1001

Thread: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

  1. #961
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
    Just made it tougher to sue your employer.
    Thank god. I was worried that employers didn’t have enough leverage.
    Was this an arbitration thing? Not surprised, then, cause they've been interpreting that statute in a pro corporate way forever. The way to change that is have Congress change the law (I know, good luck with that).

  2. #962
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    3,024
    Quote Originally Posted by St. Clown View Post
    How would that impact lawsuits filed prior to the ruling handed down on whichever court case you're referencing?
    Not sure this is all I’ve seen

    http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/388601-supreme-court-upholds-agreements-that-prevent-employee-class-action

  3. #963

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,445

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    If two laws are in conflict, have Congress fix it via legislation.

    (for sale, one bridge).

  4. #964
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    If two laws are in conflict, have Congress fix it via legislation.

    (for sale, one bridge).
    And in the meantime...what? Just live with the potential catch 22?

    And who determines if they're in conflict if not the courts?

  5. #965
    The Dark One
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    killin your brain like a poisonous mushroom
    Posts
    15,224

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    Jobs over people. We are always told to vote that way. Now it's at the SCOTUS. That's a brick down from the wall.
    If only there was SOME way we could have avoided all this....
    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

  6. #966

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,445
    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    And in the meantime...what? Just live with the potential catch 22?

    And who determines if they're in conflict if not the courts?
    SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.

  7. #967
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.
    But your original statement implied SCOTUS shouldn't have chosen one.

  8. #968

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,445
    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    But your original statement implied SCOTUS shouldn't have chosen one.
    No. They chose A over B. If Congress and the people don't like it, fix the conflict via legislation.

    However, inertia is the major party in the Congress.

  9. #969
    \../ \../
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Patiently awaiting changes I know are not coming.
    Posts
    2,118

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.
    This has much more to do with individual employment contracts people sign as a condition of a job offer than it does collective bargaining agreements between organized workers and their employer. Depending on the specific language in a collective bargaining agreement this may have little impact on the average unionized employee.

    The eventual decision in the Janus vs. AFSCME case potentially will have a much greater impact on unions all across the country. More and more unions represent public sector employees and when the latest attack on unions plays out in the upcoming decision (if it goes as bad as most union leaders fear it will) their ability to effectively represent their members will be impacted dramatically. It's important we lessen the ability of labor unions to effectively represent their members because back in the 1960s wages were starting to get too high.

  10. #970

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    60,346

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Court gets privacy case right, perhaps for the first time in 25 years.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  11. #971
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    26,253

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Some good one-liners in that write up.

  12. #972
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,725

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...cake-shop-case

    So it's legal to use religion to hate. So very awesome.

    Sad that people hid behind a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness to hate other people. And it's now legal to do that.

  13. #973

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,445
    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...cake-shop-case

    So it's legal to use religion to hate. So very awesome.

    Sad that people hid behind a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness to hate other people. And it's now legal to do that.
    Read the decision on SCOTUSblog. interesting. In a quick read through (59 pages) it looks like the justices felt that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was openly hostile to religion and that was why they went for the plaintiffs.

  14. #974

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    60,346

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Does it turn on orientation not being a suspect class? I'm not clear on how you can allow discrimination of this type without me saying "well, my religion does not approve of the Irish Lifestyle so I won't make cakes for St. Patrick's Day."

    It seems like a really gross decision, at least the Four Horsemen's portion of it, and reason #578 not to elect a string of brainless rightwing f-cktards to be President.

    But here's the thing: we have a market solution. Boycott the homophobes into penury.

    Not the anti-Irish, though.

    That I get.
    Last edited by Kepler; 06-04-2018 at 10:08 AM.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  15. #975
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...cake-shop-case

    So it's legal to use religion to hate. So very awesome.

    Sad that people hid behind a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness to hate other people. And it's now legal to do that.
    Kennedy punted on the big question. He basically said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with bias, so its decision was tainted. He didn't answer the underlying balance question. Which was why Kagan and Breyer concurred in the judgment.

    It's unclear where Roberts would've ended up, but the other 7 clearly signal their intent when the question comes up again with their concurrence or dissent. The 4 liberals would uphold the law; Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would not. It's likely Roberts sides with them as well given his past precedent, though he smartly didn't join any of the concurrences here so he has wiggle room to read the political winds at the time.
    Last edited by unofan; 06-04-2018 at 09:54 AM.

  16. #976
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,725

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Read the decision on SCOTUSblog. interesting. In a quick read through (59 pages) it looks like the justices felt that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was openly hostile to religion and that was why they went for the plaintiffs.
    How does that make it right to discriminate using religion? That's not interesting, that's a distraction, and makes it even more sad. Slap their hands for being hostile, but don't make that legal. The store is NOT a religion, it's a store that sells stuff for profit. Now they can pick and choose who they deem acceptable based on their religious filter. Is that really the right thing to do?

  17. #977
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    How does that make it right to discriminate using religion? That's not interesting, that's a distraction, and makes it even more sad. Slap their hands for being hostile, but don't make that legal. The store is NOT a religion, it's a store that sells stuff for profit. Now they can pick and choose who they deem acceptable based on their religious filter. Is that really the right thing to do?
    If a murderer goes free on a technicality, that doesn't make all murder legal.

    Calm down.

  18. #978
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,944

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    SCOTUSBlog's initial reaction on its live blog is that Kennedy is signaling he would side with the State/gay couples in a future case that didn't show evidence of religious animus.

    That would be 5 clear votes in that direction, if true. I'm not sure I agree it's that clear, but it would be consistent with his past decisions in favor of gay rights.

  19. #979
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,808

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    SCOTUSBlog's initial reaction on its live blog is that Kennedy is signaling he would side with the State/gay couples in a future case that didn't show evidence of religious animus.

    That would be 5 clear votes in that direction, if true. I'm not sure I agree it's that clear, but it would be consistent with his past decisions in favor of gay rights.
    Does the fact that Kennedy wrote this opinion offer any hints about any of the upcoming rulings? Would there be any expectation of who would issue the opinion in the gerrymandering case(s) if they were to come down on the side of basic democratic values?

  20. #980
    Made in the USA
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    45,494

    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    How does that make it right to discriminate using religion? That's not interesting, that's a distraction, and makes it even more sad. Slap their hands for being hostile, but don't make that legal. The store is NOT a religion, it's a store that sells stuff for profit. Now they can pick and choose who they deem acceptable based on their religious filter. Is that really the right thing to do?
    Absolutely the right thing to do. There are plenty of cases where people refuse the right to service, but I haven't heard you ***** and moan about those as much as you do with this. Your argument is about destroying people's belief systems and forcing them onto yours. And you're supposedly the tolerant one...

    How about just going to another baker if you don't like what you're getting?
    It was an honor to present your colors, RPI. Let's Go 'TUTE!
    May 14th, 2011, 11:00 PM ET: 2147483647

    "Better to be infamous than never famous at all." -Roger Stone

    Quote Originally Posted by French Rage View Post
    Ahh crap I agree exactly with what FlagDude said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    And yet, even if Flaggy is complete tinfoil hat, every day it looks closer and closer to the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    So flaggy: you win.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •