Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4022 Posts

Recommended: 462 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. That's right. However, (1 Reply)

    we don’t want posts on the site that don’t allow comments. So I’ve repaired the problem, which I suspect was unintentional.

  2. Unfortunately, Tom, (2 Replies)

    the way the US Attorney has gone about this may well have exactly the opposite effect you describe. If the jury indeed acquits everybody, why wouldn’t they wear that acquittal as a badge of honor – as a demonstration that they “did nothing wrong”? If I were in their shoes, that’s exactly what I would do. It would make it less likely that things will change, rather than more, IMHO.

  3. "let’s do an IP check." (0 Replies)

    Don’t worry about that stuff. We are well aware of it, and we have the tools to deal with it.

  4. A legislative commission has looked into some of these questions (1 Reply)

    - though, grain of salt alert, John Fish chaired the commission. I linked to the report in this post. Take a look and let us know what you think!

  5. This is a great question. (2 Replies)

    Does anyone know if Baker has yet said anything about Hobby Lobby? Anything at all?

  6. This is an interesting question (1 Reply)

    which, to my knowledge, was not raised in the case. I suppose the gov’t could have argued that, to whatever extent RFRA and the ACA are inconsistent, the ACA should be understood to have partially repealed RFRA to that extent. But I’m pretty sure there’s nothing explicit in the ACA that would suggest an intention to partially repeal RFRA in that way. In any event, nobody argued it, so it wasn’t part of the Court’s basis for deciding the case.

  7. As I explained in my front page post, (0 Replies)

    this case is not about the Constitution’s free exercise clause. And there is little doubt that, under that clause, Hobby Lobby’s claim would have failed.

  8. Basically, yes, (0 Replies)

    which is yet another of the case’s ironies. All of this could be avoided if everyone would just get behind single payer.

  9. ... including City of Boerne, (0 Replies)

    maybe the Court’s most important RFRA case before today.

  10. Interesting theory re Scalia ... (2 Replies)

    but what about Kennedy? He’s been on the Court almost as long as Scalia, he also didn’t write anything from the March sitting, and he’s anything but combative. And he’s written plenty of important religion cases.

  11. Good Lord, what a stupid analogy. (0 Replies)

    As soon as the government starts mandating euthanasia, get back to me. Until then, let’s try to maintain at least a small connection to reality.

  12. Moreso than Roberts, Scalia, or Kennedy? (1 Reply)

    That’s what I don’t get. Even on your view of the way things work up there, it’s really very odd that Alito wrote the opinion.

  13. The cynic in me (1 Reply)

    wants to look to Christian vs. non-Christian religions as the distinguishing factor in Scalia’s various positions on these kinds of cases. But I’m sure that’s not it.

  14. A very good question (1 Reply)

    that, I think, reflects the fact that most Supreme Court Justices don’t actually know very much about how corporations work. Few if any have concrete experience with modern corporate law. For example, Justice Alito, the author of today’s opinion, has no experience in private practice; before he became a judge he was a federal prosecutor and government lawyer.

  15. The blood transfusions point, (1 Reply)

    as I noted in the post, is very difficult. Alito tries to limit his opinion to contraception only, by saying that maybe there will be other ways of dealing with cases like vaccines and transfusions, but it’s hard to see what they would be.

  16. That's not what the Little Sisters case is about. (1 Reply)

    That case is about the form that employers are supposed to fill out if they want to opt out of coverage. Religious groups have always been exempt from the ACA’s contraception mandate.

  17. "Could a company owned by a Scientologist refuse to pay for mental health care?" (1 Reply)

    That’s a big, big question that remains unanswered. Alito tried to limit his opinion, but his basis for doing so was not convincing. This very issue seems likely to arise quickly in other cases.

  18. Um... (1 Reply)

    that’s really not what I had in mind. I was hoping you could make a concise point, and link to the study – not take over the thread with extended excerpts which, to be honest, nobody is going to read through. Plus, long quotations without additional comment put us in danger of violating copyright rules. Striker57′s comment upthread is a much better example of how to use links to support your position. I have deleted a couple of your comments that I thought went too far in terms of lengthy quotations.

  19. A couple of links (1 Reply)

    that directly support a point you want to make are fine, and in fact are encouraged. A post with a string of links, however, will be flagged by our spam filter, so use discretion.