SCOTUS Decisions

[*bfine32*]

I thought we'd try to have one thread were we could have a discussion about SCOTUS decisions and some folks could speak to them more analytically instead of emotionally.

For instance 2 big decisions the last couple of days have been the decision on the ACA toward contraception and Trump's taxes.

As I understand each:

ACA- An employer does not have to cover the cost of contraception because of religious tights?

Taxes- A newspaper can have them, but Congress cannot?

[hollodero]

(07-10-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ACA- An employer does not have to cover the cost of contraception because of religious tights?

The ones with chastity belts? I mean, sure, they solve the contraception problem...

...I honestly don't know why I'm doing that.

(07-10-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Taxes- A newspaper can have them, but Congress cannot?

Yeah this one just leaves me extremely puzzled.

So for one the court is unanimous on the question if a president has total immunity. He sure has not. Thank god that was unanimous.

7-2 that the District attourney hence can keep investigating and is allowed to subpoena Trump, for he also cannot be bound by a heightened standard of need. The way I see it, this DC ayttourney gets the records. Meanwhile though, Maryland and DC can not see them, as another court said. This is confusing. I have to say though, that the media should get the records as well is news to me.

Regarding Congress, what this referral to the lower courts is all about seems strange to me as well.There it needs examining whether Congress has to narrow the parameters of the sought information. Which seems like delaying the process and hoping the question goes away. Or it has a valid legal reason I can not see.
Sure, also in this case said lower court would have affirmed that any absolute immunity claims are bogus. Don't know if that changes anything.

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Taxes- A newspaper can have them, but Congress cannot?

Newspaper?

I thought they were only to be released to a secret grand jury investigation?

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-10-2020, 01:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Newspaper?

I thought they were only to be released to a secret grand jury investigation?

My understanding as well. The NY case can access taxes only for grand jury processing. Congress, however cannot for their purposes.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2020, 01:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Newspaper?

I thought they were only to be released to a secret grand jury investigation?

(07-10-2020, 03:45 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: My understanding as well. The NY case can access taxes only for grand jury processing. Congress, however cannot for their purposes.

Thanks. I thought I read somewhere he had to release to the NYT. I agree on those rulings

[Benton]

(07-10-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought we'd try to have one thread were we could have a discussion about SCOTUS decisions and some folks could speak to them more analytically instead of emotionally.

For instance 2 big decisions the last couple of days have been the decision on the ACA toward contraception and Trump's taxes.

As I understand each:

ACA- An employer does not have to cover the cost of contraception because of religious tights?

Taxes- A newspaper can have them, but Congress cannot?

The Obama plan did that for churches and other business on religious grounds if they signed an exemption form. The argument for the trump change was that if employers signed the exemption form it was the same thing as allowing the employee to get birth control.

Trump expanded it to religious and moral grounds, which the court upheld. The courts said it satisfied the separation of church and state by allowing employers to deny coverage for non-,religious reasons.

[fredtoast]

The sad part about the tax returns is that a known liar and con man like Trump could get enough people to vote for him without releasing his tax returns.

To me the US citizens should be entitled to make sure that any presidential candidate has no financial conflicts of interests before letting him take office.

[jfkbengals]

(07-10-2020, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The sad part about the tax returns is that a known liar and con man like Trump could get enough people to vote for him without releasing his tax returns.

To me the US citizens should be entitled to make sure that any presidential candidate has no financial conflicts of interests before letting him take office.

Change that to "any public office" and I agree 100%.  You can't represent the people without the people knowing who puts the food on your table and the money in your pocket.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 09:34 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Change that to "any public office" and I agree 100%.  You can't represent the people without the people knowing who puts the food on your table and the money in your pocket.

The issue with expecting people to call Trump out on that is that a big part of his appeal was that he wasn't a "nice guy" who was going to let "the rules" hamper our success as a country.  The reason arguing morals with a Trump supporter is a fool's errand is because his bad boy image was spun as being essential to digging our country out of the hole wimpy do-gooder Obummer put us in.

[*bfine32*]

I was hoping this thread could be more about the merits of the decisions and less of the same; unfortunately, I was wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2020, 09:34 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Change that to "any public office" and I agree 100%.  You can't represent the people without the people knowing who puts the food on your table and the money in your pocket.

I agree to this. It should be all or nothing. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was hoping this thread could be more about the merits of the decisions and less of the same; unfortunately, I was wrong.

Well, one case you brought up involves Trump and allegations of fraud so I'm not sure what you expected.  Personally, I find it interesting that both of his appointees voted against him in that case, so I'll leave it at that for now.

The healthcare thing has been going around for the past few years and I think people have sort of gotten over it, or the above is just overshadowing it.  That's my take.  I'm not sure what you're really looking for here other than the "same old crap" since that seems to be what politics is giving us to work with.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2020, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought we'd try to have one thread were we could have a discussion about SCOTUS decisions and some folks could speak to them more analytically instead of emotionally.

For instance 2 big decisions the last couple of days have been the decision on the ACA toward contraception and Trump's taxes.

As I understand each:

ACA- An employer does not have to cover the cost of contraception because of religious tights?

Taxes- A newspaper can have them, but Congress cannot?

(07-10-2020, 10:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, one case you brought up involves Trump and allegations of fraud so I'm not sure what you expected.  Personally, I find it interesting that both of his appointees voted against him in that case, so I'll leave it at that for now.

The healthcare thing has been going around for the past few years and I think people have sort of gotten over it, or the above is just overshadowing it.  That's my take.  I'm not sure what you're really looking for here other than the "same old crap" since that seems to be what politics is giving us to work with.

Just that.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just that.

The big analytic to me is that Trump's appointees voted against him, so he's on the defense from his own side now.  That's is both fact and open to speculation.  I personally find it pretty noteworthy that so many prominent people who are very much NOT liberal loons with a senseless vendetta have joined in the persecution of Trump.  That ain't emotion, that's a fact.

Feel free to lay some deep analysis upon me, but if your analysis is that I'm just piling on Trump because I don't like him I'll respond that it isn't about me and other liberal idiots being anti-Trump so much as legitimate people Trump supporters supported pulling their support for Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2020, 09:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The issue with expecting people to call Trump out on that is that a big part of his appeal was that he wasn't a "nice guy" who was going to let "the rules" hamper our success as a country.  The reason arguing morals with a Trump supporter is a fool's errand is because his bad boy image was spun as being essential to digging our country out of the hole wimpy do-gooder Obummer put us in.

(07-10-2020, 10:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The big analytic to me is that Trump's appointees voted against him, so he's on the defense from his own side now.  That's is both fact and open to speculation.  I personally find it pretty noteworthy that so many prominent people who are very much NOT liberal loons with a senseless vendetta have joined in the persecution of Trump.  That ain't emotion, that's a fact.

Feel free to lay some deep analysis upon me, but if your analysis is that I'm just piling on Trump because I don't like him I'll respond that it isn't about me and other liberal idiots being anti-Trump so much as legitimate people Trump supporters supported pulling their support for Trump.

My desire was to make this thread about the merits of SCOTUS' decisions. It's obvious what yours was. Take your BS to another thread. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My desire was to make this thread about the merits of SCOTUS' decisions. It's obvious what yours was. Take your BS to another thread. 

What did I say that is BS?  My talking point hinges upon something that is factually proven by the voting record, that's not BS and that isn't hater emotion, it's fact and I find it very interesting.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted against Trump on this one regardless of what I think has merit or doesn't.  I'm not saying I''m not a biased idiot who is full of shit and lives to rag on Trump, I just don't see what I'm saying here that makes it so clear that you're looking down your nose at me for it.