SCOTUS Watch

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:11 pm

Odd I always thought straw purchases were illegal. Though it did make me wonder how one could gift a firearm, which appears to be the crux of the rebuttal.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:21 pm

From research, interstate transfers need to go through a licensed dealer. The suggestion is that you purchase a gift certificate for them or otherwise provide the funds for them to make the purchase.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:32 am

Aereo is engaging in a public performance (6-3). Opinion text

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:35 am

I'm going to take a look at the decision, but I'll probably need someone smarter than me to explain how the hell the decision makes any sense at all.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:39 am

Congress redefined a performance back in 1976 when court cases went against the copyright holders. According to the current definition, turning on your TV and watching something constitutes a performance. The public part comes in that it's considered a public performance even if a subscription cable provider does it, so there's no difference in the argument that Aereo performs to subscribers.

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas were the dissenters.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:40 am

Chaz wrote:I'm going to take a look at the decision, but I'll probably need someone smarter than me to explain how the hell the decision makes any sense at all.

From Gizmodo:

Because Aereo's activities are substantially similar to those of the CATV companies that Congress amended the [Copyright] Act to reach, Aereo is not simply an equipment prvoider. Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs, many of which are copyrighted, virtually as they are being broadcast. Aereo uses its own equipment, housed in a centralized warehouse, outside of its users' homes. By means of its technology, Aereo's system "receives programs that have been released to the public and carr[ies] them by private channels to additional viewers."

Analysis here.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:53 am

Cell phones are protected from warrantless searches. Opinion

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:06 am

Isgrimnur wrote:Aereo is engaging in a public performance (6-3). Opinion text

I really wish SCOTUSBlog were there. Jackass media credentialing group.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:11 am

SCOTUSBlog did a good job of covering today's decisions.

Just saw a tweet that encapsulates just how little tech companies understand the political process, and why they keep getting their asses handed to them: "This Aero decision is terrible. I hope they appeal."

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:24 am

Isgrimnur wrote:Congress redefined a performance back in 1976 when court cases went against the copyright holders. According to the current definition, turning on your TV and watching something constitutes a performance. The public part comes in that it's considered a public performance even if a subscription cable provider does it, so there's no difference in the argument that Aereo performs to subscribers.

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas were the dissenters.

Having read it, I can't see that there is a remote transmission scheme that is going to be acceptable.

But let me give it a shot. I buy an antenna, transcoder, and internet hookup. I rent space from Aereo for them to store the antenna and maintain my equipment. Their warehouses are huge and they can do this for a ton of people. Is that legal?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:27 am

I doubt it.

They're still performing it by transmitting it, and you owning the equipment doesn't make it any less of a public concern based on the extant definitions.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:33 am

Isgrimnur wrote:I doubt it.

They're still performing it by transmitting it, and you owning the equipment doesn't make it any less of a public concern based on the extant definitions.

But owning the equipment makes all the difference else they just outlawed all antennas. In the current case, all of the individual antennas go to Aereos computers. In my case, the user owns everything from the antenna to the dumb pipe. Aereo rents space and service plans to maintain the equipment (which they also likely sell). How is that different than an antenna on the roof of an apartment building with a supervisor maintaining them?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:39 am

stessier wrote:How is that different than an antenna on the roof of an apartment building with a supervisor maintaining them?

It's not. The whole point of the 1976 law changes were to correct for the legal findings in favor of community antenna television not being public performances.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:39 am

Time for tech companies to appeal to the bank accounts of Congress.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:05 am

Gearing up for a decision today on the Hobby Lobby case. It still boggles my mind that as a nation we are contemplating whether or not corporations have the right to exercise religion and believe in God.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:25 am

RunningMn9 wrote:Gearing up for a decision today on the Hobby Lobby case. It still boggles my mind that as a nation we are contemplating whether or not corporations have the right to exercise religion and believe in God.

No need to contemplate it any more:

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

Tomorrow I'm incorporating myself as a profit-seeking business and claiming my #1 religious belief is that I don't pay taxes.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:29 am

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

I guess we'll be seeing the Church of the Kraken on Curio City soon.

I disagree with the judgment, but at least it's limited in scope. We shouldn't be seeing attempts from companies listed on the stock exchanges attempting to make the same arguments.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:43 am

Isgrimnur wrote:
I guess we'll be seeing the Church of the Kraken on Curio City soon.

I disagree with the judgment, but at least it's limited in scope. We shouldn't be seeing attempts from companies listed on the stock exchanges attempting to make the same arguments.

That's a big and important qualifier. Also, the judgement notes that the government can provide contraception coverage in cases where the "closely held corporation" denies it based on religious grounds. If that's the case, there would be no gap in coverage, and maybe we inch ever so slightly closer to the inevitability of single payer.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:45 am

Isgrimnur wrote:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:52 am

RunningMn9 wrote:Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.

Only when a Corporation is facing fines or penalties based on decisions made by individuals running said Corporation. They apparently have the best of both worlds, assuming they meet some nebulous size qualifier.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:57 am

Smoove_B wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.
Only when a Corporation is facing fines or penalties based on decisions made by individuals running said Corporation. They apparently have the best of both worlds, assuming they meet some nebulous size qualifier.

Uh oh.

Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:59 am

Captain Caveman wrote:
Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held

Yes, but most of those are too small to be compelled to murder babies already.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:01 am

The solution is easy - women just have to screen their employers to see if they are closely held are not. Seems reasonable.

As a note - it does not seem that the Supreme's are paying much heed to recent polls that indicate that people believe they are becoming more political and losing legitimacy. It is not like the other "3 estates" are crumbling in lockstep or anything.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:23 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held
Yes, but most of those are too small to be compelled to murder babies already.

Jeebus. Now were having to ask, how developed must a corporation be to constitute personhood?

When does it have consciousness?

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:36 am

Via Gawker:

Michelle Dean wrote:
Alito wrote:In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
I think what we are supposed to glean from this paragraph in Alito's opinion is, "Don't worry, women! We're really just targeting your reproductive organs here."

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:38 am

Smoove_B wrote:Tomorrow I'm incorporating myself as a profit-seeking business and claiming my #1 religious belief is that I don't pay taxes.

They're one step ahead of you.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate andshould not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:41 am

Fretmute wrote:Via Gawker:

Michelle Dean wrote:
Alito wrote:In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
I think what we are supposed to glean from this paragraph in Alito's opinion is, "Don't worry, women! We're really just targeting your reproductive organs here."

The scary part is that I can see this being written by some cloistered old white men and the time will change it, but the change seems to reactionary lately.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:56 am

Isgrimnur wrote:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
I guess we'll be seeing the Church of the Kraken on Curio City soon.

This decision made me want to reach for the sacramental weed. I don't have any because of persecution by the government. This shall not stand, man.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:06 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:They're one step ahead of you.

Dammit. Well, at least the Hobby Lobby corporation can continue to make money by selling goods made in China - a nation that is known for their humanitarian treatment of women because there's nothing in their corporate religious beliefs prohibiting that.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:10 pm

It is really frigging hard to figure out what these guys will decide from case to case. I'm all for the hobby lobby case but it wasn't big on my list. The one I really liked is the home healthcare worker union case.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:33 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
Isn't the *entire point* of the existence of the Corporation is that there is an essential difference between the business and its owners.

This is a fundamental, foundational point of corporate law. The Supreme Court's decision may have severe unintended consequences. Terrible decision, even if they attempted to narrow it. When the issue is pushed, the Supreme Court is going to have to re-evaluate its decision in Hobby Lobby.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:34 pm

Zarathud wrote:This is a fundamental, foundational point of corporate law. The Supreme Court's decision may have severe unintended consequences. Terrible decision, even if they attempted to narrow it. When the issue is pushed, the Supreme Court is going to have to re-evaluate its decision in Hobby Lobby.

I'd like to believe that, but I have no faith that it will ever come to pass.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:16 pm

I think I'm going to throw up.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:21 pm

Luckily, the Canadian single payer system doesn't have a religious exemption at treating mental health issues.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:21 pm

Stop it, you guys are making me giddy!

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:22 pm

Can I get FMLA for speaking in tongues? It does make my code rather hard to read.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:19 pm

I should point out that I really couldn't care less about whether or not Hobby Lobby has to help it's female employees murder children or not.

My revulsion to this ruling is that it is so clearly wrong-headed. A closely held corporation is *not* essentially the same as its owners. That the single most important reason that the owners formed a closely-held corporation - because above all else, it creates the legal fiction that the business entity is wholly separate from the owners. That's the fundamental principle that allows the liability shield to stay in place.

If the corporation is essentially the same as its owners, does that mean we can take away their houses to settle outstanding corporate debts?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:22 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:If the corporation is essentially the same as its owners, does that mean we can take away their houses to settle outstanding corporate debts?

Like we did for banks that were laundering drug money for cartels and that bundled sub-prime mortgages?

I've tried mentally parsing all this today and I can't. It actually makes my brain hurt. I mean...the idea that corporations are people and that some corporations now have the ability to impose religious beliefs on workers. It's like something out of a Douglas Adams novel.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:24 pm

Smoove_B wrote:the idea that corporations are people and that some corporations now have the ability to impose religious beliefs on workers.

I don't know that I agree that Hobby Lobby is imposing religious beliefs on workers. The workers will still get their infant killing medications, they will just be paid for by the taxpayer instead. Which presumably the owner of Hobby Lobby is paying (along with Hobby Lobby itself).

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:36 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I don't know that I agree that Hobby Lobby is imposing religious beliefs on workers.

I can't even think straight. They're allowed to create corporate policy based on religious beliefs that impact workers. A corporation...is allowed to create policy based on religious beliefs.