Well, I suppose I deserve that personal attack after I called you naive. Please continue.


Another strawman. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I'm saying.

In the video evidence I reference, the POV is generally a clinic escort walking next to the victim, and the threats being made by the "counselors" to the victim are made in real time and are not hypothetically worded. But I see you're already there....


And this is where the Court diverged from common sense, IMO. This type of activity, even from the so-called "counselors" has a consistent modus operandi that, again, seeks to confuse / misdirect / intimidate someone already in a compromised emotional state from doing something they had made up their mind to do. The remedy the court suggested (but, critically, only sort of, and with much caveats) is no remedy in that it requires a high level of evidence, a lucky break at court, and a victim willing to testify who (as in rape cases) is statistically unlikely to do so.

The MA law, IMO, was an attempt to just remove the chance of the situation happening (as stated by the law enforcement officers Roberts himself quoted).

Now, if the law was being abused in the ways you & Imran suggested it could have been (but for which no evidence indicates it was), you'd have a point.


Again, this (the "counselors") isn't just speech. It's a clear, consistent, and unambiguous process aimed towards a particular goal. This isn't some guy approaching you on a train platform to tell you about chemtrails. This is about people using a tried-and-true method to prey upon other people. The fact that the court either can't or won't see that and rule accordingly is what is wrong, IMO.

But that's not the strawman you created:


I'm not claiming Ginsberg is/was a conservative justice. You're painting me as someone who would. That's a deceitful way of building your argument.

We can agree to disagree as to whether Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg are moderate justices, which is what I'd claim.


Well, that is what I'd claim. I'd admit there have been left-of-center justices, but certainly no one "Liberal" as the term is typically used in the common discourse of the past 20-30 years.


And as I've said before, due to the challenging of enforcing and prosecuting harassment, it's not a great option. Maybe you agree by saying "welcome to the wonderful world...". But, of course, if that's the case, don't you think that's a little sad we can't come up with a better solution in this great democracy of ours?

You're getting closer to the actual definition of harassment, so why not require the state to actually prove that intent for each defendant, like they have to do for other intent-based crimes, instead of just assuming whoever is there necessarily has that criminal intent?

Edit: I don't know everything this particular lady did, but if I'm the prosecutor, and she's charged with talking to these people with the intent to harass them, I just might be able to make that case to the jury, who are allowed to infer intent from conduct. Even if she doesn't straight-up threaten them, if there's enough circumstantial evidence there, if police find graphic pamphlets on her, and if we can get in her prior conduct under 404(b) (using her prior conduct as evidence of her intent in this case), that might fly. The Mass statute doesn't even require that intent though. It criminalizes all speech in that area, as well as passive, silent protest. It assumes everyone has a criminal intent. It assumes every abortion protester intends to commit criminal harassment. The government can't silence people on the justification that their "type" commits crimes.

I dunno where you have been, but President Obama is consider a liberal in the "common discourse" and is more moderate than the Liberal 4. Who, btw, have been called the Liberal 4 by common discourse for a while.

But I will then restate: Go ahead and call Ginsberg anything but a liberal justice and prepare to be laughed at, or called a far left loon.

(I would hasten to add, that no one is really simply a moderate by itself - they are either a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal - they are after all members of a party on one side or the other. Saying that, even calling Ginsberg center-left, as opposed to left, is amusing)


What makes you think that I think we need a "better solution"? Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights. It is something that the United States values above most others and can result in a bit of "free speech fundamentalism", but that's a source of pride, not shame. In curtailing free speech, it should be something that takes at least a little bit of effort to do. The challenges of enforcing and prosecuting harassment is there to preserve one of our most important rights - just as the challenge of getting warrant before searching our cell phone is put in place to defend our Fourth Amendment rights (and some are likely to say that's not a great option, read the FOFC thread on that case, but I'd disagree).

That being said, I think you are overstating the challenges of proving harassment as well as completely ignoring perfectly valid anti-harassment laws that some states already have. Molson pointed out to you the NY State's law spoken of in a positive light in the opinion, which you said was interesting and then have completely ignored subsequently.

But, molson, prosecuting harassment is so 'onerous' that even the passive silent protesters should have their free speech curtailed... or so the argument apparently goes.

Since they pretty much have the rights of people at this point, at what point can we start arresting whole corporations or, at least, their boards, and throwing them in jail.

Also, if my religion says to me that other races are inferior, is there anything in today's or other rulings that prohibit my company from bringing back whites only and blacks only water fountains?

SI

The case is very limited in its scope and applies specifically to this situation only. That said, what you wrote is exactly where my mind went.

I would also be curious if a Hobby Lobby employes people who have divorced. Should they not? Do they hire only Christians?

I do believe at some point, the whole "corporations are people" is going to lead to some unintended consequences.

Real telling that they limited it only to contraceptives - not anything that you know...a man might need.

Fuckers.

I love the slight of hand of trying to claim this is limited in scope by saying this is only for "closely held" corporations, which means 90%+ of all companies.

SCOTUSBlog has me thoroughly confused about this case:

How does it not provide a shield? The precedent set basically says "bring us every challenge you want about the case". It feels like they went out of their way to say "hey, this isn't a broad exemption" over and over because they know it's a broad exemption. But does saying it over and over functionally make it true for future challenges? I would think you could just point to this case and argue the precedent was set.

SI

Can't wait for the first corporation to declare itself Muslim. I'd assume they'd get the same treatment.

Right, I don't see how The Court could later rule against someone else bringing a similar suit about something they don't want to cover because of their religious beliefs without establishing that some religious beliefs are valid to be held in the US while others are not.

Will corporations now all have to declare a religion? I can't imagine how many new religions are formed in the coming months to get around different aspects of things.

The last point is that there is an alternative - the same one the HHS provided to religious non-profits - the government will mandate the insurers provide coverage at a lower cost sharing.

Which is also the reason to limit it to contraception. There is a clear alternative - meaning the government's argument of narrow tailoring can't really stand.

Not surprised to see you in favor of this.

Who says I am? :p

I'm not sure how I'd rule on the corporations' right to RFRA part. HOWEVER, if one rules that closely held corporations can be subject to the protections of the RFRA, it seems that its a win for the corporations - there is a less restrictive alternative which means the government's solution is not narrowly tailored.

Anyways, this is EXACTLY what's going to happen when you condition health insurance on companies' providing it for you. It is really clear that in order to avoid these sort of conflicts, insurance should be based on covering individuals, not employees. Whether you want to do single payer (my preference) or individual tax credits, that's a far superior way than tax credits for companies and fines if they don't cover.

Big whoop. It's a tiny win over a tiny point in a sea of unspeakably bad rulings.

Pardon me if I don't go looking for champagne.

SCOTUSblog's twitter feed has been hilarious today. (A lot of people thinking that SCOTUSblog = SCOTUS sending them tweets. Hilarity ensues.)

ISIS showing off its five year plan: Twitter / Third_Position: #ISIS Roadmap: The goal of ...

Dude, they're called condoms...they're not that expensive. :p

Pretty senseless to me. If Hamas did it (and its not as if they are disclaiming the accusations against them) I don't really see the aim. Its not as if they needed to provoke Israel as the peace process had broken down already.

Missing Israeli teens found dead in West Bank - CNN.com

Let's see what Obama comes up with. The southern border, illegal immigration is a tough one but hope he does something for legal immigration. IMO its in our national interests to keep highly educated foreigners in the country.

Obama to take executive action on immigration - CNN.com

The senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that got 68 votes (nearly unheard of in this decade). The house refuses to bring it for a vote (Where it would likely pass) because it would make Hispanics happy and they mostly vote democrat. What can a president do when a chamber won't vote on a bill that would pass?

Each corporation gets to choose a Founder Belief, two Follower Beliefs, and an Enhancer Belief. If they play their cards right they may also get a Reformation Belief.

I know it sucks and I agree but that's the system. They're not going against any laws by doing it. They are crapping on the spirit of it. That said, Obama can't just do whatever he wants -- and that is by design.

I'd figure the conservative nature of the Hispanic culture would be something the Republicans would be able to connect with, but the immigration thing is what swings the support to the left.

The immigration thing?

You mean where tens of thousands of children alone will be pouring across our southern border this year alone for citizenship? And with no end in sight for future illegal entry? I'm all for amnesty, but we have to turn off the massive swell of illegal entry first right? What happened to that part of the discussion? Can it really just be ignored? It's a little more complicated than just "winning the Hispanic vote". Aren't there some long-term problems associated with breaking our immigrant quotas year in and year out by thousands of percent that we need to address before we go rushing out to win the Hispanic vote?

Wasn't what I meant. Just was commenting the Republicans' concerns on the voting patterns of Hispanics and where they're falling to win them.

You know some company run by an anti-vaccine nut is going to do this.

Even better, maybe a CEO who is a Christian Scientist can come up with his own take on health i surance.

I still don't get how what someone spends their compensation on infringes on anyone's religious beliefs. When can they tell me I can't use my check to go to the titty bar?

Though, as the opinion stated, it depends if there is a less restrictive means of achieving the compelling governmental interest. I'm not sure there is for anti-vaccines or Christian Scientist beliefs. Contraceptives already had an alternative for the religious non-profit folks.

And I think it was more of a direct pay. As in, indirect pay is ok, but direct pay makes 'em squeamish. Though, its all fair if the insurance company is forced to provide free contraception (that is what this is about, btw), they raise rates on the Plan itself.

I don't understand why an IUD is "abortion" but not a birth control pill, they both achieve similar things. Some women can't take the pill, and IUD is pretty effective but expensive.

Also, interesting to know that Hobby Lobby gets most of their goods from China, so funding IUDs is apparently morally repugnant, but buying sweatshop stuff to resell and supporting horrible, morally repugnant Chinese companies is being a good Christian.

Or, again, why not pursue a common-sense buffer-zone solution that vastly decreases the likelihood of harassment and violence without realistically infringing on rights? After all, that appears to be the thinking behind both the political "free speech zones" and the 252-foot buffer zone the Supreme Court has for itself.

I understand that you both are arguing (correctly) that the buffer zone just flat out contradicts with the first amendment. But there are many areas in the United States where physical presence (and so, by extension, speech) is not allowed, due to safety concerns.

If the Court had at least acknowledged those safety concerns (and acts of actual violence) and given more than just a "maybe, but no promises" to the idea of more narrow language, then maybe I'd have less of a problem with it.

But as it stands, the decision simply reads as a statement of dry technicalities completely divorced from both common sense and an understanding of what happens in the real world.


After twenty years of turning "liberal" into a pejorative term, it's now a meaningless term for categorizing political stances. And you're smart enough to know this.

As the two charts I posted indicate, if you were to plot those judges (or even Obama) on any reasonable spectrum of political stances, including that of the U.S. populace itself, they would all show up much closer in striking distance to "moderate" than any of the other Justices save possibly Kennedy.

Prove me wrong.


Pre-meditated harassment with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) threat of violence is not free speech.


After that I did some reading, much of what seemed to indicate that while those things are true about the anti-harassment laws, they also didn't necessarily make it easier to prosecute said behavior.


Via SCOTUSblog, I learned that the U.S. Code's "Dictionary Act", explicitly defines a corporation as a person:


Thus they are absolutely entitled to the protections of the RFRA. So this ruling should not be a surprise.

What should be a surprise, however, is the majority's belief that this ruling will be interpreted narrowly, as on the contrary based on this precedent, it should be pretty straightforward for any company to do anything (that's otherwise legal) based on religious or other beliefs. I would put money on retroviral drugs for AIDS sufferers being next. Maybe insulin for type 2 diabetes sufferers?

Of course, the other interesting thing here is the decision to have one person's "rights" trump another's, as both a company and a woman (per the law) are people. The power of the employer trumps, in this instance at least (though in many others as well).


Now this, this is something with which I couldn't agree more.


Serious question, as I think I've missed this in the coverage, but what was the alternative here you were talking about?

Chalabi? For fuck's sake.

Every single publication out there, including liberal ones, characterize Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor as the "Liberal four". To state that mainstream view is that they are not liberal, but instead moderate is to completely miss the boat, IMO.


And that's the problem right there. These aren't 'political stances'; these are legal stances. You, yourself, even point out that corporations are considered 'persons' under the law, even if people think that's so utterly horrible, that's what the law actually says.

In addition, while there are folks that argue that we have to elect so and so to prevent judges like Scalia on the bench, there are equal amounts of folk who run on platforms saying we need to elect so and so that we can put strict constructionists like Scalia and unlike Ginsberg (ESPECIALLY after the ACA decision).


Religious non-profits can "opt-out" of directly covering contraception (or small sector of contraception they consider abortifacents, which aren't really, but it doesn't matter for these purposes), BUT the insurer is required to cover those services at the same cost sharing rate (ie, free).

Justice Kennedy, in his concurrence, suggested that there was nothing to prevent this being the rule for these religious profit companies - and it wouldn't really require any Congressional action as the the opt-out for religious non-profits was an HHS rule.

This alternative also allowed for a less restrictive means to fulfill the compelling governmental interest.

Oh, and I know that in the Dictionary Act, corporations are under the definition of 'person', but there usually is some limit as to how far that can go (here it stopped at closely held corporation).

Ah yes, I was aware of this (having worked for a major insurer in the not so distant past). For me, the main problem with this is that it's not going to scale real well if a lot of "closely-held" companies take advantage of it.


Closely-held corporation isn't much of a stop, though, given the size of some of those corporations. But, whatever, it'll be interesting to see what further individual rights erode in favor of corporation rights as a result of this ruling.

As Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, this would not be a popular opinion if it is extended to Christian Scientists refusing to pay for blood transfusions, or Scientologists refusing to extend coverage for antidepressants, etc., etc. I understand there isn't the opt-out situation available there, but I think the comparison makes pretty obvious that the only reason anyone is okay with this is because it's centered on an issue there is serious dissent on, and therefore only stands up with its backers because they like what it says, not because they believe in the fundamental principle.

I expect these things to be at least tried, along with possibly the retroviral drugs (for AIDS) and insulin for type 2 diabetes. The argument I'd make is that the government should pick these things up as well.

If this then led to the end of employer-provided health insurance (and subsequent meaningful and supported expansion of the ACA - no guarantee with this Congress) I'd actually welcome it.

I have a lot of trouble with this exception, because when you agree to employ an American, you agree to support that American's Constitutional rights.

These days, we're too caught up in the notion that corporations are breathing organisms, both evil and exploitative and religious, sensitive, caring. When in reality they are just tax structures created to handle the bridge between investors and creators.

Health care is a vague and vast world. It includes everything from preventative advice to cancer treatments. Obamacare tries to be everything to everyone, was written by lobbyists without even a read from any of the legislators who passed it, and is filled with implementation problems and politically-motivated delays.

I think the Court got this one wrong. But we need to move away from employer-provided health care. I think the Democrats realize this, though they've chosen a very cynical vehicle for moving in that direction.

Today's decisions make it pretty clear that the ruling applies to all contraceptive coverage, not just those in the Hobby Lobby case.

I read the opinion and it just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to differentiate from vaccines and other stuff. It honestly read like "contraceptives are different just cuz".

Hobby Lobby's 401K plans contain funds that invest in contraceptive makers, including the company that makes "Plan B", amongst others.

It's surprising that a company that obviously cares so much about these things would not have taken the relatively-common option to request so-called "faith-based" funds that would avoid those kinds of companies.

Sorry if I don't get too upset that a company invests in mutual funds.

By 'mental gymnastics' you mean the legal standard of review for strict scrutiny?

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fixed.

whoooooooooooooooooooooosh!

So employees can use their wages to invest in mutual funds that invest in contraceptive companies. Those employees can also use their wages to buy contraception or have abortions.

(Edit: Or at least, they could invest their money that way, now that this has become a thing, they'll probably take that option away from employees and only offer more expensive "special" funds.)

But regardless, isn't it kind of the point of the First Amendment and RFRA to protect religious freedom, which includes how you want to express your religious beliefs? I know there's this idea that if you have one religious or spiritual value you have to have all of them, but the First Amendment and RFRA certainly don't require that. And it's not something the government claimed either. This case is really just a statutory application question. And I haven't broken down the statute at all so I really have no idea if it applies. But I'm not a fan of the whole side-discussion about whether "corporations have rights", as if this is some brand new idea. Imagine a world where they didn't. Where the government should just censor or shut down corporations or non-profits they didn't like. And even if the First Amendment allowed the government to do whatever they wanted to corporations or non-profits, the legislature could certainly still provide statutory rights.

I'm sure I mentioned the same sentiment a few pages ago but it's interesting to see how heels are dug in on this, where there's so much public angst over 4th Amendment, we want that to be as strong as possible, but there's also this angst and sentiment to scale back the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I guess it's totally consistent to have that view, or the opposite one, it's just interesting that both of those sides see the other as playing fast and loose with the constitution, and both sides accuse the other of being primarily focused only on the desired end result.

Edit: I also think it's interesting that Hobby Lobby is such a generally employee-friendly company. It doesn't fit the narrative that this really isn't about religion and that they're only trying to save a buck (which I guess is the point that's implied by the 401(k) thing). Their starting wage is higher than Costco's - $14/hour minimum wage across the board. There's this contraception issue, but the government is going to have to fill the gap on that so employees won't really be implicated. (And not all contraception are implicated, only the more controversial, plan-b type drugs are - Hobby lobby didn't have any objections to 16 other contraceptive drugs.) The bigger practical downside for a lot of people I think would be the general Christian culture - the prayers at orientation and team meetings, etc. Of course, all the people who don't think corporations have rights would, I guess, be OK with the government banning that, but fortunately that's not in the cards.

There's much public angst over the 4th amendment? You mean that one that probably covers things like the government looking at our metadata, groping us in airports, or doing warrantless wiretaps? Where there's been a little bit of public outcry and nothing of substance done?

Also, what scaling back of the 2nd amendment? Last I saw, gun restrictions have been substantially rolled back in the last decade.

SI

Sure, NSA and TSA stuff, police conduct generally. People have very hard and fast ideas about what the 4th Amendment actually restricts, even where courts haven't agreed, or haven't faced these issues yet.

And lots of people WANT to scale back the 2nd Amendment, they've just been absolutely terrible at it, and instead have driven the largest gun industry sales boom in history.

And the first Amendment, I believe the popular buzz word now is that the Court is "fetishizing" the First Amendment. Can you imagine those same people saying that about the 4th Amendment in any context ever? If there's a 4th Amendment issue, the law doesn't matter, precedent doesn't matter, they're on the side the cops and government are not. But if it's about contraception or abortion or religion, shit, lower the hammer. And these things aren't inconsistent from a policy perspective, but I think it gets inconsistent when either side portrays itself as the one who is focused on the constitution and the law, and portrays the other side as the one who only cares about end-results. Everyone's focused on end results. It's extraordinarily difficult to take yourself completely out of that and have truly legal opinions, and make truly legal determinations. Judges are supposed to be able to do that, but they're only human too. I try to do that, but like everyone, it's a lot easier to do with cases you aren't vested in.

One of these is a few months old, but still good

Hobby Lobby Stones Gay Employee to Death

Hobby Lobby Fires Employee For Divorcing Husband

Could it be possible that the encroachments on, say, the 4th amendment are much more egregious than those on the 1st amendment and thus putting these together would be a false equivalency. Arguably, the first amendment has been strengthened recently with corporate money equaling free speech (which wasn't true 5 years ago) whereas we have had a significant number of fairly strong challenges to the 4th amendment.

SI

Whether something is an "egregious" violation is really a matter of opinion when the courts have gone the other way or haven't reached an issue yet. Ultimately those are just opinions based on what we want the end result to be. People value the rights that impact them, not the rights that impact other people. But again, any 4th Amendment issue that comes up in the courts, there's a segment of people who could care less about precedent, they will be for or against or the government every time, no matter what. Same thing when it comes to contraception or birth control or religion.

And Citizens United didn't hold that "corporate money equals speech." It held that money spent in furtherance of speech receives the same protections as speech. Same as any other activity that furthers speech. The best I've heard it explained was like this - the government couldn't ban using cardboard to make protest signs. They could ban cardboard altogether, but they can't target speech and ban cardboard that's used only for that purpose. I don't know how much of a strengthening of the First Amendment that is, but the idea that organizations have rights isn't some brand new idea.

Back to Hobby Lobby for a sec, but this stood out to me in Alito's decision:


Given that Hobby Lobby both a) paid for plans that provided all forms of contraception prior to the passage of the PPACA and b) matches employees' 401k contributions to funds that include contraceptive-makers (and now apparently does its own investing in similar funds), this ruling sets an extremely low bar for proving "sincerity of religious belief".

This may not have concerned the majority given that they spent more time saying the ruling was restricted to "closely held" companies, but given that this accounts for 90% of American companies, that's not a particularly high bar either.

The sincerity of its beliefs was not contested, so there's no new precedent there.

It's an uphill battle anyway to argue that an entity or individual is not expressing its religious freedom the "right way". If I value church but don't want to go during football season, or if I feel I can't provide plan b type drugs directly but am OK with all other contraceptives, and OK with providing retirement benefit options that include indirect investment in mutual funds that in turn invest in these drug companies, that's my call, my value determination to make, not the government's

Today the Supremes issued an injunction so that Wheaton College and a few other institutions don't have to file the paperwork that would allow plans to offer contraceptive coverage. In other words they undermined the very workaround they offered on Monday.

Awesome. This keeps getting more and more fun (well, ridiculous). There's nothing realistically legal about this except it is because the highest court in the land says so capriciously.

SI

Think a good move is to help Kurdistan gain independence/autonomy. This way Iran gets the Shiite mess and we have an ally (and oil) in Kurdistan.

Iraq: Kurdish president proposes independence referendum | World news | theguardian.com

With Turkey's approval. I had thought the support was so that Kurdistan would be a buffer for the Iraq mess but its really to court votes.

Iraq: Kurdish president proposes independence referendum | World news | theguardian.com

Seems to me that Maliki is out, he just doesn't know it yet. His time is running out and if the Shiites don't compromise we should just leave the mess for Iran to play out while we reposition in Kurdistan and other friendly gulf states.

Given the composition of the mid-east states, encouraging ethnic independence could be a dangerous precedent. It might still be the best move in Iraq, but it isn't without risks.

Do you think Israel will go back into Gaza?

This is a TEMPORARY injunction as they are evaluating the Little Sisters case. These sort of things do happen. You'll note that Justice Breyer was fine with issuing the injunction.

But this kills the exact same workaround they said could accommodate Hobby Lobby employees. Issuing the injunction just days after saying this workaround was a good solution makes no sense.

Why not? They are deciding on another case. That involves a different fact pattern.

Also, Alito had mentioned that the workaround was a potential less restrictive means to accomplish the government's compelling interest. It didn't instruct the government to go ahead and do it. Regardless the temporary injunction said that Wheaton can notify the government rather than fill out the Form directly to its insurer until there is a decision on the entire practice.

Why did Breyer think it was ok to do so?

Where was Justice Breyer in the Wheaton College fight? (Updated) : SCOTUSblog

Man - I liked ISiddiqui better before he got all "born again."

That guy was cool. This new one...eh.

I have no idea why Breyer joined, and I don't really care. At first the court said Hobby Lobby was a narrow ruling about four specific forms of contraception. Then the next day they said that the ruling applies to all contraception. They suggested a workaround and then issued an injunction that makes the workaround impossible.

At this point I'm guessing Stockholm Syndrome.


Exactly. But it makes sense. If you live in the kind of world like John Roberts' where anti-abortion protestors are genial and well-meaning "counselors", then you would certainly be surprised if people tried to mis-use your "narrow ruling" for their own purposes, right?

I work in appellate law, and I'm more than a little fuzzy on the concepts of injunctions and when they're utilized in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. (Good to know there's so many experts here though!) But I think this post does a decent job of sorting it out. Maybe Sotomayor would have a good response to this reading of her dissent. I just don't think you an look at this stuff in two seconds and have a confident conclusion about whether there's even any inconsistency (I'm not saying she did that, but a lot of the responses seem to have.)

More on what the Wheaton College injunction does (and does not) mean for contraception coverage - The Washington Post

That assumption is not necessary to that holding AT ALL.

Yours, (and specifically the law's), assumptions were what was the problem here. You want to arrest anyone standing in those public sidewalks without a government-approved reason, based upon an assumption they all have an intent to harass. So let's arrest them before they commit crimes! If this was any other context, any other type of speech, you would be against that kind of government action.

You build nice strawmen, molson, I'll give you that.

The law made it illegal to silently stand there. On public property. It did not require ANY proof of intent to harass. It just assumes that intent. You support that law. It's an authoritarian position, and when it comes to religion and birth control, you seem to have very different ideas about what the government should be allowed to do.

Edit: Roberts isn't assuming that every person in that buffer zone has altruistic motives. Obviously, some (or even most) are there to harass. That doesn't mean the government gets to assume all of them are. In criminal law the assumptions generally go the other direction. The state has to prove the criminal intent, even if someone is of a "type" that tends to commit crimes and have that intent. I wonder how you'd feel about the First Amendment challenges to "gang loitering" statutes - some of those are successful, some are not, it all depends entirely on how narrowly the statute is drawn, and how much protected speech is implicated. But generally, it's not a crime to stand or talk to people on public sidewalks, ESPECIALLY when those people are specifically engaging in political speech. But when it comes to these buffer zones, you can STILL criminalize that conduct, because there's a compelling interest at play. You just have to require the state to actually prove intent to harass instead of just assuming that intent. It's really not that hard to prove that intent, especially in a place like MA, where you probably have lots of biased jurors, who will be more than happy to infer that intent through circumstantial evidence, which is perfectly appropriate.

That last part of it is why this is so fascinating to me, the role reversal when religion comes into play. If the statute DID require intent to harass, it wouldn't take much to satisfy that burden. But if the state literally presented no evidence other than the fact that the defendant happened to be there and was maybe talking to people, that would probably be the subject of an appeal based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support that charge. There's a million appeals like that, where the defense argues that the evidence presented at trial didn't match up with one of the elements, to where there was zero evidence to prove one of the elements. In 99% of situations, that would be viewed as the liberal/ACLU/leftish side, where the state would be the conservative/authoritarian/police state side. I know those kinds of psychological and political and moral battle lines really well, people tend to just feel a calling to one side of that or the other. But when it comes to stuff like this, you can flip it 180 degrees. Suddenly that leftish side wants the government to go in and wield its authority, to assume criminal intent, to take a more restrictive view on what constitutional rights actually protect. And the far rightish side, at least those who are really into religion, are suddenly super-concerned with rights of the accused and restraint of government in criminal prosecutions. If you're a cop or a prosecutor or work anywhere on that side, you have a kind of ongoing hostility directed towards you all the time expressing the view that you're too aggressive, etc. So it's kind of funny when those roles suddenly change. I think most cops and prosecutors and defense attorneys are fairly decent at just focusing on what their job is, and to be concerned with everyone's rights, and to know the legal and ethical boundaries no matter what kind of case it is, or at least, that's the goal.

You continue to argue that a common-sense solution to a very clear and present problem will be abused far beyond its spirit, despite providing no evidence that this is the case (please enjoy the comparison to RFRA, by the way).

And yet again, we absolutely do curtail free speech and/or association all over this country (SCOTUS' building itself, Presidential "free speech zones", "sensitive" building, you mention "gang loitering") with similar or even less obvious danger to the public good. But somehow this instance is different?

It wouldn't be "abuse" to charge someone with an activity that the legislature expressly made illegal. I just don't understand your resistance to requiring the state to prove intent here.

And sure, the government can and does curtail all kinds of speech. It just needs a compelling reason, and a narrowly tailored statute. This case isn't any different. You can draft a narrowly tailored statute that furthers the compelling government interest in preventing harassment. You can draft a narrowly tailored statute to further many other compelling government interests - like protecting the president, or reducing gang violence. I know in my state, lawyers spent a ton of time trying to define "gang" and "gang activity" in such a way that would survive constitutional scrutiny. The government can also go too far in trying to curtail speech in the name of furthering compelling interests. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's Anti-gang loitering law in the late 90s because it was too broad - many states learned from that and were able to draft more narrow statutes, or come at the issue from different angles....they're probably not as effective, but the Court weighed in. Of course there, the government was perceived to be on the oppressive/right/police state side for trying to pass laws like that, but here, they're too far right if they DON'T pass laws like that to restrict speech at abortion clinics. Which is kind of surreal.

I'm pro choice but comparing abortion clinics to the other examples you used seems like one hell of a stretch.

I might personally believe that those facilities actually do more good for U.S. society than harm but putting them on the same (or greater) standing with SCOTUS or POTUS (even when a POTUS utterly & completely reprehensible) is pretty far out stuff afaic.

When did flere become more authoritarian than Jon?

Things probably get twisted around the reality pole when you take someone on the far socio-political right (like me) and give them a left leaning stance (like being pro-choice, bordering on outright pro-abortion).

Probably creates some sort of weird matter/anti-matter displacement thing somewhere.

;)

Five years ago? When I voted for McCain, you mean (which was 5.5 years ago, roughly)?

Being a lawyer, I have an inherent distaste for all the Chicken-Little crap that has come out after Hobby Lobby. People are deliberately miscontruing legal rulings for their political bleating. That doesn't do liberalism any good to be so hyperbolic (then again, liberalism has traditionally been concerned with allowing folks with differing opinions, but now it seems to be into left-wing authoritarianism and if you don't agree, we boycott. Meh)

And after all of the distaste for right wing hyperbole, going for left wing hyperbole doesn't make it better. It makes the whole process into a yelling match that everything is going to Hell in a handbasket.

If you really, honestly, think I'm more authoritarian than Jon, then you really haven't been paying attention.


To be clear, I am not pro-abortion. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Which leads us to....


I have, not once, said anything of the kind (Chicken Little / Hell in a handbasket, etc...). I have objected to certain things and have attempted to explain my rationale and worldview regarding my objections. In return, some of you find it amusing to a) twist my arguments into strawmen and b) turn me into a caricature.

And again, to be clear, I'm not particularly worked up about this, I'm simply pointing out your folly. If there's one thing I've learned from Jon over the years, it's not to care what the misguided think of my positions. And again, to be clear, when I call you "misguided", I'm not saying you're stupid or dumb, I'm saying you're wilfully not making an effort to understand my position, settling for an easier shorthand route instead.

To be clear, I was referring to myself with that bit, not to you.

It was a joke, lighten up.

Ah, didn't catch that, sorry. I was confused, it has to be said, as I thought I remembered you not being pro-life.

Explain to me how I was to ascertain from your post that it was a joke. Especially given the context of the thread's development in the past few pages.

Telepathy.

Hrm... let me try that.

Greg: You are currently thinking of a spreadsheet.

Did I get it right?

:D

Indeed. I laughed.

You do realize I was responding to DaddyTorgo, right? Do you have to be reminded that the world doesn't revolve around you? (if case you didn't get it, that was a joke too)

Here's someone else that apparently didn't get a joke. Either that, or they asked Perry for his impersonation of Grumpy Cat.

Woah, woah, woah.... You're asserting that the world doesn't revolve around me?

Citation Needed, my friend.

Also, I am not Rick Perry. In case that wasn't obvious.

I dunno exactly when it was - just that lately I've found myself more and more often shaking my head at things you've posted.

Didn't mean anything sinister by it, just interesting to see how you've changed in some ways over the long history of our interactions on the board is all.

Just depends on the issues I agree with you on? ;)

I don't fit very neatly into the Democratic boxes. Left on economic issues, more moderate on social issues, and look at legal decisions on a legal basis as opposed to a political one ;).

Also the my-way-or-the-highway Left annoys me just as much as the my-way-or-the-highway Right.

If Perry were to ever start an interview or press conference with "I'm Rick Perry, bitches!", he would instantly have my support.

I'd argue that you've moved more right-of-center on social issues.

That's a strange POV. Maybe from someone who's been on left left.

Put it this way, I'm a Hillary Democrat. Which tends to mean Obama and now Warren supporters just don't fully get that.

Not perfect, but doing a lot for a lot of people.

Follow-up questions:

1) Of those among the 84% who had insurance when Obamacare was passed, how much more expensive is your insurance today, and do you still have access to the same doctors as you did in 2010, with the same deductible?

2) Of those who would not have insurance today without Obamacare, can you afford health care, given the deductible?

3) Are you actually insured, given that policies are not necessarily in full effect if you haven't completed the registration process, paid the premiums, and are, in fact, entitled to the subsidies you claimed?

Not perfect, doing something for some people, but making a bad situation a lot worse for many.

I maintain we need real health care reform, not a band-aid written by industry lobbyists, unread by those who passed it, that merely extends a broken system. There's good reason even those who are most likely to be Obama supporters (union members) actively seek exemptions from Obamacare.

I pay more for health care now than I did in 2010. I pay more for pretty much everything now than I did in 2010.

No relevant change in doctors or deductibles.

Prior to 2010 my access wasn't any less than it is now, my deductible's had gone up, my premiums had skyrocketed with no yearly end in sight. To say that every cost increase in insurance premiums is due to the new law is not genuine. Costs were escalating out of sight for a long time prior to ACA, but as long as people kept needing healthcare it didn't matter.


If they had no insurance surely the couldn't have even afforded to walk through the front door of the hospital for anything so the point is moot.


Are you actually insured if you go to the emergency room with no insurance? You won't pay the actual cost of the visit, you may not even pay any of it. Is that insurance?


Not perfect as there are many more who need access to care, but being made a lot worse because of how badly bastardized the bill that we ended up with became because of the grandstanding lawmakers. It could've been simple, it could have been comprehensive.


Agreed but I think for different reasons.


From: Even GOP consumers are satisfied with 'Obamacare' | MSNBC

The survey, from the Commonwealth Fund, a research group, a research group, came to similar conclusions as other surveys about the expansion of health insurance. It found that about 15 percent of adults younger than 65 now lack health insurance, down from 20 percent before the Affordable Care Act rolled out in January.

What was more surprising is that people who got the new coverage were generally happy with the product. Overall, 73 percent of people who bought health plans and 87 percent of those who signed up for Medicaid said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their new health insurance. Seventy-four percent of newly insured Republicans liked their plans. Even 77 percent of people who had insurance before – including members of the much-publicized group whose plans got canceled last year – were happy with their new coverage.

This.

The proper question is more along the lines of "will the rate of increase of health insurance costs slow over a medium-term time horizon" rather than "do you pay more now than in 2010," but that's not a sexy question and doesn't lend itself to the BS, anecdotal stories that get people fired up.

That's pretty much how it was for me before. Deductible stayed the same but premiums went up 20% to 40% every year. Now my premiums are about a third of what they were last year with a much lower deductible.

The Commonwealth Fund isn't a neutral source (that's putting it kindly). Citing them is like citing Al Gore on topics related to the climate.

Another question:

Subsidies for Obamacare will (conservatively) increase the national debt by about $100 billion per year over the next decade - which is about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Are you concerned about the national debt, or do you feel confiscation of existing wealth (through devaluing the dollar or other means) should solve the problem?