Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Recent Supreme Court rulings

Posted: 6/30/2014 1:54 PM

Recent Supreme Court rulings 


Wow, what a few weeks it's been!

No longer is doing some task "on a computer" (that hasn't been done on a computer before, but otherwise has existed in the real world) good enough for a patent (Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Int'l).
Patent reform, and it's about time for this one.  Now if only we could get some real patent law reform at the Congressional level.  Yeah, I know, not going to happen.


Law enforcement may not search your cell phone without a warrant (Riley v. California).
Score one for the 4th Amendment

You can't set up over-the-air broadcast antennae and "lease" that antennae to another user for profit (American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.)
Again, let's respect the rights of copyright holders.  It's their material, they get to tell you how it can be transmitted.

Massachussettes cannot enforce a 35 foot buffer zone for protestors of a business (McCullen v. Coakley), though I'm sure citations for trespassing are still a viable option for any business.
Score one for the 1st Amendment!

The President cannot appoint the head of a federal agency which requires Senate confirmation without actually getting a Senate confirmation if the Senate is in session, and only the Senate gets to decide when they are or are not in session (NLRB v. Noel Canning).
Anything which limits the President's power (regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office) is a good thing.

Illinois cannot force a non-union member to pay union dues, even if they may benefit in some way from the labor negotiations (Harris v. Quinn).
Let's knock the unions down just another peg.

Closely held, for-profit businesses enjoy 1st Amendment protection (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby).
Score one for the 1st Amendment, and the first truly successful challenge to a piece of ACA.

It's not often we get to see so many government power-restricting decisions all at once.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!!

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/30/2014 3:29 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


I was really surprised about being unanimous on cellphone seizure-- I know someone that got busted for being stupid and the cops went through the cell phone writing down numbers and linking the fool to two other pot deals --not going to hold up in court it seems.

Honestly with the power restrictions SCOTUS is doing its checks and balances -- Peolosi's "you have to pass ACA before you know what's in it" may have struck a nerve.

"When you go in the lion's den, you don't tippy toe in.You carry a spear, you go in screaming like a banshee, you kick whatever doors in, and say, 'Where's the son of a bitch!'If you go in any other way you're gonna lose.

Last edited 6/30/2014 3:44 PM by drkraven

Reply | Quote
  • Mohara
  • Raven Veteran
  • 4336 posts this site

Posted: 6/30/2014 6:49 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


The majority has been remarkably restrained.  There was nothing sweeping about the union ruling.

Shoot, they allowed Obamacare saying it was okay even if one viewed it as a constitutional use of the ability of congress to levy taxes.

I fear to think what would happen if one of the majority kicked and was replaced with another Kagan or Sotomayer.

They will show no restraint.

Sotomayer is a nutter.

Last edited 6/30/2014 8:16 PM by Mohara

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/30/2014 8:03 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


Best sign of the day: "Not My Boss' Business"!

Exactly, it isn't his/her business to provide you with your abortion pills. If you try and force him/her to do so YOU ARE MAKING IT THEIR BUSINESS!

If you don't like the benefits a company offers, WORK ELSEWHERE! It is really that simple.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/30/2014 8:40 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


Or, heaven forbid, purchase your own birth control.  Can't afford the 50 cent condom or the $9/month prescription for the pill?  Then maybe your sexual partner can - it's the least s/he can do, right?

The reaction has been predictable by the usual suspects.  The casual observer would be led to believe that the SCOTUS outlawed all contraception and were having minions pulling it all from the shelves tonight and burned.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/30/2014 10:05 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 



12thRaven wrote: Or, heaven forbid, purchase your own birth control.  Can't afford the 50 cent condom or the $9/month prescription for the pill?  Then maybe your sexual partner can - it's the least s/he can do, right?

The reaction has been predictable by the usual suspects.  The casual observer would be led to believe that the SCOTUS outlawed all contraception and were having minions pulling it all from the shelves tonight and burned.

I am having a conversation on FB now with a woman you would expect to know better.  She thinks Hobby Lobby is forcing their religious beliefs onto their employees and not providing contraception.  In fact they provide 16 kinds of contraception.  What they are not forced to do is provide 4 POST-conception drugs (these would not be contraception since they are for post-conception) which are essentially abortions in pill form.

And they are not forcing their religious beliefs on anybody, they do not make their employees believe anything religiously.  This is a prime example of how crappy our school system is, and this woman is educated.  Or maybe that is brainwashed.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/1/2014 8:17 AM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 



Baltimore Greg wrote:
12thRaven wrote: Or, heaven forbid, purchase your own birth control.  Can't afford the 50 cent condom or the $9/month prescription for the pill?  Then maybe your sexual partner can - it's the least s/he can do, right?

The reaction has been predictable by the usual suspects.  The casual observer would be led to believe that the SCOTUS outlawed all contraception and were having minions pulling it all from the shelves tonight and burned.

I am having a conversation on FB now with a woman you would expect to know better.  She thinks Hobby Lobby is forcing their religious beliefs onto their employees and not providing contraception.  In fact they provide 16 kinds of contraception.  What they are not forced to do is provide 4 POST-conception drugs (these would not be contraception since they are for post-conception) which are essentially abortions in pill form.

And they are not forcing their religious beliefs on anybody, they do not make their employees believe anything religiously.  This is a prime example of how crappy our school system is, and this woman is educated.  Or maybe that is brainwashed.
More like self-serving. She's trying to twist logic around and use rhetoric to get people to come around to her way of thinking, albeit not very well.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/1/2014 8:28 AM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


If Hobby Lobby were forcing the religious beliefs of its owners upon its employees, it would be forbidding employees from using abortificants - or what the media is calling "contraception" (thank you for the clarification, Greg. I did not know that it was only abortificants that HL was suing over).
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/1/2014 6:19 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 



Baltimore Greg wrote:
12thRaven wrote: Or, heaven forbid, purchase your own birth control.  Can't afford the 50 cent condom or the $9/month prescription for the pill?  Then maybe your sexual partner can - it's the least s/he can do, right?

The reaction has been predictable by the usual suspects.  The casual observer would be led to believe that the SCOTUS outlawed all contraception and were having minions pulling it all from the shelves tonight and burned.

I am having a conversation on FB now with a woman you would expect to know better.  She thinks Hobby Lobby is forcing their religious beliefs onto their employees and not providing contraception.  In fact they provide 16 kinds of contraception.  What they are not forced to do is provide 4 POST-conception drugs (these would not be contraception since they are for post-conception) which are essentially abortions in pill form.

And they are not forcing their religious beliefs on anybody, they do not make their employees believe anything religiously.  This is a prime example of how crappy our school system is, and this woman is educated.  Or maybe that is brainwashed.
She obviously suffers from Veritaphobia.
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/1/2014 6:39 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


Well, akacrow, there's a lot of that going on - and its origin seems to be in the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Ave in Washington DC.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/1/2014 6:43 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


It is amazing how ignorant the left is. After the World Cup ended, I was flipping through the channels and pmsnbc had some clown that actually said the Supreme Court (with this ruling) showed they don't care about woman's rights?????

Does the left even know the difference between a right vs a benefit?

Does the left thing woman are entitled to have other people pay for the morning after pill?

Does the left think anyone should ever be held accountable for actions?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/1/2014 8:32 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


Does the Left believe in the First Amendment? Seriously. And regardles of the answer, it makes no difference what the Left believes - the First Amendment is the law of the land. The SUPREME law of the land.

Not surprisingly, all of a sudden the Left can't put enough distance between itself and their own "separation of church and state" mehmeh.

Sebelius clearly, knowingly, brazenly, and arrogantly violated the First Amendment in her attempt to coerce those with religious beliefs to violate those beliefs.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/2/2014 4:30 PM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 



Obama had 2 YEARS when he controlled both the Senate AND Congress. He accomplished nothing positive, while driving poverty up, doubling the national debt, driving more people into welfare, medicaid, disability, food stamps, and making it miserable for minorities by tripling their unemployment rate!!! ALL negative economic indicators have skyrocketed up in the last 5 years. Yet when you think it can't get any worse, Obama's foreign policy has turned out to be even worse than his domestic. He is, without a doubt, the worst President that we've ever had.

Obama = (Nixon + Wilson) x Carter




 



POLL:http://www.quinnipiac.edu/new...?ReleaseID=2056  


July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better

















Yanni
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! 
the balvenie single malt whisky fifty

Last edited 7/2/2014 4:32 PM by SipNDaWisky

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/4/2014 8:24 AM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


I'm a huge supporter of birth control, and I think that anybody who doesn't use it who doesn't actively want to get pregnant and is having sex is an idiot. That being said, is it really something that should be considered "necessary health care" to the point that employers have to pay for it if they want the "privilege" of employing that person? What are they saying, that a child is a disease or something? 

It's the entitlement generation run amock.  Left-wing people know that if they complain and moan enough they can get the government to give them everything without having to reach into their wallet or purse once.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/5/2014 9:37 AM

Re: Recent Supreme Court rulings 


How could women have managed to not get pregnant before the government paid for their birth control?

Reply | Quote