HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Thank you Justice Sotomay...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:48 AM

Thank you Justice Sotomayor!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-usa-healthcare-hobbylobby-idUSBRE8BQ00A20121227
<snip>
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has refused to block enforcement starting next week of a requirement in President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul that some companies provide insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices.

In an order issued on Wednesday, Sotomayor said two for-profit companies controlled by Oklahoma City billionaire David Green and his family did not qualify for an injunction while they challenge the requirement in court.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, an arts and crafts chain with more than 500 stores, and Mardel Inc, a chain of 35 Christian-themed bookstores, said it violated their religious beliefs to require that their group health plans cover treatments that could induce abortions.
--------------
Fugg 'em!

42 replies, 7626 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thank you Justice Sotomayor!! (Original post)
malaise Dec 2012 OP
ReRe Dec 2012 #1
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #2
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #8
calimary Dec 2012 #14
mimi85 Dec 2012 #17
Left Coast2020 Dec 2012 #32
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #41
Ohio Joe Dec 2012 #3
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #4
Pachamama Dec 2012 #5
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #9
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #18
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #29
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #31
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #12
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #19
jberryhill Dec 2012 #13
Mojo2 Dec 2012 #6
libodem Dec 2012 #7
Ineeda Dec 2012 #10
libodem Dec 2012 #15
tavalon Dec 2012 #23
japple Dec 2012 #24
tavalon Dec 2012 #35
malaise Dec 2012 #26
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #20
tavalon Dec 2012 #22
Politicub Dec 2012 #11
AAO Dec 2012 #16
tavalon Dec 2012 #21
indepat Dec 2012 #25
molonlabe91 Dec 2012 #27
tavalon Dec 2012 #37
Vattel Dec 2012 #28
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #30
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #33
Snarkoleptic Dec 2012 #34
tavalon Dec 2012 #38
Vattel Dec 2012 #42
suffragette Dec 2012 #36
PatrynXX Dec 2012 #39
malaise Dec 2012 #40

Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:42 AM

1. Justice, finally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:45 AM

2. Good

 

That douche canoe treats Oklahoma City like his own fiefdom (we have a tendency to worship plutocrats here) so I always enjoy when he gets fed a shit sandwich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:20 PM

8. OT, but first time I've ever heard the phrase 'douche canoe'. LMFAO - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:43 PM

14. That's a GREAT one, isn't it?! "Douche canoe!" I'm gonna be laughing about that all day!

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Excellent, Floyd_Gondolli!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:02 PM

17. Too funny!

Ha - that one will be used again for sure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:59 PM

32. Hazaa!! A new phrase is born!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:02 AM

41. Imagery time. It's the 'c' word by another name. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:46 AM

3. K&R - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:47 AM

4. So why is it that ONE S.Ct. Justice makes a decision, and not all of them? I've never heard of that.

I thought they all had to join in to render a decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:10 PM

5. Its kind of like "Night Court" - in an emergency situation, a SUPREME is on duty and then can step

In on whether this is truly an emergency that gets fast-tracked. Justice Sotomayer shot this one down fast and her grounds, reasoning is very clear & straightforward: these "corporations" are not religious organizations and have no grounds on their claims....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pachamama (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:22 PM

9. Not exactly -- it's allocated geographically.

You're right that this isn't a full appeal, on which all the Justices will vote. Sometimes a litigant contends that there will be irreparable harm while the judicial process goes forward (in this case, while an appeal is being briefed and argued). A litigant in that situation may seek a preliminary injunction, to freeze the status quo until the case is resolved.

On the Supreme Court, such an application goes initially to the Justice who's assigned to hear emergency applications from that particular part of the country. That's how Sotomayor got this one.

There's also a procedure by which the full Court can take up the matter of the preliminary injunction and possibly reach a decision that's different from that of the single Justice who initially heard it. I forget the details because it's very, very rare.

The underlying case is still working its way through the court system. Apparently the circuit court of appeals (one level below the Supreme Court) hasn't even issued its final decision yet. It's likely that the challenged requirement will go into effect next week but that, at some point thereafter, the appeal will be heard by the full Court, which could well overturn the law. It's not at all uncommon for a litigant to be denied a preliminary injunction but then ultimately prevail on the merits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:14 PM

18. Oh, I see. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:27 PM

29. Yep: Circuit Justices.

It used to be that justices were actually required to "ride circuit" and hear cases in their assigned Circuit. They did away with that but as we can see here, they still do have a role in their circuits.

A justice can still sit as a judge in their circuit but they almost never do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:50 PM

31. In a ruling that large, Sotomayor would have consulted with the other 8 Justices

before denying the appeal. That is how things seem to get done. Sotomayor's name would be on the denial because the request came through her circuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pachamama (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:41 PM

12. She didn't rule on the case. She just refused to give a restraining order.

There can be many reasons for that.

If there is no likelihood of irreparable damages, then generally TROs are not granted.

If it seems the case is frivolous, then they would generally not give a TRO.

If it has been heard by a lower court and there is no obvious question about that court's conduct, then the SCOTUS generally doesn't intervene.

Te plaintiff can still appeal the case, and the SCOTUS might yet hear it. But my guess is that it won't be heard because it is frivolous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

19. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:41 PM

13. This was not a decision on the entire case


This was an application for an injunction pending further proceedings in the underlying case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:12 PM

6. Nice

Hard to believe, but the last few rulings by the Supreme Court have went our way.......has to just be killing the Repigs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:18 PM

7. Canceling that trip to Hobby Lobby

I've been dying to make. Eff them, now. Glad I never made it in to check them out. Oh, yeah, eff them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:25 PM

10. Mardel's apparently is the same family/owner.

Neither Hobby Lobby or Mardel's is anywhere near me, so I've never patronized either. But they would go on my "boycott list" if they were local. The list is growing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ineeda (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:58 PM

15. They built one here a couple of years ago

I finally spotted it near the Kohls I like. We have a craft store called Michael's, that I've used for years. Oh, the $ I've forked out for hot glue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:57 PM

23. Hobby Lobby is just a bigger Michael's

with the crappy Christian music piped in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:30 PM

24. Yeah, that crappy christian muzak is a dead giveaway. Michael's isn't any better.

Edit to add: I remembered reading something nasty about Michael's, too. Went and looked it up and found this stinking piece of info:

"On October 31, 2006, substantially all of the Common Stock of Michaels Stores, Inc. (formerly NYSE: MIK) was acquired through a merger transaction by affiliates of two private investment firms, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and The Blackstone Group (collectively, the “Sponsors”), with certain shares retained by affiliates of Highfields Capital Partners (a then-existing shareholder of Michaels Stores, Inc.)."

http://www.michaels.com/About-Us/About-Us,default,pg.html


If I had the money, I'd buy any crafting materials I need from Martha Stewart. She is a strong supporter of the Democratic party. As it is, I usually just make crafts out of found or natural materials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to japple (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:58 AM

35. Ewww

Didn't know that about Michael's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:54 PM

26. I walk out of any store that is playing religious music and I let them know

why I'm leaving. I enter to buy something not to be bombarded with the beliefs of the owner, management or staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:17 PM

20. I used to go to Hobby Lobby, but then I started hearing some things about them.

It's no big sacrifice to shop elsewhere, so that's what I do. (Avoiding Walmart is much harder for me.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:56 PM

22. Yeah, I've been quietly boycotting Hobby Lobby since this stupidity came up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:40 PM

11. The way it should be - Commercial companies must adhere to the law

Thank you Justice Sotomayor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:07 PM

16. Fuck'em all where the sun don't shine! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:53 PM

21. Good

They needed a spanking. I didn't know about Mardel but since one of my ex family members works at Hobby Lobby, I was aware of this stupidity for a while. I'm glad they didn't get an injunction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:38 PM

25. Fugg all such bastards, the long, and short, and tall, all of 'em

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:32 PM

27. im so lost

 

Why are so many people that want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit so happy to see someone else loose that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to molonlabe91 (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:01 AM

37. Lose, punkin, lose

Reading may be fundamental, but so is writing.

Religion and public sector need to stay apart. Much like the separation of Church and State, which unfortunately hasn't really happened. The owners of Hobby Lobby have every right to not buy birth control for themselves and they have no right to determine that for their employees. They are required to provide a certain level of health care and they can't pick and choose based on their rigid fundamentalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:36 PM

28. If the belief that abortion is wrong is a religious belief,

then pretty much any belief can be a religious belief. It is a moral belief but not a religious belief in the sense relevant to the freedom of religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

30. Not to mention: this is a corporation.

How can the personal religious beliefs of its officers have anything to do with requirements of the corporate entity?

The whole point of incorporation is supposed to be that the corporation is a separate legal entity from the people who form it or run it (to protect them from being personally liable for the corporation's debts, etc). So they can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:46 AM

33. +14,880 .......... a very good point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:50 AM

34. Right!

Imagine working for a Jehovah's Witness-owned company only to find out your post trauma transfusion was denied for coverage because of the religious views of the company's board of directors.

Religion stops at the church door and cannot be allowed into the private sector employer/employee relationship.
IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:03 AM

38. For profit corporation

Not a non taxable religious entity. So, pony up for your employees or get the fuck out of the business. In other words, just piggybacking on your post - I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:55 PM

42. good point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:58 AM

36. Great to hear! Reminds me of what I posted about one of her key decisions

before she was on the Supreme Court and what that process showed about her:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5733426

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:36 AM

39. that last item on abortions

total fiction but they believe it. for whatever reason birth control is not an abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:18 AM

40. The only place I saw this covered on TV last night was

on Rachel's show. This was huge news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread