Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Folks, some of you have asked if we were trimming our forums since there are no sports at the moment. We’re going to keep everything open on the forums to provide a sense of normalcy here. It’s our hope Gator Country can be a place of comfort for you during these crazy times. Be safe my friends and take care. -Ray and the GC staff. GO GATORS IN AL KINDS OF WEATHER!

    PS. If you happen to find yourself in tight financial circumstances with regards to renewing here please reach out to us. We’d be happy to help sort it out.

Supreme Injustice

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by tampagtr, Feb 25, 2020.

  1. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,611
    520
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    Another outrage, this time at the High Court. We tend to forget how much harm they do. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent this week talking about how all of the normal rules for irreparable harm, a legal term of art, are excused when the Trump Administration is seeking immediate review bypassing the Circuit Court on the basis of irreparable harm.


    In any event, they have been bending over backwards lately to expand “religious liberty", when it comes to permitting legalized homophobia or permitting employers to avoid the birth control insurance mandate. When that's the context, religious liberty is the most paramount of our rights.


    But not so fast. The Supreme Court just denied certiorari, meaning it will not take up the case, of a religious liberty challenge by Seventh-day Adventists against Walgreens for scheduling them on the seventh, claiming an undue hardship on their religious liberty. Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch all but admitted what they were doing, as follows:


    Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote a short concurrence to the order nixing Patterson’s petition in which they said the Hardison precedent should be overturned “in an appropriate case,” but that Patterson’s case isn’t it.

    “I therefore concur in the denial of certiorari, but I reiterate that review of the Hardison issue should be undertaken when a petition in an appropriate case comes before us,” Justice Alito said.



    Put another way, we only believe in religious liberty when it legitimizes bigotry, not when it actually interferes with a powerful business.


    High Court Won't Wade Into Walgreens Religious Bias Case - Law360
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    I mean its been obvious to me for a long time that 'religious freedom' is simply a nice way of saying bigotry. Nice of the Justices to admit it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. swampbabe

    swampbabe GC Hall of Fame

    1,647
    338
    428
    Apr 8, 2007
    Viera, FL
    Ginni Thomas doin' work for sure
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,056
    349
    943
    Apr 8, 2007
  5. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,611
    520
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
    Another double standard, though this is from the Second Circuit, and they say this Administration is just following Obama’s lead, which I suspect is not quite the case upon further analysis- likely somewhat distinguishable. But in any event


    Trump scores appeals court victory in sanctuary fight



    The New York-based 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a suit that seven states and New York City filed in 2018 objecting to the Justice Department's effort to link grant money to state and local officials' willingness to notify immigration authorities about the planned release of jailed foreigners, provide federal agents with access to those people, and certify that police officers and jail officials were free to inform federal officials about the citizenship of those interacting with law enforcement.



    Three other federal appeals courts have upheld lower court rulings blocking some or all of the conditions, but the three 2nd Circuit judges who ruled Wednesday said the Justice Department has the power to require that those receiving federal grants abide by the announced rules.

    "Congress makes clear that a grant applicant demonstrates qualification by satisfying statutory requirements in such form and according to such rules as the Attorney General establishes. This confers considerable authority on the attorney general," Judge Reena Raggi wrote in a 77-page opinion joined by Judges Ralph Winter and José Cabranes.

    said the Justice Department's authority to impose conditions on federal grants is "not limitless," but found the courts should give some deference to the administration's assessment of what conditions are


    But I did find interesting the fact that the federal government is able to coerce local law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement under threat of losing funds. That seems to run afoul a prior decision of the conservatives on the court.


    The battle over Medicaid expansion in 2013 and 2014, explained

    Before the court ruling, the law used both a carrot and a stick to get states to sign on to the expansion. The carrot was new money: the federal government would shoulder 100 percent of the expansion's costs in its first three years, phasing down to 90 percent starting in 2020. To get a sense of how attractive that is, consider that the federal government only shouldered 57 percent of Medicaid costs prior to Obamacare.

    The stick was old money: the law said that if any states didn't make Medicaid available to all adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, they would lose all of their existing federal funding for Medicaid, too.

    This looked like an offer the states couldn't refuse, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that by 2019, the expansion would lead to 16 million more enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP (the program that covers children from low-income families).


    But the Supreme Court threw a wrench in those plans. In a June 2012 decision that upheld most of the health law as constitutional, the court ruledthat this threat to zero out Medicaid funding was "coercive" to state governments — and threw out that penalty. States suddenly had the option of refusing the expansion, and many conservative states began to do so. As of early 2015, 4 million low-income adults were in danger of losing out on health insurance as a result, according to estimates by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
     
  6. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,611
    520
    243
    Apr 3, 2007
  7. g8rjd

    g8rjd GC Hall of Fame

    7,396
    321
    188
    Jan 20, 2008
    Tallahassee, FL
    I read that as them showing their opinion, but agreeing with the denial of cert because it is a poor vehicle to address the issue. Justices often do that to solicit to the bar that they are interested in an issue through a case that is a proper vehicle.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    7,611
    520
    243
    Apr 3, 2007